Striking Cable Techs Build Their Own ISP In NYC

from the build-it-yourself dept

Shortly after Charter Communications (Spectrum) acquired Time Warner Cable in 2016, the company simply stopped negotiating with its unionized employees in the New York City region. Not long after in 2017, around 1,800 Charter employees went on strike over a lack of any traction on healthcare and pensions... and they've been on strike ever since. At four years and counting, it's technically the longest strike in US history, and there's absolutely zero indication that Charter has any real interest in negotiating with the striking employees.

That said, they've been productive in their free time. Many members of IBEW Local #3 have been busy building their own broadband internet service provider (ISP) in the New York City region. Like the 750 other US towns and cities that have explored community broadband, the effort was born out of frustration with entrenched regional telecom monopolies:

"Watching every elected official constantly talk about finding a way to fix a problem while ignoring the solution we were already giving them motivated us,” (union worker and project lead Troy Walcott said). “Having elected officials thank us quietly for our sacrifice but not say anything about our strike publicly motivated us. Seeing customers denied service during COVID because they had outstanding bills motivated us."

So the union employees built an ISP, dubbed People's Choice Communications, that uses both fixed and wireless to deliver broadband for as little as $10 to $20 per month. It's so cheap because the model is effectively a cooperative, where the profits are shared by local customers. From the outfit's website:

"After we build out a network in your building, it transfers to cooperative ownership, so profits are returned to users,” the organization’s website states. “We are able to provide high-speed service in most cases for $10 to $20 a month. No more cable company ripping you off, and as an owner, you have a vote in policies like data privacy."

Granted, like other similar ventures like NYC Mesh, we're not talking about massive scale here. Such options lack the political and financial power to seriously challenge an entrenched regional monopoly like Charter, which is only growing more powerful as US telcos effectively give up on upgrading their residential networks in many markets because it's not profitable enough, quickly enough, for Wall Street.

But collectively, community broadband remains an undeniable movement as a growing roster of US towns and cities, pissed off after decades of monopolist dysfunction, eye building their own networks. That's not only bringing faster, cheaper options to market, but it's also the only thing really forcing many entrenched monopolies to try harder given the lack of US broadband competition and competent regulatory oversight. That's why said monopolies have effectively bought laws in 18 (soon to be 17) states hamstringing or banning local voters from pursuing the option.

Filed Under: broadband, community broadband, competition, nyc, striking workers
Companies: charter, people's choice communications, spectrum

Comcast, AT&T Sue Maine Over Privacy Law, Claim It Violates Free Speech

from the ALL-the-rights-for-me,-none-of-the-rights-for-you dept

Back in 2017, the telecom industry successfully lobbied Congress to kill some modest FCC privacy rules before they could even take effect. The rules simply required that ISPs be more transparent about what data they collect and who they sell it to, requiring that consumers opt in to the sale of more sensitive location data (financial, location). From there, the telecom lobby proceeded to convince the FCC to effectively neuter its consumer protection authority almost entirely. Not only that, it successfully lobbied the FCC to try and ban states from stepping in and protecting consumers -- though the courts (so far) didn't look too kindly upon that.

In short the telecom sector lobbied to kill federal oversight, resulting in a lot of states now rushing in to try and fill the void. It then proceeded to cry like a toddler about a "discordant and fractured framework of state protections," hoping you'd ignore this was a problem the sector created.

Case in point: the telecom sector has now stepped in to sue Maine for attempting to pass a new privacy law that closely mirrors the FCC's discarded 2017 rules. According to a coalition of telecom lobbying organizations, Maine's law violates AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Spectrum's First Amendment rights:

"Maine cannot discriminate against a subset of companies that collect and use consumer data by attempting to regulate just that subset and not others, especially given the absence of any legislative findings or other evidentiary support that would justify targeting ISPs alone. Maine's decision to impose unique burdens on ISPs' speech—while ignoring the online and offline businesses that have and use the very same information and for the same and similar purposes as ISPs—represents discrimination between similarly situated speakers that is impermissible under the First Amendment."

