Charter, like AT&T, sues Louisville to stall Google Fiber

Charter also claims 1st Amendment violation of right to “speak” as TV provider.

Read the whole story

 

[truthyboy15]

Consumers in these cities should be allowed to sue these companies for hindering competition.

 

[DarthSlack]

Do these lawyers actually read the First Amendment? Last time I looked it absolutely did not say "Corporations get to do whatever the hell they want when they want and fuck you".

But maybe I'm looking at the wrong US Constitution.

 

[chronos42]

Aw man...Charter has always been the "good guy" cable company in my head (as much as a cable company can be, at least). Ruined.

 

[Fatesrider]

I had an odd thought about the potential fallout of corporations pretending that the stuff they only deliver is "theirs" to speak about, and are thus entitled to first amendment protection over it.

The notion is, of course, irrational. Corporations aren't living entities deserving of human constitutional rights in the first place. They're merely legal entities subject to corporate laws and provisions.

The Citizens United decision, of course, made a mockery of the Constitutional rights we enjoy in the U.S. by saying corporations have the right to speak as a human would.

Tying all this together, it would be a fitting end to Citizens United if one of these cable competition cases, raising on a constitutional issue, was brought before the SCOTUS which could then revisit the Citizens United case and reverse the whole, "corporations have constitutional rights" BS that caused this kind of mentally deranged (but legally correct as long as the Citizen's United decision stands) arguments on the part of corporate America.

I'm sure it's a pipe dream, and the merits of Citizens United won't even be raised, let alone addressed, in any trials with respect to competition. But it would be nice if the cable industry pulled a Verizon and not only shot themselves in the foot, but shot the whole paradigm of corporations being allowed to interfere in politics to the degree they do today in the head at the same time.

 

[NemesisX00]

Can we just dissolve all internet and tv service providers' and put the responsibility under the government, please? I recognize that the government is pretty crap at actually getting things done or keeping things organized. But I'm tired of hearing these blatantly fallacious arguments by the incumbents and I expect these court cases are diluting the power of the law in this country...

Greed is not good.

 

[ten91]

DarthSlack[/url]":17bswyzb]Do these lawyers actually read the First Amendment? Last time I looked it absolutely did not say "Corporations get to do whatever the hell they want when they want and fuck you".

But maybe I'm looking at the wrong US Constitution.

Well corporations are people too. Bigger people with lots more money. And immunity from common laws. Also you can't murder them.

 

[Commander_Keen]

What the hell would the lawsuit be?


"Judge, we have a stranglehold on our customers. We have invested millions in bribes to shape the government to better suit us while hurting the very people we are meant to serve, the American people. Please shut down google so we can continue to control a monopoly and overcharge people for services they would get in much higher quality in other countries."

...

 

[masterbinky]

Well, the government could always just seize the utility poles and say " I can't hear you" every time they complain. Really though,I don't see it as very likely to go far on having rights when the entire existence of the utility pole requires the use of easements and or some other government regulated land policies.

 

[ten91]

spalek83[/url]":3bvxdrv5]What the hell would the lawsuit be?


"Judge, we have a stranglehold on our customers. We have invested millions in bribes to shape the government to better suit us while hurting the very people we are meant to serve, the American people. Please shut down google so we can continue to control a monopoly and overcharge people for services they would get in much higher quality in other countries."

...

Patent Infringement. They just filed a patient for 'a method of providing ISP services to towns called Louisville'.

 

[EspressoMachine]

Nipple Rubbing =/= Free Speech

 

[fic]

“Where it has not provided advance notice, the new attacher must give notice that it has relocated or altered a pre-existing third party user’s attachments within 30 days after performing that work,” Charter also wrote. “The pre-existing third party attacher is then given only 14 days to inspect the relocation or alteration of its facilities by the provider and make any claim of damage or other complaint.”


While I am a huge fan of the one-touch and Google fiber (well, if it would come to Denver I would be) I kind of agree with their point here.

I think that pre-existing third parties should get 2-4 weeks notice and they can be present during the one touch by the new third party. But, they shouldn't be able to interfere with the moves.
If Google's contractors start messing up the existing infrastructure then it should come back to bite them.

 

[D.Becker]

The fifth amendment claims about property rights are not only bogus, but downright offensive to me.

The history is easily overlooked. The creation of the power and telecommunication infrastructure happened by right-of-way being taken by local governments for the common good. In most cases they didn't seize the property itself, just the right to use it for public utilities.

