Instead of COVID-19 Hazard Pay, Spectrum Is Giving Its Repair Techs $25 Gift Cards To Closed Restaurants

from the ill-communication dept

Despite its obvious reputational problems, Comcast has actually been stepping up for its workers during the COVID-19 crisis, paying its employees hazard pay, allowing unnecessary personnel to work at home, and closing at least some of its retail locations.

Charter Spectrum, the nation's second biggest cable provider, is another story entirely.

The company spent much of last week dealing with a backlash among employees who say the company is putting both its employees and local customers at risk. Charter initially refused to let employees who didn't need to be in the company's offices to work from home, despite having the capability. Even in instances where there were positive COVID-19 tests at Charter offices, the company still initially refused to let employees work from home. Only when the press got involved did Charter begin to bend, and even then it's still not letting all non-essential workers work remotely.

Charter employees say they're not getting hazard pay or adequate protective gear to do installs in customer homes. Instead, the company apparently thought it would be a good idea to give them a gift card. Not just any gift card, mind you, but a $25 gift card to a restaurant they probably can't visit anyway:

"Spectrum technicians connecting cable and internet for customers during the coronavirus outbreak will receive a $25 gift card for a local restaurant as a "token of our appreciation" from management, after staff called for hazard pay and protective equipment.

“These gift cards never expire, so if you choose a restaurant that is currently not open, the card will remain valid for future use," read the Monday night internal staff email from Tom Adams, the executive vice president of field operations. "Please take some time out of your busy day to enjoy a meal and recharge."

How generous. Needless to say, employees aren't particularly impressed:

"Would you do it for $25?” asked a field technician from Irwindale, California, who asked to remain anonymous, along with the other technicians quoted in this story, to protect his employment. He called Spectrum management "vultures."

While most experts believe the internet should largely hold up under the strain of widespread COVID-19 quarantines, it's going to be hard to keep many residential broadband connections operational with management displaying such an incredible knack for incompetence and penny pinching.

Filed Under: cable, cable techs, covid-19, protecting workers
Companies: charter, charter spectrum

Megamergers Can't Help Charter Spectrum As Cord Cutting Exodus Continues

from the bigger-isn't-better dept

You might recall that in 2016 Charter merged with Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks, promising that the new, combined company would offer a revolution in customer service, broadband speeds, and TV. Instead, what the company's customers got was a steady parade of rate hikes, and a company that has found itself under fire for repeatedly trying to kill or tap dance around merger obligations (like the one stating it can't cap broadband usage for six years). New York State deemed the company's service and behavior so atrocious, it seriously contemplated kicking the company out of the state.

Not too surprisingly, raising rates and offering terrible customer service continue to take a toll on the company. The company lost another 145,000 cable TV customers in the first quarter, as users (annoyed by price hikes) continue to flock to cheaper, more flexible TV options:

"The company posted net video subscriber losses totaling 145,000, compared to a net loss of 111,000 one year ago. The company lost 152,000 residential video subscribers this quarter, a 24% increase over the 121,000 residential subscribers it lost in the year-ago quarter."

Charter also lost 99,000 digital voice customers, as users who've gone wireless only also try to trim back their bloated monthly cable bill. It's odd in that these companies are facing intense new competition in the streaming space, and their first reaction is to double down on video price hikes. Part of that is an effort to recoup the massive debt load incurred by the mergers themselves, a problem AT&T is also struggling with. AT&T spent more than $150 billion on megamergers in recent years, only to face record subscriber defections thanks to endless rate hikes.

Granted cable giants like Charter Spectrum and Comcast have an ace in the hole: the lack of competition in broadband. As many US telcos retreat from upgrading their DSL lines, cable giants are enjoying a greater monopoly than ever. They're taking advantage of this lack of competition by jacking up the price of broadband. In Comcast's case that has included arbitrary, confusing, and punitive broadband usage caps, which not only act as a glorified price hike, but can help these cable giants simultaneously cash in on, and deter the use of, streaming video alternatives.

Charter may have lost video and phone subscribers last quarter, but it managed to add 428,000 residential and business broadband customers in the quarter. Given most of these users don't see an competition for faster speeds, Charter can hike prices at its leisure. And while the previous FCC banned Charter from imposing usage caps for six years, by 2022 those restrictions will be lifted. Between that and the death of net neutrality rules (assuming they're not restored by the ongoing lawsuit against the FCC), it's not hard to see how America's cable monopolies plan to impose all manner of creative nickel-and-dime restrictions on these captive customers.

Who's going to stop them? The current FCC is arguably beholden to the sector, meaning there's neither regulatory nor healthy competitive pressure capable of keeping these lumbering giants in line. The best hope is trying to shovel forth policies that actually bring more competition to underserved markets (including via community broadband or public/private partnerships), something Charter and Comcast's lobbying and policy folks work tirelessly to avoid.

