Re: Comcast Sues Calif. City (San Jose) in Franchise Dispute

From: Lee Johnson <lee.johnson_at_email.invalid>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 01:35:09 -0400

John Higdon wrote:

> In article <telecom22.489.2_at_telecom-digest.org>, Linc Madison
> <spamtrap_at_lincmad.com> wrote:

>> In article <telecom22.488.3_at_telecom-digest.org>, Monty Solomon >> <monty_at_roscom.com> wrote:

>>> SAN FRANCISCO, May 30 (Reuters) - Comcast Corp. (NASDAQ:CMCSA) said >>> on Friday it has sued San Jose, California, alleging [blahblahblah]

>> The article mentions that Comcast inherited the system from AT&T. The
>> other interesting factoid is that San Jose was the first urban cable
>> TV franchise in the United States. They were rewarded for their
>> pioneering efforts with high prices and crappy service. When I lived
>> in San Jose, from 1985 to 1987, my neighborhood was still waiting to
>> be wired for cable, almost 20 years after the franchise was awarded.

> And that same system lives today! That same archaic "A/B" cable kludge
> is STILL in operation in San Jose. In today's San Jose Mercury News, a
> front page story tells about Comcast adding HDTV to cable systems Bay
> Area wide. No mention is made about San Jose, however, which won't see
> any such thing.

Probably because the Bay Area didn't try to shake down the cable operator. In honest municipalities, Comcast provides fine service. But clearly there is little incentive to invest in corruption land.

> As a San Jose resident, I wrote off having cable two years ago when it
> became evident that there would never be modern cable services in this
> city for the foreseeable future. I also had the foresight to insist
> that they remove all traces of the drop and any other wiring.

> Why was this good? AT&T Broadband apparently had a nationwide practice
> of leaving drops connected at the pole so that they could send goons
> around and accuse recent disconnects of stealing cable service and
> intimidating them into paying for reconnection. True to form, they did
> this to me.

> However, the look on the goons' faces when I took them in the backyard
> and pointed out that there was no wiring between my house and the pole
> was priceless.

> I put our cable company about one notch under MCI on the scum scale.

Just as long as you put them 100 notches above your local cable board, the source of your troubles.

John Higdon wrote:

> In article <telecom22.490.5_at_telecom-digest.org>, Lee Johnson
> <lee.johnson_at_email.invalid> wrote:

>> We've had Comcast for years and I don't have any major complaints with
>> their product.  Their service has always been prompt and competent.
>> Three cheers to them for exposing an attempted shake-down maneuver by
>> the local cable board gang looking for illegal kickback. That's not a
>> mere "issue in a franchise agreement," that's a solicitation for a
>> bribe.  No wonder why Silicon Valley doesn't have good service with a
>> den of thieves serving on the local commission.  Imagine how much of
>> that stuff goes on across the country, and it all gets passed on to
>> the TV viewer.

> Or put another way, our city fathers are not going to let a
> Philadelphia company walk in and pick the pockets of local San Jose
> residents without contributing something back to the community.

And what is wrong with Philadelphia, pray tell?

> If Comcast can trapse through our backyards, tear up our streets, and
> then shake the coins out of our pockets selling us thirty-year-old
> technology,

No more or less than any other utility.

> then I see no harm in having them fullfil standard and
> typical franchise conditions.

Right, standard and typical, not outright bribe solicitation which is what the issue is.

> Quite honestly, I'm delighted that my city government is not bending
> over for an East Coast mega-corporation.

Ahh, so your prejudice is showing. The problem for you is that the company is not based on the west coast. Presumably you wouldn't have any problems with them if it was.

> As far as I am concerned, if east coasters want to pump cash out of
> California,

So doing business is now called "pumping cash". By your standard, any California company that does business with the dreaded east coast is "pumping cash" from them. Perhaps we should just economically isolate California from the rest of the country for your sake to avoid any and all 'pumping', no?

> they can give something in return.

So you don't mind bribes and illegal shake downs. I'm shocked. Received on Mon Jun 02 2003 - 22:35:09 PDT