Third Comcast Website Flaw Exposes User Data In As Many Months

from the it's-Comcastic dept

Comcast has been dinged for a third significant website privacy vulnerability in almost as many months. Back in May, a bug in Comcast's website used to activate the company's Xfinity-branded routers opened the door to letting attackers trick the website into displaying the home address where the router is located, as well as the Wi-Fi name and password. Then last June, security researchers discovered that an API used by Comcast could be tricked into returning a swath of private customer data, including account numbers, a user's account address, and numerous details about a user's account, including what services are subscribed to.

Comcast's now back in the news again, with BuzzFeed reporting that yet another security flaw in Comcast's website has potentially exposed customer information. Security researcher Ryan Stevenson (who also discovered the previous two vulnerabilities) found that two new, previously-unreported vulnerabilities exposed the the partial home addresses and Social Security numbers of more than 26.5 million Comcast customers.

One of the flaws let an attacker exploit an "in home authentication" portal set up by Comcast that let customers pay their bills without logging in. The portal asked users to verify their identity by showing them partial snippets of four potential home addresses. While this was designed to be convenient, it opened the door to a potential hacker spoofing a Comcast user's IP address to obtain sensitive data. Once alerted, Comcast fixed the vulnerability and required that users enter their cable and broadband credentials to pay their bills.

The other flaw was potentially more damning, since it exposed the last four digits of Comcast users' social security numbers:

"In the second vulnerability that Stevenson discovered, a sign-up page through the website for Comcast’s Authorized Dealers (sales agents stationed at non-Comcast retail locations) revealed the last four digits of customers’ Social Security numbers. Armed with just a customer’s billing address, a hacker could brute-force (in other words, repeatedly try random four-digit combinations until the correct combination is guessed) the last four digits of a customer’s Social Security number. Because the login page did not limit the number of attempts, hackers could use a program that runs until the correct Social Security number is inputted into the form."

Comcast, for its part, states that the vulnerabilities have been patched:

"We quickly investigated these issues and within hours we blocked both vulnerabilities, eliminating the ability to conduct the actions described by these researchers. We take our customers’ security very seriously, and we have no reason to believe these vulnerabilities were ever used against Comcast customers outside of the research described in this report."

Which is all well and good, but given the volume of sensitive data collected by telecom giants that also sell home phone service, wireless, security service, broadband, TV, and an ocean of other services, the number of website flaws in recent months remains troubling. Especially for a company that spent millions lobbying to kill FCC broadband privacy protections last year; protections that, among other things, required that ISPs be more transparent about what data is collected and sold, and quickly and transparently inform customers when their private data may have been improperly accessed.

Filed Under: flaws, passwords, privacy, security, xfinity
Companies: comcast

Report Highlights How U.S. Telcos Abandoned Rural American Broadband

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

So we've made it pretty clear for a long while that United States broadband ranges somewhere between mediocre and terrible thanks to the one-two punch of cash-compromised lawmakers/regulators and a lack of real broadband competition. We've also noted for a while how despite all the hype about limited gigabit broadband deployments and next-gen wireless (5G), the problem is actually getting worse in numerous markets.

In countless areas (usually the ones where poorer people live), incumbent telcos have effectively given up on broadband because it's not profitable enough, quickly enough for Wall Street's liking. As a result, telcos are refusing to upgrade aging DSL lines at any real scale, leaving cable with a bigger monopoly over broadband in countless markets country wide. That monopoly in turn lets cable broadband providers double down on all manner of bad behavior, be it comically bad customer service, privacy and net neutrality violations, or arbitrary and anti-competitive usage caps and overage fees.

A new report (pdf) by the Institute For Local Self-Reliance once again drives this point home, noting how the nation's telcos have all but given up on broadband investment outside of semi-competitive markets, leaving vast swaths of territories with "broadband" that can't even meet the FCC's 25 Mbps down, 4 Mbps up definition. But because the country's broadband maps are fundamentally terrible, telcos are routinely allowed to falsely over-state actual availability.

