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

[K. S. Kyosuke]

but with Trump now at the helm we have recognized as a country that it is counter-productive to pass job-killing legislation that subverts the free market and tries to pick winners and losers in the private sector

I assume you're referring to the recent comedy involving coal companies?

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.

Re:simple solution

[shilly]

The Obama response that would feel most fitting to your absurd comment comes straight from Fawlty Towers, 1min22secs into this clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

"Socialist hell that brought us a Great Recession"!
You should think about a career in comedy

Re: simple solution

[Vermonter]

For the same reason the government gets to regulate your power company. When you fight hard to become a monopoly, don't be surprised when you are suddenly heavily regulated.

Re: simple solution

[mwvdlee]

Take away government and Comcast has the right to sell whatever they want. They would not have the right to put any cables under the ground outside their own property, though. So Comcast has gotten benefits from the government. Why should those benefits come without any cost?

Re: simple solution

[Applehu Akbar]

Because Comcast is being treated as a utility. Utilities are granted a state franchise to operate as a natural monopoly in exchange for having to maintain stipulated service standards.

This arrangement is standard procedure whenever there can only be one physical mesh of sewer pipes, power lines, etc.

Re: simple solution

[CrimsonAvenger]

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.

And then a cable company will pull out of a State. That'll be another fine day....

Re: simple solution

[Anonymous Coward]

And the next day those areas will found their own broadband to fill the void.

These companies continue to behave badly because they're not punished. Comcast and the other telecoms have been paid obscene amounts of money to expand coverage and they've failed to do so. It's about time that the states started forcing them to do what they were already supposed to have finished doing.

Re: simple solution

[TheHawke]

Just because everyone who provides internet is classified as a utility until the recent flipflop by the FCC, nullifying the Title II classification they were under. That can always be restored by the entity or by law.

Re: simple solution

[postbigbang]

I would argue that cable TV isn't a utility.

Internet and phone service, needed communications infrastructure, qualifies for classification as a utility.

This said, your phone as a tethering device to the the Internet qualifies as an alternative, and you excluded it. Entertainment (TV) doesn't elevate cable companies to a utility, rather, communications do. Entertainment isn't life and death. Not being able to call 911 is life and death.

In a more perfect world, the communities would own the poles and the wires and the easements, and you could pick Comcast, Spectrum, or whomever to be your provider, as a few communities now offer. But states like the short-term revenue from franchising and letting utilities "own" the wires. If we nationalized Layer 1 of the ISO/OSI stack, then you could have your choices. Until then, we're balkanized by the choices made by your legislators.

Re: simple solution

[sconeu]

This said, your phone as a tethering device to the the Internet qualifies as an alternative

Ajit Pai, is that you?

Re: simple solution

[quintus_horatius]

Why in the hell would Vermont even have the authority to "license" a corporation to exist

Vermont is perfectly within it's rights to demand certain conditions to any cable company's operation within it's borders.

Corporate charters are granted by, yup, the government. Their very existence is allowed and controlled by the government, and (recent Supreme Court rulings equating them to people notwithstanding) have regulations that stipulate how and where they may operate. Without government regulation a corporation becomes nothing more than a group of people working towards a common goal, but without the legal ability pay bills on behalf of the group (without a whole lot of extra work every time someone enters or leaves the group).

Re: simple solution

[tepples]

In this age, YouTube handles the needs of "public access" television.

YouTube isn't affordable to view in what the previous story about Comcast suing Vermont referred to as "un-cabled areas".

Re: simple solution

[postbigbang]

4G in many areas is great. Yes, there are lots of areas where it doesn't but they tend to favorably map where cable systems are lain, because of the population densities. Rural service, well, that's still a problem.

Re: simple solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Comcast is attempting to speak for citizen,s which is most certainly does not, and those statements should be rejected out of hand.

Comcast argues that the citizens do not want to be forced to pay more money to support crappy public access nonsense that nobody ever watches.

Yes, and the PUC agrees while offering the solution: Comcast makes the channels high-definition and with greater ability to operate from remote locations (aka less crappy) and includes them in the interactive program guide allowing people to find and watch them.

Re: simple solution

[mspohr]

Comcast is negotiating for the right to use public right of ways and for a monopoly on services. It's perfectly acceptable for Vermont to put conditions on the contract. If Comcast doesn't like it, they can try to negotiate individually with thousands of property owners and try to compete with others.

Re: simple solution

[tepples]

By federal law, cable franchises are nonexclusive. So a slight correction: Utilities are granted rights of way to pull layer 1 (fiber or copper) "in exchange for having to maintain stipulated service standards."

Perhaps one thing that may make a cable franchise appear exclusive is a regulator requiring a buildout schedule that is prohibitively rapid for a franchisee with less capital, even if the prospective franchisee agrees to include a mix of high- and low-income neighborhoods in each stage of buildout.

Re: simple solution

[mishehu]

I hate Comcast, but in this case, they are right. Why in the hell would Vermont even have the authority to "license" a corporation to exist, not to mention dictate how it must grow it's business and get a bunch of free kickbacks on those government entities?

For a corporation to exist within the boundaries of the USA, it has to be registered with a state's Secretary of State first. That's where the regulation begins, not ends.

Re: simple solution

[sexconker]

I hate Comcast, but in this case, they are right. Why in the hell would Vermont even have the authority to "license" a corporation to exist, not to mention dictate how it must grow it's business and get a bunch of free kickbacks on those government entities?

Because Vermont is a sovereign state and can do what it wants as long as it's not in violation of federal law?

Re: simple solution

[Green Mountain Bot]

Rural service, well, that's still a problem.

This is relevant, given that Vermont is a very rural state (one city over 30,000 people) with a very distributed population and topography that makes wireless coverage challenging.

Re: simple solution

[AK Marc]

Comcast petitions to exist. All corporations exist at the pleasure of the government.

