Comcast sues Vermont over not wanting to build communication lines

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Never said I had to like it. The State of Vermont was also overstepping its legal authority, more than likely. I've got no dog in this fight; a pox on both their houses!

I already know vermont doesn't play fair when they insisted on GMO labeling laws but decided to exempt dairy. As if GMO labeling wasn't already a flawed action without making it clearly a political/marketing tool.

[Taf the Ghost]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I already know vermont doesn't play fair when they insisted on GMO labeling laws but decided to exempt dairy. As if GMO labeling wasn't already a flawed action without making it clearly a political/marketing tool.

States are prone to do this, these days, because they can get away with it unless you have a lot of money. They've always done it, it's just gotten worse over time.

[HalGameGuru]

7 hours ago, mr moose said:

If that's the case then I hope they lose,  All it does is cost the general consumer more when companies behave like that.

As opposed to having to foot the bill for tens of millions of dollars of "free" infrastructure for the state? Customers take a bigger bath when THEIR bills are being used to subsidize someone else's backroom deal.

[mr moose]

4 hours ago, HalGameGuru said:

As opposed to having to foot the bill for tens of millions of dollars of "free" infrastructure for the state? Customers take a bigger bath when THEIR bills are being used to subsidize someone else's backroom deal.

I was referring to the idea that they might sign a deal and then take legal action to get out of a specific part of that deal  That's just dodgy practice and does nothing but add cost to the consumer, both state and private.   The State doesn't get their infrastructure and consumers get charged a bit more to cover the legal action.

 

 

[HalGameGuru]

36 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I was referring to the idea that they might sign a deal and then take legal action to get out of a specific part of that deal  That's just dodgy practice and does nothing but add cost to the consumer, both state and private.   The State doesn't get their infrastructure and consumers get charged a bit more to cover the legal action.

 

 

I'm still confused as to whether this is COMCAST's deal or ADELPHIA's deal. Not having the resources to fight a losing deal may have been why Adelphia got taken over.

A couple hundred thousand versus tens of millions is a big difference when your customer base in the region is a few hundred thousand subscribers.

 

Better still to not try to strong arm private concerns into sweetheart deals. Put out bids and pay for what you want. At least when the taxes go up to pay for it the people can see the real enemy rather than getting mad at their ISP for having to pass the cost on to them

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, HalGameGuru said:

I'm still confused as to whether this is COMCAST's deal or ADELPHIA's deal. Not having the resources to fight a losing deal may have been why Adelphia got taken over.

A couple hundred thousand versus tens of millions is a big difference when your customer base in the region is a few hundred thousand subscribers.

 

Better still to not try to strong arm private concerns into sweetheart deals. Put out bids and pay for what you want. At least when the taxes go up to pay for it the people can see the real enemy rather than getting mad at their ISP for having to pass the cost on to them

If the deal wasn't good for Comcast then they shouldn't have signed it.   It doesn't look like a loophole or sneaky omission.    Anyway, like I said,  if they did it the way Jito suggested, then they deserve to lose.

[Donut417]

Isnt Vermont Bernie Sanders state? Stick Bernie on them LOL. He might be able to nag them to death. 

 

Generally coverage is agreed upon in the franchise agreements. From what I read over at DSLreports.com, it sounds like the entire state has a franchise agreement. Where in some other states, each city would have its own agreement. At the end of the day this will be dealt with in the courts. Though, Vermont could pull the franchise agreement and kick Comcast out. Of course they would have to give Comcast money for the network and such, but maybe thats what the state should do. Tell Comcast to build out or fuck off. 

[Brooksie359]

19 hours ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Never said I had to like it. The State of Vermont was also overstepping its legal authority, more than likely. I've got no dog in this fight; a pox on both their houses!

Not really. Who do you think provides them with the land to put all the infrastructure on? If they don't want to give the state the infrastructure then they can't use the land to lay lines and they can get out. I mean it is a signed agreement and there is no reason for Comcast to argue their part of the agreement. I mean it's like of someone asked if they could use your car and you said ok but for 100 bucks. Now it may not be a good deal but if they agreed to it then they can't go back and say yeah I don't think that agreement is fair so I just won't give you the 100. That would be rediculus because they already used your car.

[HalGameGuru]

18 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Not really. Who do you think provides them with the land to put all the infrastructure on? If they don't want to give the state the infrastructure then they can't use the land to lay lines and they can get out. I mean it is a signed agreement and there is no reason for Comcast to argue their part of the agreement. I mean it's like of someone asked if they could use your car and you said ok but for 100 bucks. Now it may not be a good deal but if they agreed to it then they can't go back and say yeah I don't think that agreement is fair so I just won't give you the 100. That would be rediculus because they already used your car.

