A Little Honesty: Comcast Doesn't Give A F**k What You Think Of Its Merger

from the reasonable-and-knowledgeable dept

We recently covered how Comcast's top exec in charge of getting its merger with Time Warner Cable approved has insisted that only ignorant and unreasonable people oppose the merger. And yet... somehow, the public (ignorant and unreasonable as they are...) still don't seem to think too positively of the merger itself. And, for some reason, the terrible, terrible deal that American cable providers (mainly: Comcast and Time Warner Cable) continue to offer Americans as basically their only real broadband possibility still seems to inspire creative derision.

Almost exactly a year ago, we posted a hilarious fake commercial of what your cable company (likely: Comcast or Time Warner Cable) would say in a TV commercial if it were honest. The mildly NSFW video includes the important fine print:

You'll have the option of choosing from several of our completely unwarranted ripoffs, including internet speeds almost 200 times slower than Korea... at twice the price. TV packages with over 500 channels, 90% of which you can't view and we guarantee a plethora of hidden fees. Then our barely trained technicians will come to install your service somewhere between the hours 8am and 10 pm, knock once while you're in the shower, and promptly leave.... Why you ask? We're part of what is called an "oligopoly." It's like a monopoly... only legal!

Watch it again: Soon after that, we posted another video from some guys pretending to be Time Warner Cable customer service employees asking people around NY what they could do to make service even worse. Go ahead, watch that again too: And, now, with the attempted merger underway, we've got a third video to add to the bunch. This one comes from Funny or Die, and directly addresses the issue of the merger, and is titled: Comcast Doesn't Give a F*CK. Like the first video above, it's made to look like a traditional cable company commercial, with the direct message being that, well, you know what the message is. Here, watch it: Key excerpt:

We've read your comments and complaints, and know that a lot of you are very nervous about our merger with Time Warner Cable. So I wanted to talk to you today and let you know, that no matter what happens, we don't give a fuck about you. Whether you're calling in for an appointment about your cable box, or wondering why your favorite channel disappeared, we don't give a fuck. That's what makes us an industry leader in terrible customer service. We don't give a fuck because we don't have to. What? Are you going to go to another cable service provider? [Laughs] Chances are we own whatever movie or network you're watching, so that's still money in our pocket.

You could watch Netflix or Hulu. In fact, you should. We own Hulu. We also make Netflix pay us extra for streaming content, meaning they'll probably pass those costs on to you. Bottom line: Fuck You.

I'm sure all these kinds of videos keep popping up, because the American public doesn't understand how good the service we get from our "local" (and by "local" I mean, Comcast) cable provider is. Or maybe Homer Simpson was on to something. Nah, must just be all those unreasonable and ignorant folks.

Filed Under: customer service, merger, oligopoly
Companies: comcast, time warner cable

Comcast Says That If You Object To Its Merger With Time Warner Cable, You're Ignorant And Unreasonable

from the because-. dept

Oh, Comcast. Remember how it was going to try to be a bit more subtle in pushing for approval of its merger with Time Warner Cable? Well, you can only deny your true nature for so long. The main force behind getting the merger approved, Comcast's Executive VP David Cohen -- the company's most powerful lobbyist who isn't registered as a lobbyist because he's realized that as long as he says he's not lobbying, he isn't -- has announced that no one knowledgeable or reasonable has objected to the merger. By implication, of course, this means that everyone objecting to the merger is ignorant and unreasonable:

"I have been struck by the absence of rational, knowledgeable voices in this space coming out in opposition or even raising serious questions about the transaction." Cohen added.

Meanwhile, the obviously ignorant and unreasonable Writers Guild of America West has spoken out against the merger, noting that Comcast's increasing use of broadband "caps, tiers, metering or other usage-based pricing" could create serious problems in killing off competitive online video distributors. And the eminently knowledgeable and reasonable Comcast retorted that it doesn't have any caps at all. Oh no. It's merely "testing data thresholds."

