Charter, Verizon Flirt With Merger, Because Who Likes Broadband Competition Anyway?

from the look-at-all-the-synergies dept

Back in January, Wall Street chatter started to suggest that with Trump being much more friendly to M&As, some previously-unthinkable mergers were in store for the already uncompetitive telecom market. The most commonly discussed is a new merger between T-Mobile and Sprint (regulators blocked the first attempt in 2014 because it would have dramatically reduced competition). But another major rumor involves Verizon acquiring either Comcast or Charter Communications, something that Verizon executives have publicly tried to downplay, but evidence suggests remains high on the company's agenda all the same.

In fact, a report last week indicates that Charter has already turned down Verizon's initial offer. The offer -- valued at between $350 and $400 a share and well over $100 billion total -- wasn't quite high enough for Charter's liking, according to insiders familiar with the proposal:

The offer — valued at between $350 and $400 a share, and well over $100 billion, according to two of the sources familiar with the move — was rejected by Charter because it was too low — and because Charter and its largest shareholder, Liberty Media, weren’t ready to sell...Also standing in the way of Liberty Media agreeing to a deal for any of its units is the tax implications, which would be unpalatable to its billionaire chairman John Malone, sources said.

And part of the reason it's "unpalatable" right now is that the dust still hasn't settled from the telecom industry's last horrible merger, Charter's $79 billion acquisition of Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks, approved under the Obama administration. That deal resulted in frozen speed upgrades, significantly higher prices and somehow even worse customer service. The end result has been a tidal wave of complaints about the new Spectrum company from consumers across newspapers nationwide, most of them now realizing that, for consumers, such deal "synergies" are often a step backwards.

Verizon's no stranger to deal dysfunction either, having recently struggled to finalize its Yahoo acquisition after it was revealed the company had numerous hacking intrusions it failed to tell Verizon about during negotiations. And the company's sale of its unwanted DSL customers in California, Texas and Florida was an absolute, indisputable shit show as the acquiring company, Frontier Communications, repeatedly highlighted it couldn't handle the massive influx of unwanted, mostly rural, broadband subscribers. It's also now drowning in debt, with bankruptcy on the lips of many investors.

So why would Verizon, a company with its own mounting debt, already looking to exit the fixed-line broadband business, suddenly want to acquire a cable company? It's believed that Verizon's primarily interested in Charter's fixed-line transit and other core infrastructure as a way to beef up its fifth-generation (5G) wireless ambitions. Of course like all such deals, there's the added benefit of eliminating a direct competitor in the television and broadband space, reducing the already skimpy competitive options already available in the consumer broadband market.

Filed Under: broadband, competiton, mergers
Companies: charter, verizon

Charter Spectrum Celebrates Megamerger One-Year Anniversary With Blanket Price Hikes For 'Mispriced' Customers

from the synergies! dept

You may recall that when Charter proposed spending $79 billion to acquire Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks last year, the usual promises of job creation, lower prices, better broadband, and improved customer service came along for the ride. The problem: none of those things have materialized under the new company (Spectrum). In fact, like so many telecom mergers, many customers of the nation's now second-largest cable provider say Charter's prices have gotten higher and the company's customer service (already ranked among the worst in any industry) has somehow managed to get worse.

With this week being the one-year anniversary of this mega-deal, customers in acquired territories say the company is engaged in yet another round of blanket rate hikes. In Lexington, Kentucky, for example, Spectrum customers say they're being forced to pay $20-$40 more (plus assorted fees to swap out their cable boxes) for effectively the same service. And when they call in to complain, they're discovering that part of the new Spectrum experience involves a company that's no longer willing to haggle on promotions (because it doesn't have to):

"Fitzgerald tried to haggle — Time Warner usually cut you some slack on price increases in order to keep your business, he said — but the representative stopped him. This is Spectrum’s deal. Take it or leave it.

“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!"

Spectrum's latest rate hikes are part of a sweep of customer accounts to identify customers that company executives claim are "mispriced" (read: aren't paying enough). Like Comcast, Charter benefits from a dwindling amount of broadband competition with the telcos, who have simply refused to upgrade their aging DSL networks at any real scale. As a result, customers looking for ISPs that can actually provide the base FCC definition of 25 Mbps usually have only one option to go to: cable. And when they arrive, they're usually forced to bundle TV service they may or may not even want in order to get the best price.

