Netflix Hits Users With Another Round Of Price Hikes

from the meet-the-new-boss... dept

It's been obvious for a while that the future of internet television is starting to look increasingly like traditional cable. Initially, the streaming sector was all about innovation, choice, and lower costs to drive subscriber interest. But as the market has matured and become dominated by bigger players, some familiar patterns have emerged, including giant companies trying to lock down as much content as possible in exclusives, and a steady parade of price hikes that slowly, surely, start to erode the value proposition.

Last week Netflix announced that the company would be imposing yet another price hike. Here in the U.S., the company's 720p "basic" tier is increasing $1 to $10 per month, its 1080p "standard" tier is increasing $1.50 to $15.50 per month, and its 4K "premium" will see a $2 increase to $20 per month. Similar hikes are also on their way to Canadian subscribers. In a statement, Netflix justified the hikes using familiar rhetoric about "improving the customer experience":

"We understand people have more entertainment choices than ever, and we’re committed to delivering an even better experience for our members," the statement said. "We’re updating our prices so that we can continue to offer a wide variety of quality entertainment options. As always, we offer a range of plans so members can pick a price that works for their budget."

Granted every time the company imposes a rate hike, folks act as if the world is falling. Back when the company bungled its "Qwikster" DVD unit spin off and imposed price hikes there were no shortage of critics insisting the company was doomed. But for now, consumers continue to find the value proposition streaming offers to be worthwhile, especially in comparison to the still high prices of traditional cable TV options. Streaming still generally sees the kind of customer satisfaction ratings traditional cable companies can only dream of.

But the price hikes that have hit streaming TV services (especially live streaming services) haven't been without repercussion. Not only did more customers cut the traditional TV cord last year, streaming TV services saw a significant reduction in growth. Netflix itself saw a significant drop in subscriber growth across 2021 and a loss in total subscribers in the U.S. and Canada, in no small part due to a 2020 price hike.

With the pricing for live streaming TV services like YouTube TV increasingly looking more and more like traditional cable, and the hunt to lock down exclusives driving increased confusion among consumers trying to find their favorite content, there continues to be a real risk the entire sector simply forgets to learn anything from the plight of traditional TV. As in, keep pushing price hikes for the same or an eroded value proposition, and you can expect a lot of potential subscribers to move to alternatives... whether that's over the air broadcasts using an antenna, or TikTok.

Filed Under: cable, price hikes, streaming, video
Companies: netflix

Google, NBC Bring Dumb Cable TV Blackout Feuds To Streaming

from the consumers-lose dept

For years cable TV has been plagued by retrans feuds and carriage disputes that routinely end with users losing access to TV programming they pay for. Basically, broadcasters will demand a rate hike in new content negotiations, the cable TV provider will balk, and then each side blames the other for failing to strike a new agreement on time like reasonable adults. That repeatedly results in content being blacked out for months, without consumers ever getting a refund. After a few months, the two sides strike a new confidential deal, your bill goes up, and nobody much cares how that impacts the end user. Rinse, wash, repeat.

And while the shift to streaming TV has improved a lot about cable TV in general, these annoying feuds have remained. The latest case in point: Comcast NBC Universal is demanding more money from Google for the 14+ channels currently on the company's YouTube TV live streaming platform. Google appears to be balking, resulting in NBC running a bunch of annoying banners on its channels warning about a looming blackout, and directing people to this website blaming Google for not wanting to pay more money for the same content:

In a blog post, Google notes that negotiations are ongoing, but suggests that Comcast isn't being reasonable in negotiations:

"Our ask is that NBCU treats YouTube TV like any other TV provider. In other words, for the duration of our agreement, YouTube TV seeks the same rates that services of a similar size get from NBCU so we can continue offering YouTube TV to members at a competitive and fair price."

As far as annoying corporate feuds go, this one isn't all that bad. Google says it will reduce the cost of its overall service by $10 should users lose access to NBC content after September 30 (traditionally, cable providers haven't been willing to lower their rates at all). Still, you're going to be seeing a lot more of these kinds of feuds as telecoms, cable TV companies, app makers, "big tech," and even hardware vendors like Roku all attempt to battle for not only viewership eyeballs, but access to user data collection revenues.