"We don’t have data caps — and haven’t for about two years," said Sena Fitzmaurice, Comcast’s vice president of government communications. "We have tested data thresholds where very heavy customers can buy more if they want more — but that only affects a very small percentage of our customers in a few markets."

Apparently, spewing complete bullshit is the only thing that counts as "reasonable" and "knowledgeable" in the minds of Comcast's top execs.

Filed Under: broadband, cable, david cohen, mergers, objections
Companies: comcast, time warner cable

Comcast: Throwing Money At Congress To Approve Our Merger Is Ok Because Congress Represents The People!

from the public-relations-gobbledygook dept

Comcast is using a variety of sophisticated lobbying tricks to get the company's proposed $45 billion acquisition of Time Warner Cable approved, including using minority groups and an endless roster of think tankers to parrot merger support. They're also taking a few cues from AT&T's blocked T-Mobile deal and avoiding making any promises the company knows it can't deliver (like claiming a merger that will likely kill jobs will somehow create jobs). But one thing Comcast is doing that's decidedly unsophisticated is its practice of throwing money at absolutely everybody (in truly bi-partisan fashion) in the hope it's really just as simple as buying merger support:

"...money from Comcast's political action committee has flowed to all but three members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Checks have landed in the campaign coffers of Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), who oversee the chamber's antitrust panel. Meanwhile, the cable giant has donated in some way to 32 of the 39 members of the House Judiciary Committee, which is planning a hearing of its own."

Another recent report noted that House members of the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology received $853,525 from Comcast between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2012. Members of the 109th, 110th, 111th and 112th Congresses also received $6,678,446 from Comcast between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2012. Amusingly, Comcast tries strangely to downplay throwing cash at lawmakers by somehow insisting that because those same lawmakers are supposed to also represent Comcast employees (who'll likely see layoffs) and Comcast customers (who'll certainly see higher prices and anti-competitive behavior), that somehow this is all ok:

Comcast stresses its donations are a function of its business. "Comcast NBCUniversal operates in 39 states and has 130,000 employees across the country," said spokeswoman Sena Fitzmaurice. "It is important for our customers, our employees and our shareholders that we participate in the political process. The majority of our PAC contributions are to the senators and members who represent our employees and customers."

So if I follow Sena's logic to its dizzying conclusion: dumping money into the laps of lawmakers so they'll approve a merger that benefits only Comcast is justified because if those lawmakers weren't busy having Comcast cash dumped in their laps -- they might actually represent the people that voted for them? I've seen a lot of spin, and that one is pretty fantastic. We're not lobbying solely for the company's financial gain, you little people benefit too because lawmakers are technically supposed to be representing you. That is, if we weren't paying them to do otherwise. Isn't engaging in the political process fun!? Don't you feel engaged? Why aren't you laughing?

Filed Under: congress, lobbying, merger
Companies: comcast, time warner cable

ITIF: Ignore 'Paranoid Bloggers' And Pesky 'Populists' - The Comcast Merger Will Be Great

from the your-talking-points-suck dept

As I've been noting, Comcast lobbyists have certainly fired up their sound wall of paid PR folk, consultants, think tanks, and other policy tendrils in a fairly weak attempt to convince everyone that an immeasurably larger and more powerful Comcast is going to be a good thing for everybody. Most of the arguments (correctly) focus on the fact that Time Warner Cable and Comcast don't directly compete so there's no harm, while ignoring that Comcast's ever-increasing size makes it easier for Comcast to bully disruptive Internet video companies using usage caps, restrictive licensing agreements, and peering relationships.

Most of the editorials are quite a lot of fun, like this one by Doug Brake of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. The ITIF, if you'd forgotten, was a big backer of SOPA and has championed all manner of IP maximalism, most recently through their support of the TTP agreement. They take money from broadband providers and the MPAA, not that Forbes or anybody else can ever bother to point this out. According to Brake, criticism of the merger is something that's being fabricated by "paranoid bloggers" and spreaders of "misinformation," whose "populist" thinking gives cable companies a bad rap:

"It is popular, especially in the blogosphere, to automatically distrust cable and telecommunications companies, a stance that often leads to inaccurate statements and misunderstandings."