As a result, Charter added 350,000 broadband subscribers last quarter. But even then, Charter managed to lose 47,000 pay TV subscribers last quarter, the majority of them former Time Warner Cable customers that have used the price hikes as an opportunity to cut the cable cord. Customers clearly aren't happy with the way the merger is going, but Charter CEO Tom Rutledge is positively giddy at the "value proposition" he's presenting these customers:

"It’s a difficult thing to model,” said Rutledge, whose 2016 pay package was $98.5 million. “But we’re coming at it both ways, both from creating a value proposition in the pricing and packaging we have, and doing those smart things that you can do with an existing customer base that’s been mispriced to move them in the right direction."

While the former Obama administration approved what is clearly an awful deal, they did affix a few conditions to the merger. Namely that Charter has to adhere to the FCC's net neutrality rules (even if thrown out by the FCC), needs to expand broadband to 2 million additional locations, and can't impose usage caps and overage fees for a period of seven years from the date of the deal's signing. But the current FCC has been busy trying to roll back many of those conditions, making an already awful merger even worse.

Good news though: if you really adore higher rates, bogus promises, and historically-abysmal customer service, there appears to be many more telecom mergers like this one headed your direction.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, mergers, price hike
Companies: charter

Comcast, Charter Join Forces In Wireless, Agree Not To Compete

from the now-witness-the-power-of-this-fully-operational-battle-station dept

For several years now, cable giants Comcast and Charter have had their eye on jumping into the wireless business. Both companies gobbled up a large amount of spectrum at the FCC's 2008 700 MHz auction, but a few years later got cold feet after realizing that going solo in wireless would not only be incredibly expensive, but would require something called competition (gross). So in 2011, they struck a deal with Verizon Wireless, which bought the cable sector's spectrum for $3.6 billion, in exchange for a cozy cross-promotional relationship. As an unspoken part of that relationship, Verizon Wireless has been happily driving its unwanted DSL customers to cable, where they're often then sold Verizon Wireless service.

That 2011 deal also featured language allowing the cable providers to launch their own MVNO (mobile virtual network operator) that leans heavily on WiFi, but uses the Verizon network for cellular backup. So over the last few years, Charter and Comcast have been cooking up new WiFi-centric wireless services they plan to only bundle with traditional cable and broadband inside their own footprints (again, to avoid having to more seriously compete with national established carriers like their friends at Verizon).

Neither service has launched yet, but this week Comcast and Charter struck a new cooperative deal that will let them use their combined leverage to secure better handset rates. A Comcast announcement states that the agreement will provide both companies with "operational efficiencies" down the road:

"The efficiencies created are expected to provide more choice, innovative products and competitive prices for customers in each of their respective footprints. Additionally, the companies have agreed to work only together with respect to national mobile network operators, through potential commercial arrangements, including MVNOs and other material transactions in the wireless industry, for a period of one year.

But the deal, outlined in more detail in this SEC filing, also has a few other interesting conditions -- including one preventing either company from making a major wireless acquisition without involving the other. Some of these provisions immediately set off alarm bells among some consumer advocates, who worry that the agreement will also ensure that the two companies don't compete with each other as they push into wireless:

"One of the basic ideas of antitrust law is that when companies that compete with each other, or could compete with each other, make an explicit agreement to not compete with each other, that violates the antitrust laws," Feld told Ars today. "Agreeing to coordinate with each other to avoid competition is expressly a violation of the antitrust laws."

But that doesn't mean Comcast and Charter won't be able to follow through with their plan. It's impossible to say with absolute certainty whether any specific agreement violates antitrust law, and "both Comcast and Charter have very good lawyers," Feld said.

Right now, some of these worries seem premature. For one, Comcast and Charter always intended to offer their respective, traditional wireless services siloed within their own broadband footprints, not nationwide. Most telecom analysts also feel that Comcast's effort seems a little half-baked, with the company weirdly going out of its way on a recent conference call to downplay expectations for the service. And the cable industry is filled with these kinds of cross-collaborative efforts that quite often tend to go nowhere fast. There's a very strong chance that these companies' wireless services, for lack of a more technical term, suck.

