Shockingly, Streaming Providers Are Dominating Cable At Customer Satisfaction

from the innovation-nation dept

It's really no secret that traditional cable and broadband providers have some of the worst customer satisfaction of any companies in America. Comcast and Charter (Spectrum) in particular can usually be found stumbling around in last place in most satisfaction and support rankings. That's been particularly true of the American Customer Satisfaction Index, which routinely shows cable and broadband providers rank consistently worse than nearly any other company in any industry in America. In fact, these companies even tend to be ranked worse than Americans' experiences with government agencies like the IRS.

And despite seemingly bi-annual promises by these companies that customer service is their top priority (remember when Comcast promised a new "Customer Experience VP" would fix everything?), it's actually getting worse.

According to the latest ACSI report, high prices, bloated cable bundles, and terrible customer service continue to leave customers angry and frustrated:

"Customer satisfaction with subscription television service falls 3.1 percent to an ACSI score of 62, an 11-year low as the industry faces a seismic shift of subscribers defecting to lower-cost online video streaming services. In response, many cable and telecom companies are offering new Internet TV streaming in addition to legacy pay TV, but cord cutting continues."

While some cable companies have finally realized the error of their ways and begun offering less expensive, more flexible streaming alternatives (Dish's SlingTV and AT&T's DirecTV Now), by and large the mindset of the cable industry remains focused on doubling down on a lot of the dumb ideas (predominately aggressive price hikes) that brought them to this point in the first place.

For example Charter Communications, which has been pummeling consumers with price hikes in the wake of its $89 billion merger with Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks, took a particularly steep tumble during these latest satisfaction ratings for traditional cable providers:

The same story is playing out with broadband ISP satisfaction ratings, where limited competition often results in high prices as well:

It's worth noting that this year was the first year the index ranked streaming video alternatives, and (shockingly) the companies that are now offering lower prices, more flexible and innovative services, and better customer service are doing significantly better than traditional cable. Netflix, Sony PlayStation Vue, and Twitch all saw scores of 78, and the lowest rated streaming provider (Crackle at 68) was still rated better than nearly all traditional TV providers:

And while cord cutting is expected to break records this year, that's not to say that cable providers can't turn things around. Industry executives simply have to stop pretending that the traditional TV cash cow will live forever, and begin to compete by offering cheaper, more flexible options with better customer support. The bottom line many cable executives can't acknowledge is: competition simply means TV isn't going to be as profitable as it used to be, and they're going to have to actually try now. You can either get out ahead of this phenomenon now through adaptation, or continue doubling down on the same bad ideas that resulted in record cable TV customer defections in the first place.

Filed Under: acsi, cord cutting, customer satisfaction, internet, pay tv, streaming
Companies: charter, comcast, netflix, time warner

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.

Filed Under: broadband speeds, cabal, consumer protection, new york, tim wu
Companies: charter, google, netflix

Charter Uses Net Neutrality Repeal To Claim States Can't Hold It Accountable For Shoddy Service, Failed Promises

from the zero-accountability dept

While people remain exclusively fixated on the telecom industry's attacks on net neutrality, the reality is companies like Comcast, Charter, AT&T and Verizon are busy trying to eliminate nearly all federal and state oversight of their businesses. And while deregulation has its uses in healthy markets as part of an effort to protect innovation, you may have noticed that the telecom market isn't particularly healthy. As such, the end result of eliminating most meaningful regulatory oversight without organic market pressure in place is only likely to make existing problems worse.

This battle is getting particularly heated on the state level. After the Trump administration dismantled net neutrality and consumer privacy protections, states began flexing their muscle and attempting to pass their own privacy and net neutrality rules. ISP lobbyists, in turn, tried to head those efforts off at the pass by lobbying the FCC to include (legally untested) language in its net neutrality repeal "pre-empting" states from being able to protect broadband consumers in the wake of federal apathy.

And in the wake of the net neutrality repeal, companies like Charter (Spectrum) are trying to claim that states have no legal authority to hold them accountable for failed promises, slow speeds, or much of anything else.