For Charter to now claim they have a 5th amendment right to control property *they never bought*, just to block further use for the public good, should be slapped down. Lots of people gave up use of their land, intrusion into their privacy and obstruction of their view to further progress. Individuals might have grumbled, but it was overwhelmingly recognized as being needed for the greater good. There would never have been that support if they knew the ultimate result would be a permanent exclusive grant to a obstructionist private monopoly.

 

[v3rlon]

1. This hinges on IF Google installers screw up. Isn't that like the VCR argument IF people record illegally? That is, they actually have to screw up before you accuse them of it. You cannot hold them accountable for something that MIGHT happen.

2. As a Time Warner now Charter customer, I have experienced those outage reimbursements. Can't Google agree to reimburse at the going outage rate in that area as documented by what Charter has payed for outages in the last three years? Hell, give customers a choice between that and a box of Oreos (its about the same).

3. What would really be cool is if this got before SCOTUS in such a way as they ruled Corporations were violating each others 13th amendment rights by owning each other?

4. What about the rights of citizens to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness in the form of watching internet cat videos? Isn't Charter interfering with their right to that? What about their right to free speech by giving money to Google instead of Charter? Money is speech, right?

 

[lewax00]

Do these lawyers actually read the First Amendment? Last time I looked it absolutely did not say "Corporations get to do whatever the hell they want when they want and fuck you".

But maybe I'm looking at the wrong US Constitution.

Yeah, you need to look at the special secret Constitution for corporations. But if you don't have a senator or two of your own, good luck getting a copy.

 

[vermell.switchblade]

It's been said already but needs to be repeated as much as possible, corporations are NOT people! 1st amendment my ass, I mean shit aren't these the same corporations that rake in money because of all the tax breaks they receive with help from all the politicians in their pockets?! Madness I tell ya, madness.

 

[futzbugger]

chronos42[/url]":2sqleo43]Aw man...Charter has always been the "good guy" cable company in my head (as much as a cable company can be, at least). Ruined.

Well, they did just add a megabit upload speed for their customers, totally free. They now get a whopping whole 6 megabits. Maybe they feel that good will toward their customers could get them around any negative publicity.

/s

 

[RainyDayX]

spalek83[/url]":9fvq7re0]What the hell would the lawsuit be?

Well money = free speech so anything that prevents them from making more money is obviously hindering their free speech.

 

[jinjuku]

"Charter argues that its own subscribers could lose service if Google Fiber installers mess up"

I would love it I could lose Insight/TWC/Charter service. Just for the amount of time it takes a tech for Google to hook me up

Although they did up speeds 05/2016 and I have 300 down for $55 / month.

 

[takk825]

v3rlon[/url]":254o9b1d]1. This hinges on IF Google installers screw up. Isn't that like the VCR argument IF people record illegally? That is, they actually have to screw up before you accuse them of it. You cannot hold them accountable for something that MIGHT happen.

2. As a Time Warner now Charter customer, I have experienced those outage reimbursements. Can't Google agree to reimburse at the going outage rate in that area as documented by what Charter has payed for outages in the last three years? Hell, give customers a choice between that and a box of Oreos (its about the same).

3. What would really be cool is if this got before SCOTUS in such a way as they ruled Corporations were violating each others 13th amendment rights by owning each other?

4. What about the rights of citizens to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness in the form of watching internet cat videos? Isn't Charter interfering with their right to that? What about their right to free speech by giving money to Google instead of Charter? Money is speech, right?

You make a great point about corporations owning one another. If they want to use any one part of the Constitution, they should have to abide by all of the parts.

 

[KiwiPhred]

A couple of observations from a "dang furriner"...

While the Constitution is a fine and noble idea, its meaning in now being so screwed around with it is starting to look like patent law.

Suing based on the first may be a stupid strategy as Google could turn around and counter-sue making exactly the same claim.

 

[dragonherder]

chronos42[/url]":2r1s0ibj]Aw man...Charter has always been the "good guy" cable company in my head (as much as a cable company can be, at least). Ruined.

The best customer satisfaction and overall stuff according to PC Magazine is RCN who received in 2015 and 2016 thus far for initial setup, satisfaction with pricing, customer service, technical support, likelihood to recommend and overall satisfaction. They only operate in a few areas inside the US which is why I end up suspecting this is the case as they are not trying to be nation wide, though they do invest back into their network quite heavily and have gone from being a 15 mbps as their top speed provider in my area up to 155 mbps (in NY they offer 330 mbps down and 25 up where in my area it is 155 and 20). I feel ISP's should be made to not be national if they insist on not reinvesting profits into the infrastructure.

