Comcast Says Its Sudden Love Of The Poor Is Just Altruistic 'Serendipity,' In No Way Tied To Wanting Merger Approval
from the really-really-really-genuine dept
To get its acquisition of NBC Universal approved, Comcast proposed a merger condition requiring the company provide $10 broadband to select low-income families in its footprint for three years. The company has gleaned endless PR traction from the "Internet Essentials" program, launching and re-launching the effort in school district after school district with a string of photo ops featuring Comcast's top lobbyist (uh, "Chief Diversity Officer") David Cohen standing among a sea of smiling childrens' faces. Of course in typical Comcast fashion the company made it intentionally hard to qualify and sign up for.To get the offer you need to qualify for the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), can't currently have or had Comcast service in the last 90 days, and can't owe Comcast money. Given the latter two are pretty common among the poor, many folks were disqualified out of the gate. Critics also pointed out that Comcast wasn't advertising the program (outside of press junkets designed to congratulate itself), so many poor families had no idea it existed. A year or two ago these concerns resulted in some street protests in Comcast's hometown of Philadelphia.
Since then Comcast has made some modest tweaks to the program, including a limited-time "amnesty" offer for past due balances. Not surprisingly, the company is again using the program as the centerpiece of its attempt to get its Time Warner Cable acquisition approved by regulators. And once again, critics are saying that Comcast's love of the poor is a lot of hot air used to push through deals that overall will hurt the poor by exacerbating the industry's competitive woes:
"Yet programs by Comcast and other cable companies offering cheap Internet aren’t benefiting enough low-income families, critics say. Comcast’s Internet Essentials, the biggest, has reached 350,000 households -- or about 13 percent of those eligible, according to one estimate. Cox Communications Inc., which has the capacity to provide service to 10 million homes, reports 15,000 subscribers. Time Warner Cable dropped its $9.95 offer after a year. The programs have tight eligibility criteria and balky signup procedures, where they exist at all, its detractors say.Over the years Comcast has gotten amusingly indignant whenever anybody dares try to suggest that Comcast's restrictive low-income programs are anything other than pure altruism. Earlier this year Cohen breathlessly told the Washington Post that you can criticize Comcast for a lot of things, but that its love of the poor wasn't one of them:
"Everybody would like to pretend they’re doing something," said Harold Feld, senior vice president with the Washington-based policy group Public Knowledge. "Cable has not done anything real in this space."
"This makes me sigh,” Comcast Executive Vice President David Cohen said in an interview. “You can criticize us for data consumption caps. You can criticize us because cable bills are too high. You can criticize us because the acquisition of Time Warner Cable will make us too big. I can understand that. But every once in a while, even a big company does a good thing for the right reasons."Fast forward to this month and again, Comcast tells Bloomberg that the fact it decided to love the poor right around the time it wanted something from government wasn't self-serving, it was "serendipity":
"Comcast was considering a program like Internet Essentials before presenting it to the FCC, said Charlie Douglas, a spokesman for the Philadelphia-based company. He called it “a serendipity of timing."Which is funny, given that I specifically remember a 2012 Washington Post love letter to David Cohen in which Cohen clearly points out the program was always designed to curry favor with regulators, but was delayed specifically to get approval for its NBC acquisition.
I'm not looking to pooh pooh the program completely, given that 350,000 households getting cheap broadband is at least something. But Internet Essentials is just one glaring example of how a company like Comcast is allowed to draft its own flimsy merger conditions, which amusingly even then it often struggles to adhere to. That's in stark contrast to regulators actually doing their jobs and drafting tough but sensible policies that encourage competition, ultimately driving broadband prices down for the benefit of everybody.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: david cohen, internet essentials, merger, poor
Companies: comcast, nbc universal, time warner cable
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
What BS!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What BS!
Since I've completely cut the cord I said no, thanks and kept my current provider who offer nothing but internet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dear Mr. Cohen
...and I can criticize you for cravenly using the poor as a bargaining chip.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What BS!
Though Comcast makes a profit at this price because broadband is absurdly profitable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Broken Link
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Damn.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Title II won't solve it either, but will at least limit the duopoly players on how much they charge businesses and residents to access their monopoly on last-mile network infrastructure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
My horrifying experience with Comcast
Recently I was a blogger on CNBC's website. As a day trader I hung out "there" and commented on articles, shot the b.s. with others, and so on. Daily for many months. There were two particular bloggers on there who treated one section of the site as their own property and, often with the aid of plenty of sockpuppets, harrassed and insulted any blogger who made a comment they didn't like or that disagreed with one of their posts. They drove most good bloggers off the site pretty quickly. I stuck around and tried to engage in rational debate. Pointless. Tried to ignore them but after a while it got old and (a little regretfully) I began to throw there own b.s. back at them (the two dbags.) It wasn't hard to "win" arguments with these knuckleheads.