Filed Under: broadband, consolidation, cord cutting, tv
Companies: bright house networks, charter, charter spectrum, time warner cable

Court Again Rules That Cable Giants Can't Weaponize The First Amendment

from the no-luck,-try-again dept

Over the last few years, telecom giants have increasingly been trying to claim that pretty much any effort to hold them accountable for their terrible service (or anything else) is a violation of their First Amendment rights. Historically that hasn't gone so well. For example, courts generally laughed off ISP lawyer claims that net neutrality violated their free speech rights, quite correctly highlighting that ISPs are simply conduits to information, not acting as editors of available speech through their blocking or filtering of available information.

Charter Spectrum, the nation's second biggest cable operator, has been trying to embrace this argument a lot lately as it fights off state lawsuits for terrible service. It recently tried to use the First Amendment card again in a legal battle with Byron Allen's Entertainment Studios Networks (ESN), which recently accused Charter of violating the Civil Rights Act of 1866 by refusing to carry TV channels run by the African-American-owned ESN.

While Charter tried to have the suit dismissed by claiming that the First Amendment prohibits such claims because an ISP enjoys "editorial discretion," the ruling (pdf) by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit didn't agree. The court noted that while ISPs and cable companies do enjoy some First Amendment protection, it doesn't apply here, just like it didn't apply in the net neutrality fight:

"As part of its defense, Charter had told the court that by choosing which channels to carry, the company was engaging in a form of editorial discretion protected by the First Amendment. Therefore, it said, the court would have to use a stricter standard to evaluate Entertainment Studios’ claim of a legal violation — a standard that might result in the claim being rejected.

The Ninth Circuit said otherwise, saying that just because Charter engages in corporate speech when it selects which channels to carry does not “automatically” require the court to use the tougher standard.

As a result, the court is letting the case move forward. For its part, ESN's discrimination complaint alleges that its complaint is based on more than just having its channel withheld from the company's cable lineup:

"The opinion on Charter’s motion to dismiss also marks a victory for the 25-year-old programming firm founded by comedian Byron Allen, which bought the Weather Channel in March and accused Charter executives in court of hurling racist insults at Allen and other black Americans in numerous encounters. In one alleged instance, Charter chief executive Tom Rutledge called Allen, who is black, “boy” at an industry conference and advised him to change his behavior, according to court documents. In another alleged example, the court said, Charter’s senior executive in charge of programming, Allan Singer, approached a group of black protesters outside Charter’s offices to tell them to “get off of welfare."

Consumer groups like Public Knowledge were quick to applaud the ruling, happy to see another effort to "weaponize" the First Amendment shot down. The district court will now proceed to determining whether Charter did engage in racially discriminatory conduct.

"Holding us accountable for absolutely anything violates our free speech" rights was historically something telecom lobbyists often just throw at a wall in a bid to see if it sticks. But these efforts have escalated in the last few years. For example FCC staffers under Ajit Pai, at this point nearly indistinguishable from big telecom lobbying efforts, have even tried to claim that community-run broadband (an organic, voter-approved response to terrible service) is a threat to free speech, a charge there's absolutely zero supporting evidence for.

It's a legal argument giant ISPs have also embraced more recently in large part because they hope that new Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who bought into some of these arguments during previous net neutrality battles, will ultimately be a deciding vote should many of these battles wind their way to the Supreme Court. So far, however, these efforts haven't worked out all that well, and while that's not likely to change when the net neutrality court fight kicks off next February, it could be an important issue should that fight make its way to the highest court in the land.

Filed Under: cable, first amendment, isp, ninth circuit, telecom
Companies: charter spectrum, esn

Charter Spectrum's CEO Continues To Whine About Streaming Password Sharing

from the get-off-my-damn-lawn dept

For years now, streaming video providers like HBO and Netflix have taken a relatively-lax approach to password sharing. Netflix CEO Reed Hastings has gone so far as to say he "loves" password sharing, and sees it as little more than free advertising. Execs at HBO (at least before the AT&T acquisition), have similarly viewed password sharing in such a fashion, arguing that young users in particular that share their parents password get hooked on a particular product via password sharing, then become full subscribers down the road once they actually have disposable income.

On the other side of the equation sits Charter CEO Tom Rutledge, one of the highest paid execs in media. He, in contrast, has long complained that he views password sharing as "piracy", and has consistently promised to crack down on the practice. Rutledge and his fellow executives gave a particularly rousing "get off my lawn" lecture at a media event last year:

"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."