The report leans heavily on the form 477 data ISPs submit to the FCC. We've long noted how this data isn't particularly accurate already, and ISP lobbyists have routinely fought efforts to improve broadband mapping. In large part because a more accurate picture of the market would make it harder for Comcast and friends to pretend U.S. broadband isn't a broken market punctuated by regional monopolies with an active disdain for their user bases. As such, the group is quick to highlight how things are notably worse than the FCC's data actually suggests:

"We have deep  hesitations about using this data because of its many inaccuracies, but there is no other feasible option. In any event, this provides a  conservative baseline for the problems in the market - though we  believe the true level of competition is worse than this analysis shows, neither is tolerable in a country that claims to support a  market-driven solution for supplying broadband Internet access.

“With modern technology, it should be trivial to develop a process that is easy for ISPs to use and less likely for monopoly ISPs to game but we have not found a single person with deep knowledge of the FCC that believes it will happen in the near future."

One major problem the report explores is that because we lack a solid understanding of broadband availability, efforts to throw subsidies at the problem don't usually work out that well. As we've seen countless times, incumbent ISPs are experts at taking broadband subsidies and tax cuts, and then failing to deliver, often with zero real repercussion. The problem is downright comical in more corrupt states like West Virginia, where taxpayer money is routinely funneled into ISP coffers without oversight, resulting in some pretty epic displays of graft and incompetence.

As a result, we're throwing subsidies at a problem we don't truly understand, with some fairly obvious results if you're one of millions of consumers whose only broadband option is Comcast:

"The broadband market is broken. Comcast and Charter maintain a monopoly over 68 million people. Some 48 million households (about 122 million people) subscribe to these cable companies, whereas the four largest telecom companies combined have far fewer subscribers — only 31.6 million households (about 80.3 million people). The big telecom companies have largely abandoned rural america — their DSL networks overwhelmingly do not support broadband speeds — despite years of federal subsidies and many state grant programs."

In response, many towns and cities have eyed building their own broadband networks, but incumbent ISP lobbying plays a role here too, with more than 21 states having passed protectionist laws banning such efforts at ISP behest. Instead of fixing broadband mapping, policing fraud, embracing pro-competition policies and cracking down on ISPs that defraud taxpayers, the Ajit Pai FCC has instead decided to sweep the problem under the rug with clever math, then dismantle the consumer protections preventing monopoly abuse of uncompetitive markets (net neutrality).

The fight to actually foster something vaguely resembling competition in broadband has been raging for decades. Often because many have bought into the AT&T and Comcast fostered delusion that simply deregulating everything in telecom magically results in competition spring forth from the sidewalk. But mindless deregulation of U.S. broadband has, time and time again, only given natural monopolies free rein to double down on terrible behavior.

The report makes it clear that the real solution is complicated. It needs to include reform, public private partnerships in communities where ROI is low, the elimination of counter-productive protectionist state laws, and embracing efforts to accurately map where broadband is available and how much it costs. Only then can you actually craft useful policies that truly drive broadband competition and improve broadband coverage instead of paying empty lip service to the concept. As the Ajit Pai era once again illustrates, these are lessons Americans aggressively refuse to learn.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, fcc, rural broadband
Companies: at&t, comcast, verizon

Cord Cutting Accelerates Faster Than Expected, As Cable Still Refuses To Compete On Price

from the inevitability dept

As we just got done noting, roughly 5.4 million Americans are expected to cut the TV cord this year, thanks largely to the rise in cheaper, more flexible streaming TV alternatives. And while some traditional cable TV providers have responded to this challenge by competing on price and offering their own cheaper streaming alternatives (AT&T's DirecTV Now, Dish's Sling TV), most of the cable and broadcast sector continues to double down on the very things causing this shift in the first place. Like a refusal to invest in customer service, an obsession with mindless merger mania, and seemingly endless price hikes.