Gosh, that distrust couldn't possibly come from the fact that Comcast is among the lowest ranked companies for customer satisfaction in what's the lowest ranked industry for customer satisfaction across all industries? Bi-annual rate hikes for channels never watched? Full-day technician visit windows that get bumped numerous times for no reason? Jacking up modem rental fees? Horrible customer support? Burying rate hikes misleadingly in below-the-line fees? Any of this ringing a bell, Doug? It's worth noting that brand impression of Time Warner Cable has actually somehow gotten even worse since the merger was announced, which is pretty impressive.

Brake stumbles forth valiantly to then argue that those worried about a larger Comcast needn't do so -- because competitive pressure from phone companies will keep Comcast executives honest:

"The broadband populists that dominate this conversation like to claim that DSL is not fast enough to be a competitor to cable. But some of DSL’s 31 million subscribers (compared to cable’s 51.5 million) might disagree. And there is good reason to expect DSL speeds to improve – new technology, called vectored DSL, promises 100 Mbps under the right circumstances. And of course, in 6 of the 19 metros, Verizon FIOS fiber service is a robust competitor."

First, I'm not entirely sure in what world being a "populist" is an insult; the dictionary definition of populism suggests someone who is looking out for the people (what a bunch of jerks). Second, if the argument is that the phone companies will keep Comcast honest as they grow, apparently Mr. Brake isn't aware of the fact that AT&T and Verizon are backing away from huge swaths of the fixed-line broadband market because they don't want to upgrade them (as in, ever), which would leave the freshly-merged Comcast Time Warner Cable with less competition than ever before. In turn, Comcast will soon have a greater ability to impose the usage caps they've been busy testing in uncompetitive markets without competitive repercussions. Brake then goes on to repeat another core merger supporter talking point -- Google Fiber will somehow keep Comcast honest:

"Let’s not forget another big announcement made on the heels of the merger proposal – Google has started early plans to expand its fiber build-out to nine new metro areas. The timing of Google’s release exposes a key flaw in Crawford’s arguments against the merger: immediately after Comcast’s announcement, many detractors dismissed Google fiber as a viable competitor to cable because it is in only a handful of cities."

Right, except that that Google Fiber announcement to "expand to nine new metro areas" never actually stated anything of the sort, something Brake would know if he'd actually read it. Google Fiber, which currently only serves a handful of users in Kansas City and Provo, Utah, simply announced it would work with cities in nine markets to examine improving infrastructure. One or two might actually see service sometime by 2015, but it's not keeping Comcast executives up at night anytime soon. This talking point that companies like Google Fiber and Hulu (which Comcast co-owns) will generate enough pressure to keep Comcast honest is laughable, but it keeps getting trotted out like an ugly show pony.

You'd think for the money Comcast is pouring into these think tanks annually, one of them would actually understand the industry they're writing about and be able to make coherent arguments in support of the merger. Surely there have to be some legitimate benefits to letting Comcast get immensely more massive? Perhaps suggest that shiny new taxpayer-subsidized skyscraper Comcast is building in Philadelphia will scare away the foul shard devils from the vile astral plane of Kerithuth? Maybe suggest the combined new super Comcast will impact the earth's gravitational pull just enough to give us all super powers that could help us fight said looming cross-dimensional invasion? Surely these groups can do better. Paranoid populists everywhere demand it!