Of course it's far from "piracy" if it's being sanctioned by the companies doing it, with an eye on generating product awareness and happy customers. That last bit is something Rutledge could use some lessons on. Rutledge fixates on password sharing when he should be focused on why exactly his company continues to bleed subscribers to these cheaper, more flexible traditional cable alternatives. Hint: endless rate hikes, historically terrible customer service, and megamergers

Last week Rutledge was at it again. During his company's latest earnings call, Rutledge proclaimed that streaming providers like HBO and Netflix clearly "don't know what they're doing" because they've refused to crack down on the villainous practice of password sharing:

"By the content companies going over the top without having the experience of being distributors, they’ve done that in a way without securing their content, which any distributor would theoretically do if they knew what they were doing. But that hasn’t been the case, so you have free service all over the country through passwords,” Rutledge said. “The reality is television can be had fairly easy without paying for it."

Granted just because television can sometimes be "had fairly easy without paying for it" doesn't mean it's bad, or it's "piracy." Millions of users increasingly are flocking to over the air antennas as an alternative to the bloated, expensive cable bundles execs like Rutledge simply can't move on from. It's worth noting that this is a "problem" that really isn't. Most streaming services already limit simultaneous streams per account, and being able to share your password with a limited set of friends and family members is part of the value equation you're paying for.

It's also worth noting that when HBO or Netflix execs acknowledge the trend, they note there really aren't all that many users actually doing it. As such, if there's something Rutledge wants to spend several years hyperventilating over, it should probably be his company's continued failure to actually listen to consumers, and offer a better product with support that isn't ranked among the worst of any company, in any industry in America.

Filed Under: passwords, piracy, pricing, sharing, streaming, tom rutledge
Companies: charter, charter spectrum

Charter Spectrum Security Flaw Exposes Private Data Of Millions Of Subscribers

from the Another-day,-another-scandal dept

Last year you'll recall that the cable and broadband industry lobbied the government to kill off broadband privacy rules at the FCC. The rules were fairly basic, requiring that ISPs and cable operators clearly disclose what data is being collected and sold, but also provide working opt out tools for users who didn't want to participate. The rules also contained restrictions requiring that consumers opt in to more sensitive data collection (financial), as well as some requirements that ISPs and cable ops adhere to standard security procedures, and quickly inform consumers when their private data was exposed by a hacker.

In recent months, the cable industry has been showcasing how it's simply not very good at keeping its websites secure. Comcast, for example, has seen three privacy breaches in almost as many months, with security researcher Ryan Stevenson discovering numerous, previously-unreported vulnerabilities that potentially exposed the the partial home addresses and Social Security numbers of more than 26.5 million Comcast customers.

Not to be outdone, now Buzzfeed has found that a vulnerability on the Charter Communications (Spectrum) website made it possible for just about anyone to take over customers’ accounts without a password. According to the report, this flaw was again discovered by Stevenson (who goes by the monicker Phobia), and involved tricking a Spectrum website that let subscribers create a Time Warner Cable (the company Charter just acquired) ID.

If a targeted customer hadn't yet registered for such an ID, a website flaw let a hacker trick the website into creating one by replacing their own IP address with the customer’s using the “X-forwarded-for” technique, a relatively trivial affair:

"The registration website tried to verify subscribers’ identities by asking for their zip codes and phone numbers. But according to the security researcher Phobia, the zip code didn’t need to be correct to proceed to the next page. Only the phone number associated with the account needed to be accurate. Additionally, Ceraolo found that hackers could use a brute-force software program in the phone number field (in other words, repeatedly try different 10-digit combinations), because the Spectrum website did not limit the number of attempts. That means it would be relatively easy for a hacker to take over someone’s account even without an accurate phone number."

Once the bogus ID was created, the hacker subsequently had access to oodles of private user account data, including billing address, email, and account number. That data could, in turn, be used as the cornerstone of social engineering and phishing efforts to glean even more customer information. Not all of Charter's total 23 million customers are impacted; only a smaller subset of the company's 14 million "legacy," pre-merger Time Warner Cable subscribers were impacted. The company also claims that it has no evidence to suggest that these flaws were actually exploited.

But we're still likely talking about millions of potential subscribers, and Charter won't specify just how many users may have had their private data exposed. And if Stevenson's recent track record is any indication, there's plenty more flaws likely waiting in the wings to be discovered.

Filed Under: breaches, broadband, flaws, privacy
Companies: charter, charter spectrum

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.

Filed Under: broadband, new york, tom rutledge
Companies: charter, charter spectrum

New York State Threatens To Revoke Charter's Cable Franchise For Bullshitting

from the ill-communication dept

New York State and the nation's second biggest cable provider (Charter Spectrum) aren't getting along particularly well. 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 misled consumers, refused to seriously upgrade its networks, and manipulated a system the FCC used to determine whether the company was delivering advertised broadband speeds to the company's subscribers (it wasn't).

