"The company has no current plans to buy up smaller providers and/or competitors"

Not yet at least, but since they have the go ahead on growing they might. Say goodbye to city/town owned providers.

They are going to buy real soon.... market is great for it! FiOS is being installed any day for me now.... can't wait!

So what if they own more then 30%.
As long as I get internet and cable, I don't care.

I thought first amendment rights related to interaction with the government...how does a relationship between a customer and a private company fit into that?

Wow, I love my First Amendment rights, but it's been a good while since I've seen such a blatant misuse and abuse of these staples of common freedom.

@Colonel Jack O'Neill:
Have fun with those caps!

So? Cable's a luxury, and not critical infrastructure, like, say, the power grid or the natural gas system. So, let them have a national monopoly and charge as much as they like and be as crappy as they want to be.

@dragonfire81: Corporations won the right to be treated essentially as individual citizens in 1886. Thus practices such as establishing a corporate monopoly are defended under the guise of exercising their constitutional rights (in this case they invoke the first).

[en.wikipedia.org]

It's a bad practice but it is valid under current law.

Balthisar, you actually like crappy TV? Strange.

This is another reason why consumers should be able to opt IN (vs. having to try to opt out) to marketing intrusions, preferably by category. For example, if I decide that I want to buy a new laptop computer I can check a 'home computer' or 'laptop' box that will allow corresponding companies to send me materials and/or call me if I've provided a phone number. Companies in unchecked categories have to leave me alone. If any computer company becomes a nuisance to me with their marketing I can enter them as an exception and then they also have to leave me alone.

I can dream, can't I?

I have a feeling that a lot of folks are going to be hearing from Comcast soon, and then over and over again.

@sqlrob: The comcast 250GB cap sure as hell beats the stuff Time Warner is trying to do.

That said, you're right that caps are evil.

@balthisar: Broadband is a critical infrastructure though, and that's what you need to worry about here.

@sqlrob: What caps? I have Comcast as a cable and internet provider and I have never once had my internet usage capped; even when I didn't have cable TV service with them and watched everything via the internet (official network websites, Fancast, Hulu, Netflix online & at home, etc.). There has been no mention or even a peep of Comcast thinking about capping service/connection while I do know that the local cable/internet company down the road does have tiered internet access and it does have caps they will enforce if they feel that your use is "excessive".

@savdavid: I think he means is Comcast has a right to be crappy.

I hate cable more than life itself. I had to move from house to an appartment and can no longer have DirectTV. I use to have NFL Sunday ticket and NFL network and many more channels for less money than what I pay for Time Warner Cable. My picture quality is terrible and until last fall wasn't able to have the Big Ten Network because of Time Warner. I would even switch to something like ATT TV but it is not available in my area. From what I have read Comcast is just as bad as Time Warner and then the FCC goes and does this? Crazy that the same companies that wanted ATT broken up are the companies that are now skirting the law so this is progress? What about my first admendment right, shouldn't I have the ability to choose from all the TV providers and then pick which one I want, wouldn't that be true competition? Last line said Comcast currently doesn't have any plans to expand thier customers but I'm sure this ruling will change their mind. America has turned into a country of the rich ruling elite and the average person gets screwed again.

How about we eliminate this franchising crap for cable, and I might be OK with this.

The fact that despite 4 cable companies operating in the New York metro area, I'm locked to Comcast is frustrating. I don't really see satellite/FIOS as competition so much as an alternative. If I want to stay with cable, why can't I switch to another cable company? (Yes, I realize there is likely some technology limitations in place, but because of franchising rules other companies can't even run their lines to offer service).

I am looking at moving into the city proper next year, and different sections of the city are served by different providers. I'm actually considering this as part of my move, in what cable will be offered (e.g. I hear horrid things about Time Warner).

So, yay? that they can expand past 30%, but let's eliminate the rules that count, which are the ones that allow cities / towns to decide who their cable provider is.

Really, the title of this post should read: "Comcast Wins Right For Any Cable Company To Own More Than 30% Of Cable Market"

Gramted, they're in a better position to do that than their competitors, but it's a little misleading to imply that the courts ruled on this for Comcast's benefit only.

@arstal:
I'm not sure I agree. If Broadband simply went away tomorrow, what would the fallout be? Would it be even close to the fallout if electricity went away? Or if water distribution went away? Or even if gas (natural or otherwise) distribution went away? I certainly agree that it would be horrible; personally, I would probably just find the closest bridge and jump. But I'm not sure I'm willing to put it on the same footing as electricity and water. I imagine a period of chaos, but it's really only a 10 year or so setback. Losing electricity is a 100 year setback.

Honestly, I'm probably on the fence here; but if I was forced to jump to either side I'd probably go with non-critical.

@VvsK: What? Where have you been for the last 8 years?

@rit: Pick an antenna. I have and am very happy.

@supercereal: Cowering in a Y2K bunker?

@supercereal: Last 8 years were spent suppressing them.

@rit:
Don't you feel like that's stepping on the toes of the states/municipalities and their rights to run things as they see fit? The people of those states are free to push their elected officials to get rid of the franchise system (some have), but I don't think it's the federal government's place to tell the states what to do here.

@rit: Franchising is necessary because infrastructure, like the cable network, is a natural monopoly. Running all that cable and installing the associated equipment is a huge up-front cost, one the companies wouldn't pay without a guarantee of exclusive access to the customers they wired up. The franchise authorities really exist to protect consumers; they're there to say that if a company wants to keep its monopoly, it has to maintain minimum service levels and improve the available service. The problem is that the consumer-focused nature of the franchise system has been lost and they basically rubber-stamp whatever the cable companies want.