I personally feel that if ISPs want any protections from the state government that the federal government should be able to issue mandates that state that a certain percentage of money earned needs to be reinvested in infrastructure advancement to any ISP that is in a non competitive area (and no wireless of any sort isn't a replacement for anything or they take any sort of federal money for promises or even if they did in the past. We need to make sure we are sitting at least a minimum of broadband speed (25 down by whatever it is up) nationally and that includes rural areas where it may not be as profitable (the isps can afford this particularly national ones) and they should never be allowed to stonewall competition from popping up in the first place period.

We need to smack down that kind of behavior now before it gets worse...

 

[arkiel]

The First Amendment rights being violated: government-sanctioned activity causing outages which prevent Charter from delivering ISIS tweets, autopsy photos in a necrophilia context, coprophilia, and child pornography. Yep, asserting that everything you deliver over your line is your speech has considerable negative implications.

Bravo, New Charter.

 

[rick*d]

ten91[/url]":32uqd9wt]

DarthSlack[/url]":32uqd9wt]Do these lawyers actually read the First Amendment? Last time I looked it absolutely did not say "Corporations get to do whatever the hell they want when they want and fuck you".

But maybe I'm looking at the wrong US Constitution.

Well corporations are people too. Bigger people with lots more money. And immunity from common laws. Also you can't murder them.

Oh, I don't know about that. Donald Trump has murdered several of his corporations.

 

[flatrock]

Charter said. "It is unclear how a new attacher could reliably make this determination without consulting the third party to understand the likely effect of its work on the third party’s network,” Charter said.

Who transmission lines work isn't new technology or magic. Vague allegations that it might cause problems do not provide any ground for overturning a law. If Charter wants to show they are being harmed, they need to show specific examples of how they might be harmed, otherwise they aren't making an actionable claim, they are just whining in a vague manner.

I do have some sympathy for them because there should be a level playing field and newcomers shouldn't receive preferential treatment. However the one access to the poles is a public resource and the local government has the authority to regulate it. I would think that allowing other companies to move things when doing so does not seem risky is a more reasonable course of action than requiring Charter to visit all their poles and make sure that their cables leave ample room for others. However, perhaps they could give Charter a small window of time in which they could choose to make room on the poles before implementing the One Touch Make Ready rules during which Charter can clean up the poles which their technicians feel pose the greatest risk of resulting in service interruptions. That would mitigate legitimate concerns while still preventing Carter from dragging their feet in order to prevent competition.

 

[ten91]

rick*d[/url]":3ox23546]

ten91[/url]":3ox23546]

DarthSlack[/url]":3ox23546]Do these lawyers actually read the First Amendment? Last time I looked it absolutely did not say "Corporations get to do whatever the hell they want when they want and fuck you".

But maybe I'm looking at the wrong US Constitution.

Well corporations are people too. Bigger people with lots more money. And immunity from common laws. Also you can't murder them.

Oh, I don't know about that. Donald Trump has murdered several of his corporations.

Still not a person. To be a person you must meet three criteria.
As mentioned, you must be murderable.
Second you must have an opinion on skub, even if it's wrong.
Thirdly, you must have spent at least an accumulated 5 minutes in your lifetime searching for something you had just set down a moment ago.

 

[mltdwn]

Fatesrider[/url]":11yagzy3]The Citizens United decision, of course, made a mockery of the Constitutional rights we enjoy in the U.S. by saying corporations have the right to speak as a human would.

No they said money is speech, and people, or organizations of people (in the case of Citizens United Vs FEC it was a non-profit) has the right to spend their money for whatever speech they wish. That is if they wish to make commercials saying 'Did you know Fatesrider objects to us doing this, but we think he is wrong' they are more than free to. To begin limiting speech there, most specifically with non-profits you then go down the road of the government can restrict any non-profit they want and what they say because they have no rights as a group of people to say what they want.

The problem is people, and lawyers misconstrue this all the time.

 

[PRMan]

truthyboy15[/url]":14imblz5]Consumers in these cities should be allowed to sue these companies for hindering competition.

Actually, that's a pretty bad law.

So someone could down hundreds or thousands of your customers.

They don't need to even notify you first.

You have no idea how it happened.

And they don't need to tell you for 30 days?!?

Yeah, I can see why they don't like it. I'm all for competition, but this allows for way too much abuse, even if you do trust Google to "not be evil".

 

[icrf]

Let's just assume for the sake of argument that corporations are people and have free speech rights. I've read compelling arguments that make that sound not super crazy (basically that they're groups of people exercising their rights as people together).

