Comcast could kick the door open on the traditionally closed cable-TV monopoly.

Comcast has a “Plan B” in case rival online-TV streaming providers start a major wave of cable TV cord cutting: the right to offer its own online cable TV replacement nationwide.

Bloomberg News reports Comcast is quietly acquiring national online distribution rights from cable networks, which gives the cable giant the right to sell cable TV-like packages outside of its cable company service area.

Comcast maintains “most favored nation” clauses in its contracts with cable programmers, which means if those networks agree to online distribution of their programming over online competitors like Sling TV, AT&T DirecTVNow and PlayStation Vue, those same rights are also available to Comcast.

For now, insiders claim Comcast has no immediate plans to start competing outside of its home service areas, but it wants to accumulate the necessary rights to hedge against online rivals.

“When you really try to evaluate the business model, we have not seen one that really gives us confidence that this is a real priority for us,” Matt Strauss, Comcast’s executive vice president for video services, said at a conference in November. “There is significantly more upside and profitability in going deeper and deeper into our base first versus following a video-only offering OTT,” he added, using the industry term for nationwide online video.

Comcast has been gradually picking up online distribution rights as it renews contracts with the networks it carries. A sign Comcast may imminently launch a competing product similar to DirecTVNow would come if it chooses to renegotiate contracts before they expire. Comcast last negotiated with CBS in 2010 and ESPN in 2012. Both contracts don’t expire until 2020. Without renegotiation, any online offering from Comcast would not include networks owned by those two companies.

Comcast is downplaying any interest in breaking the traditional cable television business model, which depends in part on friendly relations with other cable companies and staying out of their territories. The prospect of Comcast selling cable TV service in Charter’s service area would threaten a still lucrative source of revenue if a price war develops. Video represents about 50% of Comcast’s cable sales.

For now, Comcast’s most evident online competitor is AT&T’s DirecTVNow which has added 200,000 subscribers nationwide since launching in November. But that remains just a fraction of Comcast’s 22 million cable-TV customers, a reason why Comcast may be in no rush to enter the online streaming cable-TV business. That may change when two high-profile online video providers get into the business later this year. YouTube and Hulu are both expecting to launch cable-TV alternatives in 2017.

President Donald Trump took credit on Friday for Charter Communications’ commitment to hire 20,000 new employees and invest $25 billion on improving cable and broadband service, despite the fact Charter promised to hire those workers more than a year before Trump won the election and its spending commitment may actually represent a reduction in spending.

Today, I was thrilled to announce a commitment of $25 BILLION & 20K AMERICAN JOBS over the next 4 years. THANK YOU Charter Communications! pic.twitter.com/PLxUmXVl0h

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 24, 2017

“We are really in the process of announcements and you’re going to see thousands and thousands and thousands of jobs and companies and everything coming back into our country,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office after meeting with Charter CEO Thomas Rutledge and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott. “They’re coming in far faster than even I had projected.”

Rutledge claimed the company’s promise to spend $25 billion over the next four years was because of Trump’s commitment to cut corporate taxes and further deregulate the cable industry. Rutledge added that he was excited that the time was right in the “regulatory climate and the right tax climate to make major infrastructure investments.”

Unfortunately for both the president and Charter’s CEO, public filings required by the Securities and Exchange Commission show Rutledge’s spending commitment to the president actually could represent a $4 billion reduction in spending over the next four years.

In 2015, Charter, Time Warner Cable, and Bright House collectively spent a combined $7 billion as Charter continued its speed improvements and Time Warner Cable invested in its Time Warner Cable Maxx upgrade initiative. That spending increased in 2016 to $7.1 billion (a figure that excludes merger-related expenses), an amount confirmed in last month’s 4th quarter 2016 financial results:

“Capital expenditures totaled $1.89 billion in the fourth quarter, including $187 million of transition spend,” reported Christopher Winfrey, chief financial officer of Charter Communications. “Excluding transition CapEx, fourth quarter CapEx declined by $81 million year-over-year or 4.5% with tradeoffs between all-digital in the fourth quarter of 2015 in Spectrum pricing and packaging box placement in Q4 2016. For the full-year 2016, our capital expenditures totaled $7.5 billion or $7.1 billion when excluding transition spending.”

Hal Singer, a principal at Economists, Inc., noted Rutledge’s new $25 billion spending commitment could represent a net decrease in spending. That’s because “New Charter” would have spent $28.4 billion over the next four years if it kept combined spending in line with the figures the three companies independently reported in 2015 and 2016.