Comcast requests use of government easements for their use.

Comcast provides a service that has been deemed a "utility" and is regulated as such.

Comcast demands more of the government than the government demands of it. But when conditions are applied, they are free to close shop and move elsewhere. They refuse. They want to take and take, but never give.

Re: simple solution

[Chas]

Because Comcast isn't merely a "business". It's a government-supported monopoly.
The license to operate as such comes with various stipulations, which Comcast will always try (as hard as possible) to weasel out of.

Re: simple solution

[turkeyfish]

If you pay as much as I do for Comcast service ($250/month), the day they break up Comcast's government permitted monopoly will indeed be a great day.

We have to keep in mind that like other cable operators, Comcast is essentially a monopoly in the communities that they serve. This being the case, local and state governments have every right to regulate them and impose conditions on their operation. Indeed, indirectly as a taxpayer I provide them access to public right-aways, so I expect that I should get something for my money or be in a position to have another cable company come in and do the job.

I've been tracking their service for a number of years now. There are several things that can be noticed that bear directly on what unregulated monopoloies can get away with.

1) they are increasing the number of channels, but 95% of these are purely advertisment/sales only operations. No programming just sales.

2) their scheduled progamming includes networks that steadily increase the number of commercials per hour without any recourse for the consumer to pay only for the channels used. Thus they get extra advertising dollars at my expense as a consumer.

3) they provide almost no public services for local and state governments and local NGO's and other groups to present alternative views so they heavily censor potentially alternative views in the "market". Likewise, they have almost no truly educational channels, say that teach science, geography, literature, social studies, etc. The few that do have limited input into scheduling or time alotments.

4) They force you to choose viewing plans that provide you no choice, but to pay extra for an incredible number of channels I would never watch. They benefit because it makes it seems they are providing more, but in reality they are merely charging more for useless product. Let those who want to watch the shopping channels pay for the priviledge. As a captive consumer, I should be able to decline paying for them, even when I don't watch them.

5) they are providing less and less quality programming for the "basic service" (ie access to networks) dumbing it down and forcing viewers to pay for "premium" services just to have anything worth watching at all.

6) they give a lot of money as a government monopoly to political candidates that support their vested interest, skewing and disadvantaging public discourse.

I say that the laws governing local cable monopolies need to be revised, so that local governments can establish their own services and develop efforts to insure that every part of the country has true competition in the cable markets. We need to move away from monopolies. If monopolies are essential, then they should be government run monopoloies that taxpayers have a direct voice in how they are run.

It's about time that public utility regulators are replaced with office holders that put some pressure on cable company monopolies to do something other than parasitize their customers. Otherwise,its time to vote out the current crop and replace them with more progressive minded citizens, who actually represent the public rather than the cable company monopolies.

Re: simple solution

[turkeyfish]

Evidently, you don't want to know how your government works, but I do. Those who are left in the dark are taken advantage of by an army of corporate lobbyists and lawyers constantly advancing corporate (and increasingly foreign) interests in the background, usually with limited public knowledge or opportunity for input. Currently, the cable monopolies pick and choose what government operations they choose to cover and make every effort to make it as boring and uninformative as possible so that they can avoid public scruitiny, while maximizing profit at the expense of the consumer.

Here in WA, there are a few channels reserved for state and local government operations. However, they format needs to be revamped so that they draw more public interest and participation, as well as educate the public as to what is actually going on and what the real issues are.

I sugget that:

1) cable companies be required to broadcast all public meetings and all presentations by all public officials, whether to the public at large or to private parties, such as conventions, etc. If a private party refuses public TV broadcasts of government officials, then the public official should be barred by law from attending, with a substantial penalty for doing so. After all, they did take an oath of office that they would represent the people's interest over their own.

2) for every hour of broadcasting any public meeting or presentation by a pubic official these broadcats should be followed immediately by an additional hour where a panel nominated and elected by rate payers can fully discuss the content of the meeting or presentation, with a spectrum of views reprsented. These panels would then get to ask and answer questions brought up live by viewers. Since the public would get to vote on the composition of such a panels, it would guarantee fair representation of viewpoints and balanced discussion of issues.

Let's make America great again by returning democracy, rather than allowing monopolies and vested interests to control all that we see and hear on privatized monopoly controlled programming.

Re: simple solution

[Solandri]

Why in the hell would Vermont even have the authority to "license" a corporation to exist, not to mention dictate how it must grow it's business and get a bunch of free kickbacks on those government entities?

Cables (and pipes) are strung up through public easements. These are access rights the government has to send "essential" wires, cables, and pipes through private property. Without these easements, any utility company would have to negotiate with thousands if not millions of private property owners in order to be able to provide service. If the guy who owns the house at the corner of your court refused to allow the electric company to send their wires through his property, he could deprive you and everyone else on your street of electricity.

For a cable company like Comcast to be able to use these easements, they have to negotiate with the government on how they want to pay for access rights. This can be free (if the government deems the service that essential), straight cash payment, or a list of conditions like guarantees to provide service to lower income areas. Oversight of these easement access rights (and the utilities and companies which use them) is done via a Public Utilities Commission.

I'm not sure what Comcast's game is here. Worst case, Vermont can simply revoke Comcast's easement access rights and award the cable service contract to another company, requiring Comcast pay to remove all the cable they've installed in public easements (underground conduits and telephone pole wiring). Assuming of course that their contract with the Vermont PUC is as stated in the summary - access in exchange for a guarantee to provide service to those areas which they've failed to do so. There are some provisions in contract law which could get them off - e.g. If it turns out laying out that extra 550 miles of cable would be so expensive as to make the original contract they agreed to a money-loser for Comcast, then that would constitute a mistake and could get them out of it. (e.g. You sign a contract to sell a widget for $100, but it turns out that you misread the price and thought it was $1000, and acquiring a widget would actually cost you $900 meaning you'd lose gobs of money. That is a legitimate mistake and you are not obligated to fulfill the original contract to deliver the widget in exchange for $100. Companies which honor price mistakes like this are doing so to maintain good customer relations, not because they're legally required to do so.)