That said, there is a framework here for some anti-competitive shenanigans. With Trump being bullish on M&As to prop up job claims (real or not), rumors have emerged that Comcast or Charter could acquire Verizon. If an expected Sprint bid to acquire T-Mobile also takes place, you could be looking at a dramatic fixed and wireless telecom consolidation wave that would reduce the already tepid desire to compete substantially. And with a Trump FTC and FCC that believe duopolist oversight and consolidation restrictions are quaint, nobody's going to be looking out for the potential anticompetitive impact of these deals.

Combine that with the death of privacy and net neutrality consumer protections, and the cable industry's growing monopoly over fixed broadband, and we really could be looking at an anticompetitive firestorm of bad ideas across both fixed and wireless networks. Under that scenario, Comcast and Charter's new arrangement would be the least of our collective worries.

Filed Under: competition, fcc
Companies: charter, comcast

FCC Kills Charter Merger Condition That Would Have Forced ISPs To Compete

from the let's-ignore-the-obvious dept

While FCC boss Ajit Pai has repeatedly claimed his top priority while running the FCC is eliminating the digital divide, his behavior in just the first few months of his term has made that claim utterly and indisuptably laughable. It doesn't take a sociology degree to realize that Pai's recent decisions to protect prison phone monopolies, protect the cable box monopoly, undermine efforts to bring broadband to the poor and dismantle net neutrality solely help one particular constituency: the telecom sector's biggest, wealthiest, and most powerful providers.

And while repealing a previous FCC's policies isn't entirely new or unexpected (especially from somebody with Pai's extremely mono/duopoly friendly voting record), Pai has been pushing his purview even further. Last week the FCC boss announced that he'd even begun stripping away at the conditions attached to Charter's $79 billion acquisition of Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks.

While the FCC has a history of relatively toothless merger conditions (often proposed by the companies themselves), Wheeler's FCC went a little further with Charter -- not only banning the company from imposing usage caps and overage fees for seven years, but requiring that Charter continue adhering to FCC net neutrality rules -- even if those rules are killed (something Pai has repeatedly promised to do). But the FCC also mandated that Charter Communications expand its broadband footprint to two million additional locations -- one million of which needed to be in areas already served by cable competitors.

Former FCC boss Tom Wheeler had argued that this "overbuild" condition would specifically impose added competition on those regions, "bringing innovation and new choices for consumers, and demonstrate the viability of one broadband provider overbuilding another." But small and large cable company lobbyists had spent months lobbying to have all of the conditions killed, going so far as to threaten to freeze broadband investment if the conditions weren't eliminated (you know you're in a non-competitive market when you labor under the illusion that you get to choose when to compete).

Quickly rushing to the aid of these companies before they faced the dreaded specter of additional competition, Pai's office announced that the agency would be retroactively killing the overbuild condition. This was, Pai insisted in an FCC statement, yet another shining example of the FCC boss's relentless dedication to helping "the public interest":

"My top priority is making sure that any American who wants high-speed Internet access is able to get it. Today, we take another step toward achieving that goal.

Last year, Charter Communications agreed to build broadband out to two million new customers as part of its merger with Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks. Unfortunately, the FCC appended an “overbuild” condition to the order, requiring that half of those new locations be already served by another provider. Since these one million overbuilt deployments would be credited against the total, it would substantially reduce buildout to unserved areas. This is like telling two people you will buy them dinner, ordering two entrées, and then sending both to just one of your companions.

This condition was not and is not in the public interest, and it runs directly against the goal of promoting greater Internet access for all Americans.

So one, to believe Pai you'd have to ignore not only his entire voting record, but the fact that he just began dismantling an FCC program specifically designed to help bring broadband to the poor.

That said, people should also understand that large ISPs (and those that kneel in fealty to them) like to keep the focus on an ambiguous dedication to "closing the digital divide" because it ignores the real problem: high prices and limited competition. According to NTIA data, there are about 26 million households left in the U.S. that aren't connected to the internet. If you look closely at the breakdown of why these homes aren't connected, the top three reasons either involve these users not giving a damn about being connected, or not being able to afford connectivity due to cost:

Because these companies obviously don't want people focused on the lack of competition, you've perhaps noticed that Pai (and the large ISPs that adore him) avoid ever acknowledging that lack of competition -- and the resulting high prices -- are a problem. In fact, it's often comedic to watch how desperately many of these folks (including the lion's share of hired ISP policy mouthpieces and think tankers) try and avoid the subject. Instead, apparently, we get odd metaphors about dinner entrees that don't really make much coherent sense in context.