Rutledge

Charter officials told Ars Technica the spending commitment announced Friday was “specific to broadband infrastructure and technology investment” and claimed it was different from the total capital expenditure figure. Charter claimed spending related to infrastructure and technology was $5.3 billion in annual spending over the last three years, but Charter declined to provide numbers for 2016. It also wouldn’t provide a breakdown adequate to determine if Rutledge’s commitment would result in a spending increase or decrease.

CFO Winfrey told investors in February that a “bigger portion of CapEx” spending in 2017 won’t be for broadband enhancements and expansion, as Mr. Rutledge seemed to tell President Trump. Instead, Charter will spend the money on set-top boxes, cable modems, and network gateways Charter will place in customer homes as a result of an ongoing digital transition, expected to last until 2020.

“When we do an install under Spectrum pricing and packaging, there’s a higher number of devices that we’re placing in the home because of our two-way set-top box strategy as well as our strategy not to charge for modem rental and to have reasonable router fees, which means that you’re going to put more capital into the home on an average transaction and we expect to have [more transactions as a result of increased sales],” Winfrey told investors last month.

Rutledge himself told investors on February’s investor conference call that predicting Charter’s CapEx spending in the future represented an “artificial target.”

“On CapEx, we are not providing CapEx guidance just because we approved a budget internally, which is what we want to operationally deploy this year,” Rutledge explained. “It could be less than that just because of what practically can be done or could be in a position to accelerate. But from our perspective, it doesn’t make sense to release such an artificial target and have the tail try to wag the dog for what’s ultimately right.”

Rutledge agreed with Winfrey’s assessment about what Charter’s spending priorities will be this year: installing more cable boxes and converting customers to all-digital television service. In all, there will be no significant boost in CapEx spending.

“If you think back to what I said, in 2017 we will be spending more on Spectrum pricing and packaging through that higher [cable equipment] placement or connect,” Rutledge said. “We will restart all-digital. We will be insourcing. But offsetting some of that increase will be the benefit of synergies. So without giving specific guidance, 2017 is probably a bit higher in terms of absolute dollars than what we were performing in 2016, but it shouldn’t be a dramatic change in terms of capital intensity or CapEx as a percentage of revenue.”

As for Trump claiming credit for Charter’s commitment to hire 20,000 additional employees, that has been part of Charter’s list of claimed “deal benefits” to win approval of its acquisition of Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks for at least a year before the election, as Fortune reminds us:

The 20,000 jobs, at least, have been in the works for more than a year. Charter CEO Tom Rutledge said in 2015 that Charter would need to bring on 20,000 additional workers if the company’s merger with Time Warner Cable and acquisition of Bright House Networks went through. A Charter spokesman reiterated the claim in April 2016. The FCC approved the deal last May, and Charter CEO Tom Rutledge said in January that the company had plans to hire 20,000 new employees within three years.

Comcast has begun rolling out another speed increase for its broadband customers subscribed to its Performance tier.

The free upgrade, which began March 1, raises downstream speeds from 50 to 70Mbps. The speed boost is likely to gradually spread across Comcast’s nationwide footprint, but this month the new speeds are available to residential customers in:

• Oregon
• Washington State
• Colorado
• Utah
• Houston
• Tucson, Ariz.

Comcast is notifying customers with older modems they will need to get a new one to take advantage of the faster speeds.

Former Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks customers in Florida, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin were glad to see the end of modem rental fees, something promoted as a tangible deal benefit of the merger by new owner Charter Communications. But many of those same customers are now upset to discover that up to $10 modem rental fee has been replaced with a $5 monthly fee for “Wi-Fi service.”

LuAnn Summers, a Bright House customer in Tampa, wrote Stop the Cap! in February to complain her new bill from Charter/Spectrum included a $9.99 activation fee and $5 a month for something called “Wi-Fi Service.” The same fees have since appeared on bills for some customers recently switching away from their old Time Warner Cable service plans to new Spectrum pricing and plans.

Rich D’Angelo in Wisconsin recently took Charter up on its offer to switch away from his legacy TWC plan when his promotion expired in January.

“I was able to get a big speed boost and bundle it with Spectrum’s Silver TV package, which includes two of the premium movie channels I was paying TWC $15 each for every month, and my bill was only supposed to go up $10,” D’Angelo tells Stop the Cap! “Instead, it went up $25 and I feel lied to.”