Companies like Comcast have tried to stall this natural evolution by striking marketing partnerships with Netflix and including Netflix in their set top boxes, in the apparent hopes that users won't get rid of traditional cable if they're already getting Netflix as part of their monthly cable, broadband, and phone bundle. But data released this week indicates that this effort to stop cord cutting by cozying up to Netflix isn't really working, and cord cutting is accelerating at a rate notably faster than many analysts predicted:

"Even as traditional pay TV providers form partnerships with former over-the-top (OTT) rivals to retain customers, cord-cutting continues to outpace projections. According to eMarketer’s latest figures, the number of cord-cutters—adults who have ever cancelled pay TV service and continue without it—will climb 32.8% this year to 33.0 million. That’s higher than the 22.0% growth rate (27.1 million) projected in July 2017."

Comcast cozying up to Netflix isn't working because the industry continues to misread the situation. Customers are cutting the cord primarily due to the high cost of mandatory, bloated cable bundles filled with channels nobody actually watches. Comcast's solution was to include a Netflix subscription -- but only if you subscriber to Comcast's higher end TV bundles, something that certainly doesn't address the actual problem.

The report proceeds to note that users are drawn to streaming alternatives for a number of reasons, not least of which being the rise in quality original content at Netflix, Hulu and Amazon, but the lack of obnoxious, hidden surcharges and fees:

"The main factor fueling growth of on-demand streaming platforms is their original content,” eMarketer principal analyst Paul Verna said. “Consumers increasingly choose services on the strength of the programming they offer, and the platforms are stepping up with billions in spending on premium shows. Another factor driving the acceleration of cord-cutting is the availability of compelling and affordable live TV packages that are delivered via the internet without the need for installation fees or hardware."

So why aren't more cable companies competing on price? While cable companies that charge an arm and a leg for DVRs and cable boxes aren't blameless, broadcasters largely dictate programming pricing. And while that's not as big of a deal for companies like AT&T and Comcast that are broadcasters, it's an untenable situation for smaller cable ops, who already have pretty tight profit margins on pay TV due to high broadcaster rates. The same broadcasters who will, of course, be partially responsible for the steady price hikes we're also starting to see in streaming services.

But companies like Comcast refuse to compete on TV pricing for another reason: they know that a lack of competition in broadband (which is actually getting worse in many areas) means they can relentlessly jack up prices for broadband to recoup any lost revenue on the TV side of the equation. That means not only higher overall prices for broadband, but the implementation of usage caps and overage fees, unnecessary surcharges that not only make broadband more expensive, but make cutting the cord more difficult and costly as well.

Filed Under: cable tv, competition, cord cutting, tv
Companies: at&t, comcast, netflix

The Cable TV & Broadband Sector Has A Nasty Billing Fraud Problem

from the sleazy-surcharges dept

As we've well discussed, the broadband and TV sector not only has some of the worst satisfaction scores in modern history. A lack of real competition has long allowed the industry to double down on all manner of bad behavior, whether that's net neutrality and privacy violations, or just unprecedentedly-awful customer service. But in recent years the industry has developed another nasty habit: billing fraud involving everything from falsely signing customers up for services they never ordered to entirely bogus fees designed to let companies falsely advertise lower rates.

T-Mobile was accused last year of signing users up for services they neither wanted nor ordered. Centurylink has similarly found itself in hot water for the same thing on a larger scale, the company now facing lawsuits in more than a dozen states for the practice. Washington State also recently sued Comcast, noting that the company not only routinely signs its customers up for a "Service Protection Plan" they never ordered, but consistently misrepresents what the plan actually does. You may or may not notice a pattern here.

Now Cox Communications, the nation's third-largest cable provider, is being accused of the same thing. A company whistleblower has accused company employees of repeatedly... you guessed it... fraudulently signing customers up for services they never ordered to nab bonuses they didn't actually earn:

Speaking only to the I-Team, two whistleblowers are convinced some Cox Communications sales reps in Northern Virginia are cashing in by signing up customers for services they didn't authorize. Why? To reach monthly bonuses of $12,000 or more.

