Big Telecom Claims Oversight & Accountability Violates Its First Amendment Rights

from the do-not-pass-go,-do-not-collect-$200 dept

The Ajit Pai FCC's attacks on net neutrality have received ample attention. Less talked about is the fact that the attack on net neutrality was just one part of a much broader effort to eliminate what was already pretty tepid oversight of one of the least liked and least competitive tech sectors in America.

The Pai FCC's Orwellian-named "Restoring Internet Freedom" order not only killed net neutrality rules, it dramatically rolled back FCC authority over big ISPs like Comcast, shoveling any remaining authority to an FTC ISP lobbyists know full well lacks the authority or attention span for telecom oversight. In addition to that, the FCC (again at big telecom's behest) has set about trying to claim states can't protect consumers either. With neither competition nor state or federal oversight keeping natural monopolies in line, it shouldn't take a degree in genetics to ferret out the potential pitfalls.

One of the key arguments underpinning most of the telecom sector's lobbying shenanigans of late involves one central claim: that state or federal efforts to hold giant ISPs accountable somehow violates Comcast and other ISPs' First Amendment rights. You'll recall ISPs tried to claim that net neutrality somehow violated ISPs' free speech rights, despite the fact that as simple conduits they don't engage in "editorial" decisions, making the argument rather silly.

The courts didn't agree with broadband providers then, but in his dissenting opinion during those earlier court battles new Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh did. Susan Crawford over at Wired offers up a solid piece explaining why, with Kavanaugh now positioned in the highest court of the land, ISPs are very eager to start pushing this argument more forcefully in the months and years to come:

"The addition of Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court roster gives the industry a significant boost. In a 2017 DC Circuit dissenting opinion, Justice Kavanaugh made it clear that he supports giving internet access providers "speaker" privileges, saying that "the First Amendment bars the Government from restricting the editorial discretion of Internet service providers."

She goes on to explain how the perils of embracing this argument opens the door to a future where little to nothing constricts Comcast's worst impulses:

"Treating the transmission of data as "speech" will make it virtually impossible for the government to say anything at all about internet access. If the government tries to regulate someday, you can be confident that the industry will make a lot of noise in the form of lawsuits focused on cable's First Amendment rights to carry out its "editorial discretion," in hopes that Justice Kavanaugh will get a chance to lock in the industry's status as a member of the press. The "speech" of a handful of giant companies will be privileged over the ability of all Americans—including all other American businesses—to communicate."

Again, the lower courts so far haven't much agreed with ISP arguments on this front. The claim was shot down during several court rulings and appeals during the net neutrality fight, and shot down again recently when Charter tried to wiggle out of allegations of racially-motivated treatment of a minority-owned broadcast channel Charter booted from its cable lineup. Charter (aka Spectrum) has also flirted with the argument unsuccessfully in its ongoing battle with New York State over years of poor service and violated merger obligations.

Again, ISPs are simply conduits to information, not acting as editors, making the whole thing a rather stupid argument. But it's a stupid argument being made in an era when stupidity is decidedly en vogue; and ISPs' very much hope to use it as a blunt weapon should any of these fights stumble their way to the Supreme Court over the next few years.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, ajit pai, broadband, fcc, net neutrality, oversight, regulations
Companies: at&t, comcast, verizon

From $1.50 To $10 Per Month: How Comcast's Bogus Fees Are False Advertising

from the fees-and-surcharges-may-apply dept

For several years now cable and broadband providers have been using hidden fees to covertly jack up their advertised rates. These fees, which utilize a rotating crop of bullshit names, help these companies falsely advertise one rate, then sock the consumer with a significantly higher-rate post sale (often when locked into a long-term contract). The practice also allows the company to falsely claim they're not raising rates on consumers. They omit that they're talking about the above the line rate being charged, implying that anything below the line (where real fees like taxes are levied) is outside of their control.

Back in 2014, Comcast introduced a new $1.50 per month surcharge it called its "Broadcast TV Fee." Said fee was really just a portion of the cost of doing business for Comcast (programming), busted out of the full bill and hidden below the line -- again to help the company falsely advertise a lower price. Over the last four years Comcast has quietly but quickly pushed this fee skyward, this week informing customers that -- alongside numerous other rate hikes like its "Regional Sports Network" fees -- the company's Broadcast TV fee would now be $10 per month for the company's cable TV customers:

"Comcast is raising its controversial "Broadcast TV" and "Regional Sports Network" fees again on January 1, with the typical total price going from $14.50 to $18.25 a month. The newly raised broadcast TV fee will be $10 a month, and the sports fee will be $8.25 a month, Cord Cutters News reported last week. The new fee sizes are confirmed in a Comcast price list for the Atlanta market. About a year ago, Comcast raised the broadcast TV fee from $6.50 to $8 and the sports fee from $4.50 to $6.50."