The problem is, consumers shouldn't be the ones paying the price for two companies' failure to negotiate new contracts like adults. For a moment there it looked like the FCC might update its rules to force companies to negotiate in good faith (and more importantly penalize companies that take out out their negotiating incompetence on paying subscribers) but as a movement it generally went nowhere. U.S. regulators genuinely view these feuds as just "boys being boys," and routinely don't care whether it results in paying subscribers losing access to content they have, in many cases, already paid for.

Filed Under: blackouts, cable, carriage disputes, retrans, streaming, tv
Companies: comcast, google, nbc universal, youtube

The Future Of Streaming TV Looks Increasingly Like Cable, But Free

from the the-more-things-change... dept

There's been little doubt that the streaming TV revolution has been a decidedly good thing. Competition from streaming has resulted in more options, for less money, and greater programming flexibility than ever before. Streaming customer satisfaction is consistently higher than traditional cable TV as a result, and lumbering giants that fought against evolution for years (at times denying that cord cutting even existing) have been forced to actually try a little harder if they want to retain TV subscribers.

Of course the more things change, the more they stay the same. And a lot of the problems that plagued the traditional TV experience have made their way to streaming. For example, since broadcasters (which were primarily responsible for the unsustainable cost of traditional cable TV) must have their pound of flesh to satiate investor needs for quarterly returns, price hikes in live streaming service have been arriving fast and furiously. And the more the industry attempts to innovate, the more it finds itself retreading fairly familiar territory.

Case in point: to lure more users to its platforms and streaming hardware, Google is in talks with multiple companies to offer users free streaming TV channels, complete with ads:

"Google has held talks with companies distributing so-called FAST (free, ad-supported streaming television) channels, according to multiple industry insiders. These channels have the look and feel of traditional linear TV networks, complete with ad breaks and on-screen graphics. Free streaming channels could launch on Google TV as early as this fall, but the company may also wait to announce the initiative in conjunction with its smart TV partners in early 2022."

Some TV vendors, like LG, have taken to partnering with services like Pluto TV so when you get your new TV, and if you don't have cable, you get a viewing guide that sort of looks like cable. Namely a bunch of channels that usually offer (usually) dated content loaded with ads. This is usually tethered to on demand options in the hopes you'll pony up money for better content. As a result, the hot trend du jour in streaming right now involves offering users something that looks an awful lot like traditional cable:

"That approach mirrors the way TV makers like LG and Samsung have integrated free streaming channels into their platforms. For these TV makers, free channels have become an overnight success story. Samsung alone streams "billions of minutes" of linear programming via its TV Plus service every month, Samsung Electronics SVP Sang Kim told Protocol last year."

The difference, of course, is that this is all free. The money is made both off of ads, and off of collecting and selling access to your daily behavioral and viewing data, without telling consumers or letting them opt out (see the 2017 Vizio settlement with the FTC). Selling access to this data is so profitable, companies have made it clear that revenue from selling TVs themselves have become almost secondary. As with most "smart" devices there are often tradeoffs to this model, including the fact that not a whole lot of thought has gone toward security and privacy. And as hardware makers, streaming companies, telecoms, and big tech platforms all attempt to battle for control of this data flow, I can foresee more than a few unforseen potholes and shenanigans.

Still, it's amazing to see a sector that was so obstinately resistant to evolution finally evolve and try new things, even if many of these new ideas look more familiar than you would have suspected.

Filed Under: ads, cable, data, streaming, tracking

Another 1.2 Million Consumers Ditched Traditional Cable TV Last Quarter

from the evolutionary-inevitability dept

Surprising nobody, the traditional cable TV industry lost another 1.2 million paying subscribers last quarter as users flee to other alternatives. Largely those alternatives consist of streaming video services that are cheaper, more flexible, and feature better customer service. Many others are rediscovering free over the air broadcasts. Others have simply shifted away from TV entirely, choosing to embrace YouTube or TikTok.

According to Leichtman Research, the top cable companies lost 587,649 customers in just the last quarter, compared to 698,000 for telco and satellite providers. Over the last year, traditional pay TV providers saw a net loss of about 4,520,000 subscribers, compared to a loss of about 5,460,000 over the year prior (impressive for a trend that the industry spent years pretending wasn't actually happening). Fortunately for the industry, the cord cutting revolution appears to be slowing somewhat:

"Pay-TV net losses of 1,230,000 in 2Q 2021 were about 275,000 fewer than in 2Q 2020 on a pro forma basis,” said Bruce Leichtman, president and principal analyst for Leichtman Research Group, Inc. “Over the past year, top pay-TV providers had a net loss of about 4,520,000 subscribers, compared to a loss of about 5,460,000 over the prior year."