"How far they're going for a commission payout, to affect thousands of people, it's a heinous, greedy act," said former Cox Communications employee Anna Wilkinson.

Wilkinson, a former sales rep, claims to have notified her bosses at Cox but says nothing changed.

That last bit, where the employee informs management and nothing changes, is par for the course in such stories. In the CenturyLink example above, a whistleblower states she brought the fraudulent behavior to company leadership and was promptly fired for it. The company then launched an investigation into itself and found, miraculously, that it had done absolutely nothing wrong. Lawsuits in numerous states, however, continue.

Also a recurring theme: complaints are routinely made to the FTC but pretty rarely result in action, especially if the company in question is a larger, deeper-pocketed or politically-powerful potential litigant. That is, you'll recall, the same FTC that's supposed to protect us all from net neutrality violations in the wake of the neutering of federal net neutrality law and FCC authority over such companies by the Trump administration.

Of course ripping off customers via erroneous subscriptions to never-ordered services is just part of the problem. The TV and telecom sector also has a nasty habit of imposing all manner of bogus fees to customer bills. Fees that are completely made up and buried below the line for one misleading purpose: to falsely advertise a lower rate at the point of sale, then jack up your monthly bill once you've already had services installed. And again, you'd be pretty hard pressed to find a regulator or lawmaker from either party willing to do much about it.

On the TV side of the equation, this is likely only to result in greater cord cutting as users flock to cheaper, less dysfunctional streaming competitors. But given the rise of regulatory capture and waning competition in the broadband sector, it's a problem that's pretty clearly not going away anytime soon.

Filed Under: billing fraud, broadband, competition, ftc, subscriptions, tv
Companies: centurylink, comcast, cox, t-mobile

Comcast's Wireless Service Will Charge You More To Stream HD Video

from the arbitrary-constructs dept

A few years back, wireless carriers began flirting with a new idea: throttling all video by default, then charging you additional money if you wanted to view video as actually intended. You'll probably recall that T-Mobile spearheaded this effort, and wasn't particularly honest about what it was doing. You might also recall that Sprint began throttling all video to 1.5 Mbps, all games to speeds "up to 2 Mbps" and all music streams to speeds "up to 500 Kbps." Fortunately for you, you could avoid dealing with this arbitrary restrictions if you were willing to pay Sprint an additional $25 per month:

"This plan provides a premium quality mobile streaming experience with HD streaming videos at up to 1080p+, HD music streaming at up to 1.5 Mbps and streaming gaming at up to 8 Mbps."

Reddit users note that Comcast is now following suit for its own Xfinity Mobile wireless service. The service leans primarily on Comcast's network of WiFi hotspots and Verizon's cellular network, promising users "unlimited" data for $45 per line (plus various fees). As is usually the case in wireless, Comcast's definition of "unlimited" means around 20 GB, after which your connection is throttled to 1.5 Mbps download and 750 Kbps upload. Now, according to Reddit users, the company has also started throttling video on this service back to 480p, with plans to begin charging you more if you want actual HD:

"To help you conserve data, we've established 480p as the standard resolution for streaming video through cellular data. This can help you save money if you pay By the Gig and take longer to reach the 20 GB threshold if you have the Unlimited data option. Later this year, 720p video over cellular data will be available as a fee-based option with your service. In the meantime, you can request it on an interim basis at no charge.

In other words, by "unlimited" Comcast really means 20 GB on a connection incapable of delivering HD video unless you pay more money. As an added, new restriction, Comcast is also now throttling all tethered hotspots on these "unlimited" connections to 600 kbps--unless you sign up for the company's pay per gigabyte option at a whopping $12 per gigabyte. This is, apparently, Comcast's version of what it looks like when you try and disrupt and compete with the broader wireless industry.

