Charter CEO Apparently Unaware He Runs One Of The Most Despised Companies In America
from the ill-communication dept
As we recently noted, New York state was forced to take some pretty dramatic steps in its quest to hold Charter Spectrum accountable for terrible service and its failure to adhere to merger conditions affixed to its $79 billion union with Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks. The short version: the company was found to be repeatedly misleading regulators in terms of whether it was adhering to some relatively modest built out requirements affixed to the merger.
Under the deal, Charter was supposed to expand broadband to around 149,000 additional unserved homes across New York State. Charter not only failed to do that, the New York State Public Service Commission repeatedly found that the company was actively trying to mislead regulators in terms of how much of that work was actually completed. After ample warnings and $3 million in fines, the PSC last week took the unprecedented step of voting 4-0 to revoke the company's cable franchise in the state in a bid to force Charter to shape up or ship out.
Charter, for its part, is showing absolutely zero interest in doing so. In a letter to employees, Charter CEO Tom Rutledge stated that the company is gearing up for years of litigation. Litigation that will, apparently, not deter the company from continuing to pursue the company's nonexistent reputation for excellence:
"We intend to defend our rights to the fullest extent of the law and will pursue all avenues for overturning and preventing implementation of the New York Public Service Commission order. There may be years of litigation before we prove that we have done what we said we would. If we can’t settle this in the meantime, it is important that we continue to live up to our obligations and to perform well.
Charter continues to grow in New York State and across our footprint, providing our customers with world-class products and services. Our day-to-day focus on excellence and craftsmanship remains the same."
Charter is, as we've noted repeatedly, literally one of the least-liked companies in any industry in America. Customer Satisfaction surveys like the American Customer Satisfaction Index rate Charter worse than countless, notoriously terrible industries including the airline, banking, and insurance sectors. It even routinely ranks lower than even the IRS and other historically-maligned sectors of the American government. This terrible service is a major reason why New York State had already filed a seperate lawsuit against the company for routinely advertising services it fails to deliver.
That Charter is widely seen as a terrible company is, apparently, news to Rutledge, who on the company's earnings call with the media and analysts insisted that the nation's second-biggest cable company is generally quite well liked by its customers:
"To put it in perspective, we’re operating in 41 states, we have thousands of franchise agreements, and generally we have good relationship with the communities we serve," Rutledge added. "We live up to our commitments and we have in New York State; in fact we’re well ahead of our obligations in terms of speed upgrades and in the build-out itself."
Yes, "good relationships" like the one Charter enjoys in Lexington Kentucky, where city officials were forced to hold an unprecedented, emergency community meeting to discuss precisely what the city should do about the company's terrible and worsening service. And the clearly stellar relationships Rutledge forged when he, the highest paid executive in America in 2016, oversaw rate hikes as high as 35% in countless markets directly post merger. Check out this "good relationship," for example:
"It was bull crap,” Fitzgerald said. “They don’t give us any notice, they just spring it on us in the middle of the month. And then they tell us we’re getting an ‘upgrade.’ This isn’t an upgrade, it’s the same channels we already had!”
Rutledge is, of course, playing dumb here. He knows the company he runs is widely despised. He also knows, especially thanks to a growing monopoly over broadband, that angry consumers often have little to no recourse when it comes to terrible service. Outside of building their own local broadband networks, of course, something Charter lobbyists have ensured isn't an option thanks to protectionist laws passed in 21 states (hooray for empty lip service to free markets!) written by and lobbied for by incumbent ISPs.
Granted New York State isn't likely to kick Charter out of the state if the company simply settles and agrees to comply with merger conditions it already signed off on. Most legal wonks and consumer advocates I've spoken to think that's how this fight ends, especially should Charter struggle early to gain any legal traction.
But the company's hubris and tone deafness remains on pretty proud display, falsely-inflated courtesy of a Trump FCC that has made it clear it's a glorified rubber stamp for telecom monopoly bad ideas (like oh, killing net neutrality, consumer privacy protections, and downplaying competitive concerns). In the interim, the customers Charter has such a "good relationship" with continue to depart (another it lost another 57k cable TV customers last quarter) to cheaper streaming alternatives actually interested in giving consumers what they're asking for.
