Comcast sued the City of San Jose, seeking a preliminary injuncti...

Dist. Court, San Jose, that the city was seeking to impose “multiple and illegal conditions” relating to institutional networks (I-NETs) and public, educational and govt. (PEG) channels. The company also objected to the city’s appointing a 3rd-party hearing officer to conduct the administrative renewal proceeding and delegating to that officer the power to make recommendations on renewal to the City Council. That “effectively has taken the decision on renewal out of the hands of the City Council, thereby denying Comcast the procedural protections” under the Cable Act, it said. The Center for Digital Democracy (CDD) called the suit the latest “political maneuver” by cable to have courts support the industry’s First Amendment rights as “paramount over the public rights.” It charged Comcast with using a “specious” First Amendment argument as a weapon, “hoping that the courts will foolishly confuse the entertainment conglomerate’s bundle of programming channels as the equivalent of a serious newsgathering operation worthy of greater constitutional protection.” Cable wants to limit the ability of local govts. to use the franchise process to require that some portion of broadband networks are set aside for the public, it said. Comcast had to file a protective lawsuit because it was faced with a 120-day deadline to challenge the procedural aspects of the renewal, Exec. Vp- Gen. Counsel Terry Bienstock said. The city had a budget crisis that was independent of the company, he said, and “they did not have time to spend on cable.” By the time the city officials resumed discussions it was a week before the deadline, he said. The company told the city that if issues “weren’t resolved it would have to file a protective lawsuit. They were totally fine with it. So we filed this lawsuit but we continue talking to them.” Bienstock said Comcast and the city remained committed to resolving the outstanding issues.