Re: simple solution

[postbigbang]

There are certainly gaps. Having a somewhat homogeneous "4G" or "5G" infrastructure is still another problem, although it's still my contention that the data communications portion of cable infrastructure is a utility, and deserves what was once Title II status to make it a regulated utility.

Re: simple solution

[turkeyfish]

They may "own" the wires, but they don't own the right-away. Its time to make them pay more for the right-away. It's time to require that any digging or wiring along a public right-away must add a separate cable to be used by a potential competive cable company that would purchase the cable at a minimum price of 110% of its cost at the time the cable was laid. That way future entrants can enter the market and the original company is guaranteed a minimum of a 10% investment on the cable being laid.

Re: simple solution

[postbigbang]

Other successful models say: easements and right-of-ways can become either municipally-owned, perhaps maintained, and so long as you keep things tidy, the wires, preferably fiber, are for all via varying distribution methodologies.

Re: simple solution

[Xenx]

While having no cable service is technically an alternative to having cable service, it isn't a very good alternative when you want to have cable service.

Re: simple solution

[losfromla]

Sure. However, $250 seems pretty high-end, thus my focus on the amount and not merely the fact of having cable.

Re: simple solution

[Xenx]

Sounds like TV and internet, maybe even phone, after the initial discount is gone.

Re: simple solution

[losfromla]

I doubt that, it sounds about $100 too high. Initial discount is always reset with a phone call, I doubt the OP wouldn't know that. OP is probably paying for several premium channel tiers including a sports package.

Re: simple solution

[Shirley Marquez]

Wired telecommunications is not a free market. The cost of putting in the infrastructure is large and there are considerable economies of scale, so any market will have a very small number of providers; one in many cases. Because of that, government regulation to protect public interests is necessary.

Re: simple solution

[michael_wojcik]

OP is probably paying for several premium channel tiers including a sports package.

I don't know about Comcast - thank god they're not the provider here - but we have Wow, which is consistently rated at or near the top in US cable-company satisfaction surveys (faint praise, etc). And we pay around $250/month.

That's for a bundle that includes Internet, basic and extended cable, a DVR (which we could get rid of, but doesn't add that much), and some premium channels. No sports packages, as neither of us ever watch the stuff. No phone, which I wouldn't use anyway.

We talked to Wow about getting rid of the premium channels, and the savings was miniscule. The bundle prices nearly eliminate the difference with reduced packages.

We'll probably drop the premium channels soon anyway; we almost never watch them, and have or can get streaming access if we want it. But it won't cut the bill by much.

Now, we have gotten something for it - when Wow took over from the (bankrupt) former provider, they made a ton of infrastructure upgrades. Their service is much better than the old provider's, too. They've made some channel lineup changes I'm not fond of, but frankly as streaming grows that becomes less important, and I don't watch much television anyway. (If it were just me here, I wouldn't have anything but the Internet service.)

But the simple fact is that in many parts of the US cable service is very expensive. If you're lucky, you get a provider that's not run by complete assholes (i.e. not Comcast or its ilk), but that's about it.

Re: simple solution

[Shirley Marquez]

Cell phone internet works well in many areas... except for the severe data limits. 25 or 50 GB of data per month simply doesn't cut it in the modern landscape. My house (multiple adults) uses over a TERABYTE of data each month.

The cellular infrastructure isn't designed to let a significant number of people use that much data. Short of building cells on every street corner there is no way that it could be. Using that much data under current day cell contracts would cost a horrendous amount of money.

Re: simple solution

[nasch]

Where do you get the idea that only matters of life and death are utilities?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re: simple solution

[Rakarra]

Cut your TV addiction or at least go to your local library. Mine has more movies and complete TV series available than I ever saw in a Blockbuster.

Talk about damning with faint praise! Blockbuster always had a horrible selection. Any local video store was always better than Blockbuster. Given their poor selection and their customer-hostile policies (which drove me away and got them on the losing end of a class-action lawsuit), it's hard to explain the rise of Blockbuster in the first place. It sure wasn't due to quality.

Re: simple solution

[Rakarra]

He also said: "In a more perfect world, the communities would own the poles and the wires and the easements, and you could pick Comcast, Spectrum, or whomever to be your provider, as a few communities now offer."

Don't expect Ajit Pai to ever, EVER recommend that as a serious policy shift.

Re: simple solution

[Rakarra]

This said, your phone as a tethering device to the the Internet qualifies as an alternative, and you excluded it

I would not claim that cell phone data plans are Broadband access. They are far too restricted and the phone companies have way too much control. Cell data plans are those things that you have to use at various times when you can't get onto wireless to use a real Internet connection. Tethering, for example, often requires the active allowance by your carrier. They control the data connection, they have policies against tethering unless you pay them. On my phone, the carrier is able to totally block each and every tethering app -- none of them work. At all. Ever. I have yet to find an app in the play store capable of setting up a wifi network. Of course, there is an AT&T-provided system setting that activates tethering in your plan, if you pay for it. I'm pretty sure I would have to root and jailbreak my phone to get around this restriction.

In a more perfect world, the communities would own the poles and the wires and the easements, and you could pick Comcast, Spectrum, or whomever to be your provider, as a few communities now offer.

That is pretty much my absolute ideal situation.

Re: simple solution

[postbigbang]

T-Mobile has $50/70 all you can eat plans. Don't watch Netflix on them, but you can surf otherwise with impunity/no restrictions. A number of other providers have them, too. Are they broadband replacements? It's important here to disambiguate the phrase broadband into realistic download speeds. Broadband is an electronics term used to describe something that's a data rate and so fails as a useful metric, IMHO.