For example, Charter is already trying to use the FCC net neutrality language to wiggle out of a lawsuit accusing it of failing to deliver advertised speeds. And the New York Public Service Commission also recently stated it found that Charter has been effectively lying to regulators about meeting conditions affixed to its $89 billion acquisition of Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks. As part of the deal, Charter was supposed to deploy broadband to a set number of additional homes and businesses, but regulators found (pdf) several instances where Charter actively misled regulators.

Last week Charter replied to these allegations by again claiming that states have no authority over them. As part of that effort the company is already citing the FCC's pre-emption language buried in its net neutrality repeal:

"The Commission does not have the authority to compel broadband providers to offer service to particular customers at particular speeds or at particular locations, or to establish any other obligations in a cable television and telecommunications service merger related to the provision of broadband services. Indeed, it has been established for years that Internet access services are interstate, and accordingly subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction.

The FCC has made abundantly clear that states may not impose “any so-called ‘economic’ or ‘public utility-type’ regulation[]” on broadband services and that federal law flatly preempts such requirements. Requiring a provider to expand the geographical range in which it offers broadband services and to offer it at specific speeds—as the Expansion Condition does—is a quintessential public utility obligation that could never lawfully be imposed by a state, as such a requirement would blatantly violate federal law.

There's several things wrong with this claim. One, NY State and the NY PSC absolutely does have authority over Charter -- because this is a merger agreement signed off on by the company that also currently holds a franchise agreement in the state. Two, the FCC's pre-emption effort was already on shaky and untested legal ground. But as Stanford Law School Professor Barbara van Schewick recently pointed out, ironically when the Ajit Pai's FCC rolled back Title II classification of ISPs, it also abdicated its own authority allowing it to tell states what they can do:

"While the FCC’s 2017 Order explicitly bans states from adopting their own net neutrality laws, that preemption is invalid. According to case law, an agency that does not have the power to regulate does not have the power to preempt. That means the FCC can only prevent the states from adopting net neutrality protections if the FCC has authority to adopt net neutrality protections itself.

But by re-classifying ISPs as information services under Title I of the Communications Act and re-interpreting Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act as a mission statement rather than an independent grant of authority, the FCC has deliberately removed all of its sources of authority that would allow it to adopt net neutrality protections. The FCC’s Order is explicit on this point. Since the FCC’s 2017 Order removed the agency’s authority to adopt net neutrality protections, it doesn’t have authority to prevent the states from doing so, either."

Still, it will take years to hammer this all out in the courts, and in the interim efforts to erode oversight on numerous other fronts (as we saw on net neutrality and privacy) has so far been a smashing success. As we've already noted several times, cable operators like Charter are enjoying larger broadband monopolies than ever before thanks to telcos that have no interest in upgrading aging DSL lines at scale. If you really enjoy the high prices and comical shitshow that passes for cable customer service, by all means let's make sure nobody on the state or federal level can ever hold them accountable.

Filed Under: fcc, net neutrality, new york, oversight, state laws
Companies: charter

The Cable Industry Is Quietly Securing A Massive Monopoly Over American Broadband

from the nobody-is-paying-attention dept

Cable providers like Comcast and Charter continue to quietly secure a growing monopoly over American broadband. A new report by Leichtman Research notes that the nation's biggest cable companies added a whopping 83% of all net broadband subscribers last quarter. All told, the nation's top cable companies (predominately Charter Spectrum and Comcast) added 2.7 million broadband subscribers in 2017, while the nation's telcos (AT&T, Verizon, CenturyLink, Frontier) saw a net loss of 625,000 subscribers last year, slightly worse than the 600,000 subscriber net loss they witness in 2016.

A pretty obvious pattern begins to emerge from Leichtman's data, and it's one of total and absolute cable industry dominance:

"The top broadband providers in the US added nearly 4.8 million net broadband subscribers over the past two years," said Bruce Leichtman, president and principal analyst for Leichtman Research Group, Inc. "The top cable companies accounted for 130% of the net broadband additions in 2017, following 122% of the net adds in 2016."