While the rate of decline is slowing there's still a lot of room to fall. The top traditional pay TV providers still serve roughly 77.6 million subscribers in the US, many of which stick around thanks to sports programming. As sports increasingly shifts away from traditional cable providers and toward streaming alternatives you can expect subscriber counts to follow suit.

Users continue to flee traditional cable for the usual reasons: high prices, terrible customer service, and bloated and inflexible cable channel bundles. There continues to be some headway in these arena by entrenched cable TV providers, but there's a contingent of execs that simply refuse to seriously compete on price. In large part because many of these companies (Comcast) enjoy regional monopolies over broadband access, allowing them to squeeze those subscribers tighter than ever with bizarre fees and broadband usage caps and surcharges.

Meanwhile increased competition in the streaming TV space has also made things a bit rougher on sector leader Netflix as well, which has been bleeding subscribers in both the US and Canada thanks to growing new entrants like Disney Plus. All in all the shift away from dominant cable TV providers toward more flexible, cheaper alternatives and actual competition (instead of the "wink wink, nod nod" non-price competition we saw between satellite TV and traditional cable TV for years) continues to be a great thing.

Filed Under: cable, cable tv, cord cutting, internet, pay tv, streaming

Cable's US Broadband Monopoly Continues To Grow

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

We've noted a few times how US regulators often simply refuse to acknowledge that the US broadband sector is heavily monopolized. Regional cable and phone monopolies are the number one reason US broadband is patchy, expensive, and slow with routinely terrible customer service. But when you see folks in both parties discuss US broadband, industry dysfunction is always framed in this extremely nebulous way (we must "fix the digital divide!"). Largely because nobody in government wants to offend deep-pocketed campaign contributors also bone grafted to our domestic surveillance apparatus.

The latest broadband data from Leichtman Research illustrates the scope of the problem. The firm notes that the broadband industry added 890,000 subscribers last quarter. Cable companies added 840,000 of that total, while phone companies added just 50,000:

"The top cable companies added about 840,000 subscribers in 2Q 2021 – 60% of the net additions for the top cable companies in 2Q 2020. The top wireline phone companies added about 50,000 total broadband subscribers in 2Q 2021 – compared to a net loss of about 140,000 subscribers in 2Q 2020."

Phone companies (Windstream, AT&T, Verizon, Frontier, Centurylink) have effectively given up on residential broadband across much of the country. In many areas that means not just refusing to upgrade aging DSL lines, but often refusing to repair them. That's effectively creating a bigger broadband monopoly than ever for entrenched cable giants (usually Charter (Spectrum) and Comcast), which now dominate roughly 70 percent of the fixed line broadband market. No competition means no incentive to expand, compete on price, or shore up terrible customer service.

People like to pretend that stuff like satellite broadband and wireless will come in and disrupt this busted paradigm, but that's simply not true. Satellite broadband ventures like Elon Musk's Starlink lack the capacity to truly break this logjam at any real scale. And while 5G is also bandied about as a miracle solution to the problem, US wireless isn't a real substitute for for traditional fiber, usually comes with bizarre restrictions and caveats, and is generally expensive (something that will likely get worse thanks to recent industry consolidation).

The way you fix US broadband dysfunction is by targeting the regional fixed-line monopolies enjoyed by AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Charter. One way to do that is to drive most subsidies toward smaller private competitors. Another way to do that would be to embrace and support the growing tide of community broadband efforts growing up around the country, whether they be municipal broadband, cooperatives, public/private partnerships, or utility-based.

But because AT&T, Comcast and friends are so politically powerful, efforts to do that usually get largely stripped away from any new broadband bills, as we just witnessed with the Biden broadband plan (in fact, community broadband support was the very first casualty). Often these compromises, at the direct behest of monopoly lobbyists, are then framed as "bipartisan compromise." But because the proposals aren't tackling the real reasons for US broadband dysfunction (regional monopolization and the state and federal corruption that protects it), nothing truly changes.