On its face this isn't the end of the world. On a small mobile phone screen, the difference between 480p and 720p will likely be unnoticable to many users. It's the precedent that's being set that's more troubling. For one, this continues to be a bastardization of the term "unlimited," a word the telecom sector has abused for the better part of the last decade without learning any real lessons. And with net neutrality rules now on the cutting room floor, throttling video, music and games (unless you pay more) isn't too far of a leap from theoretical scenarios like this one:

Again, with a net neutrality court challenge looming, ISPs are going to try and be on their best behavior to avoid providing any ammunition to the opposition. But with anti-competitiveness in their marrow, they're going to find it irresistible to try and push the envelope when it comes to creative new ways to raise rates on the end user. On the surface many of these efforts may not seem all that terrible, but like the boiling frog metaphor these baby steps will all cumulatively result in a decidedly-unpleasant online experience, and which arbitrary limits and caveats we're willing to accept is going to matter over the longer haul.

Filed Under: competition, net neutrality, streaming, throttling, unlimited
Companies: comcast

Lobbyists Descend On California To Shape A Rushed New Privacy Law

from the if-at-first-you-don't-succeed dept

Last year, the GOP and Trump administration used the Congressional Review Act to dismantle FCC consumer broadband privacy protections before they could take effect last March. While AT&T and Comcast whined incessantly about the rules, the FCC's guidelines were relatively modest; they required that ISPs and mobile carriers be transparent about what data is being collected and sold, and get express consumer opt-in consent before ISPs can share more private financial or location data. Such rules could have gone a long way in protecting consumers in the wake of the recent Securus and Locationsmart location data scandals.

Following the ISP-funded attack on FCC authority and consumer protections, states have begun exploring their own privacy protections (mirroring what we're also seeing on the net neutrality front). For example, California last year considered passing a state-level copy of the FCC's gutted privacy rules. But those efforts hit a political brick wall thanks to the collective lobbying muscle of Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Google and Facebook, which killed that effort by lying repeatedly about what the proposal actually did, including claims the proposal would "aid extremism."

Verizon and Facebook both pretended to back away from those attacks once their efforts gained press exposure, but those promises don't appear to be worth much.

In the wake of the successful attack on FCC privacy rules, California privacy advocates have been pushing a new ballot initiative, this time dubbed the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018. The initiative would require that companies be fully transparent about what data is being collected and sold (and to whom), as well as mandating mandatory opt-out tools. The proposal goes further than the FCC's discarded rules, in that it would ban ISPs from trying to charge consumers more for privacy, something that has already been previously implemented by AT&T and considered by Comcast.

The new initiative is scheduled to appear on this November's ballot, and Google, Facebook, and large ISPs are once again working in concert to ensure that doesn't happen ahead of a looming Thursday afternoon deadline. They're collectively now pushing for quickly-hacked together "compromise legislation," AB 375, they're hoping will be significantly weaker than the looming November ballot initiative.

"In addition to Facebook, Google, AT&T, Microsoft, Amazon, Verizon, and the California New Car Dealers Association have each contributed six figure donations to the Chamber account set up to defeat CCPA. Uber, the Data & Marketing Association, Cox Communications, and the Interactive Advertising Bureau have each contributed $50,000 to the account, according to disclosures."

Recall, Facebook recently made a big show earlier this year about how it wouldn't be working to undermine such privacy proposals in the wake of the Cambridge scandal:

"The inclusion of a Facebook representative is notable, given the company’s well-publicized announcement earlier this year that it would end its opposition to the initiative. In February, the company provided $200,000 to an account set up by the California Chamber of Commerce designed to defeat the CCPA initiative. But in April, following revelations about the extent to which British consulting firm Cambridge Analytica provided the Donald Trump campaign with illicit access to Facebook user data, Facebook announced that it would withdraw its opposition to CCPA and not provide additional funding to the Chamber account."