Oddly Leichtman can't be bothered to explain why the cable industry has become so dominant: a total refusal by the nation's phone companies to upgrade their networks at any real scale. Verizon years ago decided that residential broadband wasn't profitable enough quickly enough, so it froze its FiOS fiber deployments to instead focus on flinging video advertisements at Millennials.

You'll note from the chart above that the only telcos still adding subscribers are those that are actually tryiing to upgrade to fiber to the home (AT&T, Cincinnati Bell). Even then, while AT&T is upgrading some areas to fiber, actual availability remains spotty as the company largely focuses on developments and college campuses where costs are minimal. There's still millions of customers in AT&T territories stuck on DSL straight out of 2003, and they won't be getting upgraded anytime soon.

Other American telcos, like Frontier, Windstream and Centurylink, have effectively refused to upgrade aging DSL lines at any real scale, meaning they're incapable of even offering the FCC's base definition of broadband (25 Mbps down, 3 Mbps up) across huge swaths of America. Frontier in particular has been a bit of a shitshow if you've followed the often comic corruption and cronyism they've fostered in states like West Virginia. Other telcos (like CenturyLink) now don't see residential broadband as worth their time, so they've shifted much of their focus to enterprise services or the acquisition of transit operators like Level 3.

The result is a massive gap between the broadband haves and the broadband have nots, especially in rural markets and second and third tier cities these companies no longer deem worthy of upgrading (they will, however, back awful protectionist state laws banning towns and cities from serving themselves, even when no incumbent ISP wants to).

This is all wonderful news for natural monopolies like Comcast, who now face less competitive pressure than ever. That means a reduced incentive to lower prices or shore up what's widely considered some of the worst customer service in any industry in America. It also opens the door wider to their dream of inundating American consumers with arbitrary and unnecessary usage caps, which not only drive up the cost of broadband service, but make shifting to streaming cable alternatives more costly and cumbersome.

While many people like to argue that wireless (especially fifth generation, or 5G) will come in and save us all with an additional layer of competition, that ignores the fact that wireless backhaul services remain dominated by just a few monopolies as well, ensuring competition there too remains tepid and often theatrical in nature. And with many cable providers now striking bundling partnerships with wireless carriers, the incentive to actually compete with one another remains notably muted, as nobody in the sector wants an actual price war.

This of course is all occurring while the Trump administration attempts to gut most meaningful oversight of the uncompetitive broadband sector, meaning neither competition nor adult regulatory supervision will be forcing improvement any time soon. With the death of net neutrality and broadband privacy protections opening the door to even more anti-competitive behavior than we've grown accustomed to, what could possibly go wrong?

Filed Under: broadband, cable, competition, monopoly
Companies: charter, comcast

Charter, Disney Execs Pledge To Crack Down On Streaming Password Sharing 'Piracy'

from the missing-the-whole-point dept

For years now Netflix and HBO CEOs have stated that they see streaming service password sharing as little more than glorified advertising. These execs have long argued that once users realize they enjoy the product, they'll usually sign up for their own account (something particularly true of kids once they leave home and get a job). Even then, these companies already impose a limit on the number of simultaneous streams their services offer, and already charge more for a greater number of streams -- so it's not like these companies are giving away the farm for free anyway.

But for the last several years incumbent broadcast and cable executives have been engaging in breathless hysteria regarding such password sharing. Charter CEO Tom Rutledge has grown increasingly agitated over the practice, arguing that HBO and Netflix's tolerance of password sharing shows a "complete lack of control and understanding in the space," while going so far as to argue that a "lack of control over the content by content companies and authentication processes has reduced the demand for video because you don’t have to pay for it."