Maine's law was signed by Governor Janet Mills last June, and is scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2020. The law not only requires that consumers opt in before sensitive data is collected and sold, but it also attempted to ban ISPs from charging broadband subscribers even more money to opt out of snoopvertising, something AT&T engaged in for years. Again, Maine's law, like the laws popping up in other states, wouldn't exist if the telecom sector hadn't lobbied to effectively obliterate modest federal FCC rules. And again, this is a problem the sector created by trying to have its cake and eat it too.

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 also 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. Effectively, the industry has spent a decade trying to claim that any federal or state consumer protections violate ISPs' free speech rights and therefore shouldn't exist.

All the while, the industry falsely claims it really wants meaningful privacy guidelines. In reality, what the industry wants is either no privacy guidelines at all (pretty much what we've "enjoyed" for 20 some odd years now), or weak federal guidelines their lawyers get to write -- so flimsy and loophole filled that they don't do much of anything. Well, anything except pre-empting other better state or federal privacy laws written with something vaguely resembling a consensus.

While everybody fixates on "big tech," "big telecom" is effectively gutting all meaningful oversight of a quickly consolidating sector that was already an anti-consumer, anti-innovation, and anticompetitive mess. Gosh, wonder how that's going to turn out?

Filed Under: 1st amendment, fcc, free speech, maine, privacy, privacy laws
Companies: at&t, comcast, spectrum, verizon

Spectrum Customers Stuck With Thousands In Home Security Gear They Can't Use

from the walled-gardens dept

For the better part of the decade, ISPs like Comcast and Spectrum have been desperately trying to carve out a niche in the home security and automation space. But despite their best efforts those projects haven't gone particularly well, to the point where big ISPs try to hide how many subscribers have signed up for such service in earnings reports. Historically, users already feel they pay their cable TV and broadband provider too much money, and only a few folks feel it's worth paying them even more for home security and automation products they can find elsewhere, usually for less.

Customers received a good reminder last week of why it's not worth buying home security and automation services and products from their ISP. Charter Spectrum, the nation's second biggest cable provider, has announced it's shuttering its home security services as of February:

"At Spectrum, we continually evaluate our products to ensure we are bringing you superior, consistent and reliable service. We perform regular reviews of our services and as a result, effective February 5, 2020, we will no longer be providing or supporting Spectrum Home Security service."

The problem: customers spent thousands of dollars on much of this Spectrum-branded gear, and while the hardware they received supports smart home standards like Zigbee, they're built in such a way as to be locked to Charter's (soon to be nonexistent) systems, rendering them useless. Needless to say users aren't thrilled to learn they now own thousands of dollars in useless hardware, something that wouldn't have happened had they bought off the shelf gear:

"All these devices are Zigbee based, made by a major player in the Zigbee devices game. Under normal circumstances, you would be able to take all your stuff and move it over to your own home automation solution (Samsung SmartThings, Wink, Hubitat to name a few). But nope, not Spectrum’s devices. Early on they were firmware coded to prevent them from being seen and usable within the normal universe of Zigbee devices. With a couple of exceptions Spectrum’s Zigbee devices will only see the Spectrum Zigbee universe. So essentially after Feb. 5, 2020 your house full of Zigbee devices will be useless."

Spectrum users are quick to point out this could have all been avoided with a little elbow grease by Spectrum, but the company couldn't be bothered:

"The criminal part in this is that with literally a 10 minute fix and firmware to those devices BEFORE they shutter their service would open them to the universe of compatible Zigbee devices but you can take to the bank that Spectrum isn’t going to do it, otherwise they would have mentioned it with the announcement. All those hundreds of dollars (thousands in some cases) down the drain… how does that make you feel?"

The cable industry's relentless desire to keep you locked in their proprietary walled gardens are also on full display when it comes to their cable box monopoly, and it's one of countless reasons why these companies enjoy some of the lowest customer satisfaction ratings in America. And while Spectrum has struck a deal with Abode to give these customers a discount on new security systems, that's cold comfort for those who shelled out thousands of dollars for hardware they can no longer use.