As the GDPR clearly illustrates, there's some real peril in pushing through solutions before ironing out all of the potential pitfalls. Both the scotch-taped together AB 375 and the California Consumer Privacy Act (a pet side project of San Francisco real estate developer Alastair Mactaggart) have some notable problems that would have been aided by a longer, more transparent and inclusive discussion. Though the problems with AB 375 (which, again, if passed would eliminate the latter from contention) are notably worse, in large part because the bill was quickly cobbled together in just under a week behind closed doors:

"By tomorrow, the California legislature likely will pass a sweeping, lengthy, overly-complicated, and poorly-constructed privacy law that will have ripple effects throughout the world. While not quite as comprehensive as the GDPR, it copies some aspects of the GDPR and will squarely impact every Internet service in California (some of whom may be not currently be complying GDPR due to their US-only operations). The GDPR took 4 years to develop; in contrast, the California legislature will spend a grand total of 7 days working on this major bill."

Not only was AB 375 a rush job, the bill has been steadily eroded since introduction by this super group of telecom and Silicon Valley lobbying giants. AB 375 just passed out of the out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, meaning it's most likely going to be the California privacy proposal of choice. And the fact that it's a rush job is not apparently of much concern to the bill's backer:

"Assemblyman Ed Chau, an Arcadia Democrat and the chief bill author, said he doesn't like the rushed process forced by the ballot measure deadline, but he stressed that his bill gives Californians important privacy protections."

With that mindset, it's easy to wind up with a privacy law that sounds good ("look ma, I "fixed" privacy!") but doesn't actually do anything. And when you've got lobbyists from AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, Facebook, Google, Amazon and Microsoft disproportionally dictating the overall trajectory of the law, the chances that you're going to end up with weak-kneed "privacy rules" in name only is pretty monumental. Adding speed for speed's sake -- combined with an overall lack of transparency -- only adds to the potential that the rules you end up with are toothless or packed with unintended consequences.

That said, doing nothing isn't an option. This isn't a problem that magically fixes itself.

Modern consumer privacy oversight in the internet-era currently consists of little more than pinky swears and winks, a point driven home repeatedly by the Cambridge, LocationSmart and Securus scandals. We need to have a lengthy, transparent, adult conversation about what a potential solution might look like. The problem is that the larger companies dictating the conversation have an absolutely abysmal track record on these issues, so while they may have valuable insight on the complicated scope of a particular proposal's impact, they've managed, repeatedly, to shoot their credibility squarely in the foot on this subject.

And while ISPs and Silicon Valley giants like to go on at length about how they're "open to having a conversation" about more meaningful privacy guidelines, the reality is that most of these larger companies simply aren't. Any rules worth their salt will cost them money, since an informed, empowered consumer is more likely to opt-out of data monetization schemes, whatever they look like. As a result, you'll be hard-pressed to find many large ISPs or Silicon Valley giants willing to back truly tough consumer protections, especially rules than mandate express, opt-in consumer consent for things like location or financial data.

Eventually, after we've suffered through a few more hacks, breaches and major scandals, some of these companies may shift their thinking toward the idea that compliance with quality, even-handed rules is more profitable than chaos. But as the ham fisted repeal of the FCC privacy rules makes clear, we're nowhere near that point yet. Meanwhile, on the federal level, the Trump administration is rumored to be considering a broad new privacy plan. And if the administration's equally heavy-handed net neutrality repeal is any indication, objectivity, hard data and transparency aren't likely to have much of a seat at the table there, either.

Filed Under: california, gdpr, laws, lobbyists, privacy, rush, transparency
Companies: at&t, comcast, facebook, google

California's Quest For Tough Net Neutrality Not Dead Yet

from the try-and-try-again dept

Last week, AT&T won another major victory for itself by scuttling California's attempt to pass tough new net neutrality rules. The proposed law, pushed by State Senator Scott Wiener, was heralded by the EFF as a good state-level proposal that eliminated a lot of the loopholes in the FCC's now-discarded 2015 rules. But AT&T and Comcast lobbyists convinced California Assemblyman Miguel Santiago to introduce a series of last-minute secretive Tuesday night amendments gutting numerous, essential components of the bill. Those amendments were then quickly rushed through a vote without any debate.