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, new york, tom rutledge
Companies: charter, charter spectrum
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
ISPs
Still, Karl Bode insists on calling them ISPs.
Sorry, Karl, us ISPs resent you lumping us all in because it's too difficult for you to tell the difference between the bad guys (LECs and Cable COs) and the good guys (independent ISPs).
Readers: Next time you think "ISP" don't think "bad guy", think "good guy". Next time you see "cable company" or "telephone company" think "bad guy".
If the distinction is confusing, you're with Karl. If it's pretty simple and you get it, Karl is on his own planet.
E
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ISPs
Still, Karl Bode insists on calling them ISPs.
Because it is a factually correct statement that if they're offering internet service they are an Internet Service Provider by definition. That they also do other stuff is irrelevant, they still fall into the category of ISPs.
Readers: Next time you think "ISP" don't think "bad guy", think "good guy". Next time you see "cable company" or "telephone company" think "bad guy".
So don't broadbrush ISP's, but do broadbrush cable and/or telephone companies, got it.
If you're going to complain about one person doing something, it might help if you didn't turn around and do the very same thing in turn.
If the distinction is confusing, you're with Karl. If it's pretty simple and you get it, Karl is on his own planet.
Alternatively, to those that can understand context(like say the fact that 'ISP' is mentioned once in the article, and in a way and with a link such that it's really clear who's being referred to), there's no confusion at all.
Seriously, stop assuming your potential and/or current customers are idiots, there's already more than enough of that on display by other companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ISPs
The context is clear from the article, and your ranting doesn't change the substance of it one bit..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ISPs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do feed the trolls
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do feed the trolls
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do feed the trolls
No, the only effective way of dealing with trolls is doling out consequences for their actions. Flagging them does nothing; retorts, even reasonable ones, do nothing. Our trolls here do not care if they get replies or not; being acknowledged is not their goal. Their goal is to say stupid bullshit and not face consequences for it; being ignored would give them what they want.
The only legitimate way of getting rid of these trolls would be to ban them from posting comments. That would be an actual consequence, unlike our community-driven “look like we’re doing something” consequences (flagging, "reasonable" replies) that have no real impact and do nothing to drive trolls away. Until and unless that happens, Techdirt trolls will continue to troll, regardless of whether we reply to them. Flag them as necessary and respond to them however you like, but do not fool yourself into thinking you will win them over or chase them away. They are playing a “game” where they only have one way of losing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Do feed the trolls
While I agree with you on trolls in general, I think it's unfair to lump Ehud in with them. While he has been thoroughly obnoxious with this particular semantic nitpick, he's also often posted insightful and edifying things. (His first-person account of the feds seizing Backpage servers from the ISP where he works was a particular highlight; it came in second for Most Insightful the week he posted it.)
I wish he'd quit responding with this same tirade every single time somebody uses "ISPs" in a way he doesn't like, and I sincerely hope he takes the hint that everybody is sick of it. But I don't think he's a troll. I think he's generally a good poster who occasionally makes a mistake, and this is one of those mistakes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My intent was not to lump him in with our usual trolls, but to talk in general about trolls and what they do. As I am fond of saying, however, “execution always overrides intent”. If I made it sound like I thought he was one of the usual trolls, I apologize for my fuck-up, and I will try to be more careful about that in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Do feed the trolls
Yeah, they've got a bit of an issue with the ISP thing, but other than that they've been a pretty good member of the community and contributor to discussions, so the 'troll' label definitely isn't warranted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Heard.
Heard.
I will refrain from bringing this up again.
I don't consider myself a troll. Trolls agitate for no particular purpose other than causing upheaval and angst. They don't further discussion, and detract from the topic. As I said I will refrain, this won't be a justification of my note... just that I don't see myself as a troll... and yes, I'm a regular TD reader just like the rest of (non-trolls, I guess), and a supporter (to the best of my ability), and a fanboi to the extent I tell everyone I know to read TD and often reference TD articles elsewhere.