Charter has tried to use the FCC's net neutrality repeal to claim that states can't hold it accountable for terrible service, but that hasn't been going particularly well.

Meanwhile, Charter is also facing heat from the state after the State Public Service Commission found that Charter routinely mislead regulators about its efforts to meet conditions affixed to its $89 billion acquisition of Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks. As part of that deal, Charter was supposed to expand service to "145,000 unserved and underserved residential housing units and/or businesses within four years." But the company was fined $2 million after regulators found it repeatedly tried to pretend it had expanded services to areas that weren't actually upgraded.

Things have only gotten uglier from there. Last week, the NY PSC accused the company of gaslighting its customers after it repeatedly tried to tap dance around merger obligations despite repeated fines. The company promised a "universe of synergies" ahead of the deal, but consumers only received even higher prices and even worse customer service than the company was already known for:

"Charter's claims are simply false and the commission will not stand idly by while Charter deceives the public and its shareholders," (NY PSC Chairman John) Rhodes said. "Charter's own data shows a gaping hole between its commitments and its performance. New York will not tolerate Charter's gaslighting its own customers into believing it is meeting its promises."

The state PSC says Charter's deception may force it to take an almost-unheard of action, the revocation of the company's cable franchise agreement in the state:

"Not only has the company failed to meet its obligations to build out its cable system as required, it continues to make patently false and misleading claims to consumers that it has met those obligations without in any way acknowledging the findings of the Public Service Commission to the contrary," Rhodes said. "Our patience with Charter has come to an end and now we must move to take much stronger actions."

Historically, state legislatures and regulators are almost comical rubber stamps for regional broadband monopolies, one of several reasons why American broadband tends to be monumentally terrible in many parts of the country (regulatory apathy in the face of limited competition is a pretty fatal combination). But as we're seeing with state-level net neutrality efforts, the federal assault on broadband consumer protections and accountability appear to have resulted in at least a handful of states growing a spine and actually giving a damn.

Filed Under: cable franchise, misleading regulators, new york
Companies: charter, charter spectrum, time warner cable

Court Says ISPs Can't Use Net Neutrality Repeal to Dodge Lawsuits For Shitty Service

from the foxes-watching-the-henhouse dept

The Trump FCC's rollback of federal net neutrality rules didn't just kill net neutrality. The repeal also gutted FCC authority over ISPs, shoveling any remaining authority to an FTC that's ill-equipped to actually police ISPs (the entire point and why ISPs lobbied for it). This comically-misleading "Restoring Internet Freedom" order also tries to ban states from protecting consumers. The language, included in the repeal after heavy lobbying by Comcast and Verizon, attempts to "pre-empt" state authority over ISPs.

ISPs quickly got to work trying to use the language to dodge accountability.

Charter Spectrum, for example, has been trying to use the FCC's pre-emption language to dodge a lawsuit for shoddy service. New York State sued Charter last year for falsely advertising speeds company e-mails show execs knew it couldn't deliver. The suit also highlighted how Charter execs routinely gamed a regulator speed test system (comprised of volunteer routers with custom firmware) in an attempt to falsely represent the company's network performance. The company was also accused of artificially inflating congestion to cash in on interconnection disputes.

But Charter's efforts aren't going particularly well. Late last week, The First Department of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division of the State of New York ruled (pdf) that Charter could not lean on the FCC's net neutrality repeal to have the case thrown out, and that it will be proceeding to trial. The ruling found that no, the FCC neutrality repeal did not legally pre-empt states from their right to enforce laws "that prevent fraud, deception and false advertising" in regards to broadband service. Consumer groups were quick to applaud the ruling:

"This is great news for broadband users in New York, and it bodes well for state efforts to protect broadband users generally. Such efforts are especially important given the current FCC’s decision to abdicate many of its consumer protection responsibilities with respect to broadband."

Ironically, some legal experts (like Stanford Law Professor Barbara van Schewick) have argued that when the FCC rolled back Title II and neutered its own authority over ISPs, it also dismantled much of the already-limited authority it had to tell states what they can do. ISPs have promised to sue states that try to protect consumers, but it's not clear their legal footing is particularly sound. Meanwhile, the effort to hold ISPs accountable in the wake of Ajit Pai's industry earlobe nibbling has cultivated a newfound appreciation on some fronts for the importance of state rights.

Obviously this will be a fight that plays out on a state by state level, and ISPs are likely to have better luck in some states than others. It's a story that's going to be worth paying attention to, as it will highlight another angle of consumer harm most people aren't even thinking about when they consider the impact of the extremely unpopular repeal of net neutrality.

Filed Under: broadband, false advertising, fcc, jurisdiction, net neutrality, new york
Companies: charter, charter spectrum