Despite Endless Improvement Promises, Comcast, Time Warner Cable Still Least Liked Companies -- In Any Industry

from the worst-of-the-worst dept

As we've noted a few times, Comcast and Time Warner Cable not only have the worst satisfaction ratings in the cable TV and broadband industries, but across any industry. While an impressive feat, it's not particularly surprising given the endless broadband and TV rate hikes, the use of obnoxious sneaky fees, and the overall lack of competition in a sector that prominently features what frequently approaches outright hostility to subscribers. Despite bi-annual promises to dramatically overhaul the way they do business, things never change -- and haven't for a decade or more.

That was illustrated again this week with the latest update to the University of Michigan's American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI), which measures consumer opinion on some 240 companies and brands. Ranked on an overall scale of 100, the ACSI found that Time Warner Cable (specifically its broadband arm) is the least popular company in America with a score of 54. The second least favorite company in the country? Time Warner Cable's TV division, with a score of 56. Like other studies, the ACSI finds Comcast broadband nipping closely at Time Warner Cable's under-performing heels in both broadband (57) and TV (60).It's worth noting that while Time Warner Cable and Comcast were the worst, the rest of the broadband and pay TV sector fared only marginally better, with scores significantly lower than many other sectors. In fact, the latest study update found that not one pay TV provider improved its customer satisfaction scores over their 2013 scores, and despite numerous promises the last few years, both Time Warner Cable and Comcast managed to somehow get worse. That's of course because a lack of real competition (especially in broadband) means there's no real incentive to spend money on improving customer satisfaction, so they don't.

If you look at the actual breakdowns by industry in the ACSI rankings, you'll note that many other hated sectors (like airlines, banks or health insurance) do notably better than Comcast and Time Warner Cable. Most Federal government departments even enjoy higher ratings than the cable industry. Well, except for the IRS. Comcast and Time Warner Cable are right about on par with the nation's tax collectors when it comes to happy human beings.

Like moldy chocolate and rancid peanut butter, it's hard to even fathom the wonderful combination of awful Time Warner Cable and Comcast will be able to achieve should their $45 billion merger be approved.

Filed Under: broadband, customer service, least liked
Companies: comcast, time warner cable

Comcast Says Its Sudden Love Of The Poor Is Just Altruistic 'Serendipity,' In No Way Tied To Wanting Merger Approval

from the really-really-really-genuine dept

To get its acquisition of NBC Universal approved, Comcast proposed a merger condition requiring the company provide $10 broadband to select low-income families in its footprint for three years. The company has gleaned endless PR traction from the "Internet Essentials" program, launching and re-launching the effort in school district after school district with a string of photo ops featuring Comcast's top lobbyist (uh, "Chief Diversity Officer") David Cohen standing among a sea of smiling childrens' faces. Of course in typical Comcast fashion the company made it intentionally hard to qualify and sign up for.

To get the offer you need to qualify for the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), can't currently have or had Comcast service in the last 90 days, and can't owe Comcast money. Given the latter two are pretty common among the poor, many folks were disqualified out of the gate. Critics also pointed out that Comcast wasn't advertising the program (outside of press junkets designed to congratulate itself), so many poor families had no idea it existed. A year or two ago these concerns resulted in some street protests in Comcast's hometown of Philadelphia.

Since then Comcast has made some modest tweaks to the program, including a limited-time "amnesty" offer for past due balances. Not surprisingly, the company is again using the program as the centerpiece of its attempt to get its Time Warner Cable acquisition approved by regulators. And once again, critics are saying that Comcast's love of the poor is a lot of hot air used to push through deals that overall will hurt the poor by exacerbating the industry's competitive woes:

"Yet programs by Comcast and other cable companies offering cheap Internet aren’t benefiting enough low-income families, critics say. Comcast’s Internet Essentials, the biggest, has reached 350,000 households -- or about 13 percent of those eligible, according to one estimate. Cox Communications Inc., which has the capacity to provide service to 10 million homes, reports 15,000 subscribers. Time Warner Cable dropped its $9.95 offer after a year. The programs have tight eligibility criteria and balky signup procedures, where they exist at all, its detractors say.