Filed Under: broadband, broadcast, dsl, itif, lobbying
Companies: comcast, mpaa, time warner cable

Austin Begins To Show Us What Broadband Competition Was Supposed To Look Like

from the unfamiliar-territory dept

As we've stated more than a few times, so many of the problems that plague Internet and telecom markets could be remedied if we simply had healthy competition between broadband operators. Net neutrality, for example, would rarely be a problem in a market where broadband ISPs were seriously afraid that their subscribers could actually leave. However, what most markets usually have is "wink wink, nod nod" non price competition between two incumbent operators (if you're lucky), with little to no incentive to excel on price or service -- or even upgrade the network or improve customer service.

While Google Fiber may never be a nationwide broadband presence, the company's entry into a handful of markets has at least given us a hopeful glimpse at what healthy broadband competition should actually look like. In Austin, for example, Google Fiber expects to start connecting users later this year, offering symmetrical 1 Gbps connections for just $70 a month. They also offer a free (what a concept) 5 Mbps tier if you pay a one-time $300 connection fee. Google's market entry in turn prompted AT&T to promise $70 1 Gbps connections in order to save face. More recently, a cable operator by the name of Grande Communications joined the fun, promising 1 Gbps lines for $65. Even Time Warner Cable, not known for aggressive or even pro-active deployments, is now offering 300 Mbps in Austin.

The result is a market that in fairly short order should show us what actual broadband competition in the United States was supposed to look like:

"Grande's entry suggests it isn't only large, national businesses that can compete when it comes to offering high-speed broadband. Austin is fast becoming the site of an arms race among broadband providers at a time when many U.S. communities are dominated by one or perhaps two companies. But there's a good reason for that: The city is already known for its forward thinking. Thanks in part to conferences like SXSW, university students and big health-care centers, Austin has become "a mecca for creative and entrepreneurial people," according to Google."

Granted this isn't all sunshine and roses. It should be noted that at the moment nobody in Austin is actually signed up for a 1 Gbps connection yet. This being AT&T, their version of competition (since it's so unfamiliar to them) is also a little, uh, creative. The company will only offer you that 1 Gbps line for $70 if you agree to be snooped upon by AT&T's "Internet Preferences" deep packet inspection technology, which monitors and monetizes all of your browsing data. Otherwise you'll pay $100 a month, which AT&T amusingly insists is a "$30 savings." AT&T's 1 Gbps connections are also actually 300 Mbps connections until upgrades are finished later this year, and they're mostly being aimed at higher-end developments under the pretense of a broader deployment.

That leads me to the fact that while Google Fiber has resulted in some real competition in the very-limited number of locations they operate, they've also spawned a new phenomenon I've affectionately labeled "fiber to the press release." That's where a company proudly crows that they're offering 1 Gbps lines in a press statement, without actually saying where, when or to how many users. Our press being as they are, nobody bothers to actually ask those questions. This effectively has resulted in several companies proclaiming they're investing in cutting edge networks without actually, uh, doing much of that. The announcements are a bit theatrical in nature but tend to be entirely ambiguous when it comes to hard data (the branding for these phantom services, however, is usually lovely).

At the same time the 1 Gbps mark seems to have captured the nation's imagination, even if most people have no idea what to do with that much speed (which is a good thing). Still, Austin's going to see more robust broadband competition than 90% of the nation, and it's all thanks to a search engine that was pissed off about the state of broadband competition and decided to do something about it. Hopefully there are a few more deep-pocketed dreamers out there that are unwilling to settle, because the country needs a lot more help lighting a fire under all-too-comfortable mono/duopolies.

Filed Under: austin, broadband, competition, isp, texas
Companies: at&t, google, time warner cable

No, Netflix's New Deal With Comcast Probably Won't Destroy The Internet. Yet.

from the too-many-experts,-not-enough-data dept

The mysterious performance problems customers on large ISPs (specifically Verizon, AT&T and Comcast) have been having with Netflix streaming has just gotten slightly clearer. For months people have posted traceroutes as undeniable proof that large ISPs like Comcast, AT&T and Verizon had intentionally been throttling subscriber Netflix streams. However, as we've been noting, simple route analysis doesn't tell the whole story, and it's not always possible to determine where video transit breakdowns are occurring without direct access to ISP network data (data they hide completely).