Digital Cities, Loma Linda CA, others, have all done muni-/regional-data/voice/channelized TV in your ideal situation. That model is fought strenuously by the carriers/telcos at the local, state, and federal levels. Their suppliers align themselves with the carriers, too-- are they going to bite the hand that feeds them? Nope.

I'm fortunate enough to have lots of data services, including my phone if I'm traveling. It's not ideal. Ten years ago, it was simply impossible because it didn't really exist.

Monopolies are at the root of capitalistic evil.

comcasts HD line up sucks and makeing CA x1 only

[Joe_Dragon]

comcasts HD line up sucks and makeing CA HD x1 only will be a big cable card issue as well / comcast maybe forced to install free X1s at the community centers as well.

Evil cable giant vs. tiny public access channels

[rmdingler]

At first glance, it appears the cable giant Comcast is attempting to bully the State Commission into submission over the trivial viewership generated by covering municipal government and school board meetings.

What's really at stake is the future of both cable providers and small public access channels.

FTA:

With more customers shifting away from cable to internet-based video streaming services like Netflix and Hulu, the cable television industry — and the public access networks it spawned — could fade into history. It could be that some new economic model might have to be developed if public access networks are to have a secure long-term future. Christopher put it this way: “If cable TV goes away, our existence is uncertain.”

Re:Evil cable giant vs. tiny public access channel

[MickyTheIdiot]

Really what is sounds like to me is that Comcast wants all the advantages of their government granted monopoly and none of the requirements.

It's time to cut government granted monopolies loose. The Comcast deal with real competition in all areas. The don't seem to be able to deal with it in any other area, so now they have chosen the court system.

I am tired of hearing about how great corporatism is when the "free market" is thrown out the window and companies like this go whining to the courts and to their reps when things do not go their way. If they want to champion corporatism let them die from it as well.

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...

Our local school's PA

[Pollux]

Our school hosts a local PA for our community. Most of the equipment was installed in the late 80s. Added onto that were a few DVD players, a Cisco switch, and a few DACs. Still broadcasts in the same 4:3 format it always has. We still get DVDs from all the local churches. I imagine changing it up with all new equivalent HD digital broadcasting equipment would cost around $15,000, give-or-take.

Comcast just doesn't want to shell out that kind of money. And since public-access was started by a mandate by an FCC order back in 1969 ("No CATV system having 3,500 or more subscribers shall carry the signal of any television broadcast station unless the system also operates to a significant extent as a local outlet by cablecasting and has available facilities for local production and presentation of programs other than automated services."), I suppose they're going to stick to their guns until the FCC issues some equivalent modernization order. And I'd bet my giant Reese's coffee mug that that won't happen anytime soon.

Re:Our local school's PA

[K. S. Kyosuke]

I don't get it. You mean Comcast is supposed to provide AV equipment to institutions? I thought this was about having sufficient data transfer capacity. Which should be absolutely possible and the worst line installations conceivable at this point in time ought to be able to transfer a dozen of HD streams simultaneously.

Re:Our local school's PA

[stealth_finger]

I think he's trying to say comcast don't want to have to shell out to modernise their equipment?

Re: Why does anyone have cable?

[nehumanuscrede]

Because Comcast sells their internet with TV bundles at a cheaper rate than standalone internet.

Thus, folks technically have cable, but only for the overall discount it gives for internet access.

It allows Comcast to fluff their numbers for cable subscribers.

In addition, if you want internet here, your choices are:

Verizon DSL ( complete shit )
Satellite ( expensive, latency, and capped )
Wireless ( data plans are $$$ and capped )
Comcast

So, why do you THINK people go with Comcast at all ?

Re:Evil cable giant vs. tiny public access channel

[MickyTheIdiot]

It's happened in plenty of places, including where I live in Indiana. Right-of-way access was given to fiber companies here and those companies as eating Comcast's lunch in those areas.

Better Idea

[fuzznutz]

How about instead, we break up the content and delivery into two different companies and make Comcast compete with itself. We no longer allow bundling "discounts". If Comcast TV has to pay the same rates to Comcast Commodity Delivery Network as the rest of us Internet subscribers, I'd bet we would see more competitive rates. There are those of us that remember the rape rates charged by long distance carriers back in the 80's and 90's so there are precedents for how well it works. I pay less now for calling around the country on my unlimited cell phone service ($25) than I used to pay for just my (extremely) local phone service in 1988 ($32) and that was in dollars worth about 49% of today's. And my land line costed less than $7 per month before I completely cancelled it, although it did piggyback on my $40 Internet service.

What do the voters want?

[jonwil]

Ok so a bunch of community access channels (broadcasting things like council meetings, school board meetings and other local events) in various parts of Vermont want this stuff from Comcast.

What do the voters (those who voted for the Vermont legislature and those who voted for elected officials in areas where these community access stations exist) want? Is there actually pressure from the electorate (or from the people who are running these community access stations or the elected politicians) for this stuff or is this the Vermont regulator making a decision on its own because it thinks it knows whats good for community access channels in Vermont?

Re:Evil cable giant vs. tiny public access channel

[rmdingler]

Comcast enjoys a virtual monopoly providing internet service in Vermont, thanks to a sweetheart deal with the State that was recently extended by 11 years.

It kind of makes you wonder why the State would make such a poor deal?? Outside of Burlington, there is no city with a population greater than 20,000... making it pretty much all last mile service.

Not to defend Comcast by any means, but the market in the State is meager enough that market protections like competition are not present. Perhaps these smaller States could give up a bit of sovereignty and band together to create a market providers could compete for.

Re: Why does anyone have cable?

[Mashiki]

Because Comcast sells their internet with TV bundles at a cheaper rate than standalone internet.