Not to be outdone, Comcast's also socking millions of its customers with a bevy of additional fees in the new year. Including a wide variety of modem and cable box rental fees, the latter of which arrive after Comcast worked overtime to kill FCC plans to improve cable box competition. Comcast users still routinely pay an arm and a leg in rental fees for hardware that actually costs very little for Comcast to buy wholesale:

"Equipment rental fees are rising, too. Comcast last year raised its modem rental fee from $10 to $11 a month. The new price list for January 1 lists an "Internet/Voice Equipment Rental" fee as $13. Comcast confirmed to Ars that the modem rental fee is rising $2 a month. Customers can avoid that fee by purchasing their own modem."

There's nothing healthy about a scenario where customers don't know how much they'll pay for service until the bill actually arrives, and face a rotating bevy of covert fees while purportedly under contract. In a country with functional regulators or healthy competition (or hey, both) Comcast wouldn't be allowed to completely make up a bogus fee specifically to help it advertise a lower price. But despite some occasional noise on this front, neither party has given much of a damn about such "creative" pricing. It sends a pretty clear message: ripping off consumers is fine if you're semi-creative about it.

As such, regulatory promises to mandate some transparency on this front come and go without meaningful change, and bills attempting to stop the practice routinely get crushed by lobbyist cash in Congress. The FCC's net neutrality rules included some meager provisions requiring that ISPs being transparent about hidden surcharges, but even those requirements were killed during the agency's net neutrality repeal (at direct Comcast lobbyist behest).

And while Comcast is occasionally singled out for the practice via lawsuits and consumer groups, it routinely tries to insist that socking customers with bullshit fees is just Comcast's way of being "transparent."

Obviously it's not just the cable industry that engages in such nonsense; telecom companies learned the tactic from the banking, airline, and other industries, who similarly get to confuse customers with surprise surcharges with zero meaningful market or regulatory repercussions. From hotel "resort fees" to family-separating airline assigned seating fees, the United States has repeatedly made it clear across industries that lying to consumers about how much they'll pay is now a great American pastime akin to baseball.

Filed Under: below the line fees, broadband fees, broadcast tv fee, false advertising, fees, sneaky fees
Companies: comcast

Senators Press Wireless Carriers On Streaming Video Throttling

from the ill-communication dept

Three U.S. Senators are pressuring wireless carriers for answers after recent studies showed they routinely throttle video services -- not to protect the network from congestion -- but to simply make an extra buck.

One of the core goals of net neutrality was to prevent ISPs from imposing arbitrary restrictions on the network just to harm competitors or boost revenues. Of course lax enforcement and now dismantled rules have made that hard to stop. As a result, ISPs like Comcast routinely impose completely arbitrary and unnecessary usage caps, then exempt their own content from those limits, but punishing users if they step outside the Comcast walled garden. Wireless carriers have similarly throttled music, games and videos, then begun charging users more money if they want those services to operate as the creators intended.

Even with net neutrality rules intact, the FCC didn't really do a good job understanding how these arbitrary restrictions (like usage caps and zero rating) could prove anti-competitive. And in the year or two since things have only gotten worse, with wireless carriers like Verizon throttling all video on its network unless you pay the company for an even more expensive plan. The perils of this should be obvious--especially for Americans who already pay some of the highest prices for mobile data in the developed world.

Historically, ISPs have tried to claim they only throttle video when it causes network congestion, with net neutrality generally allowing such network management. But recent studies out of Northeastern have shown that this throttling has nothing to do with managing network congestion, and everything to do with erecting artificial barriers consumers then have to pay more to overcome. David Choffnes, whose data for these studies is being collected via his WeHe app, also recently found that Sprint has been throttling Skype (a potential competitor to Sprint's own services).

Last week, Senators Edward Markey, Richard Blumenthal, and Ron Wyden sent joint letters to AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile, demanding answers as to why they throttle, which services they throttle, and whether they clearly inform users of the throttling (in Sprint's Skype instance, they didn't).

