Charter Claims NY Lawsuit Over Crappy Broadband Speeds Just An Evil, Netflix 'Cabal'
from the everybody's-to-blame-but-me dept
Early last year, Charter Spectrum was sued by New York State for selling broadband speeds the company knew it couldn't deliver. According to the original complaint (pdf), Charter routinely advertised broadband speeds executives knew weren't attainable -- while simultaneously refusing to upgrade their network to handle added consumer demand (a problem that only got worse in the wake of its merger with Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks).
Buried in the suit were all manner of interesting allegations, including claims that Charter executives discussed via e-mail how they hoped to manipulate congestion to drive up costs for companies like Netflix (you'll recall this was part of the whole interconnection slowdowns Netflix and companies like Level3 complained about a few years ago). The suit also highlights how Charter gamed the results of a program the FCC has traditionally used to measure real-world broadband speeds using custom-firmware embedded routers in consumer volunteer homes.
Charter has since been trying to tap dance out of the suit by flinging pretty much every legal argument against the wall to see what sticks. Most recently, the company tried to claim that the FCC's recent net neutrality repeal contains language banning states from trying to protect consumers. And while that was certainly the hope of Ajit Pai's FCC, legal experts have argued that the agency's claims don't hold water. More specifically, when the FCC rolled back its Title II authority over ISPs, it also ironically dismantled its legal authority to tell states what to do.
Amusingly, Charter has now shifted its argument to the claim that the entire lawsuiit is somehow part of an unholy cabal orchestrated by Google and Netflix. You might recall that ISPs (and Ajit Pai) have long tried to claim that the entrenched telecom monopolies are innocent daisies, and that net neutrality is simply a conspiracy concocted by Google and Netflix to ruin AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Charter's livlihood. This narrative has been routinely driven by ISP policy folks despite the fact net neutrality is very much a bipartisan, grassroots consumer welfare issue.
New York State brought in Tim Wu, the Columbia Law Professor who coined the term "net neutrality," to consult on the case. And because Wu had at points talked to both Google and Netflix (who were concerned that Charter was abusing its last-mile monopoly to drive up costs), Charter hopes to use this "unclean hands defense" to try and scuttle the lawsuit by claiming it was a vast conspiracy against Charter:
"Charter's unclean-hands defense is that Plaintiff actively conspired with private parties through Tim Wu (a leading critic of ISP business practices) to investigate and sue Time Warner Cable Inc.," he wrote. "Thus, Plaintiff delegated what should have been an objective law enforcement investigation to third parties whose pecuniary and political interests are adverse to TWC's, and who had preconceived notions of how and why to penalize TWC."
The letter then goes on to talk about documents produced by the other side that allegedly show how Wu and third parties "manufacture[d] fraud claims" and how his "co-conspirators boasted of having orchestrated Mr. Wu's work."
The names of the individuals who allegedly were in cahoots with Wu include Google's Meredith Whittaker, who in a 2015 email to a colleague, discussed having gotten off the phone with Wu about the NY AG consumer protection complaint and how it would frame interconnection as a consumer harm issue."
Of course since interconnection was a consumer harm issue that's not really substantive or damaging. Charter, a company that routinely uses its own funded think tanks to pollute public discourse and erode accountability is also upset that Wu happened to (gasp) talk to a think tank partially funded by Google:
"Charter is taking the notion of a "cabal" seriously, also pointing to communications with several individuals at the New America Foundation, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank."
Ironically, both Google and Netflix's interest in standing up for consumers on this subject has waned proportionally with their growing power over the years. Still, Netflix and Google had every right to be concerned about what Charter and other ISPs were up to, since they were effectively trying to use their last-mile broadband monopoly to unfairly jack up costs for consumers, content creators, and transit operators alike. That Wu corresponded with companies with legitimate anti-competitive concerns over what broadband monopolies are up to isn't likely to scuttle the case and has the faint whiff of desperation.
Charter's other legal efforts to derail the case haven't gone well so far, and it's unclear whether this latest gambit will work. But it's abundantly clear that Charter is particularly worried about the ramifications of this case, given they appear to have been caught on e-mail routinely lying to the public and regulators. As we've been noting, uncompetitive monopolies like Charter are working together to demolish FTC, FCC, and state authority over their businesses, and they're using every trick in the book to do so.
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: broadband speeds, cabal, consumer protection, new york, tim wu
Companies: charter, google, netflix
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You been corrupted also into Silence about the
arrest of Tommy Robertson like the rest of the big media conglomerates ?