Of course you may have noticed that the "demand for video" is higher than ever before, based on Netflix's now 50 million monthly streaming subscribers and the massive rise in all manner of viewing options. And Netflix CEO Reed Hastings (who understands his own business pretty well at this point) has gone so far as to state he "loves" the practice:

"We love people sharing Netflix," CEO Reed Hastings said Wednesday at the Consumer Electronics Show here in Las Vegas. "That's a positive thing, not a negative thing."...A lot of the time, he said, household sharing leads to new customers because kids subscribe on their own as they start to earn income.

Yet some cable and broadcast executives continue their bizarre assault on a problem that isn't. At recent industry events both Rutledge and Disney exec Justin Connolly lamented what they call a rise in password sharing "piracy," hinting that they intend to crack down on the practice in the near future:

"Tom Rutledge has had enough. The chief executive officer of Charter Communications Inc., which sells cable TV under the Spectrum name, is leading an industrywide effort to crack down on password sharing. It’s a growing problem that could cost pay-TV companies millions of subscribers—and billions of dollars in revenue—when they can least afford it.

“There’s lots of extra streams, there’s lots of extra passwords, there’s lots of people who could get free service,” Rutledge said at an industry conference this month...“It’s piracy,” Connolly said. “It’s people consuming something they haven’t paid for. The more the practice is viewed with a shrug, the more it creates a dynamic where people believe it’s acceptable. And it’s not."

You'd think Rutledge, the highest paid executive in America last year, would have a slightly better grasp on the industry he works in and where it's headed. Again, Netflix and HBO impose simultaneous stream limits, so it's not like they're giving away the store. And again, these executives have clearly stated they see password sharing as advertising, so calling it piracy makes no coherent sense. It's a reflection of the hubris often seen in the traditional cable TV sector, where they believe every natural market evolution is an existential threat.

Of course Rutledge is the same CEO that just spearheaded a completely botched merger with Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks that resulted in higher rates, fewer upgrades, and higher prices. Rutledge's company is also currently being sued for failing to deliver advertised broadband speeds and for using hidden fees to covertly jack up service costs. Disney's ESPN properties, meanwhile, were so blinded by the belief they could nurse the traditional cable cash cow forever, they failed to see the cord cutting trend coming and have lost tens of millions of viewers as a result.

In other words, these two execs have plenty of other problems they need to deal with before focusing all of their ire on a problem that isn't. And when looking for advice on the evolving video market, maybe you should steer clear of folks that pretty clearly have little to no understanding of adaptation or where the market is headed.

Filed Under: justin connolly, password sharing, reed hastings, streaming, tom rutledge
Companies: charter, disney, hbo, netflix

ISPs Are Already Using The FCC's Planned Net Neutrality Repeal To Harm Consumers

from the somebody-is-killing-all-the-babysitters dept

So if you've been reading Techdirt, you know that the FCC's myopic assault on net neutrality is just a small part of a massive, paradigm-shifting handout to the uncompetitive telecom sector that could have a profoundly negative impact on competition, innovation, privacy, and consumer welfare for the next decade.

The government telecom industry's plan goes something like this: gut nearly all FCC oversight of giant ISPs (including the modest privacy protections killed earlier this year), then shovel any dwindling remaining authority to an FTC that lacks the authority or resources to actually protect competition, businesses and consumers. If any states get the crazy idea to step in and try to fill in the consumer protection gaps, the FCC (again, at Comcast and Verizon's lobbying behest) has clearly stated it will try and use federal authority to slap them down (so much for that dedication to "states rights" applied only when convenient).

You should, hopefully, see how this could pose problems for anybody other than Charter, Comcast, Verizon and AT&T. In fact, Charter lawyers this week are already providing us with a look at precisely what this is going to look like in practice.

You might recall that earlier this year, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman sued Charter for effectively ripping off consumers. Among the numerous charges levied in the complaint (pdf) was the fact that Charter falsely advertised speeds it couldn't deliver, used all manner of misleading fees to jack up the cost of advertised services (something it's facing other lawsuits over), and may have manipulated peering point capacity to force content and transit operators into paying more money.

