SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Comcast has sued the state of Vermont to try to avoid a requirement to build 550 miles of new cable lines.
Comcast's lawsuit against the Vermont Public Utility Commission (VPUC) was filed Monday in US District Court in Vermont and challenges several provisions in the cable company's new 11-year permit to offer services in the state. One of the conditions in the permit says that "Comcast shall construct no less than 550 miles of line extensions into un-cabled areas during the [11-year] term."
Comcast would rather not do that. The company's court complaint says that Vermont is exceeding its authority under the federal Cable Act while also violating state law and Comcast's constitutional rights:
The VPUC claimed that it could impose the blanket 550-mile line extension mandate on Comcast because it is the "largest" cable operator in Vermont and can afford it. These discriminatory conditions contravene federal and state law, amount to undue speaker-based burdens on Comcast's protected speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution... and deprive Comcast and its subscribers of the benefits of Vermont law enjoyed by other cable operators and their subscribers without a just and rational basis, in violation of the Common Benefits Clause of the Vermont Constitution.
[...] Comcast previously asked the VPUC to reconsider the conditions, but the agency denied the request. (Vermont Public Radio posted the documents that we've linked to and published a story on the lawsuit yesterday.)
Comcast entered Vermont by purchasing Adelphia in 2005, despite already being aware of state procedures that ascribe great importance "to building out cable networks to unserved areas to meet community needs," the VPUC's denial said.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Some call me Tim on Friday September 01 2017, @06:20PM (10 children)
You idiots signed the contract now you get to live up to it! Now you know how your customers feel when they need to cancel their service for some reason, or one of your "contractors" talks them into switching from another provider for a great low price that you have no intention of honoring.
Questioning science is how you do science!
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @06:32PM
Pfft whatever George :P
(Score: 2, Informative) by insanumingenium on Friday September 01 2017, @06:40PM (5 children)
This isn't a contract in the traditional sense, it never is when there is a regulating agency involved. They can't run their business without this agency's permission.
Calling it a first amendment case is just stupid though.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday September 01 2017, @07:14PM
Married with Children.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mhajicek on Friday September 01 2017, @08:02PM (2 children)
They always have the option to take their business elsewhere...
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Saturday September 02 2017, @03:28PM (1 child)
Not if con-cast is the only provider in town.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 3, Touché) by mhajicek on Saturday September 02 2017, @04:58PM
You misunderstand. I'm saying Comcast has the option of not doing business in Vermont.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @08:37PM
I can't imagine a single person feeling sorry for these giant ISPs if a miracle happens and they somehow get forced to do this. In the past, they were given taxpayer money to build out their lines, but they either did much less than what they said they were going to do or didn't do anything at all, and then just got away with it because our government is immensely corrupt.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Sulla on Friday September 01 2017, @08:14PM
This. Contracts are contracts. Was it Oracle's fault that the State of Oregon signed a contract for a multi-million dollar software project without milestones? No. Just like in this case it is not Vermont's fault that Comcast did not read the fine print, although I suspect more than likely they figured they would just fight it later. The best way for Vermont to respond would be to just pull the permit and charge them for operating illegally (not endorsing the right of the state to say what businesses can and cannot operate).
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by VLM on Friday September 01 2017, @08:49PM (1 child)
It varies by state, but generally state PUCs don't contract anything they license. The muni gets a contract to provide monopoly service in exchange for $$$ and public access channels and so forth. The feds also have some interaction.
Eventually because there's only a handful of monopoly providers the whole mess will have to be regulated (if not nationalized) at the federal level.
IF cable companies were like railroads, the FCC is kinda like the EPA (no blowing interfering smoke into the USA air) at the national level, the states frankly are mostly toothless but used to regulate telegraphs and haven't been retired yet, and the muni would be like having to buy a license from each little city to do business in that city.
Very much like its hard to force a railroad to provide a service its not interested in providing, its tough to force a cable company to serve a location they're not interested in serving.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Friday September 01 2017, @11:13PM
Or it might be easy, it just depends how much the cable company wants its "11-year permit to offer services in the state".
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.