All you need to do to fix that is require that companies much lease the last mile(pole to the home) like we do up here in Canada. Internet suddenly gets cheaper, and the market gets very competitive. It also doesn't stop those small companies from dropping their own fiber, DSLAMs or cable plants either.

Re:Evil cable giant vs. tiny public access channel

[aaarrrgggh]

It isn’t that hard today if you don’t have the franchise restrictions and legacy service requirements; you can profit with about 20% uptake for aerial fiber and 30% with buried fiber. A lot of rural areas would do well to throw the cable companies out.

Re:Evil cable giant vs. tiny public access channel

[fustakrakich]

yes, well, decades of talk about chronic problems... What are the voters doing about it? Is everybody just going to sit back and wait for the politicians to retire on their own? We shouldn't depend on the courts to clean up the mess we make. With minimal effort we can elect people that don't crap on the carpet, and put the ones that do in the kennel outside, all without lawyers and judges. It would save a lot of time and money.

Lies of Pai

[Comboman]

Cable television giant Comcast is suing the Vermont Public Utility Commission over the panel's decision to require the company to expand its network...

But Ajit Pai told us the only thing stopping network expansion was net neutrality. Now that that's gone, Comcast should be eager to expand, unless of course Pai was lying to us.

Re:Lies of Pai

[tbannist]

But Ajit Pai would never lie to us. I know that because I got a totally legitimate email from Agot Paed that says so.

Re:Evil cable giant vs. tiny public access channel

[JonnyCalcutta]

The US runs on Ayn Rand's values for a good reason.

Those at the top need someone to look down on?

Re:Evil cable giant vs. tiny public access channel

[mysidia]

What's really at stake is the future of both cable providers and small public access channels.

What's at stake is the future of community-based regulation of cable monopolies. If they win this case..... then that will mean the citizens couldn't impose conditions on renewing the Cable company's exclusivity, which means their monopoly becomes an almost unconditional one that the local government can no longer limit and impose build-out requirements on to protect the public interest and to sure the entire community gets reasonable service --- instead of just the richest areas and the most profitable viewers and channels.

Re:Evil cable giant vs. tiny public access channel

[MightyYar]

over the trivial viewership generated by covering municipal government and school board meetings.

There is a trivial compromise, which would be a win-win for everyone:

Stream such events on demand,.

Comcast is right - it's a waste of resources to block out channels for these events with such low viewership. Vermont is right - expanding access to these meetings is in the public interest. It's not 1970 - let people stream the events. This will be more convenient for people, won't waste Comcast's bandwidth, and the only tradeoff is some extra hard drive space being used up.

They have constitutional rights?

[Rastl]

I find it interesting that Comcast feels that it has Constitutional rights as a company. There's two pieces to that. They're a corporation - not a person. Vermont is also only requiring these changes within their state so even the commerce clause doesn't apply if Comcast wanted to stretch it that far.

These requirements aren't unreasonable. Build out the network like they're supposed to do anyway, add the public access content to the online guide like they do in other states, provide for live transmission when it's practical, and be a part of a proceeding to determine if public access content should be broadcast in HD.

This has no impact on their carrier status. It actually fits right in with it. They're being told that they have to open their network to content. Vermont isn't asking for anything that hasn't been done in other states. There's no actual burden on Comcast except for having restrictions tied to their license.

As at least one other commentor has said - if they don't like it they can decline the license and let another cable operator take over their monopoly. Or withdraw and let the municipalities manage their own infrastructure. But this is the cost of doing business and they need to suck it up or leave.

Re:They have constitutional rights?

[Archon]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:They have constitutional rights?

[Whorhay]

Commerce Clause could definitely apply, at least in so far as it has been applied in other cases. There is precedent in some case regarding a farmer growing grain to feed his own livestock. Some federal agency successfully argued in court that because his grain supplanted grain he would otherwise purchase, which might potentially come from out of state or be exported to another state, that the commerce clause applied. The Commerce Clause is so incredibly broadly interpreted that I would bet a skilled lawyer could find a way to bring it to bear in nearly any court of law.

Re:They have constitutional rights?

[Joey Vegetables]

You are probably referring to Wickard v. Filburn. That was one of the most insanely idiotic court decisions ever. It effectively ended any constitutional restrictions on the federal government's economic power, thereby opening it up for sale to the highest bidder.

Re:They have constitutional rights?

[careysub]

Corporations are collections of people which are treated as a person going back to British common law.

You sort of have had an argument, if you understood what you were talking about. Corporations do not exist in common law. They have always been creations by charter from an executive body - monarch or legislature - which are outside of common law. But the personhood of a corporation was always a limited legal fiction for the purposes of transacting business under their charter. It was only in the 1890s that businesses could start incorporating essentially at will, and it was only in the last 20 years in the U.S. that the notion that this "personhood" was actually a general like a real natural person, with now free speech, and freedom of religion rights.

Re:They have constitutional rights?

[Rakarra]

Corporations are psychotic people.

Yeah whatever, no one is legally obliged to act morally, only legally.

Re:They have constitutional rights?

[Rakarra]

and it was only in the last 20 years in the U.S. that the notion that this "personhood" was actually a general like a real natural person, with now free speech, and freedom of religion rights.

What Citizens United decided was NOT that corporations were 'persons.' This is the #1 thing I hear about this decision that is flat-out wrong. They are 'collections' of people. The Supreme Court decision stated that people do not lose their free speech and other constitutional rights because they act in a group instead of an individual. The "companies are people" argument sidesteps the actual ruling.

Re:Evil cable giant vs. tiny public access channel

[rmdingler]

If cable was the only way to get content, that would be the case. Dish and Directv compete for television subscribers within the State without the massive landline infrastructure, and the phone companies provide internet service competition.

Landline cable's shrinking market share is a poor use case for out of control monopoly.