Welcome to Big time ..................
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Though that level of logic thought and knowledge does handily represent Tommy's fanbase, from what I can see.
/s possibly, but you really, really can never tell at the minute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Sure it was a freedom of speech issue but they don't have that in the UK."
Um, yeah they do. It may be different to the US, but it's silly to say they just "don't have that".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
He was specifically trying to attack Muslims, which makes him a hero of the right-wing gutter press and the type of fool who believe what they read there...
In reality, he was found in contempt of court and given a suspended sentence, and is now being told to serve time for violating that sentence. He's also previously been charged for violent football hooliganism, common assault, passport fraud and other things. He's simply been convicted of actual thing he did, no conspiracy required.
But, he hates Muslims, which make him a poor innocent martyred hero for the weak of mind, and not a violent thug who happens to have struck a chord with similar knuckle draggers.
"ts a pretty low-traction story outside of the locality it occurred."
It's something to be aware of, but not necessarily on a tech-focussed site that occasionally covers stories regarding the law. Fun fact: these guys similarly complain when the site *does* cover non-tech and non-US stories.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do ya feel lucky Bennett?
Going to make another sad attempt at lying that I can disprove with some direct quotes and hard facts that you can't dispute, then run away and ignore everyone?
Go ahead, try again Richard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do ya feel lucky Bennett?
Respond to him when he shows up if you must, but this sort of comment just makes things worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Do ya feel lucky Bennett?
I know if I don't comment, he will show up for sure. Recent history has proven this.
But what if I call him out ahead of time? Will he still show up even though he knows someone is actively waiting to give him a beat down? Or will he not comment in the hope of throwing me off and catching me off guard on a future comment?
So yes, it's active troll-baiting, but he will show up regardless of whether I reply to him before or after.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Do ya feel lucky Bennett?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Do ya feel lucky Bennett?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Do ya feel lucky Bennett?
So if he shows up, I get to infuriate him even more, showing him to be even more of a shill and potentially distracting him from actually doing a good job of shilling. (Not to mention directly countering all of his lies with hard facts) If he doesn't show up, then nobody has to listen to his idiotic lies. Either way, I win.
And yes, if you're reading this Richard, congratulations, you've been playing right into my hand this whole time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Do ya feel lucky Bennett?
Lastly, picking on the retarded kid just makes you look bad. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do ya feel lucky Bennett?
That and he's now using my tag line I always poke him with against Karl because he thinks Karl is me.
The fact he thinks I'm Karl proves I at least got under his skin a little.
He's not actually a troll in the traditional sense. He runs his own garbage blog that is nothing but lies and misleading statements that blatantly shills for ISPs. Add to that the fact that he is on the board of advisers to the FCC on broadband policy.
He isn't trying to troll anyone (in the traditional sense), he either genuinely believes what he is saying or is being paid money to spout this stuff off in an attempt to discredit anyone who doesn't breathlessly support ISP shenanigans. When I post with hard facts directly contradicting him, he loses with egg on his face and I win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do ya feel lucky Bennett?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do ya feel lucky Bennett?
Ok, I have to know because this has been bugging me for a while, what is with the hate against anonymous commenters?
Why do some people start foaming at the mouth whenever an AC posts a comment and demand they create an account? I literally do not understand and it does not make me more inclined to create one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do ya feel lucky Bennett?
Why do some people start foaming at the mouth whenever an AC posts a comment and demand they create an account? I literally do not understand and it does not make me more inclined to create one.
Given the tell it contained the comment you responded to was almost certainly from Blue, a raging hypocrite who happens to have an obsession with tracking comments by people(which requires them to have an account) to see if someone else is as obsessive as them about TD I guess.
Other than that afraid I don't recall offhand seeing any AC hate elsewhere. Various hallucinations about TD staff commenting as AC's yes, AC hate not so much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do ya feel lucky Bennett?
And usually it comes up once the thread is a few comments deep and they are getting pounded. So I figure it has to do with tracking or revenge or something but I just can't understand how that would help them at all either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do ya feel lucky Bennett?
Ah, in that case my guess would be it's simply an attempt to discredit the AC handing out said pounding. If they can't refute what's being said then they attack the one saying it, in that case by trying to imply that no AC could possibly have something important to say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@ fanatic "AC" who probably IS a Techdirt administrator, based
WHY, OH WHY, should "Richard Bennett" even bother commenting when YOU just showed 'dirters are fools, and that ad hom ranting is all anyone reasonable will ever get here?
