Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Friday September 01 2017, @05:46PM   Printer-friendly
from the read-before-you-sign dept.

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.

Source: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/08/comcast-sues-vermont-to-avoid-building-550-miles-of-new-cable-lines/


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by edIII on Friday September 01 2017, @08:44PM (6 children)

    by edIII (791) on Friday September 01 2017, @08:44PM (#562716)

    Exactly what they should do.

    That and "Comcast's Constitutional Rights". It has NO RIGHTS!! Corporations are not people. What about all the easements? Tax breaks? etc.

    Comcast needs to pony the fuck up and actually hold up their end of the bargain.

    --
    Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Informative=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @09:14PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @09:14PM (#562729)

    Corporations have no rights whatsoever? The Constitution doesn't specify this. But if we're to believe that, does that mean that if, for example, a corporation is developing a video game, the government could censor it? After all, the corporation has "no rights" and therefore no right to free speech either. If you say that people, who have rights, are working to make the game and therefore it would violate their rights if the government censored their art, then that logic could apply to any situation involving a corporation. What are the limits to this?

    What you should have said is that building lines has nothing to do with freedom of speech, which is true.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by stretch611 on Friday September 01 2017, @09:35PM (3 children)

      by stretch611 (6199) on Friday September 01 2017, @09:35PM (#562732)

      If companies are given full constitutional rights (and sadly the supreme court has started doing this) It basically means the company can be treated like another individual.

      The problem is that corporations have access to more cash and money than all but the richest people. Unfortunately, this means they can buy more advertising and more "influence" in DC. This means that the companies can easily drown out most opposition to their opinion.

      The other problem is that corporate owners have two venues to speak out instead of the common person's one. This is also unfair.

      We need to kill the idea of corporations getting individual rights. It just give more power and influence to the wealthy which do not need any more, and shouldn't have any more than any other person in this country. (But good luck trying to change this with most of our elected officials already in the pockets of their corporate masters... regardless of whether there is a "D" or "R" after their name.)

      /end rant

      --
      Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
      • (Score: 1) by anubi on Saturday September 02 2017, @03:03AM

        by anubi (2828) on Saturday September 02 2017, @03:03AM (#562826) Journal

        Responsibility also comes with rights. As corporeal beings, we are subject to the pain of physical deprivation or even the pain of administered violence if the powers-that-be deem it necessary.

        Do we have the ability to enforce responsibility on ephemeral entities, created on documents, which exist only for the transfer of profits?

        --
        "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 02 2017, @03:41AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 02 2017, @03:41AM (#562836)

        So what rights should corporations have, if any, then?

        • (Score: 1) by redneckmother on Saturday September 02 2017, @05:42PM

          by redneckmother (3597) on Saturday September 02 2017, @05:42PM (#562972)

          "So what rights should corporations have, if any, then?"

          The right to file Chapter 11, and "Get off my lawn!".

          --
          Mas cerveza por favor.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 02 2017, @03:39AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 02 2017, @03:39AM (#562834)

    As others have said, I'll believe that a corporation is a person when they execute one. Until then, it's just an entity that absorbs blame for most things. Until we have the means and will to execute them when they start murdering people, I refuse to acknowledge their personhood.