It seems to be unfair

[acoustix]

I'm looking from the outside in on this since I don't live in Vermont. On the face of it the requirement seems unfair. Why is Comcast the only provider being required to do this? Is Vermont requiring any other video delivery service that operates in the state to do this? Since I didn't see anything in the article about it I'm going to assume the answer is no. So Comcast has to incur additional costs while other video providers don't. The government (at any level) shouldn't pick winners and losers.

Re:It seems to be unfair

[apoc.famine]

Why is Comcast the only provider being required to do this?

Because Comcast is the only provider in VT. They have a monopoly. And just signed an 11 year extension to that monopoly. They're very upset that in exchange for having complete control over the TV and Internet in VT (aside from OTA and wireless) that they are being required to provide an adequate level of service.

The requirement to have public access channels is a federal mandate. Cable companies see this as yet another cost to control, so they're still running on 1990s analog technology to produce them. They're not going to modernize and digitize the public access channels until the FCC tells them they have to. Or strips that requirement from the law, which I bet the cable companies would prefer.

VT has said, "We're giving you a monopoly, and these are the terms." Comcast doesn't like those terms, so instead of not signing that contract extension, they signed it and then sued.

So yeah, they're the same old pieces of shit they've always been.

Re:It seems to be unfair

[sjames]

Honestly, VT should offer a settlement. One time only, just say the word and they can tear up the contract right away.

Then Comcast can have 30 days to sell off their equipment to whoever signs the deal w/ the state or get it out of the right of way.

Re:It seems to be unfair

[Green Mountain Bot]

Why is Comcast the only provider being required to do this?

Because they signed a contract obliging them to do so?

Re:It seems to be unfair

[acoustix]

Why is Comcast the only provider being required to do this?

Because Comcast is the only provider in VT. They have a monopoly. And just signed an 11 year extension to that monopoly. They're very upset that in exchange for having complete control over the TV and Internet in VT (aside from OTA and wireless) that they are being required to provide an adequate level of service.

The requirement to have public access channels is a federal mandate. Cable companies see this as yet another cost to control, so they're still running on 1990s analog technology to produce them. They're not going to modernize and digitize the public access channels until the FCC tells them they have to. Or strips that requirement from the law, which I bet the cable companies would prefer.

VT has said, "We're giving you a monopoly, and these are the terms." Comcast doesn't like those terms, so instead of not signing that contract extension, they signed it and then sued.

So yeah, they're the same old pieces of shit they've always been.

That's not entirely true. Residents of Vermont can also use Dish, DirecTV, PlayStation Vue, YouTube TV, etc... Comcast has a government-sanctioned monopoly on traditional cable service, but I would bet that more residents get their video service from other providers. Vermont should require all video delivery services to do it, or none at all.

Re:It seems to be unfair

[apoc.famine]

While the internet is a wonderful place where you can share your thoughts, when they are stupid, people will know you are stupid. It's a double-edged sword.

The FCC requirement for public access channels only apples to cable companies. It doesn't apply to satellite TV, and it doesn't apply to internet video services.

Pursuant to Section 611 of the Communications Act, local franchising authorities may require cable operators to set aside channels for public, educational, or governmental ("PEG") use.

And that is what VT has done. They've required Comcast to set aside public access channels. Comcast has decided that they can continue to run 480p analog feeds, because nobody told them they couldn't. Until this recent renewal of their monopoly contract as a cable operator in VT where VT said they needed to provide digital HD public access channels.

Comcast could have just not signed that contract extension if they didn't want to do that. But no, they didn't. They signed it, and then sued. How in the world does that make any sense? That's abusive and evil, and allows them to keep their title as the biggest pieces of shit in the cable market.

Re:It seems to be unfair

[acoustix]

My point is that the government shouldn't be allowed to pick winners and losers. There are multiple types of video providers, but they are all treated differently. That shouldn't happen.

I'm not defending Comcast. I don't have their service and I've never worked for them or any of their counterparts. It also seems that suing after signing a contract is standard. The plaintiff can show real world examples of real world hardships vs hypotheticals.

Re:It seems to be unfair

[apoc.famine]

Doubling down on my initial statement? That's a bold plan. We'll see how it pans out. I'm rooting for you kid!

Re:Evil cable giant vs. tiny public access channel

[Dog-Cow]

If Comcast doesn't want responsibilities, then Vermont should revoke all right-of-way for their lines. Let Comcast pay the State and each individual land owner rent.

Simplest Solution

[jd]

Tell Comcast its services are no longer required and Vermont will follow the Chattanooga model and supply everyone 10 gigabits to the home. After all, if it's that expensive, Vermont can't do it for less and therefore can't compete with Comcast, right? But if Vermont can do it, why waste time on a bunch of losers?

Re:Evil cable giant vs. tiny public access channel

[jd]

https://arstechnica.com/tech-p...

I'm not sure we want Comcast to "deal" with competition. They seem to have a very... "don't call me scarface" approach to it.

Open Bidding Process

[Not-a-Neg]

Did the state of Vermont hold an open bidding process to provide residents with cable service? If not then residents should sue the state for corruption and force the state to allow other companies the chance to bid on offering cable service.

someone think of the shareholders!

[k3v0]

what will the poor shareholders do if there is a negative impact to Comcast's multi-billion dollar stock buyback!

Re:Evil cable giant vs. tiny public access channel

[Anonymous Coward]

“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

There's no such thing as a free lunch (still)

[raymorris]

If Comcast techs are out installing live remote feeds for every town council meeting, they aren't fixing the glitchy signal at your house. Alternatively, they hire more techs and buy more trucks, which cost money. That money isn't going to magically appear, the company gets its money from the customers.