See the cell networks for what happens when companies actually try to build competing infrastructure. It ends up pretty ugly and barely functional.

How the hell does comcast's first amendment right be violated. Its not even a person, its a soulless company.

@rit: i happen to like time warner (ignore the fact that it took them 3 months to realize that i had 15 year old cable in my ground, causing bad digital cable reception, an additional month to lay a new cable, then 2 more to bury it... also, each time they came out, they did some digging, cutting my electric fence line each time. but they were good and paid the repair bill we sent each time)

Wonder how much Comcast stock the judge's golf buddies have.

'Free speech' my ass. Cable companies are government backed local service monopolies. If I could choose between TWC, Comcast, and Cox for a given area that would be something else entirely.

I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but I know there's a lot of precedent behind the idea that commercial speech doesn't receive the same Constitutionally-protected First Amendment rights that are given to private citizens. Not that precedent is hard-and-fast law, but it's interesting (and to me, scary) for a judge to find otherwise. Oh well, the writing's been on the wall for quite some time when it comes to corporate structures having the same if not better rights as private citizens.

@bigd7387: When it comes right down to it all of them are pretty crappy. They don't want to provide you entertainment, they just want you to give them your money. Competition is a great thing, but you always have to remember that the competition is probably just as bad as what you already have.

I switched from AT&T to Comcast. Why? Not because they have superior service. Simply because they offered me more for less. Frankly, they're about the same as AT&T. Don't get me wrong. I don't condone it, but you can't get away from it. Good customer service is (for the most part) a thing of the past.

@Esquire99:

If people can't play Team Fortress 2, you're gonna see an alarming increase in the number of people stabbed in the back by people they thought were their friends.

@rit: my first place was cablevision territory, and that was sucktastic. we didn't have cable, just internet at my second place which was time warner. the truth is, they are all evil. once the promo rate goes away, the price just keeps going up and up and up and up.

Comcast is a victim of its own success, spreading quickly but not paying any attention to quality of service or customer service at all.

I hate Comcast and that it's my only cable/internet option.

@Communist Pope:
Commercial speech is still protected, but less so. The government has a lesser burden to meet if they wish to suppress it, but it's still protected speech. A private citizen engaging in "commercial speech" doesn't have the same protection that one does when engaged in non-commercial speech. It's not the speaker that matters, it's the content of the speech. Corporations are legal entities and in many ways are treated just like a person. I personally don't see anything wrong with that.

@scoosdad: You might want to ask yourself whether or not "Betty put butter on the bread" means the same thing as "Betty buttered the bread"?

There is an easy solution here. Dump Cable. I don't know anyone who has to have cable for work or anything like that, and 500+ channels of trash will gum up your brain.

Dump Cable, switch to HULU.

@dallasmay:
If the shows you like aren't available via Hulu or any other wesbsite, dumping cable isn't a viable option.

I do, however, agree with your comment about paying for so many channels. Since I only watch about eight different channels, it bothers me to pay for so many because the channels I watch are on different "tiers".

@dallasmay: For most people its more about the internet access than the channels.

Fiber Optics like Verizon would provide legitimate competition, if only the states granting franchise licenses to Verizon would compel them to have the network built out before granting the license to operate. In New Jersey, Verizon got an approval for a statewide cable franchise without a mandate to provide the service statewide. Instead of granting a statewide license for a service offered only to a few select municipalities, NJ should have told Verizon to seek municipal licenses until they were prepared to offer the service statewide.

@chapoec: Actually corporations are people.

[en.wikipedia.org]

The Court was absolutely correct on the monopoly question. I don't care how I get/from whom I get a sufficient digital signal, only that there is a reasonable shot at some competition to provide it to me.

@balthisar: You.. do.. realize that 25% is not a monopoly.. right? I mean.. I know I'm not the best at math but 25% is less than 100% right? Maybe?

@karmaghost: They have this thing called 'satellite', which directly competes with all markets that Comcast is also involved in. If Comcast is evil and you hate it so much, check out the alternative!

thanks a fucking lot court system, now they will likely buy Charter which is the only cable provider in my area and consequently going bankrupt.

I'll take the evil I know thank you.

@Radi0logy: You can have 25% of the national market, but 100% of the local one.

Under Comcast's interpretation of first amendment rights, any restriction on monopolies would not be allowed. That is just patently stupid. What else would be a violation on first amendment rights under Comcast's logic - fraud, threatening to kill someone, inciting a riot, propositioning someone for prostitution...

And yes, the first amendment is meant to protect the right to POLITICAL speech, not the right to say anything you want.

@Eat A Peach: Like the other poster said, Comcast's cap is 250GB and you'd better keep track of it because they don't warn you before you hit it (I think they give you one warning if you pass it, and if you do it again they terminate you permanently)

@Esquire99: The economy would suffer. Newegg, Amazon, eBay, Google, and many other companies would suffer, and result in layoffs.

@rit: Fios isn't competition. It blows cable right out of the water. On Comcrap I paid $70 for a 10/1 connection, and usually got 4mbps/200kbps. On Fios, I'm paying $60 for a 25/25 connection, and getting anywhere from 24/24 to 30/30 depending on the time of day.