Adding a sliver of insight into the problems, Netflix and Comcast announced over the weekend that they had struck a new interconnection deal that involves Comcast providing Netflix with direct access to the Comcast network. The announcement itself says little, other than to insist that Netflix "receives no preferential network treatment under the multi-year agreement." A Wall Street Journal report had a little more insider detail, noting that the two sides bypassed core network operator Cogent in an arrangement that involves Netflix paying Comcast for direct access:

"(The connection to Cogent) was starting to become overwhelmed with Netflix traffic, congesting traffic and leading to slower Netflix streams for Comcast Internet users, people familiar with the matter said. At the same time, Comcast presented Netflix with more attractive deal terms than the operator had been offering, the people said. The deal spans several years. Netflix was aiming for a long-term deal to make sure its projected traffic growth wouldn't put it at a disadvantage, one of the people said. The connection is a so-called "paid peering" deal, which connects Netflix's network to Comcast's directly. Netflix was previously using several middlemen to access Comcast's network."

Why the sudden interest on Comcast's part in getting a deal done? They're likely not too excited about the fact that they've been receiving bad press for poor Netflix streaming performance at the same time they're trying to sell regulators on the purported technical benefits of their $42 billion acquisition of Time Warner Cable.

Despite a lot of Internet hand-wringing about the deal and counter-kvetching about said hand-wringing (all based on no actual data, mind you) -- the agreement on its surface appears to be good for everybody involved except Cogent. That's thanks to the fact that in this case, Comcast appears to have been willing to make apparent concessions on price and deal length in order to keep up appearances for the merger. Netflix pays the same money they were paying Cogent to Comcast (or less), Comcast makes revenue they weren't making before, and customers get better streaming performance at no added costs (since Netflix is probably paying about the same, for now).

The problems are twofold: one, these deals are kept highly secret so promises of "no special treatment" aren't something people can confirm, and as Timothy Lee at the Washington Post discusses, the continued expansion of last mile ISPs into CDN and transit markets over time (note this is not new) could potentially lead to higher prices and less competition overall across the Internet's core:

"The fact that Netflix agreed to pay Comcast suggests that Cogent will likely lose its fight with Verizon as well. And as Cogent's chief executive Dave Schaeffer told Ars, "once you pay it's like blackmail, they've got you, there's nowhere else to go. They'll just keep raising the price in a market where prices [for transit] are falling." Indeed, in the long run, this development threatens the survival of independent backbone companies like Cogent. If it becomes industry practice for backbone providers to pay residential ISPs, companies like Cogent will become mere resellers of access to the networks of large broadband companies. Or they may be cut out of the loop altogether, as large customers such as Netflix cut deals directly with broadband providers such as Comcast."

I'm not sure Lee helps his argument by bringing net neutrality into the discussion though, as this is again more about market power than neutrality (for the moment). It's also worth noting that Cogent has a reputation of being difficult in peering disputes, and when a breakdown happens, more often than not Cogent is at the heart of it for not following through on truly balanced peering. Cogent was busy telling media outlets last week that it was Comcast and Verizon that were to blame for recent slowdowns. To hear Cogent tell it, Verizon and Comcast have been refusing to upgrade their interconnection links, largely because the ISPs want to move from an era of settlement-free interconnection, to one where the ISPs play a larger role in transit and get paid:

"This isn't the kind of problem consumers can solve by purchasing a faster Internet connection, because they'd be paying only for a faster path to Verizon's network, not a faster path to the rest of the Internet. In some cases, Verizon has actually purchased and installed the necessary equipment to upgrade ports, but not turned it on, according to (Cogeco CEO) Schaeffer. "They actually put it in, so they spent the money, but they just politically have not been willing to turn it on in order to ensure that Netflix will not work as well as Redbox," he said. When Netflix can't get through to Cogent, it sends traffic through other providers, but Schaeffer claims that "everybody is full." So what are they fighting over? Schaeffer said Verizon "wants a price that is about 10 times the market price for transit." Again, transit is a service that takes traffic across the entire Internet, whereas peering is just a connection between two networks."