Of course, then, the overbuild condition was axed because it did the unspeakable: actually forced a handful of companies to compete. Granted this overall lack of competition is what lets these companies impose arbitrary and unnecessary usage caps and overage fees -- which are little more than glorified rate hikes. And cable lobbying groups like the NCTA have been lobbying the FCC to get rid of the conditions banning Charter caps as well (pdf).

All told, much like the man that appointed him, FCC boss Ajit Pai likes to try and obfuscate his almost mindless dedication to protecting large legacy companies with an utterly phoney dedication to the downtrodden. The Charter merger, approved under the Obama administration, was admittedly a bad deal that has already resulted in higher prices and even worse customer service for impacted customers. But eliminating these conditions only serves to make an already bad deal, even worse. And the pretense that it's being done out of a love of America's downtrodden only adds insult to injury.

Filed Under: ajit pai, competition, fcc, merger conditions, overbuild
Companies: bright house networks, charter, time warner cable

AT&T Settles With DOJ Over LA Dodgers Channel Collusion Allegations

from the competitors-playing-too-nicely dept

In 2013, Time Warner Cable (since acquired by Charter Communications) struck an $8.35 billion deal with the LA Dodgers to create LA SportsNet, the exclusive home of LA Dodgers games. To recoup its investment, Time Warner Cable demanded exorbitant prices from competing cable providers if they wanted access to the channel. Unsurprisingly, all of Time Warner Cable's competitors in the region balked at the $5 per subscriber asking price.

Several years later, a massive portion of Los Angeles still can't watch their favorite baseball team, since Time Warner Cable's asking price not only kept competing cable operators from delivering the channel, but prohibited over-the-air broadcasts of the games.

Last November, a new wrinkle emerged in the standoff after the Department of Justice sued AT&T (now owner of DirecTV) for being a "ringleader" in a collusion effort involving the channel. The DOJ effectively claimed that DirecTV, Cox, and other regional cable providers violated antitrust law by sharing private company data during their coordinated effort against Time Warner Cable's exclusive arrangement and higher rates. The original complaint stated that this "unlawful information exchange" violated consumers' rights to fair channel price negotiations:

"As the complaint explains, Dodgers fans were denied a fair competitive process when DIRECTV orchestrated a series of information exchanges with direct competitors that ultimately made consumers less likely to be able to watch their hometown team,” said Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Sallet of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division. “Competition, not collusion, best serves consumers and that is especially true when, as with pay-television providers, consumers have only a handful of choices in the marketplace."

Fast forward a few months and a new administration, however, and the Department of Justice has announced that it has settled its lawsuit against AT&T. According to the DOJ, AT&T has agreed to monitor its employees so they do not illegally share information about sensitive contract negotiations with competitors. This, the DOJ states, should wind up being a boon for consumers:

"When competitors email, text, or otherwise share confidential and strategically sensitive information with each other to avoid competing, consumers lose,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Brent Snyder of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division. “Today’s settlement promotes competition among pay-television providers and prevents AT&T and DIRECTV from engaging in illegal conduct that thwarts the competitive process."

And yes, it makes sense to enforce existing antitrust law prohibiting covert collusion between companies. The problem, of course, is that nothing in the settlement fixes the original issue of Los Angeles residents being unable to actually watch these games due to Charter's exclusive deal with the Dodgers. Nor does it address the fact that cable providers increasingly pad consumer bills with "regional sports fees" that pay for these networks (which they often already own), but are designed to help providers falsely advertise a lower rate at the point of sale (something regulators truly couldn't care less about).

So while the settlement slaps the wrists of companies that technically broke the law to do battle with Charter's exclusive arrangement, nothing about it really makes things arguably better for the consumer. And with the DOJ's new incoming antitrust boss having formerly lobbied for both AT&T and Dish Network (he's previously supported AT&T's $85 billion plan to acquire Time Warner) the all-too-familiar anti-consumer dysfunction bone-grafted to the cable and broadcast sector isn't likely to evaporate anytime soon, even with the added benefit of streaming competition.