"We write to express our concern that mobile carriers may be inappropriately throttling and prioritizing internet traffic from common mobile apps without the knowledge of their customers. All online traffic should be treated equally, and internet service providers should not discriminate against particular content or applications for competitive advantage purposes or otherwise."

So far the FCC and major carriers haven't wanted to much talk about Choffnes or Northeastern's findings. Choffnes recently informed me in an interview that his goal is to bring some crowd-sourced transparency to network performance in the wake of the repeal of net neutrality. He was quick to highlight the inherent problem with letting ISPs non-transparently hamstring companies they're actively trying to compete with (Netflix vs. AT&T, for example):

"In a neutral network, all of these services can compete on a level playing field to offer a product that attracts the most users,” he said. “When an Internet provider targets a service for throttling, the playing field can tilt in favor of one service over another.”

“This is particularly problematic if the Internet provider's service is favored, because they can use this advantage to drive users away from competing products and to ones belong to the Internet provider,” Choffnes added. “And because the competition is limited by the Internet service they are given, in some cases there may nothing they can do to regain equal footing."

While the major carriers have until December 6 to answer, it's unlikely carriers will face much in the way of repercussions during FCC boss Ajit Pai's watch. Pai was not only happy to kill net neutrality and gut FCC authority at telecom lobbyist request, the net neutrality repeal replaced hard rules on transparency with entirely voluntary guidelines that ISPs can ignore at their leisure with absolutely no meaningful repercussions.

Keep in mind, that ISPs are currently trying their best to behave ahead of next February's court showdown over net neutrality (which could restore the 2015 rules). Should they win that fight, the kind of nickel-and-diming they engage in will progressively be less and less subtle.

Filed Under: broadband, fcc, net neutrality, senate, streaming, wireless
Companies: at&t, comcast, t-mobile, verizon

Comcast To Battle Cord Cutting By... Reinventing The Closed Cable Box

from the round-and-round-we-go dept

Like many cable operators, Comcast continues to slowly bleed cable TV customers to cheaper, more flexible streaming alternatives (aka cord cutting). The industry just saw its biggest ever quarterly loss of such subscribers in history, with Comcast losing 106,000 subscribers during the third quarter alone. It's a trend that's directly thanks to the industry's refusal to not only compete on price, but flexibility and openness.

You'll recall that Comcast (with the US Copyright Office's help) played a starring role in killing plans at the FCC to bring more competition and openness to the cable box. The cable industry hauls in $21 billion in cable box rental fees annually, so their motivation here should be obvious. The combination of limited cable box competition and the walled-garden approach to content also lets these companies keep would-be competitors at arms' length, helping to "protect" existing customers from the temptation of cheaper, more flexible programming options.

Realizing the company had to do something to address the rising streaming threat, Comcast has been doing things like adding Netflix to some cable boxes in the hopes that would keep its existing customers from cutting the cord. And, in last week's news, it emerged that Comcast would soon be launching a new streaming device for its broadband customers that actually lets users view not only Comcast's cable TV content, but that of some competitors. Again, the hope is that adding a few additional options will prevent users from fleeing to alternative options.

Of course this being Comcast, you won't actually be able to install whatever you like on it, just like a... cable box:

"The product isn’t quite a direct competitor to Roku or Apple TV because it won’t allow customers access to hundreds of apps, including streaming TV bundles like AT&T’s DirecTV Now or Dish’s Sling. Those services are direct competitors to Comcast’s video bundle, and Comcast wouldn’t be able to push its own video service to its broadband-only customers if it allowed them access to those bundled OTT services. Comcast hasn’t decided the exact number of apps that will be accessible through the device, said the people."

Comcast doesn't appear to have gotten the message that openness is the future. Streaming services now operate on an ocean of third-party hardware that (with some caveats like piracy) largely allows users to install whatever app or service they'd like. That's even more true of custom-built media center PCs. It looks like Comcast is attempting to justify the closed-nature of the device by throwing in some additional internet of things functionality (read: "we had to lock this device down for security purposes"):

"Rather, Comcast wants the device to be the hub to the connected home, they said. In addition to aggregating streaming apps, the device will also allow customers to control anything that’s connected to the Internet, including thermostats and smart-locks."

Still, a walled garden by any other name...

Granted this being Comcast, there's sure to be some additional caveats (like price or rental fees) at launch. Given Comcast's past actions on this front, it wouldn't be shocking to see Comcast exempt owners of its own hardware from broadband usage caps given the death of net neutrality rules.