Wi-Fi sticker shock.

D’Angelo retired his old owned Motorola SB6121 modem in favor of a new network gateway supplied free of charge by Charter because his new package didn’t work with his old modem.

“My 6121 modem was a real workhorse and I bought it right after Time Warner started charging modem fees, but it cannot support Spectrum’s fastest speeds in Wisconsin and I didn’t feel like buying a new modem when Spectrum gives them to customers for free,” D’Angelo explained. “This was the device they handed me and I was not offered any other option.”

Champagne Johnson in Columbus, Ohio also took advantage of Spectrum’s new pricing plans thinking she could save her family money and get better internet speeds from the cable operator that advertises it’s a “new day” for Time Warner Cable subscribers.

“New day but the same old lies and deceit,” Johnson writes Stop the Cap! “Do these cable companies only hire thieves? I was told the cable modem was included, but now I am suddenly getting charged for Wi-Fi, which is crazy. I called Spectrum up and they told me there is a charge if I use their modem for my Wi-Fi. I told them I don’t need their Wi-Fi because I have my own router that works fine and they told me it was included inside their modem and I had to pay for something I won’t use.”

Charter assumes if you use Wi-Fi, you want their Wi-Fi Service

We contacted Charter to learn more about this new charge and what customers can do about it.

It turns out the Wi-Fi charge and activation fee applies when you use a network gateway device provided by the cable company. We learned the reason so many customers are finding this charge on their bill comes as a result of slightly deceptive sales practices when customers choose a Spectrum internet service plan.

“Do you use Wi-Fi at home?” a Charter representative asked us when we inquired about pricing for a new Spectrum service plan to replace our existing Time Warner Cable plan. When we answered yes, the representative said they would send our “free equipment” and noted we would no longer pay a modem rental charge (despite the fact we had owned our own modem at Stop the Cap! HQ for years). “You can either pick it up in a cable store or we can ship it direct to you in a self-install kit.” That equipment was a “network gateway,” which bundles a cable modem and router into a single device.

Our readers confirm that Charter representatives did not ask them if they have an existing in-home router, which probably already provides Wi-Fi access in the home. Nor do they disclose that accepting a network gateway, which was also interchangeably referred to as “a modem” means they are agreeing to pay a $9.99 activation fee and $5/mo ongoing fee for “Wi-Fi service.”

We called three times this afternoon as were given identical information, and no disclosure of any Wi-Fi fees.

On the fourth call, we specifically asked about Wi-Fi fees and the representative told us they did not know the answer and left us on hold for 10 minutes before finally disclosing that Charter does charge both fees. When we asked how to avoid them, we were first told we could not waive the fee if we used Wi-Fi in the home, but a supervisor later clarified that it only applied to their gateway and we could specifically request a “basic modem” or have Wi-Fi disabled on a network gateway, and neither charge would apply.

“How are we supposed to know and understand that in advance?” Johnson asked us.

“Considering more than 90% of Time Warner Cable customers were paying $10 a month for a modem without ever realizing or understanding they could buy their own and avoid that charge, how many Spectrum customers are proficient enough to tell Spectrum they want their network gateway set to bridge mode or want a traditional cable modem without router functionality? It’s clear Charter is going to make $5 a month from a whole lot of customers, and it should be disclosed up front. It even got me and I am a network engineer.”

Summers learned about the controversy of the Wi-Fi charge after googling the fee and discovered a Tampa Bay Times story about the fee.

Spectrum spokesman Joe Durkin told the newspaper the fee should not apply to customers Charter inherited from Bright House who already had internet service. He said Spectrum is reviewing cases the Times has brought to its attention to see if the charges were appropriate.

But that isn’t always the case for customers placing orders on Charter’s website or contacting customer service by phone. In both cases, Charter implied if you want to use Wi-Fi at home, you owe them an extra $5 a month:

Charter’s website suggests that you have to pay $5 a month if you intend to use Wi-Fi at home.

Getting the charges off your bill

Luckily, Charter is readily agreeing to customer requests to remove the charge(s) from customer bills and will supply equipment with Wi-Fi disabled (or not present when using a traditional cable modem). You may need to exchange equipment, however. If either charge appears on your bill, call and complain. While we no longer recommend customers invest in their own cable modems as long as Charter is providing them without a rental fee, we do suggest customers buy their own router and avoid ongoing fees for Wi-Fi service.