Filed Under: baseball, collusion, la sportsnet, merger, sports, tv
Companies: charter, dodgers, time warner cable

Donald Trump Keeps Taking Credit For Tech Sector Jobs He Had Absolutely Nothing To Do With

from the taking-credit-for-the-sunrise dept

Last week, buried under the fracas surrounding the failed update to the Affordable Care Act, the Trump administration conducted an adorable little stage play few actually noticed. The Administration invited Charter CEO Tom Rutledge to the Oval Office, where the CEO -- alongside Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Energy Secretary Rick Perry, repeatedly implied that Trump's policies were somehow to thank for the creation of 20,000 jobs and $25 billion in investment at the cable giant. Press Secretary Sean Spicer was quick to applaud the "new" jobs on Twitter.

At the same time Charter issued a statement expressing "confidence in the deregulatory policies of the Administration," the President's office rushed to release a video patting itself on the back for the "landmark deal":

The FCC also quickly issued a statement by new FCC boss Ajit Pai in which he claimed FCC policies were to thank for the jobs:

I’m pleased to see that our investment-friendly policies, along with the Administration’s overall regulatory approach, are already producing results.

And Pai Chief of Staff Matthew Berry also lent a hand to help the FCC pat itself on the back for a job well done:

The problem: neither the job creation nor the investment promises are new. And neither Donald Trump nor the FCC had absolutely anything to do with them.

The 20,000 jobs in question were actually announced more than a year ago by Charter. The jobs, purportedly to be created by eliminating off-shored labor, were part of the sales pitch for its massive, $79 billion acquisition of Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks. Like most megamerger promises, there was no real timeline affixed to the jobs, which may or may not ever actually get created. Job losses are far more common in such M&As due to the elimination of redundant positions, but holding companies accountable for false merger promises simply isn't fashionable for either major political party.

The $25 billion investment (to be made over four years) isn't new either. In fact, if you look at Charter SEC filings (page 221) from August 18, 2015, you'll note that the $25 billion is in line with what Charter pretty consistently spends over any four-year span. Some journalists on Twitter were also quick to point out that the $25 billion is actually down a bit from what Charter would have normally spent during the same period (ironic for a company that whined about net neutrality's impact on investment):

Granted, taking credit for jobs and investment he had nothing to do with has sort of become Trump's MO in his first few months in office. Sprint owner Softbank has also been letting the President take credit for job creation and investment he had nothing to do with in order to curry regulatory approval of a pending T-Moble, Sprint merger. Charter, which is rumored to be considering a possible megamerger with Verizon or T-Mobile, clearly hopes that buttering Trump up will pave the way for its own M&As.

It's a win for the companies and the administration alike: companies get to get their names in bright lights as job creators (whether it's true or not doesn't matter), and Trump gets more credit with a base that derides any contradictory evidence as fake news. The real losers remain American consumers. The deal, approved under the Obama administration, has already resulted in higher rates and even worse customer support than ever -- no small feat for an industry already ranked last in terms of customer satisfaction and support. Synergies, indeed.

Just so we're clear: the previous administration approved a deal that has already proven horrible for consumers; and the current administration is falsely taking credit for the stale and bogus job creation claims used to prop that bad deal up.

There's additional irony in that Trump ran his election based on killing megamergers of this type, promising to not only block AT&T's proposed acquisition of Time Warner, but to break up Comcast's already completed 2011 acquisition of NBC Universal. Most analysts expect neither to happen. In fact, the most likely outcome is that Trump and AT&T (the king of bogus telecom merger claims) will use the Time Warner deal to create a supernova of bogus job and investment promises the likes we've never seen before.

And while that's bad news for consumers, if you're the type that likes it when governments and companies use flimsy promises and half-cooked data to prop up bad tech policy and hollow partisan rhetoric -- you may soon find yourself in hog heaven.

Filed Under: ajit pai, donald trump, fcc, jobs
Companies: charter

Charter's Trying To Kill Recent Merger Conditions Banning Usage Caps, Net Neutrality Violations

from the pay-more-money-for-the-same-product dept

For decades now the FCC has been an expert at imposing utterly meaningless merger conditions. Usually these conditions are proposed by the companies' themselves, knowing full well these "demands" are utterly hollow -- and FCC punishment for ignoring them will be virtually non-existent. The end result has been a rotating tap dance of merger conditions that sound good upon superficial press inspection, but wind up being little more than hot air. It's a symbiotic relationship where as the telecom sector consolidates (often at the cost of less competition) the FCC gets to pretend it's not selling consumer welfare down river.

But last year something weird happened.