Filed Under: home security, iot, ownership, support
Companies: spectrum

Cable Giant Spectrum On Quest To Outlaw 'Insane' Streaming Password Sharing

from the you're-own-worst-enemy dept

For years, streaming video operators 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" the practice, and sees it as little more than free advertising. Execs at HBO (at least before the AT&T acquisition) have made similar arguments, 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. In short, they see it as added value for the consumer, and have repeatedly stated it doesn't hurt them.

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 a few years back:

"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."

Except it is acceptable. For one, most of these services include password sharing as part of their business model; they include limits on the number of simultaneous streams that can be running under any one account to prevent sharing from undermining too many new sales. And the companies that have been embracing the practice say they've seen no negative impact from it. Again, it's free advertising and a consumer-friendly practice that's factored into the business model. It's certainly not, as Rutledge has often suggested, synonymous with "piracy."

Undaunted, Rutledge has been trying to build a coalition of industry allies focused on stomping out the nefarious practice of password sharing. And as the company strikes programming deals with partners, it's ensuring that a ban on such sharing is part of the process. One big partner in this initiative is Disney, which is expected to put the kibosh on password sharing when it launches its new Disney+ streaming service this fall. All the while, Charter executives are running around calling the practice of password sharing "insane":

"Ultimately our goal is that we can get an alliance of a large enough group of programmers and operators to protect the value of the content that people produce and the content that we distribute and we pay for,” Chris Winfrey, Charter’s chief financial officer, said last week at the Bank of America Merrill Lynch 2019 Media, Communications & Entertainment Conference in Beverly Hills.

Winfrey severely criticized programmers that turn a blind eye to the practice of password sharing, claiming such practices are “insane."

“To think that it doesn’t impact the way we get paid, it does,” Winfrey said. “And it conditions the entire marketplace to think that content should be devalued, it should be free, and that’s the way it is and I shouldn’t have to pay for it. It’s our firm belief that we’d be growing and growing significantly [if it wasn’t for password sharing]."

Except it's not "free," for the reasons outline above. And while you might gain some additional revenue by banning password sharing, you might also lose subscribers to companies that actually value making consumers happy. Charter Spectrum is, if you'd forgotten, statistically one of the least liked companies in America for a long list of reasons, from mindlessly jacking up prices to providing some of the worst customer service of any company, in any industry in America (think about that accomplishment for a second). Blaming all of its problems on the fact people occasionally share streaming TV passwords reflects the entitlement mindset that's pretty common in the too big to fail, government-pampered telecom and broadcast sector.

Filed Under: password sharing, streaming, tom rutledge
Companies: charter, hbo, netflix, spectrum

Charter Spectrum Once Again 'Competes' By... Raising Prices

from the nickel-and-dime dept

When Charter Communications (Spectrum) proposed merging with Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks in 2016, the company repeatedly promised that the amazing "synergies" would lower rates, increase competition, boost employment, and improve the company's services. Of course like countless telecom megamergers before it, that never actually happened. Instead, the company quickly set about raising rates to manage the huge debt load. And its service has been so aggressively terrible, the company almost got kicked out of New York State, something I've never seen in 20 years of covering telecom.

Fast forward to 2019, and despite surging competition from streaming video providers, Charter is once again raising rates on numerous services. Broadband and TV services will all be seeing major price increases next month, as will the company's hardware rental surcharges and the universe of misleading fees the industry uses to covertly jack up the advertised rate post sale. That includes the company's "broadcast TV fee," which is really just a small part of the cost of programming hidden below the line in the form of a (now) $13.50 monthly additional charge:

"With this price change, you will now pay $13.50 a month for broadcast TV fees, which is up from $11.99 a month. This will add up to $162 a year to your bill just watch free over-the-air TV you could get with an antenna."

Note: that fee had already seen a $2 bump early this year.

That Charter's response to increased streaming video competition and record cord cutting is to raise rates tells you plenty about both the level of competition it sees in broadband, and the regulatory oversight of the sector. These hidden fees in particular are something the FCC (under both parties) has been happy to turn a blind eye to. Much in the same way both parties have rubber stamped a long line of telecom and media megamergers that, time and time again, have only really netted one thing: greater sector consolidation, higher rates, fewer jobs, and worse service.