Of course that brings us to Comcast's ace in the hole when it comes to battling cord cutting: limited broadband competition. Limited competition means bullshit usage caps and overage fees can be imposed on user lines without them being able to vote with their wallet. Such caps and fees not only let Comcast counter lost TV revenues with broadband price hikes, but simultaneously punish and profit from users who wander too far off-script to enjoy "non-sanctioned"competing products while using a Comcast broadband connection.

Between locked down hardware and the death of net neutrality, it's a good bet Comcast is hoping it won't have to compete quite as intensely on openness, flexibility, and price as the streaming wars truly accelerate.

Filed Under: cable, cord cutting, streaming
Companies: comcast

Donald Trump Suddenly Pretends To Care About Comcast Antitrust Violations

from the dysfunction-junction dept

For years, smaller cable companies have complained that giants like Comcast do everything in their power to make life miserable (and expensive) for them. These smaller providers have complained that Comcast often mandates they buy and include NBC channels and regional sports networks in their lineups, driving up costs. Many of these companies have considered getting out of the TV business entirely as their margins get tighter and they find themselves increasingly out-maneuvered by ever-growing, vertically-integrated media, telecom, and broadcast giants like Comcast and AT&T.

This week, the American Cable Association, a coalition of around 700 mid-sized and small cable providers, simply issued yet another request to the DOJ to, you know, actually maybe do something about Comcast's growing monopoly power:

"To help secure the benefits of a competitive pay-TV and broadband market for millions of consumers, the American Cable Association has asked antitrust law enforcers at the Department of Justice (DOJ) to open an investigation into the business practices of the vertically integrated media giant Comcast-NBCU, focusing on harms stemming from the dominant communications firm’s control of cable systems, TV stations, and regional sports networks (RSNs) concentrated in some of the largest local markets in the country."

Their complaint notes that with the conditions now expired on Comcast's 2011 merger with NBC, the company has greater leeway than ever to use its size, wealth, growing broadband monopoly and political power to bully smaller cable operators and consumers alike.

Normally these cries would simply be ignored in M&A manic America. Much like the TV market, smaller cable companies can't compete with the immense political power Comcast's wealth and size buys on Capitol Hill, so their concerns are pretty consistently ignored. As a result, whether we're in the throes of Obama or Trump administrations, blindly letting the biggest media and telecom companies merge, then standing around with a dumb look on our collective faces as these titans do what they always do (raise rates and use their newfound power to hamper competitors) is kind of our thing.

Like many small businesses, the ACA pretty consistently issues these cries for help without anybody much giving a damn. But that dynamic changed when President Trump this week curiously decided to wade in and comment on the ACA's filing:

So for one thing, it's unlikely that Donald actually cares about Comcast's monopoly power. After all, if he did, his FCC wouldn't have just effectively neutered itself and net neutrality (and most meaningful oversight of predatory monopolies) at direct Comcast request. Don probably just saw something on NBC news that made him mad, and decided to punish Comcast for it in a passive aggressive way. And punish it did: Comcast's stock dropped steeply on Monday of this week, and a dozen furrow-browed stories exploring Comcast's antitrust power were published that would have otherwise never have been written.

Oddly, many outlets took the potential for a DOJ inquiry into Comcast's monopoly power seriously. But there's zero real indication that's the case. As the assault on net neutrality should have made pretty clear, letting giant telecom operators like Comcast largely dictate most tech policy has been the Trump administration policy thus far, and that's not likely to change. The DOJ isn't going to suddenly investigate Comcast just because Don ran his mouth on Twitter, and it's certainly not going to suddenly pursue remedies for an eight-year old merger.

Don was likely just being Don: jumping into the fray of a subject he doesn't know much about because he saw some shit on TV that made him sad. And while it's true that Don's DOJ did sue AT&T to thwart (unsuccessfully) its Time Warner merger, it's likely that had less to do with actually helping consumers, and more to do with hurting CNN or helping Trump ally Rupert Murdoch, who spent most of 2017 trying to scuttle the deal for competitive reasons. So yeah, it's possible that the DOJ could ruffle some feathers at Comcast as punishment for critical NBC coverage of the President, but it's just not likely with Comcast already having gotten most of what it wanted (most notably in the form of a self-immolating FCC in the hands of Ajit Pai).