To intentionally belabor a point again though, nobody can confirm anything either side says because the details aren't released. Meanwhile, while the Comcast deal might not be bad, the worry among consumer advocates is that in a world where ISPs get bigger and more powerful and transit options are reduced and replaced under absolutely no transparency, the overall industry could get less healthy. With Comcast controlling the last mile conduit, an ever-increasing slice of the core networks, and the media content itself, you start to see the monopsony concerns Comcast's expansion could raise among antitrust regulators.

Remember of course this deal only impacts Netflix on Comcast, there's continued ongoing problems for Netflix and YouTube traffic reaching the networks of a number of larger ISPs (Time Warner Cable, AT&T and Verizon), with no indication of when they'll get resolved. While I don't think the FCC's Wheeler is going to do much of anything meaningful on broadband competition, net neutrality, or prices, I do think he'll work to find some way to bring a dash more transparency to these disputes if everybody involved can't start getting along. Mainstream services grinding to a halt with nobody willing to admit fault and everything kept in the complete dark is simply bad for business. For everyone.

If this is all tl;dr for you, all you need to know is that if you're on Comcast and your Netflix streaming stinks you should either see improvements right away, or sometime over the next few months as the changes are implemented.

Filed Under: broadband, streaming, throttling
Companies: at&t, cogent, comcast, netflix, time warner cable, verizon

Comcast Paying Minority Rights Groups To Parrot Merger Support

from the repeat-after-me-if-you'd-like-to-keep-your-funding dept

I've already talked a little bit about the media sound wall Comcast will construct to try and convince the press, public and regulators that their planned $42 billion merger with Time Warner Cable is a wonderful idea for everyone involved. Like any company with a healthy lobbyist budget, Comcast pays think tanks, consultants, PR reps, editorial writers, various front groups and a myriad of other policy tendrils to all repeat the same mantra: whatever it is we want will be great and you have nothing to worry about. As we saw with AT&T's attempted takeover of T-Mobile, anybody and everybody who wants their Comcast money to keep flowing will come out in support of the deal, whether it's rural Texas school associations, the U.S. Cattlemen's Associations or even "balloonists."

One specifically important cornerstone of these lobbying efforts involves paying minority advocacy groups to parrot your positions, given lobbyists appear to believe that these groups in particular provide an important additional layer of artificial, grass roots legitimacy to your entirely-artificial support base. AT&T's T-Mobile deal, for example, received ample praise from groups like the The Hispanic Institute, the Latino Coalition, and the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council, all of which took funding from AT&T while insisting that less competition would bring great things to American consumers.

Comcast's lobbying approach for the Time Warner Cable merger isn't all that different. The New York Times notes that the company is paying groups like The United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce to sing the praises of Comcast's latest effort to get more powerful:

"...what the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce did not mention in its statement praising the transaction was that it had collected at least $320,000 over the last five years from Comcast's charitable foundation, which is run in part by David L. Cohen, the Comcast executive who oversees the corporation's government affairs operations...And (top Comcast lobbyist David) Cohen adamantly rejected any suggestion that the corporation's history of supporting nonprofit groups and charities, particularly groups that serve African-Americans, Latinos and Asians, was motivated by a desire to build political allies."

The usual defense from companies is that this is just us being altruistic, even though the company involved usually sends these organizations an e-mail with a list of talking points they'd like to see parroted. Losing funding if you don't play along is usually strongly implied:

"But even one of Comcast's own lobbyists said in an interview that the relationship with some groups had a transactional flavor. "If you have a company like Comcast that has been with them for a long time and continues to support them, they will go to bat for them," the contract lobbyist for Comcast said, asking that he not be named because he was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly, "even if it means they have become pawns."