Also be aware that if you are still on a legacy Time Warner Cable internet plan, Charter will keep collecting that $10 monthly modem fee until you abandon your Time Warner plan for a Spectrum internet plan. You can still avoid the rental fee by buying your own modem. Charter’s list of supported modems is here.

The French press continues to report, with some bewilderment, that U.S. consumers are being fleeced by the country’s biggest telecom companies while politicians do nothing to regulate a duopoly market or force more competition to stop the pick-pocketing. The Francophone press is responding to reports that cable baron Patrick Drahi is vacuuming up profits from his American subsidiary Altice USA — which owns Cablevision and Suddenlink — and is likely to get much bigger in 2017, all thanks to the U.S. regulatory landscape.

“Americans live under a corrupt politician-sanctioned broadband monopoly in many places, and this assures telecoms operators in the United States can earn astounding profit margins impossible in European markets,” notes Giga France.

Le Figaro reported this month Altice’s directors had an easy job figuring out where much of the global conglomerate’s future profits would come from: the United States.

“Given the structure of the telecom market, [Altice’s] margin for growth in France is low, whereas in the United States it is considerable,” the newspaper reported. The reason is a persistent lack of competition, made possible by politicians that accepted the recommendations of lobbyists and corporate special interest think tanks on how to structure the broadband market.

Drahi

In the United States, providers have won near-absolute control of their networks and need not share access with competitors. Large telecom companies argued that requiring shared access to their infrastructure would threaten investment and stall broadband network deployment. Ironically, some even argued it would lead to reduced competition. But the reverse turned out to be true and the United States has fallen far behind in competition and network quality, while more traditionally regulated markets in Europe now enjoy low prices, faster internet speeds, and a larger number of competitors vying for consumers’ business.

Wall Street indirectly conspires to keep the status quo by discouraging the entry of new fixed line providers, claiming it will destroy shareholder value and consume billions of investor dollars constructing competing networks that will be unlikely to attract enough subscribers fast enough to give shareholders a timely return on their investment.

With a provider-friendly Trump Administration in power, and more importantly the installation of Ajit Pai, a notorious telecoms-friendly regulator as chairman of the FCC, Altice’s directors consider 2017 to be one of the most inviting years for expansion in the United States.

Le Figaro reports there is plenty of opportunity for Altice’s empire to become more dominant in North America. In France, its SFR unit now holds a 25% share in the fixed line market, but that number is unlikely to grow much considering ongoing price wars that come from fierce competition in France. In the U.S., Altice only holds barely 3% of the market, and Drahi has made no secret he would like to become at least the second-largest provider in the United States.

Les Echos suggested Altice is quietly preparing a full-scale ambush on the U.S. market starting with a much-anticipated IPO expected this year. Wall Street doesn’t welcome Altice entering the U.S. cable business as a market disruptor. Instead, investment banks are willing to loan huge sums to Altice for the purpose of acquiring telecom companies, maintaining the existing duopoly of one cable and one phone company for the majority of Americans.

“In the past, every time he introduced a publicly traded asset, Drahi proceeded with acquisitions: Numericable, in 2013, SFR the following year; and by 2015 Cablevision and Suddenlink in the U.S.A.,” reports Les Echos.

In France, up to four providers compete head to head for fixed line telecom customers. In other parts of Europe, telecom networks are often forced open to competitors. Neither is the case in the States, and consumers are paying very high telecom bills as a result.

Les Echos notes the U.S. cable business is so lucrative, “never before has a French company made such an important investment in the country of Uncle Sam.”

Suddenlink and Cablevision: Consistent source for fat revenue growth for Altice.

Drahi told investors more than a year ago he wanted to eventually generate 50% of Altice’s business overseas, primarily in the profitable U.S.

Altice has so far only bought up smaller cable operators, but observers expect Drahi will aim for much larger targets, including the possibility of buying out a wireless provider or even targeting Comcast, AT&T, or Charter. Les Echos quotes Vincent Maulay, an analyst at Oddo who notes that Drahi may be able to collect future assets inexpensively if Verizon decides to move on an acquisition of Charter. Regulators will likely force the combined company to shed cable assets in New York State where Verizon and Charter currently compete. That would allow Drahi’s Cablevision to pick up divested service areas, perhaps even in Manhattan.