Most of the right of ways and easements that the infrastructure goes on are on private property. I'm not sure how it is in vermont but in Texas very little developed land is owned by any government. Government merely makes use of the easements and rights of way in the platts and deeds to do road maintenance or utility work. Which can also be done by private companies or property owners. The poles in texas are owned by the power companies and they lease access to the poles to ISPs and such for running to subscribers. Better if they were owned by the property owners and leased to the power companies and anyone else but they harken back to the days when the power companies here were state owned and controlled.

[Jito463]

On 9/1/2017 at 9:22 PM, HalGameGuru said:

"Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence"

But sometimes....sometimes it is malice.  

On 9/2/2017 at 6:02 PM, mr moose said:

Anyway, like I said,  if they did it the way Jito suggested, then they deserve to lose.

Are you reading my mind again?  Cause I'm pretty sure I haven't posted in this thread yet.  

[mr moose]

15 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

But sometimes....sometimes it is malice.  

Are you reading my mind again?  Cause I'm pretty sure I haven't posted in this thread yet.  

Nope, just having a brain fart. I must have been in another thread with you at the time I posted that.  I meant to say TaF the Ghost.

 

I don't read minds much anymore, it's terribly frightening and the images are just awful.

 

 

 

 

[Jahramika]

On 8/31/2017 at 8:15 PM, WMGroomAK said:

Maybe it's not the communication lines that they are saying is covered under the 1st Amendment, but their right to say 'F-You' to people by not following through on a permit stipulation...  

They land those lines run are are owned by the state and its people.

[The Benjamins]

On 9/3/2017 at 10:32 PM, HalGameGuru said:

Most of the right of ways and easements that the infrastructure goes on are on private property. I'm not sure how it is in vermont but in Texas very little developed land is owned by any government. Government merely makes use of the easements and rights of way in the platts and deeds to do road maintenance or utility work. Which can also be done by private companies or property owners. The poles in texas are owned by the power companies and they lease access to the poles to ISPs and such for running to subscribers. Better if they were owned by the property owners and leased to the power companies and anyone else but they harken back to the days when the power companies here were state owned and controlled.

In Maryland most of the electric and communications are with in the Roads Right of way which is owned and maintained by the state or county. I do underground electrical design for the company I work for, and we rather be in the ROW vs private property. getting agreements per lot owner is a PAIN.

[HalGameGuru]

8 hours ago, The Benjamins said:

In Maryland most of the electric and communications are with in the Roads Right of way which is owned and maintained by the state or county. I do underground electrical design for the company I work for, and we rather be in the ROW vs private property. getting agreements per lot owner is a PAIN.

Depends on the situation, in Maryland the property owners don't own to the middle of the street? In Texas the streets are on easements on the private property. You really only see state ownership in the case of imminent domain or big multilane highway development where they buy out land for it rather than get ROW agreements.

 

Pre-existing ROW can still be a pain if the agreements do not include infrastructure you wish to install. Private property owners still trump state actors if they want to make a stink over breach of conditions of the easement and the state respects property rights. Although states havent respected property rights for centuries so I digress.

[The Benjamins]

59 minutes ago, HalGameGuru said:

Depends on the situation, in Maryland the property owners don't own to the middle of the street? In Texas the streets are on easements on the private property. You really only see state ownership in the case of imminent domain or big multilane highway development where they buy out land for it rather than get ROW agreements.

 

Pre-existing ROW can still be a pain if the agreements do not include infrastructure you wish to install. Private property owners still trump state actors if they want to make a stink over breach of conditions of the easement and the state respects property rights. Although states havent respected property rights for centuries so I digress.

Yup.

 

for example The county owns 30' of road way, and 5' on each side for utility's and sidewalk.(fake numbers) so when i do my designs I can were ever I want if its with in the roads Right of way. on private property I can only be 3' from existing to not need a new agreement. but it the line is for the property owner (and only them) I can go were ever I want.

[HalGameGuru]

4 hours ago, The Benjamins said:

Yup.

 

for example The county owns 30' of road way, and 5' on each side for utility's and sidewalk.(fake numbers) so when i do my designs I can were ever I want if its with in the roads Right of way. on private property I can only be 3' from existing to not need a new agreement. but it the line is for the property owner (and only them) I can go were ever I want.

very interesting

 

Texas is very different and has a lot of headaches from having 6 different systems of measurement on the books. 6 flags over Texas included 6 different standards and units of measurement. And a lot of old deeds are still in old spanish or french units of measure.