Meanwhile, the ACA has made a pretty consistent habit of complaining about Ajit Pai's failure to keep an eye out for the little guy, despite being breathless supporters of Pai's appointment. Perhaps at some point the ACA can connect the dots between supporting politicians that don't care about monopoly power, and policy that pretty clearly doesn't care about monopoly power.

Filed Under: antitrust, cable, donald trump
Companies: at&t, comcast

Cable's Top Lobbyist Again Calls For Heavier Regulation Of Silicon Valley

from the glass-houses-and-all-that dept

After having just successfully convinced the Trump administration to neuter state and federal oversight of lumbering telecom monopolies, those same companies continue their unyielding call for greater regulation of Silicon Valley.

If you've been paying attention, you'll know that Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon's attack on net neutrality rules was just the tip of a massive, dysfunctional iceberg. Those companies have also convinced the Trump administration to effectively neuter FCC authority over ISPs, and are in the process of trying to ban states from protecting consumers from wrongdoing as well (you know, for freedom or whatever). With neither competition nor even tepid meaningful oversight in place, the kind of bad behavior we've long seen from Comcast appears poised to only get worse.

At the same time, top lobbyists for the telecom industry continue to insist it's Silicon Valley giants that are in need of massive regulation. You're to ignore, of course, that these calls are coming just as giants like Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast try to pivot more fully from broadband into online video and advertising, in direct competition with the companies' they're calling to have heavily regulated. Former FCC boss Mike Powell, now the cable industry's top lobbyist over at the NCTA, has been leading this charge for much of the last year or two.

Powell was back last week at an industry event insisting once again that government needs to step in and start heavily regulating the companies Powell's clients are trying to compete with:

"I think there is a fundamental underappreciation in policy circles about the extraordinary power of the platforms and the data that rides on these companies and value of that information both as a competitive advantage as a platform and the potential dangers to consumers. “That has always been a naive concept and one that I think government was entirely inattentive to for too long, only to wake up in 2018 to realize there are some consequences that are not necessarily affirmative."

Powell's of course trying to play up Silicon Valley's admitted and obvious naivete as it pertains to aiding the amplification of propaganda and racist drivel. But at the same time, of course, he's happy to ignore all of the obvious problems caused by his own sector's growing competition issues, which Powell will be happy to tell you don't exist. In fact back in March Powell gave a very similar speech during which he effectively accused Silicon Valley of most of the things the telecom sector has been doing for years:

"Our governmental authorities need to get a handle on what kind of market power and harm flow from companies that have an unassailable hold on large pools of big data, which serve as barriers to entry, allowing them to dominate industries throughout the economy. For years, big tech companies have been extinguishing competitive threats by buying or crushing promising new technologies just as they were emerging. They dominate their core business, and rarely have to foreclose competition by buying their peers. Competition policy must scrutinize more rigorously deals that allow dominant platforms to kill competitive technologies in the cradle."

While it's obvious that Silicon Valley has plenty of problems that need addressing, listening to Powell's advice (read: Comcast's advice) on these subjects is like getting fire safety advice from a serial arsonist. But for whatever reason it's advice that's clearly resonating in the Trump administration, which pretty consistently has called for antitrust inquiries into major Silicon Valley giants while neutering most meaningful consumer protections (from privacy to net neutrality) governing some of the most clearly anti-competitive and unpopular companies in all of American industry.

Filed Under: cable, competition, lobbying, michael powell, regulations, silicon valley
Companies: at&t, comcast, facebook, google, verizon

Even Wall Street Is Nervous About Comcast's Latest Bid To Grow Bigger For Bigger's Sake

from the growth-for-growth's-sake dept

Comcast's latest effort to grow even larger is spooking even the company's investors. "Growth for growth's sake" has been the mantra of the telecom and TV sectors for years. Once growth in any particular market (like broadband) saturates, companies begin nosing about for efforts to grow larger in other sectors, even if it it's well outside of their core competencies (see Verizon Sugarstring, Go90). Unfortunately for the end user, such growth isn't accompanied by any meaningful parallel investment in quality product or customer service, a major reason so many users "enjoy" Comcast services today.

At the same time, this growing power results in increased efforts to thwart any effort to rein in this power, leaving oversight of the natural monopolies more precarious than ever (see: net neutrality). That's exceptionally true for Comcast, where the one-two punch of fading state and federal oversight, expiring NBC Universal merger conditions from its last 2011 megadeal, and a growing monopoly over broadband is forging a perfect storm of trouble.

