Statewide Franchise Illegal? Detroit Sues Comcast 183
jqpublic13 writes "The City of Detroit, Michigan, is suing Comcast's local subsidiary citing a 2006 agreement which the City says violates the constitutions of both the United States and the state of Michigan. They claim that a federal act from 1984 supersedes the local agreement. Comcast has 20 days to respond."
Detroit is broke (Score:2, Insightful)
Comcast Victims (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Detroit is broke (Score:5, Insightful)
Clearly you didn't read enough of the fucking article, because the real issue is that Detroit's contract requires Comcast to provide free cable to their schools, public buildings, and other benefits, in exchange for being granted a monopoly within the city. On the flip side Comcast claims it no longer has to provide those freebies thanks to a 2007 Michigan law. Detroit's argument is that the MI Law violates the MI Constitution, and as far as I can tell, Detroit is correct.
Comcast could solve this issue, without cost, simply by honoring the Detroit Contract they signed rather than ignoring it.
As for "shaking down" I pretty much hate comcast right now. My brother's analog comcast was $65 when discontinued, and raised to $85 digital cable. Difference? Analog cable was a flat fee regardless how many TVs you had, where digital charges $5 per set. Per month. I call that GREED on the part of comcast.
Re:Detroit is broke (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet another person who didn't bother to read the fucking article. Detroit/Comcast did NOT sign a new contract. The old 1985 agreement is still in full force (according to Detroit) whereas Comcast claims a Michigan law nullified the contract. Detroit's argument is that Michigan has no power to nullify contracts (per the MI Constitution). I think Detroit is correct.
It's not "bribes" it's "free speech"! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They have a point (Score:2, Insightful)
THESE statewide-granted monopolies and the recent (yesterday) decision to eliminate channels 31 to 51 on broadcast television is telling me that the Nobility are no longer serving the People. They are serving the corporations. ----- For digital television 2-6 are worthless (as people trying to watch WPVI6 can attest). And channels 14-20(?) are reserved for land mobile. So what's really left is 7-13 and 21-31 - simply not enough room for all the networks, especially in high population areas like the I95 corridor and east coast.
And again to reiterate: We're talking about going from FREE television to ~$1000/year wireless internet television. In other words damaging the people. The FCC and White House are no longer serving us - they are serving the bottom line of ATT, Google, Microsoft, and other corporations.
And now I read this nonsense about Michigan and other states giving exclusive monopolies to Comcast and other megacorps. Unbelievable.
Re:Detroit is broke (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, the deep pockets of the American taxpayer. You have any idea what a state-sanctioned monopoly is worth to a company like that?
Re:They have a point (Score:2, Insightful)
>>>When did the nobility EVER serve the people?
Yes well, this is why the idea of Constitutional government was invented in the 1600s - to shackle the nobility and only allow them to exercise a FEW limited powers. All other powers would be reserved to the People (where all legitimate authority lies):
The People (top)
|
Member State Constitution (a few limited powers)
|
Member State Government (shackled by the constitution)
|
US Constitution (a few limited powers)
|
US Government (bottom)
Re:Detroit is broke (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not really Detroit vs. Comcast, but Detroit versus the state. Detroit argues that it has local franchise authority. Comcast argues that the state law supersedes that authority. Detroit argues back that federal law and/or the Constitution overrides the state law. So really, it's the city of Detroit versus the state of Michigan, here. I wonder why Detroit just doesn't sue the state in the first place?
Re:Detroit is broke (Score:3, Insightful)
It would appear to be a very clear interpretation of their constitution. Even if Comcast had not backed out of their original contract to provide free services to public institutions, it would not matter. The MI state constitution clearly says that franchises are the responsibility of the local governments, then the state stomped on that by signing a state wide deal with Comcast. It is a clear matter of constitutional law, and very much a valid case.
Re:They have a point (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Detroit is broke (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's not "bribes" it's "free speech"! (Score:5, Insightful)
The Supreme Court made the mistake of thinking Corporations have the same rights as human beings. They don't. The people inside the corporation have rights, but the actual corporation has no more natural, innate rights than a tree or rock.
Re:Detroit is broke (Score:2, Insightful)
No it is Detroit against Comcast. Comcast is choosing to ignore the original contract and their argument is that the new state law allows them to do it. Sounds like Detroit is playing the public relations card. The city wants to show that Comcast is cutting on free services that every subscriber pays for. There is a fee collected from every subscriber to pay for these free services. Did Comcast stop collecting that fee ?
There is a conflict between laws here and a court will sort it out.
Re:Detroit is broke (Score:4, Insightful)
It will be more complicated than that. FCC rules have the force of federal law, so trump the Michigan state constitution. In recent years, the FCC has stripped local franchising authorities of considerable authority. At least some of the provisions in this paragraph are clearly no longer enforceable; eg, under certain conditions the federal rules allow a company to use public right of way to provide video services even though they failed to reach a franchise agreement with the local authority. Since this paragraph can't apply to companies providing video services, it is at least arguable that state-wide video service franchising is okay. In addition, Comcast provides communications services (voice and Internet) over the same fiber-coax infrastructure, and franchising authority for those kinds of services have been outside of local control for a long time.
As for the free service for schools and municipal buildings: the latest FCC rules nullify that if those "in kind" services are being used to circumvent the federal cap on franchise fees.
Re:Why are franchises even legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's merit to having a common infrastructure, but it probably needs to be a municipal resource. That's a completely different type of monopoly, and is subject to a different type of corruption. I personally think "communications as a utility" is less evil than a communications infrastructure that's privately owned (and can be withheld on a corporate whim.)
Re:Detroit is broke (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the state law that Detroit is trying to overturn is about 4 years old. The contract Comcast is said to be ignoring, on the other hand... From TFA: "The city is seeking to overturn Comcast's current franchise agreement with the city and reinstate its 1985 franchise." And: "...since imposing a new franchise agreement in April 2007, Comcast has violated the 1985 franchise..."
That makes the contract in question 25 years old. Thanks for playing.
Re:Detroit is broke (Score:4, Insightful)
>>>Comcast can charge $999 a month or whatever the market will bare
What market? Comcast was given a government-granted monopoly inside Detroit. No other company can provide cable TV. No choice == no free market