Comcast Sues Vermont Over Conditions On New License Requiring the Company To Expand Its Network (vtdigger.org)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from VTDigger: Cable television giant Comcast is suing the Vermont Public Utility Commission over the panel's decision to require the company to expand its network and step up support for community access TV if it wants to continue doing business in Vermont. A key issue is the services Comcast must provide to local community access systems that carry municipal government and school board meetings and other local events. The 26 community access systems have been pushing -- against resistance by Comcast -- for high-definition video, greater ability to operate from remote locations, and inclusion in the interactive program guides that Comcast customers can use to decide what to watch. The PUC -- formerly known as the Public Service Board -- in January issued a new 11-year permit for Comcast to operate in Vermont. In July the panel rejected the company's request to drop some of the conditions attached to the permit.

In a lawsuit filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Burlington, Comcast argued that the PUC "exceeded its authority under federal and Vermont law" by imposing "numerous conditions on Comcast's continued cable operations in the state that are arbitrary, unprecedented and will ultimately harm local cable subscribers by resulting in millions of dollars in increased cable costs." It said the commission "did so despite overwhelming record evidence that Vermont cable subscribers do not want to incur any additional costs or fees for the kinds of conditions imposed" in the commission's January order.

Comments

simple solution

[kyrio]

tell them they aren't allowed to "incur any additional costs or fees" on their subscribers.

Re: simple solution

[Bright Apollo]

Because Comcast doesn't have a right to run a business there without regulations. It's a privilege. Moreover, Comcast is attempting to speak for citizen,s which is most certainly does not, and those statements should be rejected out of hand.

Some day, a cable company is going to run into a really, really good judge that eviscerates its basic premises. That will be a fine day indeed.

--#

Re: simple solution

[jellomizer]

Because Cable Companies run as psuto-monopolies. Where they operate in a particular area without much competition.
I live in Charter/Spectrum Territory. Comcast operates less then a few miles away from my home. However me as an individual cannot switch to Comcast or the people who live a few miles away in the next state can switch to Spectrum.

My options are limited.
Discontinue Cable (where I will have No High speed internet access) and limited TV services (too much tree coverage for satellite)
Do deal with what I have.

Because Spectrum owns the cable and the miles of infrastructure. I am as an individual is mostly powerless. However we have these things called governments, where I and other members of my community can vote on who can make rules and encourage them my issues. Where they can act as an overall control on such a company where otherwise I would be powerless to do anything about.

Hang On

[ytene]

So the timing here is:-

1. The Vermont Public Utility Commission issue a new 11-year permit for Comcast to operate in Vermont.
2. Vermont sue the Vermont Public Utility Commission, because the terms on offer are unappealing?

Well, surely, if Comcast don't like it, Comcast are entirely free to decline to accept the new permit and step away from offering their services, in order to allow a competitor - who will meet the requirements - take over?

No?

I wonder why the likes of Comcast don't just skip over all this dull and boring intermediate legal wrangle nonsense and just file a case in each state which says, "We demand the right to receive monies and make a profit just from saying we operate in this State."

I mean, they're pretty much there already, right? They just haven't used such a concise form of words...