Filed Under: broadband, cable, competition

It's 2021 And Bullshit Broadband And Cable TV Fees Are Somehow Still A Thing

from the you'd-think-we-would-have-fixed-this-by-now dept

For years we've talked about how the broadband and cable industry has perfected the use of utterly bogus fees to jack up subscriber bills -- a dash of financial creativity it adopted from the banking and airline industries. Countless cable and broadband companies tack on a myriad of completely bogus fees below the line, letting them advertise one rate -- then sock you with a higher rate once your bill actually arrives. These companies will then brag repeatedly about how they haven't raised rates yet this year, when that's almost never actually the case.

One 2019 Consumer Reports study found that about 24% of consumer bills are comprised of bullshit fees, generating cable giants $28 billion in additional revenue annually. The problem is just as bad over in broadband (see Centurylink's utterly nonsensical "Internet Cost Recovery" fee). Often cable and broadband companies will try to give such fees official-sounding names like "regulatory recovery" so that consumers falsely blame government for being nickel-and-dimed. But between TV fees, hardware fees, usage fees, and other surcharges, bundled customers dole out a small fortune every year for absolutely nothing.

It's fraud, but fraud that has somehow been normalized over decades.

I've been writing about this problem for the better part of twenty years, so it's disheartening to see the Washington Post still covering this bullshit in 2021 without much having changed:

"Most of the price hike that I didn’t expect was Comcast sneaking in additional “fees” — not taxes, just expenses related to Comcast’s cost of doing business. I’m paying $27.05 on top of my bundle price for Comcast’s cable service to carry local broadcast networks and pro sports games. Yes, my Comcast bill, [Consumer Reports senior counsel Jonathan] Schwantes said, isn’t as bad as many others he has seen, which can include 12 or more line-item fees. Some companies, he added, try to make people think their fees are government taxes, but they’re not.

Amusingly, Comcast tries to pass off falsely advertising low prices then socking users with bullshit fees as some kind of consumer benefit:

"Comcast tells me this is exactly what its customers want. It said it disclosed its copious additional fees to me in various fine-print communications — though only after I entered my credit card number. “We conduct extensive consumer research and host focus groups and incorporate our findings into the way we present information to our customers, all in an effort to help ensure they have a positive experience and can easily understand the details of their service,” said Jennifer Khoury, Comcast’s chief communications officer."

By and large, federal regulators couldn't give any less of a shit about this problem. That leaves a patchwork collection of State AGs who'll occasionally dole out some light fines and flimsy wrist slaps. But that leaves most consumers utterly unprotected from being ripped off by their local cable TV or telecom company. As you can tell from similar behavior in the banking and airline industries, the federal government, at some point, just declared it perfectly okay to rip people off with utterly nonsensical fees, provided you're just marginally clever about it.

Filed Under: bogus fees, broadband, cable, fees, hidden fees, price hikes, truth in advertising
Companies: comcast

27% Of Cable TV Subscribers Will Cut The Cord This Year

from the there's-more-where-that-came-from dept

The cable industry was already struggling last year, when a record number of cable customers "cut the cord" and flocked to over the air or streaming alternatives. That was before a pandemic came to town. Now, with live sports less consistent and folks desperate to cut costs as they struggle to pay rent, the trend simply exploded in 2020. The number of folks still paying for traditional cable has now dropped 22.8% from pay TV's peak back in 2014. But by the end of 2024, analysts expect that fewer than half of US homes will subscribe to a traditional pay TV service.

It's a trend that's expected to accelerate dramatically in 2021. One new survey by The Trade Desk indicates that another 27 percent of US households are planning to cut cable TV from their budgets this year:

"American households are cutting the cord on their cable subscriptions more rapidly than previously reported, according to the second Future of TV survey of more than 2,100 U.S. consumers by The Trade Desk (Nasdaq: TTD). The data shows 27 percent of U.S. cable TV subscribers are planning to cut their subscriptions by the end of 2021. That percentage is nearly double the 15 percent of cable subscribers who reported cutting the cord in 2020, and significantly higher than the approximate 3 percent annual decline reported by eMarketer prior to 2020."