Giants like Comcast and Charter have one ace in the hole when it comes to the streaming video wars to come. They are enjoying growing monopolies over broadband access thanks to the slow, steady implosion of many US telcos. That limited competition has let Comcast respond to cord cutting and streaming by imposing arbitrary and punitive usage caps and overage fees that are incurred when its broadband users use a competitor's services (say Netflix) but not their own TV offerings. This lets them simultaneously cash in on -- and hinder -- streaming competitors.

Charter's banned from doing this due to a few flimsy conditions affixed to its 2016 merger, but those conditions expire in just a few years, meaning you can expect an even fatter broadband bill over the horizon. The FCC having just effectively neutered its oversight authority over telecom at telecom lobbyist behest certainly isn't likely to help, nor is the death of FCC privacy and net neutrality consumer protections.

Filed Under: competition, consolidation, consumer welfare, mergers, monopoly, prices
Companies: charter communications, spectrum

Shockingly, Cable TV and Broadband Customer Satisfaction Is Still The Worst In America

from the ill-communication dept

Every few years or so, giant cable and broadband companies like Comcast will proclaim that they've finally seen the light, and will be spending time shoring up their terrible customer service. Like a few years ago, when Comcast proclaimed it had hired a "Customer Experience VP" who would finally make addressing the company's historically terrible customer service a top priority. CEO Brian Roberts also can be found at least once a year claiming that the company is going to finally address the problem by hiring better people, improving support systems, and generally revisiting the company's policies.

But year after year, big cable and broadband companies fail to deliver. Case in point: the latest American Consumer Satisfaction Index was recently released, and ISPs and cable providers continue to see the worst customer satisfaction scores in America. These companies are so bad at what they do, they're routinely bested by even everybody's favorite punching bag: the IRS. When it comes to broadband service on a scale of 100, both Comcast and Charter (Spectrum) continue to see the worst scores in an already terrible sector:

"Internet Service Providers didn’t fare any better than cable companies with the overall industry ratings at the same 62. The only three ISPs with rankings above the average are Verizon FiOS (70), AT&T Internet (69) and Altice (63). At the bottom of the rankings are Frontier (55), MediaCom (56), and Windstream (57). The big cable companies don’t fare well as ISPs – Charter (59) and Comcast (61)."

Things are equally bad on the cable TV front, where despite the rise of competition from streaming providers, incumbent cable ops still can't seem to figure out this whole "treating customers with respect" thing. While most hated industries (airlines) rank in the 70s and more popular brands (Amazon) reach the 80s, cable TV remains struggling in the 50s and 60s:

In the TV sector, the emergence of streaming video has offered consumers some reprieve. Streaming providers like Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon routinely rate much higher in customer satisfaction because they give consumers what they've been screaming for for years: lower prices and more flexible channel bundles. Ultimately, cable operators will be forced to actually compete on price, but they're apparently waiting until countless millions of their paying customers have fled to greener pastures before actually seriously overhauling their business models. Still, competition in the TV space is rising either way.

The broadband space is less promising. With no meaningful regulatory oversight and little competition, there's really no incentive to improve customer service or offer a better product in most markets. The focus remains on growth for growth's sake (megamergers) and scale, without scaling customer service in symmetry. The end result should be fairly obvious, given the broadband sector ranks worse than a long list of widely despised sectors like the airline, banking, and insurance industries. That kind of accomplishment requires some serious, sustained elbow grease and the kind of monopoly myopia money simply can't buy.

Filed Under: broadband, cable tv, customer satisfaction
Companies: at&t, charter, comcast, frontier, spectrum, verizon, windstream

Charter Spectrum Won't Get Kicked Out Of New York State After ISP Promises To Suck Less

from the fiftieth-time-will-be-the-charm dept

Last summer, New York State took the historically-unprecedented step of voting to kick Charter Communications (aka Spectrum) out of New York State. Regulators say the company misled them about why it repeatedly failed to adhere to merger conditions affixed to the company's $86 billion acquisition of Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks, going so far as to falsify (according to the NY PUC) the number of homes the company expanded service to. The state has also sued the company for failing to deliver advertised broadband speeds, for its shoddy service, and for its terrible customer support.