"Everybody would like to pretend they’re doing something," said Harold Feld, senior vice president with the Washington-based policy group Public Knowledge. "Cable has not done anything real in this space."

Over the years Comcast has gotten amusingly indignant whenever anybody dares try to suggest that Comcast's restrictive low-income programs are anything other than pure altruism. Earlier this year Cohen breathlessly told the Washington Post that you can criticize Comcast for a lot of things, but that its love of the poor wasn't one of them:

"This makes me sigh,” Comcast Executive Vice President David Cohen said in an interview. “You can criticize us for data consumption caps. You can criticize us because cable bills are too high. You can criticize us because the acquisition of Time Warner Cable will make us too big. I can understand that. But every once in a while, even a big company does a good thing for the right reasons."

Fast forward to this month and again, Comcast tells Bloomberg that the fact it decided to love the poor right around the time it wanted something from government wasn't self-serving, it was "serendipity":

"Comcast was considering a program like Internet Essentials before presenting it to the FCC, said Charlie Douglas, a spokesman for the Philadelphia-based company. He called it “a serendipity of timing."

Which is funny, given that I specifically remember a 2012 Washington Post love letter to David Cohen in which Cohen clearly points out the program was always designed to curry favor with regulators, but was delayed specifically to get approval for its NBC acquisition.

I'm not looking to pooh pooh the program completely, given that 350,000 households getting cheap broadband is at least something. But Internet Essentials is just one glaring example of how a company like Comcast is allowed to draft its own flimsy merger conditions, which amusingly even then it often struggles to adhere to. That's in stark contrast to regulators actually doing their jobs and drafting tough but sensible policies that encourage competition, ultimately driving broadband prices down for the benefit of everybody.

Filed Under: david cohen, internet essentials, merger, poor
Companies: comcast, nbc universal, time warner cable

Neutrality Opponents Hope To Use Bickering Congress To Thwart FCC Neutrality Rules

from the dysfunction-junction dept

When ISPs responded to President Obama's belated support of Title II based neutrality rules, one of the key refrains was that the FCC was a bunch of "unelected representatives" and we really should rely on a bickering, divided Congress to solve net neutrality for us. AT&T, for example, proclaimed it would sue over FCC Title II rules and that protecting consumers is a decision "more properly made by the Congress." Comcast similarly agreed, insisting that such a "radical reversal of consistent contrary precedent should be taken up by the Congress." Obviously it's not Democracy these companies are interested in as much as it is the knowledge they have the majority of Congress comfortably tucked away in their back pockets.

And indeed, right on schedule, campaign cash hungry politicians are stumbling over themselves to please AT&T, Verizon and Comcast -- and are looking for any and every Congressional option to prevent the FCC from imposing real neutrality rules. Senator John Thune is among several lawmakers looking for a "legislative fix" to hamstring the FCC. Rep. Bob Goodlatte is similarly looking to craft rules that hinder the FCC's ability to act. Other politicians are looking to curtail the FCC's already dwindling funding.

As we've long noted, the fact that neutrality is now seen as a partisan issue is ridiculous, as all neutrality supporters are looking for is are rules that protect consumers and keep the Internet healthy, something that benefits everyone. Still, the GOP specifically has been pushing for the last year to rewrite The Communications Act (mostly to the benefit of the AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and MPAA's of the world), and that effort is now going to be used to fight a very vocal proxy war against the FCC and Title II neutrality rules:

"House Republicans have spent more than a year reviewing possible changes to the Communications Act, which was last updated in the mid-1990s, and the new Senate GOP majority is expected to begin a similar process in 2015. Already, there are signs the party is eager to transform the debate into a proxy war over net neutrality.

"Each time it has tried to regulate the Internet, the FCC has been overruled by the courts because existing telecommunications laws were written decades ago for a completely different era," the Thune spokeswoman said. “The most straightforward approach would be for Congress to update and modernize those laws to take into account technological transformations while not discouraging the private-sector investment and innovation that is critical for consumers and our nation’s modern economy."