Comcast's latest gambit came over the weekend, when the nation's biggest cable operator toppled 21st Century Fox with a $39 billion for Sky broadcasting, Europe's biggest pay TV operator. But even Wall Street stock jocks, traditionally more than happy to cheerlead mindless growth for growth's sake, have become nervous about the expansion, worrying that Comcast's overseas exploits are little more than a pricey distraction:

"Craig Moffett, an analyst at MoffettNathanson LLC, downgraded Comcast’s stock Monday to neutral, saying the company had “grossly overpaid for Sky.” Timothy Horan, an analyst at Oppenheimer, also downgraded Comcast’s stock, citing the company’s need to invest instead in the U.S., where it faces growing competition from wireless and online TV rivals."

“It’s going to be incredibly hard to justify having paid such a high price,” Moffett said in an interview Sunday. “This is an asset that neither Disney nor Comcast investors wanted to win.”

Comcast stock price took a major tumble as a result. The biggest problem for many investors is debt. Like AT&T's acquisition of Time Warner, the deal saddles Comcast with so much debt it's going to be forced to cut corners on other fronts in order to shore up the losses. Usually, at least in telecom, that results in cuts to customer service. It also results in companies nickel and diming captive customers harder than ever, whether that means usage caps and overage charges, bullshit fees, or even charging users more money if they want to protect their own privacy.

As you might expect, Comcast tried to put a more positive spin on its latest looming acquisition, company CEO Brian Roberts bubbling over about the overseas expansion:

"This is a great day for Comcast. Sky is a wonderful company with a great platform, tremendous brand, and accomplished management team. This acquisition will allow us to quickly, efficiently and meaningfully increase our customer base and expand internationally. We couldn’t be more excited by the opportunities in front of us. We now encourage Sky shareholders to accept our offer, which we look forward to completing before the end of October 2018."

The problem, of course, is the same one Comcast has always faced. Its ragingly incompetent customer service has made it the laughing stock of the tech industry for the better part of the last decade. What Comcast actually needs is to pause, invest in overall quality and support, and focus on its core competencies. But because traditional broadband is never profitable enough, quickly enough for Wall Street, Comcast executive eyeballs are always fixed everywhere other than fixing some of the company's many, fatal flaws.

Filed Under: acquisitions, wall street
Companies: comcast, sky

With The Death Of Net Neutrality & NBC Merger Conditions, Comcast Is Free To Misbehave

from the a-storm's-a'-comin' dept

Comcast has been having some massive "success" on the lobbying and policy front of late. Its lobbyists have successfully dismantled both net neutrality and privacy rules at the FCC. They've killed efforts to bring competition to the cable box. They've also successfully convinced Ajit Pai's FCC to effectively neuter its authority over lumbering telecom monopolies, kicking all remaining authority over to an FTC that's ill-equipped to actually hold Comcast accountable. The company has also been pushing hard to prevent states from being able to protect broadband and TV consumers either.

Given Comcast's quickly growing monopoly over fixed-line broadband, combined with its growing international footprint in media, it shouldn't be hard to see how we're building a perfect vacuum of limited accountability for one of the more anti-competitive companies in America. With neither competition nor even modest regulatory oversight to constrain it, it's not speculation to note that there's every indication that the Comcast everybody loves to hate is poised to become notably more obnoxious with little constraining its less ethical tendencies.

Comcast's dream scenario of no competition, and paltry state and federal oversight will soon get another gift in the expiration of the merger conditions affixed to the company's 2011 acquisition of NBC Universal. Conditions such as offering discounted broadband, promises to avoid hamstringing Hulu's competitive potential (Comcast is a co-owner), and restrictions on Comcast's treatment of smaller video programmers and distributors will all soon evaporate. Sure, the government let Comcast ignore many of these with no real punishment, but many of them still helped keep Comcast's worst habits in check.

For its part, the DOJ fired off a memo to Comcast last week stating that while the conditions expired, it would still be keeping an eye on Comcast for any potential anti-competitive behavior:

"The department retains jurisdiction to enforce the antitrust laws and takes its obligations seriously,” Makan Delrahim, head of the Justice Department’s antitrust division, wrote in the letter obtained by Bloomberg. “We would appreciate your cooperation in keeping us informed by providing the department with any plans you may have to change your policies or practices involving video programming and distribution.”

Yes, Comcast, do let us know in writing if you intend to behave anti-competitively.