The complaint features Charter executives on e-mail indicating they manipulated congestion levels to trick SamKnows, a firm the FCC employs to track whether ISPs deliver the speeds they advertise (instead of, you know, fixing the problem by adding needed ports and capacity):

"Our Sam Knows scores are like watching a slow-motion train wreck. We need to get in front of this. One thing I think we may need to be prepared to do is just give more ports to Cogent during sweeps month [when FCC results are measured for purposes of the MBA report]. We don’t have to make any promises, we just have to make it work temporarily."

You might recall that when the FCC's 2015 net neutrality rules indicated the FCC might take a closer look at such interconnection shenanigans, said interconnection fisticuffs magically ceased. And now, with the FCC poised to repeal net neutrality rules, Charter lawyers are busy arguing in court that this federal authority (which in reality is lobbyist-induced apathy) trumps any state attempts to protect consumers:

"Of particular relevance here, the Draft Order includes an extensive discussion of the interplay between federal and state law, including with respect to the transparency rule on which Charter has relied in arguing that federal law preempts the Attorney General’s allegations that Time Warner Cable made deceptive claims about its broadband speeds," writes Charter attorney Christopher Clark, from Latham & Watkins. "Consistent with the FCC’s statements in prior orders and enforcement advisories, the Draft Order 'conclude[s] that regulation of broadband Internet access service should be governed principally by a uniform set of federal regulations, rather than by a patchwork of separate state and local requirements.'"

In other words, the FCC's handout to industry is already providing them with ammunition to dodge accountability for dodgy business practices on the state level as well. And again, this goes well beyond net neutrality -- it's a wholesale dismantling of oversight for some of the least-competitive and least ethical companies in America (if you need evidence of this, consult the Techdirt archives). Needless to say, Schneiderman's office disagrees with Charter's argument that its case should be derailed because the federal government no longer cares about consumer welfare:

"Spectrum-TWC failed to maintain enough network capacity in the form of interconnection ports to deliver this promised content to its subscribers without slowdowns, interruptions, and data loss," stated an opposition brief. "It effectively 'throttled' access to Netflix and other content providers by allowing the ports through which its network interconnects with data coming from those providers to degrade, causing slowdowns. Spectrum-TWC then extracted payments from those content providers as a condition for upgrading the ports As a result, Spectrum-TWC’s subscribers could not reliably access the content they were promised, and instead were subjected to the buffering, slowdowns and other interruptions in service that they had been assured they would not encounter."

Again, companies like Charter and Comcast are breathlessly promising that nothing will change in the wake of the net neutrality rules' repeal. But that's not only an obvious lie (why spend millions to repeal consumer protections you have no intention of abusing?), but it overshadows the fact that, again, this isn't just about net neutrality. It's about gutting oversight of these duopolies almost entirely on both the federal and state level, leaving few, if any agencies capable of holding these companies accountable the next time they try to abuse a lack of market competition.

In other words, if you thought behavior by giant cable companies like Comcast and Charter is obnoxious now, you likely haven't seen anything yet. Unless you're one of these folks that truly believes that removing all regulatory oversight of natural mono/duopolies magically fixes everything -- in which case your beliefs are about to be tested.

Filed Under: ajit pai, eric schneiderman, fcc, net neutrality
Companies: charter, samknows

Charter CEO Tries To Blame Netflix Password 'Piracy' For Company's Failure To Adapt To Cord Cutting

from the blame-everything-but-yourself dept

Like most pay TV providers, Charter Communications (Spectrum) continues to bleed pay TV subscribers tired of paying an arm and a leg for giant, bloated channel bundles. Also like most pay TV providers, the company isn't willing to really own the fact that their only real "solution" to this problem has been to double down on the same, bad ideas. Charter just got done gobbling up Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks subscribers in a $79 billion deal that resulted in rate hikes as high as 40% and somehow even worse customer service than the historically-awful customer service the sector is known for.