It costs very roughly $20,000 / mile to install new buried cables. If Comcast is required to put in 550 miles of new lines, that'll cost about $11 million and that money isn't going to magically appear from nowhere. Either it will come from customers directly, or Comcast can shift costs from elsewhere, such as no longer buying Nickelodeon. The cost exists, so it'll be paid.

One could make an argument that 550 miles of new lines are WORTH the cost, that it's better to have cable available to certain rural customers than to have Nickelodeon for everyone, but pretending there is no cost is just stupid. And no, Comcast CEO Brian Roberts isn't going pay the millions out of his own pocket. Like most of us, he quit before he would work for free, spending his salary providing remote broadcast connections for public access stations.

Would you like to make a case for why it's worth the cost in order to have Dance Oly Dance do live remotes? Maybe it is, maybe it's not, but pretending there is no cost, or that companies don't pay there costs with money from their customers, is just silly. You'd have to be stoned to believe that. (Though indeed many people who are stoned DO believe that money appears from nowhere every time the government dictates something.)

Re:There's no such thing as a free lunch (still)

[dryeo]

Perhaps only pay $389 million rather then $400 million for the stadium naming rights? All over N. America the communications companies seem to have endless money for advertising but no money for customer support or expanding infrastructure.

Re:There's no such thing as a free lunch (still)

[turkeyfish]

They don't need to provide "live feeds" the state, local governments can do that for the price of a video camera and someone to operate it. However, they should be required to put it on their network. They can do this quite easily at virtually no cost, simply via software.

Re:Evil cable giant vs. tiny public access channel

[eth1]

Really what is sounds like to me is that Comcast wants all the advantages of their government granted monopoly and none of the requirements.

Yeah... the PUC should say "Fine, we won't require YOU to provide any public access, so we'll just modify the license to forbid you from taking any action against municipalities that provide their own municipal broadband networks."

Re:Evil cable giant vs. tiny public access channel

[Rockoon]

Comcast is pushing back on what they consider an illegal contract with a government party known for their business hostile tendencies.

Then why did Comcast sign the contract?

if you dont like the terms in the contract, or think that they are illegal....

Re:Evil cable giant vs. tiny public access channel

[sjames]

When you can explain how Galt managed to smelt the ore, forge the steel, clear the land, quarry the gravel, lay the track, design machine and build the train, and build all of the stations with his own two hands without any input from anyone else, I might believe you.

Otherwise, the basic premise of her writing refutes itself.

More directly on topic, perhaps Comcast would prefer to individually negotiate right of way with each and every property owner it's lines cross where the owners are free to say no and free to not renew the agreement.

Re:Why does anyone have cable?

[FictionPimp]

I have comcast and it's no where near that bad.

I pay $130 a month for 1gbps internet.

If I added on TV, my bill would be higher, but cheaper than buying each separately.

So it's more like:

Internet : $125
TV: $50
Internet and TV: $150

My other option is uverse, I tried that, 1/3 the speed is all they offer and that's at 3/4 the price. It was down weekly and their mandatory router/modem is garbage. Comcast is the best internet service we can have. It's stable, I can bring my own modem, its' fast (always at least 60% of the speed advertised during peak load), and their support is helpful some of the time.

Re:Evil cable giant vs. tiny public access channel

[CronoCloud]

I wrote this in response to yet another Edgelord aspie libertarian type online a few weeks back:

Atlas Shrugged is a author tract Sci-Fi novel where actual science and laws of nature are handwaved by a bunch of Mary Sues to justify her socio-economic and political axes. A society of just 200 people would be missing the PEOPLE and resources necessary to maintain anything other than say 18th century technology. Building trains and steel requires a lot of technology and a lot of people not just building trains and steel but all the supporting industries and infrastructure. And it requires a lot of energy. Where was the Gulch going to get it's power? Some sci-fi applied phlebotinum? Not to mention, how are pharmaceuticals going to be made? Who's going to mine the iron? Who's going to pick the crops, process the food, build the machines? 200 Upper class ubermensch desk bound back slapping plutocrats?

Haven't you ever noticed that a lot of the "internet libertarians" say they read Atlas Shrugged as teenagers? And who's more sociopathic and narcissistic than teenagers.

So get some teenage boy who's spent his early years reading Heinleins Sci-fi author tracts with the ubermensch genius Mary Sue's and anti-union, anti-government screeds...well except for the military, in that situation MORE government is GOOD.

And then they get exposed to Atlas Shrugged by some older neckbearded geek who sees him self as a genius held down by society's rules that don't let him be a racist misogynistic jerk. What do you think is going to happen.

Don't let teenage boys read too much Heinlein, it's the gateway to gamergater alt-right edgelord randroid asshattery.

Re:Evil cable giant vs. tiny public access channel

[CronoCloud]

The US runs on Ayn Rand's values for a good reason.

I'm sorry I was unaware that Ayn Rand was so awsum that she developed time travel and was a "founding father" in 1787.

Ayn Rand whose real name is Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum by the way, didn't actually live under Communism for very long. Her family fled St. Petersburg for Ukraine which was still under non-communist "White" control, they stayed there till 1921, then returning to St. Petersburg. While there, she attended college, which wasn't allowed to women before the Revolution. Her education of course, being subsidized by the new Soviet Government. That's right, she wouldn't have had a degree without Communism

She left the USSR via a tourist visa in 1926, thusly only having lived under communism for 5 years...basically as a student.

She then violated the terms of her tourist visa by staying and getting work. Thusly she was an illegal immigrant. She got her Hollywood scriptwriting job via nepotism. Yeah nice job pulling yourself by your bootstraps "Ayn". She turned her job into a career as a pundit lambasting the collectivists who paid for her college degree. And by the way, her degree is in History, NOT economics, Not politics or government.

