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 ?
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.
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