E
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Do feed the trolls
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, by my logic, only the people who act like daft cunts—whether they mean to or not—would get banned. I can offend someone without trying to intentionally derail a discussion/force a negative reaction/shit up the comments for the sake of “the lulz”. How many people can/did I offend with that usage of the word “cunt” a couple of sentences ago, after all? That was intentional usage, by the way, and it was done to prove a point: Saying offensive things is not, in and of itself, trolling. Arguing in bad faith or saying offensive bullshit just to get an emotional reaction out of people is trolling, and I rarely do that here. (I tend to go that low when the trolls come out to play; if you flag those comments, I have no complaints.)
I try my best to discuss and argue in good faith, even if I am out of my depth. Assholes like “Hamilton” post here just to piss us off. If you cannot see the difference between the two, the responsibility for that issue falls upon you. I’m not the one acting like a daft cunt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Do feed the trolls
The difference is, some posters actually do troll and engage in hate speech, and some don't.
Blue's constant screeching about how the flag button is censorship? Trolling. Chip's constant ranting about how all regulations are bad, and also he never said all regulations are bad? Trolling. That one guy who keeps ranting about the Jews? Hate speech.
If you put Stephen in the same category as those trolls, then you're entitled to that opinion. And I'm entitled to the opinion that your opinion is fucking stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ISPs
Which part of Karl's text are you talking about? The only reference to "ISP" or "internet service" I see is: "written by and lobbied for by incumbent ISPs"... and isn't that making almost the exact distinction you're asking for? Independent ISPs are not lumped into "incumbent ISPs".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ISPs
It's "we ISPs".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"You know, for reals this time."
If we can’t settle this in the meantime, it is important that we continue to live up to our obligations and to perform well.
There is just so much unintentional humor in this statement. They got the boot because they weren't living up to their obligations or performing well. You can't 'continue' to do something you're not currently doing.
I get that he's not going to admit to offering crappy service and heading a company that people hate, but willful blindness or gross dishonesty of that level is almost impressive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "You know, for reals this time."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Talk about tone deaf.
Well, yes, that is the problem. In particular, after having made a deal to step it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Litigate till service is great
I'm not clear how it would take so long to prove what you've already done if it was anywhere close to as cut and dried as he tries to say. Unless litigation is a stalling tactic while you run around laying fiber you said was already lit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Minion definitely oblivious that runs this motif WAY too often.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Minion definitely oblivious that runs this motif WAY too often.
Have you considered the possibility that perhaps he writes this articles so that some one other than the subject of the article can read it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Minion definitely oblivious that runs this motif WAY too often.
fyi: This is not a news website
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Minion definitely oblivious that runs this motif WAY too often.
But remember, not every visitor reads every article. For you, if you've been reading them all, you'll recognize the same bits from the earlier ones. Cool - skim past them and look for the new aspects. That's what I do.
For anyone who's just discovering the site, though, those points have not been read before, so the re-treading of them would be useful.
You're free to dislike the repetitiveness of the article, of course, but just be aware that there is, in fact, a useful purpose to saying the same thing multiple times in multiple articles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Minion definitely oblivious that runs this motif WAY too often.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Within the past week, Karl has submitted posts about SIM card hijacking, cord cutting (which is not specifically focused on Charter), false claims by Ajit Pai, and our POTUS throwing a temper tantrum about the FCC in re: the Sinclair situation. He has only submitted two stories about the Charter v. New York situation within that same time frame. What was that you were saying about different topics, again?
Give him a better topic, then. For all your childish complaining that does nothing to affect anything but your own immature emotional state, you offer no solutions for the issues you believe plague Techdirt. If you want to fix the “problem”, you have to do the work. Neither Karl, Mike, nor anyone else who writes for or comments on Techdirt can do the work for you, son.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whats there to prove?
It's indisputable that Charter didn't do what they said they'd do before merger which is hook up 30,000 new customers per year. This is by their own admission.
It's equally indisputable that Charter did exactly what they say'd they'd do under the new FCC which is completely disregard the earlier merger conditions.
The company is guilty as charged!
Why are corporations even allowed to sue states? A corporation is not a person and their only purpose is to advance the economy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whats there to prove?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Whats there to prove?
Put the board of directors into orange jumpsuits for perjury, fraud, and obstruction of justice.
Hit the CEOs and investors with fines for millions of instances of billing fraud.