That's quite an explosion for a trend that cable and broadcast executives have spent the last decade trying to pretend wasn't actually happening (it was), wasn't a big deal (it was), was only something poor losers do (studies have repeatedly proven this claim false) or would rebound once Millennials began seriously procreating (that didn't happen). At every step of the way executives have been wrong about this phenomenon.

Even as the data clearly showed that consumers were cutting traditional, expensive cable TV service even faster than ever, some cable execs and analysts continued to try and claim that 2020 and 2021 would see a reversal in this trend. Again, that's simply not true:

"COVID has accelerated cord-cutting trends that were already underway, to a point where less than 50 percent of U.S. households today have a cable subscription. It’s not because U.S. consumers have fallen out of love with TV, but that there are now more convenient ways of consuming it. That even applies to traditional cable mainstays, such as live sports,” said Tim Sims, Chief Revenue Officer, The Trade Desk. “As more broadcasters launch and expand their streaming services, these gaps are only going to widen."

Don't feel too badly for cable and telecom giants, however. With a neutered FCC and little competition, most providers are simply planning to recoup their pound of lost flesh by doubling down on broadband rate hikes thanks to persistent monopolization we refuse to do anything about.

Filed Under: broadband, cable, cut the cord

U.S. Cable Broadband Monopolies Close In On 70% Broadband Market Share

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

The U.S. telecom industry's monopolization problem shows no sign of slowing down.

According to the latest data from Leichtman Research, the cable industry is nearing a 70% market share over fixed line broadband. That's thanks to many reasons, not least of which being that most U.S. phone companies have effectively given up on seriously upgrading their aging DSL lines, driving a greater portion of Americans to the only companies actually offering modern broadband speeds: Charter (Spectrum) and Comcast. Phone companies collectively lost another 150,000 subscribers last quarter, while cable providers added about 1,400,000 users in just three months.

For the cable industry, this is all a wonderful thing. Less competition from phone companies, combined with a Trump FCC that couldn't care less about the sector's competition problems, means they can get away with charging higher rates than ever for a service that comes (not coincidentally) with some of the worst customer service ratings of any industry in America (seriously stop and think about that for a moment).

With COVID-19 making it clear that broadband is an essential utility, users are flocking to cable connections if they want to remain tethered to their jobs, education, and friends. Charter (Spectrum), as a result, saw 850,000 new customers in one quarter alone, a quarterly record for any broadband provider, at any point in U.S. history:

"With the continued impact of the coronavirus pandemic, there were more quarterly net broadband additions in 2Q 2020 than in any quarter in eight years,” said Bruce Leichtman, president and principal analyst for Leichtman Research Group, Inc. “In the first half of 2020, there were over 2.4 million net broadband additions. This is the most net adds in the first half of any year since 2008."

That's great news for cable giants, but not so great for consumers, smaller competitors, or the health of the internet.

Less competition overall means not only higher flat-rate prices, but more annoying fees, usage caps, and overage surcharges. It also means less incentive than ever to behave on subjects like net neutrality or privacy, improve customer service, or expand service into lower ROI areas (despite billions in tax breaks, subsidies, and regulatory favors). What exactly exists to curtail these companies' worst impulses or motivate them to do better? They face no competition, and U.S. regulators and lawmakers are potentially the most captured they've been at any point in the last 50 years.

There's a small glimmer of hope that low-orbit satellite ventures (from the likes of Space X and Amazon) and fifth-generation wireless (5G) could help shake things up, but the former lacks the capacity to seriously disrupt denser markets, and the latter still is far from being a direct competitor to fixed-line broadband due to high prices and nickel-and-dime connection restrictions. Meanwhile one of the more disruptive aspects of U.S. telecom, community-owned or public/private partnerships, have been under steady assault by the Trump FCC.

U.S. monopolization is not a bug, it's a feature. There is no panacea here, and nothing changes without both a dramatic shake up in American leadership, and major reform to rein in AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon's political influence over both state and federal lawmakers and regulators.

Filed Under: broadband, cable, competition, market share, monopolies
Companies: charter, charter spectrum, comcast

Want To Know Why U.S. Broadband Is A Bad Joke? Take a Close Look at Frontier Communications

from the ill-communication dept

In telecom policy circles, there's an army of "experts" who twist themselves into pretzels trying to pretend U.S. telecom is a healthy, normal, vibrant market. Blinded by partisan loyalties, sector financial links, or ideologies embedded decades ago, they're incapable of even acknowledging that Americans pay too much money for spotty, substandard service with historically terrible customer support. They're even less likely to acknowledge the corruption, regulatory capture, and lack of competition that made this dysfunction possible. If it is acknowledged, it's downplayed to a comical degree.

