According to a 2003 class action lawsuit against Comcast, the cable giant's anti-competitive behavior in the Philadelphia area resulted in the company overcharging users to the tune of more than $875 million. The suit accuses Comcast of violating sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by gobbling up competitors, then overbilling consumers for services. After bouncing around since 2003 a Federal Judge last April ruled the case could move forward as a class action with all 2 million impacted subscribers included. Comcast appealed the ruling, claiming plaintiffs did not have enough in common to sue as a class. The Supreme Court today announced they'll hear the case this October. ISPs have consistently moved to try and block class action cases entirely using fine print, something the Supreme Court approved of in a ruling last year.
SCOTUS Will now allow Corporations are people in Montana
SCOTUS for me will always be remembered for the Citizens United Decision.Today they have ruled against the Century old law in Montana against allowing Corporation Money in their Elections. Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer (D) and Lieutenant Governor John Bohlinger (R) respond to the Supreme Court's action invalidating Montana's 100-year-old Corrupt Practices Act
Today's decision by the Conservative block of the Supreme Court, lead by Chief Justice Roberts, overturns Montana's century old law established by voter referendum banning corporate spending in political campaigns.
Talk about Judicial activism!
The current US Supreme Court is turning the USA into a plutocracy for the corporate conglomerates.
Need to rule in favor of Comcast. Those companies it bought were NEVER competing with Comcast to start off with. They were bought outside of their footprint and allowed Comcast to expand. But while we're suing Comcast we need to sue TWC as well- after all they're doing the same thing. In fact- they actually did take a competitor in some places- Insight.
I'm completely unsure on this; but what I would find fault with is various monopoly provisioning agreements that ban competing services from a given area city/county or even the local apartment complex agreements.
monoploy agreements for cities are illegal; meaning your city can't contract Comcast for the entire City and only them; But it is legal for private businesses to contract another- regardless what the FCC says - if it went to court- the courts would rule that the FCC has no legal or ruling power to tell XXX Apartments that they can't contract CentLink for VDSL/IPTV, and Phone.
I'm completely unsure on this; but what I would find fault with is various monopoly provisioning agreements that ban competing services from a given area city/county or even the local apartment complex agreements.
Yes, you're unsure. Competing services aren't banned, they just can't make a profit as the third last-mile offering, going against the MSO, ILEC, and two satellite companies, so they won't get off the ground. There is no fault.
Apartment complexes are private entities; management is charged with maintaining the premises and wiring - and they are within their rights to enter into exclusive agreements for broadband providers - if you don't like it, you don't have to live there. Exclusive MDU agreements can mean you get fiber-optic service levels when your neighbors outside the complex are still wanting for DSL.
Everyone seems to make DirecTV blameless in everything, but they can keep everyone else from Sunday Ticket.
Not the same. DirecTV doesn't own Sunday Ticket (NFL Games). The NFL owns the rights. The NFL limited Sunday Ticket to DTV. Just like the NFL allowed other providers to have the Red Zone Channel. Comcast Owns CSN Philly.
and that is their right. They can charge what they want. The same as TW does with HBO and their channels - even when they owned TWC. And this is NOT what it's about.
There was a whole page story in the paper last week about this. Lots more information also. If i remember correctly it also says they just want to get it off the books and comcast wins anyway. The class action that is.
In the age of nearly instant information so should be instant disclosure of political contributions. So you can give as much as you want to whomever you want and the recipient must disclose it immediately and VERY publicly. For how many know Obama got more political contributions from Wall Street than his opponent in 2008? Or that Obama campaign outspent McCain 3 to 1 (on the magnitude of about $741 million to $260 million). People hate 'all the money' in politics when they lose, not so much when they win. John Corzine ( of MF Global infamy) spent $75 million of his personal fortune from Goldman Sachs getting elected US Senator (NJ)...was that wrong? In the current info age 30-40 year old campaign finance laws do not make sense. No one should hide their political contributions nor should they be hidden...we need 100% campaign financing disclosure not campaign finance limits.