That said, it shouldn't be particularly surprising that Charter lost another 104,000 traditional video subscribers last quarter. Those losses came after losing 90,000 TV subscribers during the second quarter, and another 100,000 during the first quarter of the year. While skyrocketing prices, horrible customer service, and the rise of streaming video competition are the obvious culprits here, Charter CEO tried lay the blame elsewhere. Namely, those troublesome rabblerousers who share streaming service passwords:

“There’s a lot of pressure on the video business,” Rutledge said. “The biggest pressure is price. But the second biggest pressure is that many programmers are distributors, whether they know it or now. And because of password sharing and multiple-stream products … You have 35 million one-person households in the U.S. The multiscreen products sold to those households also them to purchase one product and share it with multiple users.”

This isn't the first time Rutledge has complained about the practice of password sharing. While companies like Netflix and HBO have made it clear they see password sharing as a form of creative marketing, Rutledge has long stated he sees the practice as some sort of nefarious menace:

"The lack of control over the content by content companies and authentication processes has reduced the demand for video because you don’t have to pay for it,” Mr. Rutledge said on the earnings call. “That’s going on in the college market."

That's a pretty stellar misunderstanding of the evolving video market for the highest paid executive in America last year. Netflix and HBO have both stated that such password sharing has no meaningful impact on the industry, and if anything helps sell new subscriptions once users (especially Millennials riding on their parents subscriptions) get hooked on the value proposition. Compare that business plan to Charter, a company that's currently being sued for using hidden fees to jack up rates and for intentionally shortchanging subscribers at every conceivable opportunity.

Cable providers could easily combat streaming video competition by lowering rates and offering more flexible channel bundles, an idea they pay a lot of lip service to, but rarely implement. Instead, execs like Rutledge have tried to downplay the threat of cord cutting in the belief they can nurse the traditional cable TV cash cow indefinitely. They're afraid to offer a cheaper, better product for fear of accelerating the trend. What they often don't seem to understand is this isn't going to be a choice. The days of cable TV wink-wink, nod nod non-price competition are over, and if these companies want to remain in the TV business -- they're going to have to (gasp) seriously compete on price.

Filed Under: cord cutting, password piracy, password sharing, thomas rutledge
Companies: charter, netflix

Wall Street Merger Mania Is Driving Us Toward One Single, Horrible ISP - Probably Named Comcast

from the merge-ALL-the-things dept

Many consumers are still reeling from a Charter, Bright House Networks and Time Warner Cable merger that left users with slower speeds, worse service, and higher prices. Other broadband consumers are still struggling with a bungled Frontier acquisition of Verizon assets that left users with prolonged outages and even worse customer service than the shitshow they already enjoyed. As we've seen for decades, this kind of mindless consolidation traditionally only benefits the companies involved, particularly in a market where real competition is in short supply.

This growth for growth's sake is one of the major reasons Comcast -- and its horrible customer service (which didn't scale with the company's expansion because that would have cost money) -- exists. And Wall Street's relentless thirst for growth at all costs is a major reason these companies can't simply focus on being the best "dumb pipes" possible, instead focusing their attentions on expanding into markets they have little expertise in (see Verizon's ingenious plan to hoover up failed 90s brands and pander to Millennials). When they can't succeed because they're out of their depth, they try to tilt the playing field (killing net neutrality).

There's oodles of history lessons here, and there's every indication we intend to learn nothing from them. With the ink barely dry on Charter's troubled deal, and the Trump administration signaling that no merger is too big or too absurd, Wall Street analysts have been positively giddy this year pondering megamergers in telecom that had previously been unthinkable on anti-competitive or antitrust grounds. That has included heavy pushes for a Sprint acquisition of T-Mobile or a Verizon bid to buy Comcast -- the massive, obvious anti-competitive impact of both deals be damned.

