Court lets monopoly complaint against Comcast go forward
A long-running antitrust complaint by Comcast customers is working its way through federal courts
Court lets monopoly complaint against Comcast go forward
Joseph N. DiStefano
Comcast customers who sued the Philadelphia-based company back in 2003, alleging the Philadelphia cable company set up an illegal "monopoly" in Philadelphia and other markets when it bought the former Lenfest and AT&T cable operations, among others, have "demonstrated that this case can proceed as a class action," the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia ruled Wednesday. Case is USDC E.Pa. 03-6604, read the ruling here.
Comcast's challenges to whether its customers in major metro regions really form a valid class failed to convince the judges to throw out the complaint, which had been certified as a class action by the district court. The customers' complaint also says
Comcast lawyer Michael S. Shuster of Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the court's opinion, or whether Comcast would appeal.
The Comcast customers and their lawyers aren't asking for the company to be broken up. They want money: Lawyer Barry Barnett of Texas-based Susman Godfrey LLP, who represents the customers, told me experts for his clients estimated damages at $876 million just for Philadelphia-area Comcast customers in 2009, and similar complaints are pending for Comcast customers in Boston and Chicago. Any award eventually made by federal courts could be tripled, he added, under the federal Sherman Antitrust Act.
Comcast earned $3.6 billion in profits last year. The company has argued that it is not a monopoly since Americans can view some of its programs and services on broadcast TV and rival Internet services. Legal Intelligencer wrote about this case Aug. 25 (subscription).
Comcast and Verizon have bought the FCC, lock, stock and barrel. Both have been allowed to make billions as their oligopoly ate up all competition. One former FCC commissioner now has fat, no work job with Comcast in return for her votes. Crony capitalism at its very worst. The public has been screwed with its pants on...again!— The Monk- Former mayor Ed Rendell and City Council, at the time the agreement with the city was signed, should also be defendants in this suit. Along with Comcast, they blocked other vendors in the city. The famous words of Rendell were "This is Comcast country."— phillynews
- Break them up.— foghelmut
- Lovely, another Lawyer who does not care about us opens up a class action and makes tons and tons of money and we all might get lucky to see 6 dollars. And this represents our interests how?— BearKat
- This is correct. Subscribers will be lucky to get a free PPV movie while these huge law firms will reap millions of dollars supplied by the same subscribers who think Comcast is ripping them off.
- What happened to Al la carte, which was supposed to allow us to pick which channels we wanted without all the other garbage? Many apartment buildings are wired for Comcast and must have a majority to allow Verizon FIOS (which I hear of nightmares too!)to be installed at great initial cost. I say a mandatory significant reduction in rates for a year or so.— Not1ofYouPeople
- I thought broadcast TV has been taken offline? That's one less medium. And isn't the largest, high speed network in the area Comcast as well? Doesn't that somehow contradict the ability to view material on other mediums if one doesn't exist and one is delivered by the same medium that is making internet available? No FIOS in Philly and DSL and satellite don't really count anymore.— jnyfive
- Wow, there are a lot of [...] people posting here. First of all, Comcast is the best company in Philadelphia. We NEED Comcast. Second of all, Comcast is in no way a monopoly today - and when it was 20 years ago that's because of how regulated the government is. There are so many alternate ways to get content and access today.
As for a la carte, a la carte would effectively destroy most cable networks. They simply couldn't survive with that model because people would only buy the major channels like ESPN, CNN, TBS, and USA.— NickFromGermantown - Break them Up. Interns are printing legal cash in the basement at 17th and Arch.— Tyrone Biggums
- Agreed Nick. If you don't like them then go get a dish and shut up. They pay more in taxes than any other Phila company and employ more than any other also.— Flyboy24
- So what you are saying Nick is that the only thing keeping Comcast afloat is them selling us a bunch of channels we don't want? Why not get rid of the channels not carrying their own weight and replace them with better ones? So by your way of thinking when I go to the supermarket to buy milk the store should be able to also force me to buy bananas too because no one would buy bananas if given the option of not having to.— TheyCallMeBruce
- No, I am not saying that is the only thing keeping Comcast afloat. You clearly have no understanding of how the industry operates. What you have to understand is that content CARRIERS (e.g. cable companies) are made to buy packages of content from content PROVIDERS (e.g. cable networks). A company like Disney comes to a company like Comcast and says you have to buy ABC Family if you want ESPN. Don't hate Comcast's video operations. You should take your issues up with the content providers.
The content providers themselves would have no reason to innovate and take chances if a la carte pricing was in effect because the stakes would be too high. Channels that are introduced almost can't hold their own weight initially.
And your conclusion with the the supermarket analogy is flawed. And it's not even flawed at the level that a supermarket's fundamental business is different than that of a cable company. You didn't account that the pricing of goods in a supermarket is meant cover spoiled and stolen goods. Do you expect that since you only want to buy non-spoiled and non-stolen goods that you should pay a lower price than everyone else?— NickFromGermantown - Dont worry, Obama wont allow the DOJ to go after Comcast for an illegal monopoly...just like Obama fails to enforce immigration laws. What a joke.— Citizenc92
- Right, Citizen, because Comcast didn't exist before the President was elected. What a joke. Either way, whatever happened to the order that Comcast had to let satellite have CSN and the Comcast Network?— HandNik
- A la carte will never happen, with ANY provider. ALL providers (not just Comcast) have to pay extremely high fees to the networks to carry them. To sell channels a la carte would put ALL providers out of business. It's not a smart business move. And for all of you who think Comcast is a monopoly, consider this: In Philadelphia, for video programming, you can choose Comcast, Verizon FiOS, Dish, or DirecTV. For Internet, you can choose from Comcast, Verizon and Clear, not to mention all of the services available through mobile phone providers. And for landline telephone service, there's Comcast, Verizon, Clear, and hell, even MagicJack! And for all of you *geniouses* who love to cry about Comcast SportsNet, it's available with FiOS too! (I checked). And, to Flyboy's point, if you did any research at all you would see that Comcast employs over 100,000 people. Having a company like that headquartered in Philadelphia is great for the local economy. Come on people, wake up and pull your heads out of your rears.— broadstbullies419