Of course what Thune means when he says "modernized" is a new Communications Act that strips away the lion's share of dwindling regulatory authority and lets the incumbent ISPs run amok in the uncompetitive broadband playground previous ISP-lobbyist-written laws helped create. The same folks who insist they're only looking out for the health of the market are the same individuals willfully oblivious to the lack of health in the uncompetitive broadband market, or the fact that letting lumbering duopolists literally write telecom law might not be the healthiest option when it comes to giving innovators or healthy markets a leg up.

For a moment there it looked like neutrality supporters had all of the momentum in getting tougher rules passed, resulting in a SOPA-esque groundswell of support for Title II protections. While Wheeler's certainly justified in taking time to get the rules right -- his delays are opening the window to a million and one legislative, political and public relations efforts to neuter his agency before his rules (whether that's hybrid or pure Title II) even get their grand unveiling. The next FCC meeting isn't until January 29, 2015, and it's possible that Wheeler's proposal may not see the light of day until March.

Until then, we'll get to enjoy a shitshow where the big ISPs pay friends in Congress to push draft legislative "fixes" written by ISP lobbyists under the pretense they're engaged in a noble battle against the menace of government over-reach. In reality for many neutrality opponents in Congress it's simply about protecting the duopoly stranglehold on uncompetitive markets, and the ability to use that stranglehold to develop new and creative ways to raise rates and thwart competitors. Of course Presidential veto and partisan bickering mean none of these efforts are likely to get very far, and this may just be an instance where the inability of Congress to actually accomplish anything of worth may wind up helping consumers.

Filed Under: communications act, congress, fcc, john thune, net neutrality, open internet, telecommunications act
Companies: at&t, comcast, verizon

Claiming To Represent 'Tech' Network Hardware Vendors Shockingly Support Their ISP Clients In Opposing Tough Net Neutrality Rules

from the don't-fear-the-investment-bogeyman dept

By now, we've made it pretty clear that while Title II is being portrayed as a big, scary bogeyman by the nation's largest ISPs, it's really only a regulatory burden if you're doing something wrong. And while ISPs like Verizon, Comcast and AT&T have been making the rounds telling anyone who'll listen that Title-II based rules will stifle industry investment, those same ISPs have been not only regulated for years under Title II without problems, but ISPs like Verizon, Charter and Time Warner Cable have also been admitting to investors that's simply not true.

Enter hardware vendors like Sandvine, Cisco, Intel, IBM and Adtran, who last week joined forces to oppose Title-II based net neutrality rules in a letter (pdf) to Congress and the FCC. Even though the investment-bogeyman mantra has been thoroughly debunked by this point, that didn't stop the companies from upping the rhetoric ante -- and proclaiming that Title II will kill the entire economy:

"While many experts have noted the damage Title II could do to network investment, the harm would cascade out far beyond the provision of broadband service because the Internet is now so entwined with our entire economy...Reversing course now by shifting to Title II means that instead of billions of broadband investment driving other sectors of the economy forward, any reduction in this spending will stifle growth across the entire economy. This is not idle speculation or fear mongering. And as some have already warned, Title II is going to lead to a slowdown, if not a hold, in broadband build out, because if you don’t know that you can recover on your investment, you won’t make it."

Except fear mongering is exactly what it is. Wireless voice has always been regulated under Title II, yet wireless has seen an explosion in network investment over the last decade. Verizon's FiOS services are regulated under Title II for tax purposes, and a quick glimpse skyward should illustrate that the sky didn't fall. Meanwhile, to encourage regulatory apathy, the letter perpetuates the boring falsehood that the broadband market has "flourished" under a decade of deregulation regulatory capture, when the lack of competition, high prices, and horrid customer service clearly shows that's not the case.

The network hardware vendors' letter last week was bandied about as proof positive that "tech" companies oppose Title II rules, ignoring, of course, that in this case we're talking specifically about tech companies that stand to profit handsomely from weaker (or no) net neutrality rules.

Much like the ISPs, it's not really Title II hardware vendors oppose. What they oppose are rules that could potentially hamstring the billions that can be made from abusing the incumbent ISP gatekeeper stranglehold over noncompetitive markets, whether that comes in the form of double dipping, erecting arbitrary new tolls, discriminating against competing traffic, or imposing otherwise "creative" new pricing paradigms. After all, if these companies stand to make billions selling the hardware that makes this bad behavior possible, why on Earth would they want net neutrality rules that prohibit it?