While the threat was largely unprecedented, there have been indications that this was largely just a negotiations tactic by the state. However sincere the threat was, it appears to have worked. Charter Spectrum and state regulators have struck a new deal (you can find the settlement here, pdf) that will keep the company in NY State, but will require it to actually, you know, try:

"Nine months after a New York government agency ordered Charter to leave the state over its alleged failure to comply with merger conditions, state officials have announced a settlement that will let Charter stay in New York in exchange for further broadband expansions. The settlement will enforce a new version of the original merger conditions and require a $12 million payment, about half of which could help other ISPs deploy broadband."

As part of the agreement, Charter will agree to expand broadband availability to upstate New York. It's an area (I grew up in) which, like many US markets, suffers from little to no real competition, thanks in part to phone companies that refuse to upgrade their aging DSL lines (largely because it's not profitable enough, quickly enough, for Wall Street's liking). Charter will also be required to pay $12 million to deliver broadband to additional underserved areas, a chunk of which could technically be doled out to competitors if they beat back Charter during a competitive bidding process (often difficult if not impossible).

In a statement, Charter made it clear it was happy the hotly-contested debate was behind it:

"Charter and the Department believe that this action is an important step forward in making high-speed broadband available to all New Yorkers. It allows the parties to move forward with the critical work of expanding access to broadband, by resolving their disagreements without the need for costly litigation. As a result, Charter will invest even more money in New York State than originally planned, bringing the educational, economic and social benefits of high-speed broadband to areas where access is often limited."

It's indisputably positive that the state was able to hold Charter's feet to the fire, expanding access to a notable chunk of underserved users. That said, the settlement really doesn't address the dysfunction that created this problem in the first place: namely regional telecom monopolies that prioritize mergers and acquisitions over providing quality customer service or expanding into new areas. And they're routinely able to get away with this behavior because there's not only limited competition, but such industry giants all but currently dictate federal telecom policy.

Thanks to apathetic telcos and regulatory capture, giants like Charter and Comcast are securing a growing monopoly over broadband in countless markets nationwide, a stranglehold groups like the EFF say pricey 5G service isn't going to fix. New York State doing its job (a rarity on the state level) is positive, but it doesn't address the underlying rot at the heart of the issue: a lack of real competition, and zero genuine willingness to embrace creative, pro-competition policies (like community broadband or public/private partnerships) that help address the underlying problem.

Filed Under: broadband, merger conditions, new york
Companies: charter communications, spectrum

Charter Spectrum Keeps Mindlessly Jacking Up Its Bullshit Fees

from the false-and-deceptive dept

When Charter Communications (Spectrum) proposed merging with Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks in 2016, the company repeatedly promised that the amazing "synergies" would lower rates, increase competition, boost employment, and improve the company's services. Of course like countless telecom megamergers before it, little if any of those promises actually materialized.

Instead, the company quickly set about raising prices to manage the huge debt load. And its service has been so aggressively terrible that the company recently almost got kicked out of New York State, something I've never seen in 20 years of covering telecom. All the while, the company continues to not only jack up its standard pricing, but the sneaky fees it uses to advertise one rate, then charge users something else when the bill actually comes due.

We've noted for some time how cable providers over the last few years have added a "broadcast TV" fee to customer bills. Such a fee, which simply takes a part of the cost of programming and buries it below the line, lets cable providers advertise one rate, then hit customers with a higher bill. It's false advertising, but you'd be hard pressed to find a regulator anywhere in North America that gives much of a damn about the practice, be it in telecom, cable TV, the airline sector, or anywhere else. Culturally, American "leadership" appears to view such fees as the pinnacle of capitalistic creativity.

So it just keeps on going. The Los Angeles Times notes that Spectrum is informing its already angry customers that they'll soon be facing yet another $2 monthly hike in the company's broadcast TV fee, on the heels of another hike just last fall. The fall hike bumped the fee 12% to an additional $8.85 per month. This latest hike bumps it another $2 (20%) to $12 per month. And again, this is just for the cost of programming, something you're supposed to have already paid for in your base, above the line bill.

