COMCAST WON’T LIKE me saying this. But I’m saying it anyway, because it’s true. Comcast is being a total dick right now.
For anyone who’s ever endured an unhelpful service call with the cable giant, that’s hardly a surprise. But this time, the dickishness could wind up costing local governments (and ultimately us, as taxpayers) millions of dollars.
Comcast is currently in talks with Portland and several nearby cities, working to renew the exclusive “franchise” agreement that gives it exclusive rights to peddle TV, phone, and internet service around these parts. But the current decade-plus contract is set to expire on December 31, and talks have not been going well. That’s why, last week, Portland became the latest agency to agree to an extension until June.
The problem? Some $3 million-plus that Comcast forks over every year—money that finances cable-access TV, along with fast and reliable broadband networks in government buildings, schools, and libraries.
Without that cash, cities might have to stop televising council meetings. A revolutionary video chat service for domestic violence victims at Portland’s Gateway Center could be in danger. And officials would have to buy slower, pricier service on the private market, from providers like, um, Comcast.
Those millions were a hard-fought prize the last time the cable franchise was up for discussion, in the 1990s—giving us perhaps the nation’s best deal with the Evil Empire, and separate from the $7 million in regular franchise fees that Comcast pays. But now, government negotiators say, Philadelphia-based Comcast is complaining about the economy’s toll on its profits. Never mind that its rates unfailingly rise (10 percent last year, city officials say), and that it had enough money to buy NBC.
When I called Comcast’s local spokeswoman, Theressa Davis, she seemed irked when I kept asking why Comcast deserves to shed the payment.
“It’s a competitive marketplace,” she told me. “I’m not going to speak specifically to different parts of the negotiation.”
But losing that extra money could mean “teachers and librarians getting laid off,” David Olson, Portland’s cable manager, told me after the city agreed to the extension last week.
Olson said the money doesn’t even come from Comcast’s bottom line. It passes the cost onto customers. So does that mean that rates might actually dip?
“I have several Willamette River bridges to sell you,” says Olson. All that will happen is that money that helps pay for [local services] will never be seen in this county again. And it will instead go to Philadelphia for public benefit projects like buying NBC.”
Comcast is notorious for providing shitty service, everyone who’s every recieved TV or internet service from them knows this! But folks don’t have much of a choice b/c 2 or 3 corps. are allowed to dominate this highly deregulated market. Don’t like CONcast, well, how about Qwest for internet? No what, Qwest has had dubious business practices before plus they’ll most likely be either dead or obsorbed by another corp. within a year. Clear? Spotty service, horendous customer service, probably total crooks. Oh, & i believe Clear has been bought out by CONcast anyways.
Who else provides internet?
@DamosA Stephouse, but they are only in N/NE and not my SE neighborhood yet!
Comcast are about as bad as you can get to show how terrible deregulation is for a market. Time for Portlanders to move to companies like Stephouse (a Portland company) and rebuild our own economy without Comcast screwing both us and the city.
Bravo Denis!
Thanks for your work here. Though I don’t have cable service, I was somewhat aware of the problem Comcast is for us Blazer fans as I head to the local pub for beer and a game.
(fuck…. Oden….)
You made me more aware of what’s goin on. Thanks.
Those bastards…..
The argument against Comcast is obvious: Competition is greatly reduced. So what is the argument FOR Comcast? Why are we so desperate to give them exclusive control of our entire cable network? To a layman like me it seems completely absurd and unjustified. We can’t really be put in this ridiculous position just because it funds cable access… right?
Speaking of internet, the new Republican house has plans to DO AWAY with Net Neutrality and open the internet wide to de-regulation, same as what was done with energy companies back in the 1990’s (resulting in CA’s rolling black-outs, Enron, & our own state being cheated out of hundreds of millions). If that happens, you can count on your web service being alot more shitty, & alot more expensive!
http://mediamatters.org/research/201004050…
Seems to me that funding for cable access is only good for and only furthers the needs of cable. Is it true public access? Do we without cable have access to such programing? I am unaware of it if we do. I may be more inclined towards the argument of benefits of cable access funding if it were broadcasted on a locally free access station, one over the airwaves for free. True public access is free and open to all. Cable access is just that, restricted to those with cable paid for programing. I hate that I live in SE 10 miles from downtown and cant get highspeed internet from anyone but Crapcast. I currently have Clear and as the name infers it only works when its clear outside. So that leaves 9 months of the year without reliable service!