The sad part is that these organizations obviously wind up rooting against their constituents' own best self-interests in the quest for continued funding. An AT&T acquisition of T-Mobile, for example, would have killed off T-Mobile and driven prices up, neither of which would have helped minorities (or anybody else). While the Comcast deal is different because Time Warner Cable and Comcast don't compete, the deal could still result in greater vertical integration, a tougher time for small and minority-owned media businesses, and the imposition of data caps and broadband overages across a broader overall market area (aka: higher prices).

Combine this sound wall of artificial support with the oodles of money Comcast is throwing at Congress, The President, and the FCC, and it starts to get easier and easier to buy approval for bad ideas. That's before you even point out that former FCC boss Michael Powell now runs the NCTA, the cable industry's biggest lobbying organization, Former FCC Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker now lobbies for Comcast, or DOJ Antitrust Division director William J. Baer represented NBCUniversal during Comcast's acquisition. Did I mention Comcast's David Cohen is a big Obama fundraiser?

While this greasy wheeling might make the deal get approved, it doesn't change the truth that your argument or idea isn't very good if you have to pay people to support it.

Filed Under: advocacy, cable, lobbying, merger, television
Companies: comcast, time warner cable

Comcast: Allowing Us To Get Immensely, Inconceivably, Ridiculously Massive Is 'Pro Consumer'

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

Comcast has confirmed reports that the company will be acquiring Time Warner Cable in a deal estimated to be worth around $45 billion. With the ink on their NBC acquisition only just dry to the touch, the deal will tack 8 million broadband subscribers onto the company's existing 22 million broadband customers. Comcast is already the nation's largest fixed-line broadband company, largest cable TV provider, and third largest fixed-line phone company -- and that's before you include the company's NBC or other assets. From a geographical perspective the deal makes sense; Time Warner Cable filling in Comcast's coverage gaps and in particular giving Comcast the prized markets of Los Angeles and New York City, where Time Warner Cable has traditionally under-performed.

The problem is less of market share (the two companies didn't compete directly) but one of consolidated power; allowing one, massive company to control both the content and the conduit to your home across the vast majority of the country -- then just hoping they'll play nice with smaller competitors, startups and consumers. Never worry, insists Comcast, who states that they'll divest a few of these markets (most likely to failed Time Warner Cable suitor Charter Communications) so that they won't be quite as absurdly massive as they might have been.

In a memo (pdf) paving the way for what's sure to be a tough attempt at regulatory approval, Comcast's David Cohen trots out Google Fiber as an ambiguous example of why vertical integration and market dominance concerns no longer apply:

"In today’s market, with national telephone and satellite competitors growing substantially, with Google having launched its 1 GB Google Fiber offering in a number of markets across the country, and consumers having more choice of pay TV providers than ever before, Comcast believes that there can be no justification for denying the company the additional scale that will help it compete more effectively."

Except, well, not. Google Fiber is only available in two actually-deployed markets currently, and despite being a great price-disruptive product in those locations, likely won't be expanding beyond more than a handful of cities. As for "growing" national telephone competitors, both AT&T and Verizon are in the process of gutting regulations across dozens of states so they can begin hanging up on unwanted DSL and phone customers they don't want to upgrade. They're effectively ceding all competition on the fixed-line front in half of their markets so they can focus on wireless, signing co-marketing deals with cable directing those users to what will be their last fixed-line choice for broadband.

That choice is going to be Comcast, and with less competition than ever across huge swaths of the United States, you can be certain the company will be bringing their planned usage caps to your neck of the woods before long -- impacting consumers, startups and small businesses across the country. Again, no sweat argues Comcast. In a "public interest benefit summary," (pdf) Comcast again states you don't have to worry about any of this, because, well, Google Fiber and Netflix. Or something like that:

"A number of online businesses like Apple, Google, Amazon, Hulu, Netflix, and a host of smaller companies are entering the online video space and trying to position themselves as competitors. While we view online businesses as complementary to our business, previous antitrust concerns about further cable consolidation are truly antiquated in light of today’s marketplace realities."