This week, the merger mania du jour apparently involves a plan that would involve Comcast and French-owned Altice working in concert to buy Charter Communications, whose $180 billion asking price has proven too steep for any one company to contemplate alone (Verizon made a $100 billion offer and was rejected). Citigroup has floated the idea that after acquisition, Comcast could integrate the Time Warner Cable customers they were blocked by regulators from acquiring for anti-competitive reasons, leaving us with one giant cable company to rule us all:

"Charter is pretty much an equal rival in size and scope to Comcast at this point, at least with regards to subscriber numbers. Each company has somewhere in the neighborhood of 25 million customers. For the two to merge outright would leave one dominant cable company in the country, with about half of the entire nation’s subscribers — from coast to coast, and in many of the states in between — under a single umbrella."

Granted there's no guarantee such a deal will happen. Wall Street stock jocks often like to float rumors then profit off of the herk and jerk of stock prices caused by the half-truths they themselves create. But should Comcast be able to swing such a deal, we could be looking at a supernova of anti-competitive dysfunction, the likes of which made Comcast's well documented issues seem charming.

Consider that cable's monopoly was already blossoming thanks to the countless telcos which have effectively stopped trying to compete -- in large part because Wall Street thinks spending money to upgrade your networks is a fool's errand. Then ponder the fact that the current FCC is busy gutting any and all meaningful oversight of these companies, allowing them to inevitably engage in all manner of anti-competitive shenanigans, from arbitrary and punitive usage caps, to net neutrality and privacy violations.

This all may sound like hyperbole, but it's a future that's very much under construction. And the folks giddily contemplating the "looming synergies" of such monumental coagulation are building it with absolutely zero concern for the impact on consumers, startups, small businesses or the health of the internet. Telecom sector executives and the folks paid to cheer their every decision have every intention of taking the already dismal Comcast experience, injecting it with steroids, and setting it loose on a market with no organic competitive or regulatory checks and balances. And by the time most notice the negative repercussions, these same folks will already be hyping the next wave of mindless consolidation.

Filed Under: broadband, isp, mergers, wall street
Companies: altice, bright house, charter, comcast, time warner cable

Charter Spectrum 'Competes' With New $20 Streaming TV Service Featuring $6 In Entirely Bogus Fees

from the the-illusion-of-competition dept

You may have noticed that things aren't going particularly well for the traditional cable TV industry. Ratings for many channels are in free fall, the rate at which customers are cutting the traditional TV cord is accelerating, and the number and quality of competing streaming services is only growing. Cumulatively, this has forced many previously myopic cable and broadcast executives to stop denying the obvious and to candidly admit there's an actual market (r)evolution afoot, even if most of them still aren't quite exactly sure how to adapt to it.

And while the headlines are often filled with dire warnings about traditional cable TV being "doomed," that's not really true. Cable operators still lay claim to somewhere around 98 million paying customers. And keeping these users from fleeing to competing streaming services really isn't that complicated. These companies just don't want to do what's necessary. Namely, listen to their customers, offer more flexible and convenient services, shore up their atrocious customer service, and finally begin seriously competing on price.

Many traditional cable providers have responded by offering a new suite of so-called "skinny bundles" that profess to offer lower costs and to offer greater channel flexibility. But more often than not old habits die hard, and the industry often saddles these offerings with numerous murky restrictions, or layers of misleading fees. The end result is that these offers either aren't really competitive, or wind up costing nearly as much as traditional cable.

Case in point: Charter (Spectrum) is currently hyping a new $20 bundle of a few dozen channels they're testing in a handful of markets. Usually these trials exist to give the impression the cable company is being innovative, but are never launched nationwide for fear of mass-cannibalization of traditional customers downgrading from more expensive plans. But most news outlets were quick to lavish praise on Charter's new offering, many posting the ad for the $20 price point alongside their reports on the new service:

Except that "$20" isn't really $20, since the cable industry just can't let go of some bad habits.

Trial participants who actually have tried the service say it not only doesn't work all that well, but Charter has chosen to hide a number of obnoxious fees that dramatically jack up the price of the service. Of particular note is the fact that Charter saddles the offering with a $6 per month "broadcast TV fee." As we've noted previously, this increasingly-utilized fee simply takes some of the cost of programming and buries it below the line. Why? It lets the cable provider falsely advertise a lower price. And despite being false advertising, regulators from both parties traditionally haven't given much of a damn.