Filed Under: net neutrality, open internet, telco vendors, title ii
Companies: adran, at&t, cisco, comcast, ibm, intel, sandvine, verizon

Big Broadband's Hail Mary To Stop The FCC: Have Congress Pretend To Do Its Job

from the good-luck-with-that dept

As we've clearly stated in the past, having the FCC reclassify broadband as a common carrier under Title II of the Telecommunications Act is not the perfect solution to the net neutrality question, but it's the best of a bunch of bad options. A theoretically good Congress would step in with a rewrite to the law to update it for the times. As we noted in that link above, there were two problems with this idea of a Congressional rewrite: (1) Congress isn't particularly functional and (2) lobbying dollars might make the end result worse. Two interesting things have happened in the past couple of months. First, having the FCC reclassify broadband under Title II went from a pipe dream -- which it absolutely was at the beginning of the year -- to quite likely (especially following President Obama's official support for reclassification). Second, the Republicans won Congress in the election. As we've noted, for reasons that don't fully make sense, net neutrality has become a (stupidly) bitterly partisan issue, with Republicans against it and Democrats for it. This is true despite Republican and Democrat voters alike being overwhelmingly in favor of net neutrality.

So, with a Republican-controlled Congress, it appears that the plan is to actually try to do a rewrite of communications law, with the stated goal of legislating net neutrality -- even to the point (it's claimed) of supporting President Obama's requested net neutrality rules:

One important piece of the proposed legislation would establish a new way for the FCC to regulate broadband providers by creating a separate provision of the Communications Act known as "Title X," the people said. Title X would enshrine elements of the tough net neutrality principles called for by President Obama last month. For example, it would give FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler the authority to prevent broadband companies from blocking or slowing traffic to Web sites, or charging content companies such as Netflix for faster access to their subscribers — a tactic known as "paid prioritization."

In theory, this sounds great. This is, in fact, what we've long said is the better solution. Rather than trying to cram broadband under Title II and dealing with the ill-fitting pieces via forbearance, actually writing regulations for the 21st century sounds like a better idea. Especially if it's true that it would block paid prioritization.

But, does anyone honestly believe this is what's going to happen? Remember, for years Republicans in Congress have angrily denounced any sort of net neutrality rules as "regulating the internet." Yet, now, suddenly, people think that they're going to do so in a slightly different manner through a rewrite of communications law? On top of that, the politicians opposed to net neutrality have taken in insane amounts of cash from big broadband providers. It seems highly likely that any such rewrite to the Telecommunications Act is going to contain plenty of gifts for the big broadband players, and huge loopholes. Considering that the big broadband players have fought any sort of real net neutrality rules for over a decade, while also making noises about how they not only like paid prioritization very much, but that they really want to figure out more ways to charge internet services to double or triple pay just to reach end users, it's difficult to take seriously the idea that this new law will actually be real net neutrality at all.

And, of course, rewriting the Telecommunications Act is a massive job that will impact a ton of other issues as well -- from things like municipal broadband to spectrum to the Universal Service Fund -- but is unlikely to do very much of anything to actually help the key thing that is more important for the future of an open internet: encouraging real and meaningful competition. In fact, it seems fairly likely that most of the moves will be designed to limit such competition, giving more power to the giant broadband players who already dominate the market.

In many ways, this is a rather clever play by the big broadband players and their supporters. They're recognizing that they lost the battle over Title II. At this point, it's almost entirely certain that the FCC will move to reclassify. So, instead, they're going to switch over to Congress -- a plan that, in theory, is more appropriate -- while knowing that with the current state of Congress, the resulting law that will be written will not just block the possibility of Title II, but will serve up some sort of fake, loophole-ridden version of net neutrality in its place.

It is, of course, possible that Congress could do a good job rewriting the Telecommunications Act, but since when has anyone believed that Congress was competent about issues like this?

Filed Under: broadband, congress, fcc, net neutrality, paid prioritization, title ii, title x