Atlas Shrugged is a author tract Sci-Fi novel where actual science and laws of nature are handwaved by a bunch of Mary Sues to justify her socio-economic and political axes. A society of just 200 people would be missing the PEOPLE and resources necessary to maintain anything other than say 18th century technology. Building trains and steel requires a lot of technology and a lot of people not just building trains and steel but all the supporting industries and infrastructure. And it requires a lot of energy. Where was the Gulch going to get it's power? Some sci-fi applied phlebotinum? Not to mention, how are pharmaceuticals going to be made? Who's going to mine the iron? Who's going to pick the crops, process the food, build the machines? 200 Upper class ubermensch desk bound back slapping plutocrats?

Haven't you ever noticed that a lot of the "internet libertarians" say they read Atlas Shrugged as teenagers? And who's more sociopathic and narcissistic than teenagers.

So get some teenage boy who's spent his early years reading Heinleins Sci-fi author tracts with the ubermensch genius Mary Sue's and anti-union, anti-government screeds...well except for the military, in that situation MORE government is GOOD.

And then they get exposed to Atlas Shrugged by some older neckbearded geek who sees him self as a genius held down by society's rules that don't let him be a racist misogynistic jerk. What do you think is going to happen.

Don't let teenage boys read too much Heinlein, it's the gateway to gamergater alt-right edgelord Randroid asshattery.

Re:Evil cable giant vs. tiny public access channel

[Green Mountain Bot]

It's almost as though the deal that Vermont signed included the requirements that Comcast expand its network, and now they're trying to get out of that requirement but maintain the sweetheart portion of the deal.

Obligatory John Rogers quote

[Green Mountain Bot]

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

Re:Obligatory John Rogers quote

[CronoCloud]

Ha! That's even better. I'm seeing that quote for the first time today. Reminds me of all those Cardassian vs. Kardashian memes a la one is a fictional race from Star Trek, the other we WISH were fictional:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B8...

Re:Evil cable giant vs. tiny public access channel

[Curunir_wolf]

It's not 1970 - let people stream the events. This will be more convenient for people, won't waste Comcast's bandwidth, and the only tradeoff is some extra hard drive space being used up.

And require that Comcast NOT count the bandwidth used for that as part of its customer's monthly download cap.

Lol, but that would cost even more money

[raymorris]

That's funny.

Of course, a successful company only spends a million on marketing if it'll lead to at least two million in sales. So less marketing would leave the company with less money. Sad but true.

Re:Lol, but that would cost even more money

[dryeo]

I guess it comes down to the best return on investment, expanding or trying to sign up the few who don't have internet yet as it sounds like they have a monopoly on wired internet.

Re:Evil cable giant vs. tiny public access channel

[HiThere]

That doesn't work because:
1) Wire/cable access to customer property requires a government approved easement over lots of neighbors' property.
2) Wire/cable access is a natural monopoly. You don't want every new would-be ISP stinging wires and cables throughout the area.

The reasonable approach is for every locality to manage its own hardware layer, but most don't have the technical capability, so it would need to be contracted out. Which it is. The problem is the company stringing the wires/cables feels that it has a right to control access to those wires and cables at above the hardware layers...and to an *extent* it needs to. But the upper layers of the 7-layer stack should be open. Which doesn't mean free. You can't allow everyone to pick their IP address as they choose. But it means the people who run the hardware layer shouldn't run the IP layer.

Re: Why does anyone have cable?

[HiThere]

I know they didn't invent it. It goes back to at least the "company towns" with their own money, and the stores that would sell things for company currency. Probably further. It was evil then, too.

Re:Vermont's biggest mistake

[HiThere]

Not if Comcast could select the arbitrator.

Re:American's Idiotic Problems.

[turkeyfish]

Sounds like a great plan. Lets make all roads in America dirt roads so that we can have the smug satisfaction of "putting a blade across it every once in a while".

Re: Why does anyone have cable?

[tepples]

How so? Cable franchises in the United States are nonexclusive by federal law.

Huh

[Rick Zeman]

"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."

How about if the PUC just decides that there's no carriage agreement and allows free and unfettered competition?

That might be a reasonable alternative

[raymorris]

That might be a reasonable alternative in many cases, to route the video over the internet from wherever it is, to the cable TV facilities. If the venue has high-speed internet that is RELIABLY cable of broadcast quality HD, even when many people are there using it for wifi, of course.

The current demand from the PUC is that if Comcast has (TV) cabling within X distance of the event, they have to roll a remote TV broadcast unit to the event. Obviously that provides better picture quality than most internet streams. But it's a meeting of the Podunk Town Council, does it HAVE to be in Hollywood-grade HD?
 

92% get DSL (worst state in the country)

[raymorris]

> it sounds like they have a monopoly on wired internet.

According to https://www.highspeedinternet.... , 92% of Vermont residents have DSL available, 78% have cable. The largest provider in the state is FairPoint. Xfinity and Spectrum sell cable internet there.

The site rates Vermont dead last in internet availbility.

Re:92% get DSL (worst state in the country)

[dryeo]

It is pretty general. The State is probably split up in such a way that any given area has one to two options and looking at that page, most of those options are pretty crappy for 2018. 3Mbps is pretty low and the minimum that my government is aiming for in the high arctic.

Maybe split up between the hundred or so people

[raymorris]

I don't know, it *might* be split up, but Vermont is only half a million people. Less than where I live, North Dallas. Here, our suburbs aren't divided into different zones for different ISPs, each ISP covers 8 million people or so. I guess neither of us knows the situation in Vermont.

Re: Why does anyone have cable?

[Mashiki]

Franchise agreements in those cases would require automatic last mile access. In Canada, it works out that a TPIA pays 25-35% of the cost per user as a lease.

Re: Evil cable giant vs. tiny public access channe

[Rakarra]

No. To break their fall.

See, one-liners are easy to spin out, but in the end they're meaningless and don't add to the conversation.

Ayn Rand's philosophy never ran any deeper than that, anyway.