All told, the company nets quite a significant profit from this tap dance, notes the Times David Lazarus:

"That 20% fee increase means big bucks for Charter. The company reported Thursday that it had just over 16 million residential pay-TV subscribers as of the fourth quarter of last year.

Hitting up each of them for an extra $2.04 a month means Charter, the country’s second-largest cable company, will be raking in an additional $391 million in annual revenue, on top of the tens of billions of dollars it already earns."

Keep in mind, this is a company facing unprecedented competition by cheaper, more flexible streaming alternatives. In a functioning, healthy market, you'd either have competition or moderate regulatory oversight applying some pressure to protect consumers. But telecom, cable, and broadband is far from healthy. It's a coagulation of natural broadband monopolies that also sell video, but have such entrenched power over state and federal lawmakers (aka regulatory capture), efforts to actually protect consumers from this nonsense wind up being few and far between in most states.

Until we see somebody in a position of regulatory authority actually crack down on this obvious practice of false advertising, it's pretty clear American leadership's breathless dedication to things like transparency and consumer protection are just empty lip service. Whether we're talking about hotel resort fees or the laundry list of annoying airline fees, we've culturally embraced the idea that false advertising and nickel-and-diming captive customers is not only ignored but actively encouraged. Somebody wake me up when that changes.

Filed Under: broadband, broadcast tv fees, competition, fees, price hikes, tv fee
Companies: charter communications, spectrum

NY's Record $176 Million Settlement With Charter For Crap Broadband Highlights Cable's Growing Monopoly

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

The State of New York has struck a landmark settlement with the nation’s second-biggest cable company after it repeatedly failed to deliver the broadband speeds it advertised, and tried to trick regulators into thinking it had.

Interim New York State Attorney General Barbara Underwood’s office has announced that it has reached a $174.2 million consumer fraud settlement with Charter Communications (Spectrum). As part of that settlement, the cable giant will be required to dole out $62.5 Million in direct refunds to people who paid for speeds the cable giant couldn't actually deliver. Each impacted customer should net around $75 and $150 each, as well as $100 million in premium channel freebies spread among the 2.2 million customers impacted.

The NY AG was quick to note this was the biggest such payout by a broadband provider in history:

"This settlement should serve as a wakeup call to any company serving New York consumers: fulfill your promises, or pay the price,” said Attorney General Underwood. “Not only is this the largest-ever consumer payout by an internet service provider, returning tens of millions of dollars to New Yorkers who were ripped off and providing additional streaming and premium channels as restitution – but it also sets a new standard for how internet providers should fairly market their services."

Early last year, Charter Spectrum was sued by New York State for selling broadband speeds the company knew it couldn't deliver. According to the original complaint (pdf), Charter routinely advertised broadband speeds executives knew weren't attainable -- while simultaneously refusing to upgrade their network to handle added consumer demand (a problem that only got worse in the wake of its merger with Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks).

Buried in the suit were all manner of interesting allegations, including claims that Charter executives discussed via e-mail how they hoped to manipulate congestion to drive up costs for companies like Netflix (you'll recall this was part of the whole interconnection slowdowns Netflix and companies like Level3 complained about a few years ago). The suit also highlights how Charter at least considered gaming the results of a program the FCC has traditionally used to measure real-world broadband speeds using custom-firmware embedded routers in consumer volunteer homes.

Charter tried to tap dance out of the suit by flinging pretty much every legal argument against the wall to see if one of them would stick. Most recently, the company tried to claim that the FCC's recent net neutrality repeal contains language banning states from trying to protect consumers. And while that was certainly the hope of Ajit Pai's FCC, legal experts have argued that the agency's claims don't hold water. More specifically, when the FCC rolled back its Title II authority over ISPs, it also ironically dismantled its legal authority to tell states what to do.

At one point, Charter CEO Tom Rutledge tried to insist the NY AG suit was all just part of a secret, vile "cabal" on the part of Netflix and Google simply because the AG hired Columbia Law Professor Tim Wu as an advisor (narrator: it wasn't). It's worth noting that this new settlement is entirely separate from Charter's battle with the NY State PSC, which has threatened to kick the cable giant out of the state for failing to adhere to recent merger conditions -- and lying about it. That will likely end in an even larger settlement than the NY AG case.