Wiener initially pulled his bill, arguing it no longer protected consumers. But he has since indicated that he plans to spend this week working with Santiago to see if they can resolve their differences:

"We've agreed to make a good faith effort to make amendments to the bill in order to pass strong net neutrality," he said in an interview. "But as I've made clear in the past, there are some protections that must be in the bill. Without them, this would not be real net neutrality."

Needless to say, Santiago, a consistent recipient of AT&T campaign cash, has since been widely vilified by net neutrality activists. And for good reason; not only did Santiago help circulate misleading, AT&T-backed studies ahead of the vote (one tried to claim that AT&T's anti-competitive abuse of usage caps would somehow aid minority communities), he tried to railroad the bill changes through without any meaningful dialogue, while hiding from numerous reporters trying to shine some light on his proposed changes the evening before the vote.

After taking a press beating for much of last week, Santiago issued a statement that tried to spin what happened, claiming he was just following procedure in a quest for a "serious policy conversation":

"I laud the Senator's passion, his drive, and the integrity of his work. As Chair of the Committee, I wanted to engage in a serious policy conversation and deliver a bill that could withstand legal challenges from the telecommunications industry – an industry that sued to block implementation of the 2015 FCC Order implemented under President Obama; most definitely an industry that will sue to block implementation of landmark net neutrality protections in California."

So one, the bill in question was already resilient to ISP lawsuit, that was the whole reason the EFF backed this version and not a weaker, earlier incarnation. And again, by "serious policy conversation" Santiago means rushing through numerous terrible amendments (amendments only the ISP industry had been asking for) without any conversation whatsoever. For his part, Santiago then spent some time complaining that he and his family received death threats from net neutrality advocates angry at his attempt to neuter the bill without any substantive dialogue:

"All through this time, the flash messaging on this measure has been easy. It’s sensational, and anger-inducing. “He gutted the bill!” “SB 822 was eviscerated!” “Santiago killed net neutrality!” But none of those things are true. That level of rhetoric has created a firestorm. I have received threats and my wife has been harassed. My personal family pictures have been stolen from my social media platforms and used to create memes. Really? Using pictures of my kids? This is a new low. Progressives don’t behave that way. We expect this type of disrespect, fake news, and insults from Trump -- not those who support dignity and progressive values."

So one, it should go without saying that threatening a lawmaker or his family for tech policy is just stupid. It's something we also saw with Ajit Pai, and it's not helping anyone. In fact, it simply makes the problem worse by shifting the conversation away from policy, cronyism, regulatory capture and corruption, and toward the idea that these lawmakers are the unfair victims of entirely-unreasonable hordes of mean activists.

That said, those lobbing these kinds of threats are in the vast, vast minority. And lawmakers bear some responsibility for the backlash by engaging in the tech policy equivalent of a giant middle finger aimed squarely at already-angry consumers. Survey after survey shows massive, overwhelming bipartisan support for net neutrality, yet time and time again lawmakers tasked with representing the people keep siding with some of the most-hated, least-competitive companies in America on issues that will shape the internet for decades. Downplaying that anger only adds insult to injury.

For what it's worth, Wiener seems hopeful that his bill isn't dead, and debate should be occurring as of this writing. That said, Wiener's also well aware that if he can't get the bill past Santiago with important restrictions on things like zero rating and interconnection intact, he'll likely have to try again post midterms:

"...if a deal still can't be hammered out, Wiener said net neutrality will have to wait until next year. But he said Californians need those protections now, especially since the FCC's rules have officially come off the books and AT&T has completed its megamerger with Time Warner.

"We are in the danger zone," he said. "If I am forced to pull the bill and try again next year I will. But we don't have time. We need to pass a strong net neutrality bill this year."