Given that, I'm still highly unclear as to how this is a first amendment violation. It seems if laws benefit one business over another, there should be some other way to handle that. Claiming first amendment like these companies are news reporters competing to share their view points is just bizarre and thoroughly illogical.

 

[ziegler]

Hmm...when did charter take over Louisville? Because it used to be Comcast. I know this because that is where I was living when I threatened Comcast and swore I'd never do business with them again. And I havent, it is quite literally, one of the things I check before moving into a town.

 

[flatrock]

ten91[/url]"xfhzc8k]

rick*d[/url]"xfhzc8k]

ten91[/url]"xfhzc8k]

DarthSlack[/url]"xfhzc8k]Do these lawyers actually read the First Amendment? Last time I looked it absolutely did not say "Corporations get to do whatever the hell they want when they want and fuck you".

But maybe I'm looking at the wrong US Constitution.

Well corporations are people too. Bigger people with lots more money. And immunity from common laws. Also you can't murder them.

Oh, I don't know about that. Donald Trump has murdered several of his corporations.

Still not a person. To be a person you must meet three criteria.
As mentioned, you must be murderable.
Second you must have an opinion on skub, even if it's wrong.
Thirdly, you must have spent at least an accumulated 5 minutes in your lifetime searching for something you had just set down a moment ago.

A corporation is owned by people, and those people have rights. Regardless of if you consider the owners as individuals or as a group, they still have rights, and their rights are protected under the Constitution.

If you want to argue that corporations and the people working at them don't have free speech rights, you pretty much remove the free speech rights of just about every newspaper, TV news channel, or other media company and the people working at them.

There are a great many instances where an individual will have great difficulty in exercising their right to free speech in a meaningful way without working with others. Those they work with might be organized in any number of ways. Trying to exclude the rights of those who are working with a corporation essentially means you are just trying to suppress the rights of people you disagree with.

 

[dragonherder]

flatrock[/url]":hl8c7s2k]

ten91[/url]":hl8c7s2k]

rick*d[/url]":hl8c7s2k]

ten91[/url]":hl8c7s2k]

DarthSlack[/url]":hl8c7s2k]Do these lawyers actually read the First Amendment? Last time I looked it absolutely did not say "Corporations get to do whatever the hell they want when they want and fuck you".

But maybe I'm looking at the wrong US Constitution.

Well corporations are people too. Bigger people with lots more money. And immunity from common laws. Also you can't murder them.

Oh, I don't know about that. Donald Trump has murdered several of his corporations.

Still not a person. To be a person you must meet three criteria.
As mentioned, you must be murderable.
Second you must have an opinion on skub, even if it's wrong.
Thirdly, you must have spent at least an accumulated 5 minutes in your lifetime searching for something you had just set down a moment ago.

A corporation is owned by people, and those people have rights. Regardless of if you consider the owners as individuals or as a group, they still have rights, and their rights are protected under the Constitution.

If you want to argue that corporations and the people working at them don't have free speech rights, you pretty much remove the free speech rights of just about every newspaper, TV news channel, or other media company and the people working at them.

There are a great many instances where an individual will have great difficulty in exercising their right to free speech in a meaningful way without working with others. Those they work with might be organized in any number of ways. Trying to exclude the rights of those who are working with a corporation essentially means you are just trying to suppress the rights of people you disagree with.

That's fine and dandy until they start abusing the position. Corporations should have separate rights from the individuals that run the. Right to free speech should be included in both, however a corporations wants shouldn't be a thing that exists because you have the heads of the company and the board expressing their wants multiple times over and many times it is taken as all employees feel that way so it's the voice of thousands in some cases that may or may not agree with that "voice"

Also this isn't a first amendment issue in the slightest... No one is blocking anyone's right to free speech in any way shape or form so suing over that is absurd... The idea isn't to silence their rights or certain rights, but to take away the voice of the corporation and money itself being seeing as mass amounts of people. Money =/= people and yet money somehow = free speech a corporation and corporate people at the higher end don't face the same laws the rest of us do and while some rights should indeed extend to a corporation and while free speech is one of them there is a difference between free speech and bribery (lobbying is legalized bribery that has been allowed since CU) there needs to be curtailing of certain activities that corporations are allowed to get away with that we cannot as individuals.

 

[ten91]

flatrock[/url]":vsdjvqtu]

ten91[/url]":vsdjvqtu]

rick*d[/url]":vsdjvqtu]

ten91[/url]":vsdjvqtu]

DarthSlack[/url]":vsdjvqtu]Do these lawyers actually read the First Amendment? Last time I looked it absolutely did not say "Corporations get to do whatever the hell they want when they want and fuck you".