When Charter proposed its $79 billion acquisition of Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks, former FCC boss Tom Wheeler brought in net neutrality advocate Marvin Ammori to help hammer out conditions that wound up actually being meaningful. Under the deal, Charter was banned from imposing usage caps, engaging in interconnection shenanigans with content providers like Netflix, or violating net neutrality (even if the rules themselves were killed) for a period of seven years. Charter was also required to expand broadband to 2 million additional locations.

Not too surprisingly, broadband providers and the new incumbent-cozy FCC are getting right to work trying to eliminate those conditions entirely. New FCC boss Ajit Pai is circulating an order that would kill requirements that Charter overbuild into competing ISP territories, something demanded recently in a letter to the FCC by the American Cable Association. As is kind of telecom sector status quo, smaller cable companies say they'll take their investment ball and go home if the threat of additional, regulator-mandated competition isn't eliminated:

"To respond to growing consumer demand for increased bandwidth, all of us have been planning to upgrade the electronics on our networks and to deploy more fiber closer to customer locations over the next five years (the lifespan of the overbuild condition). Many of us have been planning to extend our networks to serve communities adjacent to our current service territories. But we have been forced to reconsider, scale back, or halt these investments in the wake of the Commission’s order."

Of course that's not how competition works, and companies believing they get to choose when you upgrade their networks speaks to the level of competition these companies already see. Elsewhere, broadband industry-funded think tanks like the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) are also pushing Pai to kill off the usage cap ban, trotting out the long-standing industry claim that usage caps are all about fairness:

"...the Order requires New Charter to refrain from imposing “data caps” or setting "usage-based prices" for its residential broadband Internet access services for seven years after the transaction closes. Given that “the record makes clear that online video places enormous demands upon the networks of Charter and Time Warner Cable and increases their capital costs,” Commissioner Pai asked a simple question in his dissent: “Who should bear those costs?" Because the Order concludes that “all customers must do so equally,” New Charter’s natural response to this condition “will be to increase prices on all consumers in order to amortize the cost of serving a bandwidth-hungry few."

Granted if you've been paying attention to the usage cap debate, you realize this is a stale canard. Industry executives have acknowledged that caps have nothing to do with network management, and aren't an effective way to police network congestion anyway. As any earnings report highlights, caps aren't a financial necessity either, since flat-rate broadband has been incredibly profitable for the industry for years.

What usage caps are is a price hike imposed on uncompetitive markets. Granted they also help ISPs protect their TV revenues from the rise of internet video by penalizing competing streaming services, while letting the incumbent's own services sail through without penalty (aka zero rating). Anybody believing that imposing caps and overage fees on all users is really about making sure a few people "pay their fair share" should steer clear of swampland and bridge salesmen.

Granted Charter's latest merger has still proven harmful for consumers, who say the company has frozen broadband upgrades and raised rates dramatically in the wake of the megamerger. If consumer welfare were truly a U.S. telecom regulatory criteria the deal likely would have never been approved at all, but the cap condition specifically at least kept things from being arguably worse in the face of limited competition. If the FCC's looking to give a middle finger to the millions of customers impacted by this deal, killing the conditions -- and requiring these users pay even more money for the same service -- is a fantastic way to do so.

Filed Under: broadband caps, data caps, fcc, merger conditions, net neutrality, usage caps
Companies: charter, time warner cable

New York AG Sues Charter For Slow Broadband Speeds, Says Company 'Ripping Off' Users With Substandard Service

from the the-George-Carlin-definition-of-customer-service dept

For some time now, New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman has been taking broadband companies to task for advertising broadband speeds they consistently fail to deliver. Last year, Schneiderman's office brought in Tim Wu, Columbia professor and the man who coined the term net neutrality, to help dig into the data. With Wu as the AG's "senior lawyer and special adviser," Schneiderman sent letters to NYC area broadband incumbents Verizon, Cablevision and Time Warner Cable -- questioning whether they actually deliver the speeds they advertise.

This morning, Schneiderman made his findings clear via a lawsuit against Charter Communications, which accuses the cable giant of "defrauding" millions of customers by advertising broadband speeds it's incapable of delivering. According to the AG's compiled data and full complaint (pdf), Charter routinely and consistently advertised "fast, reliable connections" that were anything but:

"The suit alleges that subscribers’ wired internet speeds for the premium plan (100, 200, and 300 Mbps) were up to 70 percent slower than promised; WiFi speeds were even slower, with some subscribers getting speeds that were more than 80 percent slower than what they had paid for. As alleged in the complaint, Spectrum-TWC charged New Yorkers as much as $109.99 per month for premium plans could not achieve speeds promised in their slower plans.