Since net neutrality violations are just a symptom of limited competition (a problem most in government refuse to acknowledge even exists, much less want to fix) this isn't a fight that's going to end anytime soon. In fact, by the railroading of federal rules and consumer opinion, ISPs have only really galvanized the opposition, ensuring a tougher fight ahead and a backlash that's going to reverberate in tech policy circles for the better part of the next decade. Should voters dramatically reshape the political field in the midterm and thereafter, AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Charter aren't going to enjoy the end result.

Filed Under: california, miguel santiago, net neutrality, scott weiner
Companies: at&t, comcast

Following AT&T's Lead, Comcast Makes A $65 Billion Bid For Fox

from the merge-ALL-The-things! dept

Encouraged by AT&T's massive merger victory this week, Comcast has made its own $65 billion acquisition offer for a large chunk of 21st Century Fox. According to the Comcast announcement, the company's all cash $65 billion dollar offer is a notable step up from Disney's own $52.4 billion all-stock package, setting up a showdown between two companies that have had a contentious relationship since Comcast's 2004 failed hostile takeover attempt of Disney.

The deal includes the FX Channel, numerous regional sports networks, and a minority stake in European cable TV giant Sky, which would all be tacked on to the NBC Universal assets Comcast acquired back in 2011. Fox will however retain Fox News, Fox Sports, and Fox broadcasting, which will all remain under the existing Fox brand. In its statement, Comcast rolled out the usual claptrap about how the combination would be lovely for all involved:

"We have long admired what the Murdoch family has built at Twenty-First Century Fox. After our meetings last year, we came away convinced that the 21CF businesses to be sold are highly complementary to ours, and that our company would be the right strategic home for them."

Comcast had previously hinted that it was waiting to see the outcome of AT&T's own merger battle with the DOJ before making its own bid for Fox. Comcast and many analysts believe that the comically broad nature of AT&T's court victory (based on a pinhole narrow reading of the markets by U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon, who clearly has never heard of things like zero rating or net neutrality), means the precedent set will likely result in a DOJ that's more hesitant to intervene in potentially problematic merger moving forward.

That's especially true of vertical integration mergers, where modern U.S. antitrust law tends to be ill-equipped to handle some of the more complex new media anti-competitive concerns that pop up. Combined with the death of ISP privacy rules and the neutering of net neutrality, we're creating a brave new landscape where there's very little to stop giants like Comcast and AT&T from using their last mile monopolies--combined with massive ownership of content needed to compete with these giants--as anti-competitive bludgeons against consumers and competitors alike.

For example, there's now nothing of note preventing AT&T and Comcast from exempting its own content (like HBO or a regional sports game) from arbitrary and unnecessary usage caps, while penalizing those who use a competitor's service (Netflix, or the next Netflix). Similarly, there's nothing stopping Comcast or Verizon from arbitrarily throttling competitors at interconnection points, driving up the cost for competitors to access their broadband subscribers. There's an ocean of creative ways to hamstring competitors the government is now largely helpless to effectively police, and as the AT&T court win shows, the ISP claim that this isn't a problem because antitrust will save us all clearly isn't a valid argument.

With the FCC making it very clear it's a glorified rubber stamp, that leaves the DOJ as the only real wild card in terms of whether any meaningful conditions get applied to this deal. Granted if you followed the NBC Universal merger, you'll recall that Comcast has a pretty terrible history of ignoring merger conditions when it suits it, and regulators from both parties tend to do little more than grumble when the company tap dances around imposed restrictions (though that was a major reason why Obama-era regulators blocked Comcast's 2014 attempted acquisition of Time Warner Cable (not to be confused with Time Warner)).

Obviously there's still plenty of folks that see zero problems with massive broadband monopolies gobbling up countless media empires while paying millions of dollars to neuter state and federal oversight. And their theory that these kinds of deals are no problem because the market self-regulates (ignoring there is no free market competition in broadband to organically hold them accountable) will soon have a perfect opportunity to put their theories to the test.

Filed Under: antitrust, broadband, competition, content, doj, mergers, streaming
Companies: at&t, comcast, disney, fox, time warner