But maybe I'm looking at the wrong US Constitution.

Well corporations are people too. Bigger people with lots more money. And immunity from common laws. Also you can't murder them.

Oh, I don't know about that. Donald Trump has murdered several of his corporations.

Still not a person. To be a person you must meet three criteria.
As mentioned, you must be murderable.
Second you must have an opinion on skub, even if it's wrong.
Thirdly, you must have spent at least an accumulated 5 minutes in your lifetime searching for something you had just set down a moment ago.

A corporation is owned by people, and those people have rights. Regardless of if you consider the owners as individuals or as a group, they still have rights, and their rights are protected under the Constitution.

If you want to argue that corporations and the people working at them don't have free speech rights, you pretty much remove the free speech rights of just about every newspaper, TV news channel, or other media company and the people working at them.

There are a great many instances where an individual will have great difficulty in exercising their right to free speech in a meaningful way without working with others. Those they work with might be organized in any number of ways. Trying to exclude the rights of those who are working with a corporation essentially means you are just trying to suppress the rights of people you disagree with.

The people at a corporation absolutely have a right to free speech unless they're brain dead immortals that never set anything down. Things like newspapers, while they have a corporate environment and code that directs what is published; it is the words and views of the journalist or reporter of the piece that is being said, the company is providing a platform and outlet for those things being said.
Corporations do need the 'person' definition so that it can be the recipient of civil suits. But corporations do not deserve the 'person' definition for matters such as campaign donations and political action.

 

[a place to call home]

Government created monopolies are the real problem here. Utilities should not "own" poles on public property or special right of ways that aren't available to everyone else.

 

[etc inittab]

The only cable company in our area is/was Time Warner. A few years ago I was so fed up, I cut the cord and dropped TV and internet, signing up with an abysmally slow DSL option.

At least TWC was not receiving any of my money. The news that Charter was buying them out had me very interested in giving it another shot.

Until now.

Looks like it's DSL for foreseeable future.

 

[EthosPathosLegos]

"Don't touch my stuff" is essentially what Charter is saying. Ok. I understand their argument that doing so could negatively affect their business if something goes wrong. So, how about you are given a reasonable period of time, say 30 days, to move your lines. If in 30 days they have not moved their lines, then Google gets to move them, and if something breaks, Google has to pay for damages and labor. Is this not fair? This way, Charter has the time to move their property how they see fit, and they are not impeding progress.

 

[pastomen]

ten91[/url]":1751iic5]
Well corporations are people too. Bigger people with lots more money. And immunity from common laws. Also you can't murder them.

I'll buy arguments in favor of corporate personhood when I have the ability to literally kick said corporation in the junk.

As an aside, I'm also surprised no one at Ars has turned Nashville's AT&T Building into an AT&T-styled Eye of Sauron. It's really perfect for it, and you can totally steal the idea.

 

[Eurynom0s]

DarthSlack[/url]":2c3e1fem]Do these lawyers actually read the First Amendment? Last time I looked it absolutely did not say "Corporations get to do whatever the hell they want when they want and fuck you".

But maybe I'm looking at the wrong US Constitution.

Maybe the feds have given them access to the classified interpretation of the constitution.

 

[calson33]

fic[/url]":147hiagm]“Where it has not provided advance notice, the new attacher must give notice that it has relocated or altered a pre-existing third party user’s attachments within 30 days after performing that work,” Charter also wrote. “The pre-existing third party attacher is then given only 14 days to inspect the relocation or alteration of its facilities by the provider and make any claim of damage or other complaint.”


While I am a huge fan of the one-touch and Google fiber (well, if it would come to Denver I would be) I kind of agree with their point here.

I think that pre-existing third parties should get 2-4 weeks notice and they can be present during the one touch by the new third party. But, they shouldn't be able to interfere with the moves.
If Google's contractors start messing up the existing infrastructure then it should come back to bite them.

But somehow they never make it there to oversee, so it gets rescheduled, and rescheduled, and rescheduled.. 10 years later, when everything is wireless, they will have someone show up.

 

[sword_9mm]

ziegler[/url]":1qlxx644]Hmm...when did charter take over Louisville? Because it used to be Comcast. I know this because that is where I was living when I threatened Comcast and swore I'd never do business with them again. And I havent, it is quite literally, one of the things I check before moving into a town.

hmm. never heard of comcast being here.

was insight, then TW, now charter though the bills still say TW.