As it turned out, they were both somewhat wealthy, retired traders (one in Maryland, one in Texas.) Much of the criticism aimed at these dbags concerned the extraordinary levels of self-entitlement -- when others weren't "rubbing it in" after I or someone else ripped on them over some new arrogant dbaggery.
The two couldn't handle that and began firing off letters to CNBC's management "Comcast investors" whatever that means (their words), with the intent of getting me "banned." It became clear that they really were doing that -- their were a few rumblings from CNBC on the site about "censorship" being bad. But they persisted and elevated it -- they would tell us all about their latest attempts to manipulate CNBC/Comcast right there on the blog. Eventually they claimed to have gotten phone calls from CNBC's attorney asking about what was going on. And then assured us that the attorney called to let them know he'd hired private investigators to investigate -- ME! (and the implication was that they'd agreed to stop sending mail to "Comcast investors." I can't imagine what these two dbags told them.
I didn't really believe that but within a week, there was an unmarked green sedan with FL plates parked in front of my small office -- a really intimidating looking guy would just sit in the car all day, with handcuffs hanging from the rear-view window.
Another guy, also kind of intimidating looking, did the same at my apartment. Blue sedan. I thought it couldn't have anything to do with me, just coincidence or something. After a time I thought perhaps I should call the police but instead approached the green sedan.
A black male, maybe early 30s, got out of the sedan and in a very threatening manner said to me, "You better watch what the f*$* you say on the web."
I was speechless for a moment, as he turned to get back in his car. I yelled "Who hired you?" He didn't respond. But I never saw his car of the blue car again. I got the green sedan's license plate number (never got the blue car's) and paid a P.I. to check it out. He said the owner was a licensed P.I. from Florida and that the guy had a bad reputation as a "goon."
Really freaked me out. I started lurking on CNBC (not posting) using Tor. The two dbags were no claiming victory. "They found him," one posted. The other kept posting undetailed thank you's to CNBC's attorney by name.
Another blogger who knew the two dbags posted their names on the site after they turned on her (they had shared identities etc by email.) They got pretty upset about that so I knew it was probably true. My P.I. checked them out -- one was a former FCC attorney, retired. The other a former honcho at HP, retired.
I posted on the site that I intended to sue them. They laughingly challenged me to prove it and I told them I had all I needed to tie CNBC to the threats/stalking, and that subpoenas/testimony/deposition would prove it.
Then they got pretty worried, stopped being dicks, sort of apologized without admitting anything, and changed their screen names and laid low a while.
Needless to say, I was done with CNBC/Comcast/ADELPHIA/etc(check out Comcast's holdings -- these guys seem to love buying up company's with a history of criminality.)
Currently looking for an attorney to take it pro bono. Can't afford the cash for this that a few attorneys quoted me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Dear Mr. Cohen
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Broken Link
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I don't understand how this is something worth special commendation when "Internet Plus" with Comcast gets you 25 mbps for $40 per month. If you factor in there not being rental charges for hardware on the internet essentials program, but about a $10 per month charge on most other programs, the "Internet Plus" program becomes $50 per month for up to 25 Mbps.
Both programs offer you 1 mbps : $2 per month. So, is Internet Essentials a deal, or just a means for poor people to buy Comcast's service while at the same time allowing Comcast to keep richer customers from buying a small serving of Internet if that's what they wanted.
Note, anything more expensive than "Internet Plus" has a much better ratio of Mbps to monthly dollars spent. The "Internet Plus with Blast" gets you 50 Mbps for $50 per month (before equipment rental charges), much close to 1 Mbps: $1 per month with the added benefit of TV channels as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I found it on a radio public notice. I applied for it and it was shortly cancelled to raise the price as the program was ending. Never did get the claimed price advertised on the radio. It pretty much came out to be bait and switch.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Dear Mr. Cohen
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Comcast are liars ... plain & simple
http://bgr.com/2014/12/30/why-is-comcast-so-bad-30/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If you think this is bad, check out Centurylink's Internet Basics
CenturyLink’s Internet Basics: Not Living Up to Its Potential
Link: http://bit.ly/1CVScV8
[ link to this | view in thread ]