As in the Ma Bell days, at the heart of U.S. broadband dysfunction sits phone companies. Providers, that have long refused to upgrade their aging DSL networks despite millions in taxpayer subsidies, lobby for state laws that ensure nobody else can deliver broadband in these neglected footprints either. These are companies that have a bizarre disdain for their paying customers, delivering the bare minimum (slow DSL) at the highest rates they can possibly charge without a full-scale consumer revolt. It's not surprising, then, that many telco DSL customers are fleeing to cable, assuming they even have a second broadband option.

This dynamic often results in some almost comedic dysfunction.

Like in West Virginia, where incumbent telco Frontier has repeatedly been busted in a series of scandals involving substandard service and the misuse of taxpayer money. The graft and corruption in the state is so severe, state leaders have buried reports detailing the depth of the problem, and, until recently, a Frontier executive did double duty as a state representative without anybody in the state thinking that was a conflict of interest.

But it's not just West Virginia. Frontier has since been under investigations from New York to Minnesota for failing to upgrade or even repair its aging network, at points putting human lives at risk. The company has also been repeatedly under fire for blatantly ripping its users off. For example, it has been charging its customers a rental fee for modems they already own. Very rarely do you see state leaders stand up to the company. And you'll certainly never see any kind of substantive pushback by the current, industry-captured FCC.

Customers who can leave (usually to the other end of the duopoly, Comcast), have been fleeing whenever possible, resulting in a looming bankruptcy by the company. In a report to investors this week we're only now starting to finally see something close to truth from the company as it tries to own up to its incompetence. Frontier had apparently tried to redact much of the report detailing the scope of network neglect, but appears to have bungled that as well:

"For example, one redacted sentence says that "Frontier WV's copper network has at least 952,163 connection points that are susceptible to moisture, corrosion, loose connections, etc. that may cause interruptions of service to customers."...The failed redaction of the number of connection points was coupled with failed redactions about the age of the network. The consultant firm's report said that 46.8 percent of Frontier's West Virginia network is between 36 and 47 years old. Both the percentage and the numbers of years were unsuccessfully "redacted" by Frontier.

The report makes it clear that the company probably shouldn't have engaged in mindless M&As, acquiring unwanted aging phone networks from AT&T and Verizon in "growth for growth's sake." Many of those deals were completely bungled and saddled the company with unneeded debt. Most should have been blocked by regulators and lawmakers who were too busy kissing the company's ass. Frontier also should have invested money back into the network to build a stronger company and retain subscribers, instead of engaging in repeated stock buybacks.

There are two reasons the company didn't do better on these fronts. One is sniveling, feckless, U.S. regulators and cash-compromised state and federal lawmakers, who rubber stamp every merger thrown on their desks, and refuse to hold politically powerful monopolies accountable. The other? A lack of competition across most of Frontier's territories:

"So why would a company like Frontier not immediately hit the upgrade button and start a massive copper retirement-fiber upgrade plan to keep the company in the black? In short, Frontier has survived chronic underinvestment because of a lack of broadband competition. Nearly two million Frontier customers have only one choice for internet access: Frontier. For another 11.3 million, there is only one other choice – a cable company that many detest. Frontier has enjoyed its broadband monopoly/duopoly for at least two decades. So long as its customers have fewer options, Frontier is under less pressure to invest in upgrades."

There were ample opportunities for state and federal leaders to step in and correct these problems, while embracing pro-competition policies that minimized the need for government involvement. Instead we let a regional monopoly dictate state and federal policy, and now act surprised when the end result is a smoldering dumpster fire. Granted as Frontier stumbles toward bankruptcy most of its debt will be wiped clean, nobody in the U.S. will learn anything from the process, and a universe of "very serious telecom policy thinkers" will continue to turn a blind eye to the entire mess as history repeats itself.

Filed Under: broadband, cable, competition, corruption, dsl, fcc, promises, subsidies, west virginia
Companies: frontier

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

from the ill-communication dept

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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