Some companies, like Comcast, have gone so far as to try and claim the broadcast TV fee is just their way of being transparent with consumers, since nothing quite says transparency like customers having no idea what a service they're buying will actually cost. But as the market floods with alternatives from the likes of Hulu, YouTube, Sling TV and more increases, cable and broadcast executives are eventually going to have to realize that the threshold for tolerating this kind of bullshit -- in the face of real competition -- isn't going to be quite at high as they're accustomed to.

Filed Under: cable tv, competition, cord cutting, fees, hidden fees, over the top, streaming, tv
Companies: charter, charter spectrum

Comcast, Charter May Soon Get Even Larger With Joint Acquisition Of Sprint

from the merge-ALL-the-things!!! dept

With the telecom sector seeing the Trump administration as somewhat of a blank check, the industry is busy considering all manner of mergers and acquisitions that would have been blocked under any number of previous administrations for being competition-killers. Verizon has made an offer to buy Charter (Spectrum), Sprint has been trying to merge with T-Mobile, AT&T's pushing for approval of its acquisition of Time Warner, Altice USA is gobbling up smaller providers hand over foot, and the industry is consolidating at a faster rate than ever.

While obviously not all M&As are bad by default, ignored in this rush is that several recent high-profile telecom deals have been utter shitshows for the American consumer.

While the Obama administration did block both AT&T and Sprint's attempted acquisitions of T-Mobile (which wound up being a very good thing for competition and consumers), its approval of Frontier's acquisition of Verizon's unwanted DSL customers in Florida, California and Texas resulted in endless outages and problems courtesy of a bungled integration. The Obama administration also approved Charter's $79 billion acquisition of Time Warner Cable and Bright House, resulting in not only much higher prices for consumers, but (somehow) even worse customer service for already one of the least-liked companies in America.

Undaunted by any potential history lessons, now Trump-era merger mania rolls on with the news that Charter and Comcast are considering either a joint acquisition of Sprint, or a minority ownership stake in exchange for a more lucrative network sharing deal for both companies' wireless services:

U.S. wireless carrier Sprint Corp is in talks with Charter Communications Inc and Comcast Corp about a partnership to boost the two U.S. cable companies' wireless offerings, according to sources familiar with the matter. Sprint, controlled by Japan's SoftBank Group Corp, has entered into a two-month period of exclusive negotiations with Charter and Comcast that has put its merger talks with U.S. wireless peer T-Mobile US Inc on hold till the end of July, the sources said on Monday.

Said deal could involve an outright acquisition of Sprint by the two cable giants, though one source suggests that's unlikely at first. More likely is a joint minority investment by both companies in exchange for a discount network sharing arrangement to help fuel both cable companies' attempts to get into the wireless sector. Comcast has already launched a WiFi-centric wireless voice service that uses the Verizon Wireless network for backup, and Charter is planning a similar service for 2018. That would, depending on how it went, likely evolve into a full acquisition of Sprint down the road.

Both companies had already struck a deal to partner on handset contracts, including a promise not to acquire a wireless carrier without first informing the other company. That deal was criticized on some fronts as a way for the two cable companies to avoid having to directly compete as they pushed their respective services to market.

How all of this shakes out (and whether it's good for anybody not named Sprint, Comcast or Charter) remains unclear. The deal could be an improvement over a Sprint acquisition of T-Mobile as it would not only keep the four major wireless competitors intact, but would bolster Sprint's historically rocky balance sheet ensuring it remains a somewhat viable competitor. That said, Charter and Comcast are no strangers to anti-competitive behavior, and adding another entire service segment to this well-documented dysfunction could prove disastrous for what's already some of the worst customer service in any industry in America.

Filed Under: acquisition, antitrust, broadband, competition, fcc, mergers, mobile
Companies: charter, comcast, sprint