With the nation's telcos refusing to upgrade aging DSL lines giving Comcast and Charter bigger regional monopolies over faster broadband, giant cable ops doing the bare minimum is a problem you'll likely keep hearing a lot about. And no, rising competition from 5G wireless isn't going to be some kind of magic panacea for reasons we've well discussed. Charter and Comcast's bad behavior is simply the culmination of years of turning a blind eye to limited broadband competition, or the fact that letting these apathetic giants dictate tech policy continues to be a recipe for disaster.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, false advertising, new york
Companies: charter communications, spectrum

The Nation's Second Biggest Cable Company Probably Won't Get Kicked Out Of New York State After All

from the ill-communication dept

Back in July, New York State took the historically-unprecedented step of voting to kick Charter Communications (aka Spectrum) out of New York State. Regulators say the company misled them about why the company repeatedly failed to adhere to merger conditions affixed to the company's $86 billion acquisition of Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks, going so far as to falsify (according to the NY PUC) the number of homes the company expanded service to. The state has also sued the company for failing to deliver advertised broadband speeds, for its shoddy service, and for its terrible customer support.

But the threat to kick Charter out of the state appears largely to have been a negotiation tactic, as the two sides are now purportedly making progress and engaging in "productive dialogue" as they attempt to hash out their differences. That's at least according to a Charter filing with the state PUC requesting a deadline extension obtained by Ars Technica:

"Good cause exists to further extend this deadline. Charter and the Department have been involved over the past few weeks in productive dialogue regarding the Revocation Order as well as the July Compliance Order and the related special proceeding initiated by the Commission in the [state] Supreme Court pursuant to the July Compliance Order. As part of that dialogue, Charter has been assembling additional information regarding broadband deployment efforts in New York for the Department's and the Commission's review. A further extension would allow additional time for discussions between Charter and the Department before the initiation by Charter of additional Commission or court proceedings."

The state PUC seems to agree, noting in its own order granting a deadline extension (pdf) that Charter has made a few good faith efforts of late, including ceasing running ads misleadingly stating the company expanded broadband to areas it may not have actually wired. While most telecom experts I've spoken to believe this is likely to result in some kind of settlement, this is still a fight that's going to be important to watch moving forward.

For one, Charter has attempted to use the FCC's "pre-emption" language embedded in its net neutrality repeal to try and claim that states have no authority to police ISPs in the wake of obvious federal apathy on consumer issues by the Trump administration and Ajit Pai FCC.

ISPs have lobbied hard (and quite successfully) to not only gut federal (FTC and FCC) oversight of their businesses, but have also been working hard to cripple state oversight. That's a troubling trend for an industry that already faces limited accountability due to the lack of competition in most of their markets, especially given that Charter and Comcast now enjoy a pretty stark monopoly over faster broadband speeds. That monopoly manifests itself in all manner of obvious ways, including soaring prices, unnecessary usage caps, net neutrality violations, and historically-terrible customer service.

So far those efforts haven't gone well for ISPs, with a court shooting down Charter's claim that the FCC's net neutrality repeal means states can't step in to fill the void. But with more than half the states in the nation now pursuing their own net neutrality rules, and other states trying to pass privacy rules in the wake of dismantling of FCC protections last year in Congress, this is a fight that's going to be playing out repeatedly in the months and years to come as states try to fill the vacuum left by a federal government that (unless you're in deep denial) pretty clearly doesn't care much about telecom consumer protection.

And while some states (New York, California, Washington) clearly still think consumer protection is important given the perils of monopoly power, there's countless states that are going to mirror the federal belief that telecom Utopia is accomplished, magically, by letting giant monopolies like Comcast, Charter and AT&T run amok. That's going to be especially problematic for users in states like Tennessee and West Virginia, where letting these historically-unpopular companies rip off taxpayers and over-charge captive customers is seen as a god-given right.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, merger conditions, new york, puc
Companies: charter, spectrum