The complaint also alleges that Charter (now branded as Spectrum) and Time Warner Cable (recently acquired in Charter's recent $79 billion megamerger) knew full well they were shortchanging customers and lagging in necessary upgrades, and they just didn't give much of a damn:

"The AG’s investigation also found that Spectrum-TWC executives knew that the company’s hardware and network were incapable of achieving the speeds promised to subscribers, but nevertheless continued to make false representations about speed and reliability. The investigation further revealed that while Spectrum-TWC earned billions of dollars in profits from selling its high-margin Internet service to millions of New York subscribers, it repeatedly declined to make capital investments necessary to improve its network or provide subscribers with the necessary hardware."

It's worth noting that government data fairly consistently shows that ISPs usually deliver advertised speeds. Back in 2011, the FCC began recruiting volunteers who use custom-firmware embedded routers to provide real-world broadband connection performance data. Initially, the FCC found that many ISPs didn't deliver advertised speeds. But as the agency increasingly named and shamed the worst offenders, many ISPs began over-provisioning their broadband tiers -- effectively giving users more bandwidth than was advertised. The program was a relative success, but it's not likely to be continued under the new, more industry cozy FCC.

That said, the volume of traffic generated by New York City residents requires a little extra effort; effort that tends to not materialize when companies face limited competition. In New York, Charter acquired Time Warner Cable, whose biggest competitor was Verizon -- a company that has little to no interest in even being in the fixed-line broadband market, and has taken repeated heat from New York City officials for failing to uniformly upgrade the company's fiber network (taking subsidies and tax breaks then failing to do much with them has been Verizon's MO for a generation).

To be clear, Schneiderman drawing attention to Charter's failure is generally a good thing. That said, failures to track how subsidies are spent, failures to hold ISPs accountable for failed promises, the relentless thirst for consolidation, and the negative repercussions of blindly approving telecom megamergers -- are all ignored by most regulators (and Schneiderman) pretty much on a weekly basis. So when someone like this comes sweeping in late in the game to protect consumers, you should probably ask why they aren't doing more, more consistently, to protect telecom customers before the bill arrives.

With the priority in the telecom sector being megamergers, buying protectionist state laws and extracting ever-more money for the same relatively dismal service, it's not particularly surprising that the companies offer poor service at high prices, with some of the worst customer service in any industry in America. And with a Trump-era FCC preparing to let these companies dictate telecom policy for the forseeable future, and Wall Street gushing over the idea of a possible Verizon-Charter supermerger, you'd have to use some pretty creative mathematics to suggest this scenario gets better anytime soon, belated NY AG lawsuit or not.

Filed Under: advertised speeds, broadband, eric schneiderman, ny, service
Companies: charter

Verizon Eyes Charter Megamerger, Because Who Likes Broadband Competition Anyway?

from the ma-bell-and-the-ill-communication dept

Charter Communications just got done spending $79 billion to acquire Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks. And like most telecom megamergers, the promises made before the deal (more jobs! better service! incredible new innovation!) have only a fleeting resemblance to what's actually happening in the real world. Instead, acquired markets have enjoyed frozen broadband deployments, rate hikes and scaled back social media support. With Charter already having among the worst customer service in any industry in America, support in the wake of the merger has been precisely what you'd expect.

With the ink barely dry on that deal, the telecom sector is looking to consolidate even further. Charter stock took a nice joy ride this week on the news that Verizon has reached out to Charter to merge, consolidating the sector even further. The deal would create a telecom giant the likes of which the sector has never really known:

"Verizon serves 114 million cellphone subscribers, 4.6 million TV customers and 7 million Internet subscribers; Charter has 17 million TV customers and 21 million Internet subscribers. Together, the two companies' high-speed Internet businesses would add up to more than Comcast's 25 million broadband customers; at 21.6 million, their combined base of TV customers would be roughly on par with Comcast's. Both Verizon and Charter declined to comment."

Rumors of a Verizon and cable industry megamerger have been floating around the industry for several weeks, with Comcast also being tossed about as an M&A partner. Most of the analysis suggests that Verizon's either interested in using Charter's large footprint to help shore up the company's fifth generation (5G) wireless ambitions, or feels threatened from the cable industry's plan to jump into the wireless sector -- Verizon hoping to head off any additional wireless competition at the pass via M&A.

