SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
The New York State Public Service Commission (PSC) today voted to revoke its approval of Charter Communications' 2016 purchase of Time Warner Cable (TWC). The PSC said it is ordering Charter to sell the former TWC system that it purchased in New York, and it's "bring[ing] an enforcement action in State Supreme Court to seek additional penalties for Charter's past failures and ongoing noncompliance."
Charter has repeatedly failed to meet deadlines for broadband expansions that were required in exchange for merger approval, state officials said. The PSC has steadily increased the pressure on Charter with fines and threats, but Charter never agreed to changes demanded by state officials.
As a result of today's vote, "Charter is ordered to file within 60 days a plan with the Commission to ensure an orderly transition to a successor provider(s)," the PSC's announcement said. "During the transition process, Charter must continue to comply with all local franchises it holds in New York State and all obligations under the Public Service Law and the Commission regulations. Charter must ensure no interruption in service is experienced by customers, and, in the event that Charter does not do so, the Commission will take further steps, including seeking injunctive relief in Supreme Court in order to protect New York consumers."
[...] Charter has denied failing to meet obligations to expand broadband service. But as we've previously written, state officials say that Charter is trying to count locations that it was already required to serve as part of franchise agreements toward its merger commitments.
[...] Charter's statement did not say whether it will appeal the PSC decision, or whether it will comply with the PSC's order to sell the former Time Warner Cable system in New York. We asked Charter those questions today and will update this story if we get a response.
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 3, Touché) by takyon on Monday July 30 2018, @01:10PM (8 children)
If only we had a court of law to settle disputes like these.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 30 2018, @01:31PM (2 children)
The court system is incredibly expensive, and such a case could drag on for years. This is the failure of the West: There's no authority any more that anybody respects—and note that I say "respects" not "fears"; everyone fears the men with guns, but they don't necessarily respect them or the decisions on which they act, and that's what makes our society less and less stable.
Diversity is not a strength. Agreement is strength; we've lost the ability to agree on reality.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 30 2018, @05:09PM (1 child)
Nazis are bad, socialized healthcare is good, corporate structure is a top down recreation of feudalism, Trump is a conman literally destroying our country.
How'd I do? We agree yet?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 30 2018, @05:15PM
I heartily agree with these comments or blog posts.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Monday July 30 2018, @01:37PM
... and stiff criminal penalties for proven lying, cheating, number-fudging, coercion, and intimidating employees to produce falsified reports.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 30 2018, @03:48PM (3 children)
No, no, no. You what the correct answer is!
We need a series of contract enforcers to get to the bottom of it! The bottom of it, of course, will be found right below the final turtle.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 30 2018, @04:13PM (2 children)
Keep thinking about it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 30 2018, @04:37PM (1 child)
I did! [soylentnews.org]
It appears that what Charter and the State of New York have run into is a contract dispute, so they referred it to contract enforcement, which happens to be a wholly-owned subsidiary of the State of New York. What you seem to be suggesting is that Charter should have hired independent contract enforcement, given the obvious conflict of interest with the original contract's enforcer.
What I'm suggesting is that from that point we can crowdsource it to turtles. I think turtles are using blockchains these days, and I've never heard of a turtle misinterpreting a contract in the favor of his client, so it should be fine.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31 2018, @04:28AM
Wat we hava hear is a faliur to communicate.