Right, because there's no way that a massive company like Comcast with that kind of lobbying power and market leverage could find it easier than ever to squeeze these companies through restrictive content licensing deals, regulatory capture, or usage caps, right? And oh, just a reminder Comcast, you own Hulu, and alongside other broadcast owners have worked hard to ensure it never disrupts the legacy TV apple cart. All in all, Comcast would prefer you not worry your pretty little head about any of this stuff as we wait to see whether new FCC boss Tom Wheeler (formerly a lobbyist for the cable industry) approves Comcast's latest adorable growth spurt.

Filed Under: broadband, cable, television
Companies: comcast, time warner cable

Time Warner Cable Systematically Looking To Shut Down Parodist's Accounts

from the not-a-huge-surprise dept

Well, this won't come as a huge surprise. Twice this week we've written about a pair of parodists who have been mocking Time Warner Cable and its customer service, first with a video in which they pretend to be TWC Customer Service reps asking people how they can make service worse for customers, and then involving a recording with a customer service rep who suggested that you weren't allowed to record your phone calls with TWC Customer service, even though they were recording you. The efforts were part of a parody campaign for a website called TWCCustomerService.com. For what it's worth, Time Warner has since said that there is no corporate policy saying that callers cannot record their calls, and that was merely a case of one rep overreacting.

That said, Time Warner Cable has apparently decided that the duo at TWCCustomerService have gone way too far in their parody attempt and have been going after their various social media accounts one by one. Already killed are their YouTube account and a bunch of Twitter accounts. The latest is that TWC's legal department has approached GoDaddy, seeking to have the TWCCustomerService.com domain name taken away. According to Kevin Collier at DailyDot, the guys are actually Jason Selvig and Davram Stiefler of the comedy duo The Good Liars, and they have a history of doing similar types of pranks. In this case, TWC claims that the duo went too far in using the real name (and image) of Time Warner Cable's CEO, Glenn Britt.

As we noted in our first post about them, some might think that their website and efforts pushed some boundaries, since nowhere do they state directly that they're a parody account, but any human being with a few functioning brain cells should be able to tell within seconds that these guys clearly do not represent Time Warner Cable at all. I can understand why TWC decided to try to shut down the various accounts, but, in the end that's probably exactly what Selvig and Stiefler wanted, as it merely serves to call that much more attention to their antics.

Filed Under: accounts, customer service, parody, social media, twc customer service
Companies: time warner cable

Time Warner Cable: We Can Record You, But You Can't Record Us

from the oh-look-at-that dept

So we just had a post about a spoof on customer service from Time Warner Cable by the gripe site TWCCustomerService.com, and I see that they've been busy with their next video as well, in which they call Time Warner Cable's customer service center and tell the representative who answers that they are going to "record the call for quality assurance." Hilarity ensues. Here's a snippet.

Caller: First off, I just want to let you know that I'm recording the call for quality assurance...

Customer Service Rep: Unfortunately, I'm actually not authorizing you to do so, sir.

Caller: You're not authorized to do what?

Customer Service Rep: I'm not authorizing the recording, sir.

Caller: Oh, well you guys are recording the phone call on your end. Why can't I record it on my end?

Customer Service Rep: (long pause) Because it's the company sir.

Later on, the CSR admits that, yes, TWC is recording the call, and the caller requests the recording (guess how that goes?). The CSR continues to insist he's uncomfortable being recorded and is not giving any consent, so the caller more or less says the same thing and asks the CSR to turn off the recording on their end. And so it goes.

As a random aside, I'll just bring up the idiocy of places (including my home state of California) that have two party consent recording laws. If you are a party to the call, you should be able to record it without getting the consent of all participants.

Filed Under: customer service, recording
Companies: time warner cable