Have the company's political donations come out of the salaries of any willing employee or director. If the money is reimbursed by the company, throw the appropriate directors in jail for embezzlement or for being straw donors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Whats there to prove?
Hit the CEOs and investors with fines for millions of instances of billing fraud.
We do. Then the investors authorize the payment from their pooled assets known commonly as Charter Communications, according to the agreement which governs said pooled assets known as the Articles of Incorporation.
Have the company's political donations come out of the salaries of any willing employee or director.
First, the employees are not the group of people represented by the corporation, the shareholders are. Second, the political donations do come from the shareholder's "salary."
If the money is reimbursed by the company
Oops, and it looks like "the company" is now an independent legal entity again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Whats there to prove?
How is this embezzlement? Companies cover incurred costs and indemnify workers all the time. My company covers lunch once a week. ANY time you deal with a licensed and bonded company (for example most construction contractors, electricians, plumbers, etc), it indemnifies its workers for activities pursuant to their jobs. Embezzlement is "theft or misappropriation of funds placed in one's trust or belonging to one's employer". It is not theft or misappropriation if an authorized party reimburses them.
How is this a straw donation? There are no donors here. The money comes from a) share holders, in exchange for a share of ownership in the company, b) loans, in exchange for promises to pay back the money with interest, c) customers, in exchange for goods and services. The money is the company's to use as they see fit (with the understanding from the shareholders that money is to be made, at least eventually). If the company spends this money lobbying (which does not need to include donations, by the way), so be it.
I understand that you don't like corporate money in politics, but lets not twist laws away from what they are meant for. There's enough of that going on already. If you want to outlaw a behavior make a (new) law to do
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whats there to prove?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lying to Shareholders
Isn't there something about not being allowed to lie about what you're doing to shareholders...?
That sounds verifiably false, to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lying to Shareholders
Either way it was a latter to the company, not a shareholder report or anything that is audited. IANAL, but I would not be surprised to find out even the CEO letters in shareholder reports are not subject to any truth requirements, just the financials.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lying to Shareholders
If it's in the news media it's just a quote in the wind.
Look at their 10K and 10Qs. I doubt you'll find any language anywhere about how they are doing other than in the vaguest of terms.
E
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
truth..
quote:
He is not talking about consumers but communities. In his language communities means politicians (who are usually supposed to represent the consumers). I have no doubt the company actually has good relations with the politicians they bought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is like being the ONLY farmer in the area..
he has old equipment, and an old horse and can only get 1/2 his fields done..
He has the money to Upgrade everything and hire a few people, BUT WONT.
He bought up the old farms in the area to DO WHAT he wanted to do..and nothing more. As those other farmers were making abit of money with what they had. And he thought he could do the SAME if not more, because he has more land, now..
Does he want to do more?? NOPE. Does he make money, YEP.. Can he make more money?? Probably.. Will he need to spend money?? yep..
The corp has what it wanted, and didnt CREATE what is there, they are only collecting the Money for the service. THE STATE signed a contract, and if there is NO OUT CLAUSE, they can go suck a large Bull.
To those that decided to deal with 1 corp...you are silly. you have no backup to WHAT is about to happen.
The only way out is for everyone int he area to STOP USING what they are being fed. For the only reason is they are the ones PAYING FOR THIS, in the end. And the prices will keep going up the longer this KEEPS HAPPENING. If you take the money away so that the CONSUMER isnt paying for the LAWYERS...its going to COST THOSE ON TOP, what the lawyers want for payment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
His words to stockholders
he said this on the earnings call with stockholders, so it must be accurate or the SEC will penalize the company, so if the company loses, sorry, when the company loses the NY court case, the SEC will be next in line for their pound of flesh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: His words to stockholders
EASY part would be, GO OUT and look at the construction..
GO FIND what they THINK they built..
Iv heard about the UPDATES in NY, and they make me PROUD to be in rural areas..I get Faster more dependable access OUT in the boonies then a HIGH END STATE/CITY DOES..
150mbps at $80 per month.. is REAL cheap compared..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think there's been some misunderstanding of this statement. It doesn't imply that they have a focus on excellence and craftsmanship; it states that the degree to which they focus on excellence and craftsmanship hasn't changed due to the dust-up with NY. In other words, they're not increasing the focus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]