Less talked about of course is the fact that Charter and Verizon directly compete in many markets (like New York City), and the deal would result in an already relatively uncompetitive sector getting less competitive than ever. Or the fact that time and time again, promises of job creation and improved service in the wake of these deals never actually materialize. In fact, quite often the opposite is the result as redundant positions are eliminated and competitive incentive to compete (or, say, improve utterly abysmal customer service) is eroded further.

Of course the X factor in this latest megamerger rumor is whether or not the Trump administration will approve of the deal. On the campaign trail, Trump promised to not only block AT&T's $100 billion acquisition of Time Warner, but even went so far as to claim he'd somehow break up the already completed Comcast NBC merger, completed back in 2011. Most Wall Street and telecom analysts however believe Trump was just grousing over the negative coverage by NBC and Time Warner-owned CNN, and the ideological bent of his regulatory appointments (like new FCC boss Ajit Pai) suggest standing in the way of such super-unions won't actually be a formal administration policy.

Since historically companies like AT&T and Verizon have had incredible success conning convincing the press and public that these kinds of deals are a great boon for job growth and improved infrastructure, it seems rather likely that Trump will somehow approve and co-opt the deals under a flurry of promises that will never actually materialize. Should these kinds of deals be approved, the cognitive dissonance among Trump supporters still convinced he's somehow a champion of the little guy (despite clear intent to gut consumer protections like net neutrality and his laundry list of ultra-industry friendly administration appointments) should prove equal parts entertaining and terrifying.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, merger, tv
Companies: charter, verizon

Charter's Mega Merger Results In Higher Prices, Slower Speeds, And Worse Customer Support Than Ever

from the meet-the-new-boss dept

When Charter pitched its $79 billion acquisition of Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks, the company promised an absolute ocean of improvements for customers, including better broadband speeds, improved cable boxes and new jobs. After blocking Comcast's own merger attempt of these companies, regulators bought into this promise, approving the merger but banning the cable company from imposing usage caps, charging Netflix steep interconnection fees, or otherwise trampling net neutrality (even if the FCC's rules are gutted by the incoming administration).

But, even with these conditions, it's becoming apparent to many customers that the already shaky service they had under Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks is actually getting worse. Charter apparently doesn't believe in offering customer support via alternative methods, so it has eliminated most of the alternative customer support offered via social media and third party forums. Despite promising broadband speed upgrades, the company has also frozen the upgrades that had been taking place at the acquired companies.

This week, Charter formally applied its branding to acquired Time Warner Cable and Bright House markets. To introduce itself to its new customers, Charter got right to work post merger jacking up the price of service as customers' long-term contracts expire, with an apparent unwillingness to offer any new promotions:

(One customer) told me he’d been paying Time Warner about $140 a month for TV, phone and Internet service. But now that Spectrum had reared its head, his bill had shot up to $162. “I guess they’re trying to get their $8 billion back as quickly as possible,” Cohen, 74, said, referring to the fat bag of cash Time Warner Cable paid to be the exclusive distributor of Dodgers games.

Charter CEO Tom Rutledge insists that these freshly-acquired customers were "mispriced" and that offering promotions is a dead end game. None of this should be surprising. In telecom, where last-mile competition is little more than a pipe dream, larger mergers and acquisitions almost always result in higher prices, worse service, and job losses. Yet for obvious reasons, state and federal regulators are consistently intent on letting these companies grow larger and more apathetic, and ignoring the negative repercussions of these decisions as if they never happened.

Here's the real problem: despite the hype surrounding efforts like Google Fiber, the broadband market is about to get even worse for tens of millions of consumers, thanks, in part, to this consolidation.

AT&T and Verizon have given up on millions of DSL customers they don't want to upgrade, and have shifted their focus to media and advertising. Smaller telcos like Windstream, Frontier and CenturyLink don't want to pay to upgrade their DSL lines either, in many areas, and are shifting to enterprise services. So as cable giants consolidate, DSL competitors dwindle, and we move toward a new era of hamstringing regulators that oversee the telecom market, cable's monopoly will grow stronger, and the incentive to provide quality service at low prices will be less than ever before.

Filed Under: broadband, customer supporter, merger
Companies: bright house networks, charter, time warner cable