Netwit.
[You know, I used to think that mention would reduce, but no one has ever reduced the sheer stupid baiting, in advance of any remarks, and other mention of those they deem "trolls", done by TD fanboys. The only conclusion possible -- from 9 years of watching in horror these drooling idiots -- is that TD and its fanboys want and need targets for ad hom.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ fanatic "AC" who probably IS a Techdirt administrator, based
I'll use this as evidence in future. -- Just in case this nags the sneaks and causes it to be "hidden", as they euphemize censoring here at TD, it's NOT now at: 09:42 Pacific.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ fanatic "AC" who probably IS a Techdirt administrator, based
Oooo braggadocio, I like it. That's my new word of the day.
Regarding everything else, I called him a shill because all of his posts do nothing BUT shill for ISPs. He even blatantly lies in their favor. If that's not being a shill, then please explain what is.
Also not an admin but keep thinking that, it makes me laugh.
As for stupidity, please, do tell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @ fanatic "AC" who probably IS a Techdirt administrator, based
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nitwit*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Do ya feel lucky Bennett?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do ya feel lucky Bennett?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Do ya feel lucky Bennett?
Ironically though, this should be clearcut evidence to disprove all the troll claims that TD is "censoring" their comments. If they were right, then my post shouldn't have been hidden, yet it was.
Also of note, Richard did not show up in the comments at all. Unless you count the one AC, though there is debate on whether it was blue or Richard. Interesting data for the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Professor who coined the term "net neutrality,"
It used to be called "network neutrality" .... when did that ever change?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Professor who coined the term "net neutrality,"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Film at eleven.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, like Netflix DOESN'T use up major bandwidth!
Evidently New York State, the home base of liberals and corporatists (which used to be political opposites but are now merged into "neo-liberal" as here at TD!), just FLUNG IN every charge could imagine. YOU then smear: "Charter has since been trying to tap dance out of the suit by flinging pretty much every legal argument against the wall to see what sticks." -- Isn't that what you'd do in a lawsuit against "allegations", "claims"?
"companies like Netflix" use MOST of the bandwidth and so SHOULD be charged proportionately. Wouldn't that actually be "neutral"? Direct ratio, rather than customers who check email subsidizing a giant corporation? HMM?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, like Netflix DOESN'T use up major bandwidth!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, like Netflix DOESN'T use up major bandwidth!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, like Netflix DOESN'T use up major bandwidth!
So what you're really saying is you want ISPs to be able to charge different rates to customers based on what type of content they use their connection for, thereby introducing paid fast and slow lanes for web content, locking down the internet behind high prices, all while lining their own greedy pockets with arbitrary and discriminatory pricing packages.
No thanks. I pay for a dumb pipe and that's all it should ever be. As soon as it isn't, that's when the open internet dies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, like Netflix DOESN'T use up major bandwidth!
They use bandwidth I paid for and asked them to deliver their content through. Your point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh, like Netflix DOESN'T use up major bandwidth!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, like Netflix DOESN'T use up major bandwidth!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You know, blue, there's honestly not shame in admitting that your best (read: only) method of fighting piracy is to fuck over all the customers that use legal services that they paid for. It's how you do things. CDs that ruin your computers, the RIAA calling up kindergartens to intimidate random children.
Isn't that what you'd do in a lawsuit against "allegations", "claims"?
Which you pissed and moaned about it when Techdirt was fighting off your hero Shiva. Sucks, don't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, like Netflix DOESN'T use up major bandwidth!
They are already charged proportionately, as are the customers who use their services. Both sides are charged according agreed limits to their respective ISP contracts. Your heroes are just trying to get the bandwidth paid for a 3rd time, along with demanding extra payment to export money from businesses who wish to compete with their own internal services.
It's funny isn't it, how people like you to try and use words like "fair" to describe blackmail and extortion?, and how you desperately try to change the definition of neutrality to pretend you're not on the side of the con artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Entertaining
If this goes one way or another..It will influence Every case in every state from here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Look, a distraction!'
I find it telling that they seem to have completely abandoned defending what they did and are instead trying to put all the focus on what the people going after them did(or at least what Charter claims they did).
Almost as though they know that they are guilty of what they're being accused of, and therefore cannot defend their actions, and are trying to shift the focus away from them so they won't have to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In America, There Is No Such Thing As “Bipartisan”
*Try saying that quickly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]