Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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.
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...
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
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.
--#
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.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
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.
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.
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.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.