Of course antitrust enforcement in this country isn't what it used to be. The powers that helped the government break up the ma bell monopoly have been largely eroded after decades of lobbying. And the DOJ's latest attempt to hold vertically-integrated powerhouses like AT&T in check recently fell flat on its face, thanks to said erosions locking DOJ lawyers into very specific confines of economic theory, and a comically-terrible misreading of AT&T's anti-competitive potential (especially in the wake of the death of net neutrality) by U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon.

In short, thanks to Comcast lobbying you've got no net neutrality, a crippled and beholden FCC, potentially-handcuffed states (depending on how well the ISPs and Ajit Pai's pre-emption gambit goes), and little-to-no competition in broadband (especially at faster speeds). And while Comcast will likely try and behave on the net neutrality front until the looming court case is settled, it shouldn't be hard to see how this growing competition and accountability vacuum is, sooner or later, only likely to make America's least liked company more obnoxious than ever.

Filed Under: competition, doj, fcc, merger conditions, net neutrality
Companies: comcast, nbc universal

Comcast Is Trying To Ban States From Protecting Broadband & TV Consumers

from the this-will-surely-end-well dept

We've repeatedly tried to make it clear that while everybody tends to focus on the death of net neutrality itself, the Pai FCC's "Restoring Internet Freedom" order killing net neutrality had a far broader impact than just killing net neutrality rules. As part of the repeal, Comcast, Verizon and AT&T also convinced FCC boss Ajit Pai to effectively neuter FCC authority over ISPs entirely, making it harder for the agency to hold giant ISPs accountable on a wide variety of issues ranging from privacy to transparency (the recent fire fighter kerfuffle being a prime example).

The order also attempts to ban individual states from holding giant ISPs accountable as well, though early ISP efforts to take advantage of this legal language haven't gone very well. In an effort to double down on weakening state oversight of natural telecom monopolies, Comcast lobbyists at the NCTA (the cable industry's biggest lobbying and policy organization) have also started petitioning the FTC, urging it to similarly "pre-empt" (read: ban or ignore) state-level efforts to protect consumers:

"The FTC should ensure that the Internet is subject to uniform, consistent federal regulations, including by issuing guidance explicitly setting forth that inconsistent state and local requirements are preempted," the NCTA wrote.

The FCC is already trying to preempt state net neutrality laws at the urging of industry groups, and courts might ultimately have to decide whether federal agencies can preempt such rules.

"The FTC should endorse and reinforce the FCC's ruling by issuing guidance to state attorneys general and consumer protection authorities reaffirming that they are bound by FCC and FTC precedent in this arena," NCTA argued."

The shorter version: the FCC's Restoring Internet Freedom order effectively cripples the FCC's ability to protect consumers, then shovels any remaining enforcement authority over to the FTC, which is ill-equipped to actually police the telecom market. Predicting that states would then try to jump in and fill the oversight accountability vacuum (which is precisely what started happening on both net neutrality and privacy), ISPs have also been urging both the FCC and the FTC to ban states from doing so.

This is all being done under the pretense that blind deregulation of the telecom sector magically results in greater industry investment and broader deployment. But as we've explained countless times, that's not how the U.S. telecom sector works. With neither competition nor reasonable government oversight to constrain it, natural monopolies like Comcast are simply free to double down on all their worst behaviors. To ignore this historical fact, one is required to pretend that the broadband industry is actually competitive, something Comcast again leans on in its filing with the FTC:

"ISPs claim they face so much competition that market forces will prevent bad behavior. Cable TV faces competition from online video services like Netflix, YouTube, and Amazon, NCTA noted. But notably, the NCTA filing includes a graphic listing "competitors" that doesn't include any broadband providers."

None of this logic is new. It was the same argument used by former FCC head Mike Powell (now the top lobbyist of the cable industry), who happily deregulated the broadband sector in the early aughts promising a cornucopia of investment and competition (consumers instead got a bigger Comcast monopoly, skyrocketing prices, usage caps, and virtually no competition at faster speeds). Oddly, giving giant telecom monopolies the precise regulatory landscape they want (no oversight, no concern about monopoly power) doesn't end well for consumers, innovation, or competition.

That this is still debated speaks to how lost in the woods on these issues we've become. And like Charlie Brown and his football, we never seem to learn, so nothing changes. And our reward for this collective gullibility is expensive broadband, comically-terrible customer service, and a bigger, meaner Comcast.

Filed Under: broadband, consumer protection, fcc, pre-emption, privacy, states, tv
Companies: comcast