A Quebec-based cable company is the target of a hostile takeover by a pair of larger American and Canadian cable operators that would like to divide up the assets for themselves, but have met strong resistance from the family that controls Cogeco and Quebec politicians worried about job losses in the province.

Altice USA, which owns Cablevision/Optimum and Suddenlink in the United States, made an uninvited bid of $7.8US billion on Wednesday to take control of Cogeco, a Canadian cable operator that offers service in parts of Ontario and Quebec, and also owns American subsidiary Atlantic Broadband. If the takeover is successful, Altice has agreed to sell Cogeco’s Canadian assets to telecom giant Rogers, Canada’s largest cable operator.

Louis AUDET, head of Cogeco

The Audet family, which holds 69% of Cogeco’s voting rights and 82.9% of the voting rights at Cogeco Communications through subsidiary Gestion Audem, Inc., quickly rejected the offer.

“Members of the Audet family unanimously reiterated that they are not interested in selling their shares. The family takes pride in its stewardship role in both companies, offering high-quality services to its customers, enriching the communities in which they operate and creating superior returns for shareholders through sound growth strategies,” said Louis Audet, who serves as president of Gestion Audem, Inc.

Cogeco has been a frequently rumored target for an imminent corporate takeover, much like America’s Cablevision was when it was controlled by the Dolan family. Ongoing consolidation among telecom companies in Canada and the United States have disfavored medium-sized cable and phone companies, making them ripe for takeover bids. Cogeco’s unique position in territories where much larger Rogers Cable operates in Ontario and Videotron in Quebec has inspired near-constant rumors that Rogers would acquire Cogeco to complete cable consolidation in Ontario and gain entry into parts of Quebec. Rogers already owns 41% of the subordinate shares of Cogeco and 33% of those of Cogeco Communications, which gives them a minority stake and voice in the company. Partnering with Altice USA to do a deal would spare Rogers from having to arrange a sale of Cogeco’s American operations.

In addition to strong resistance from the Audet family, the transaction immediately was ensnared in the cultural and economic hornet’s nest involving Ontario and Quebec provincial politics. Quebec politicians are highly sensitive to takeovers involving Quebec-based companies, especially those coming from Ontario. In 2000, Rogers’ attempt to acquire Videotron stirred controversy over moving the cable company’s headquarters out of Quebec in favor of Ontario. The fact Rogers is based in English-speaking Canada also did it no favors. French Quebec’s Quebecor acquired Videotron instead.

Once again, political differences between anglophone Ontario and francophone Quebec quickly re-emerged after news of the offer went public.

In an interview with Quebec City radio station CJMF, Quebec’s Premier François Legault immediately dismissed the takeover bid.

“It is out of the question to let this Quebec company move its head office to Ontario,” Legault said. “We talked this morning with Louis Audet […] and we’ll do whatever it takes to keep the head office here.”

Pierre Karl Péladeau, president and CEO of Quebecor, which owns Videotron, also slammed the deal on Twitter, claiming Rogers would eliminate Cogeco’s major corporate presence in Montréal Place Ville Marie, and move everything to Toronto. Péladeau noted Cogeco’s most valuable and experienced employees are not “flying whales” prepared to uproot their lives and relocate to Ontario.

The sensitivity of watching job losses in Quebec in return for job gains in Ontario is not likely to be missed by Quebec’s politicians and could bring significant opposition to a deal if Altice USA sweetens its offer to a level deemed acceptable enough by the Audet family to sell.

The standard is ready, but cable operators looking to cut costs and network investments are not.

Although major cable operators will gradually begin buying more advanced DOCSIS 4.0-compatible equipment to power their hybrid fiber-coaxial cable networks, some cable engineers are predicting no big hurry for the next cable broadband upgrade, suggesting the existing DOCSIS 3.1 standard is probably good enough for most of this decade.

A favorable regulatory climate under the Trump Administration has given cable companies a reprieve from pressure from Washington regulators and politicians pushing for more upgrades and competition. Cable operators have successfully slowed investment and upgrade schedules, convinced they are likely not going to face traffic congestion or serious threats from new competitors anytime soon.

DOCSIS 4.0 would double the maximum internet speed available from current cable broadband platforms to 10,000 Mbps download and 5,000 Mbps upload speed. The new standard would also dramatically cut network latency, an important factor for applications like video games. But equipment manufacturers and some cable operators don’t see a big hurry for upgrades on the horizon.

Tom Cloonan, chief technology officer of network solutions at CommScope told an audience at the Light Reading-hosted two-day virtual event: Cable Next-Gen Technologies & Strategies, DOCSIS 3.1 is adequate enough for cable operators to stick with through most of this decade, but “it will eventually run out of gas.”

Jeff Finkelstein, executive director of advanced technologies at Cox Communications, agreed, claiming DOCSIS 3.1’s useful life at Cox is at least five to seven years — up to a decade on certain more advanced cable systems equipped to devote more spectrum for upstream traffic.

Until cable operators decide customers need more broadband capacity and faster speeds, many will stick with DOCSIS 3.1 while they gradually upgrade portions of their network to be DOCSIS 4.0 ready. The key factor that will eventually push most operators to upgrade to DOCSIS 4.0 is internet traffic demand. If providers continue to see exponential traffic growth similar to the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, upgrades will have to come in the next few years. If internet traffic growth can be slowed down, operators can stall upgrades until after 2025. Slowing upgrades will save operators money and DOCSIS 4.0 is designed to be launched at a relatively low cost, especially if network prerequisites can be gradually put into place.

It is also clear most major cable operators with the exception of Altice USA see at least a decade or more of useful life left in their existing hybrid fiber-copper coaxial cable networks. After that, some may elect to begin a move towards fiber to the home service.

August 20, 2020

Ms. Marlene H. Dortch
Office of the Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street SW
Washington, DC 20554

Regarding Docket: WC 16-197

Dear Ms. Dortch,

We are writing to express concern about the FCC’s apparent rush to judgment over Charter’s petition to sunset two important conditions the company agreed to in return for approval of a highly profitable merger deal involving Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks. The accelerated pace of this proceeding is very odd, considering Charter has claimed in the press it has no plans to implement data caps and cannot act on the Commission’s decision before the spring of 2021.[1]

This docket is full of comments from consumers that are overwhelmingly opposed to Charter being allowed to impose data caps. Despite assertions from some cable companies that data caps are “popular” with consumers, the comments in this docket speak for themselves. Few, if any consumers support data caps and they are not popular and never have been.[2] Consumers do not express support for data caps by choosing providers that impose them. In most cases, they have no other reasonable choice. Mediacom’s comments on data caps do not reflect consumer sentiment anymore than Charter’s comments did, and the fact is its 60 GB allowance tier is an anomaly in the broadband marketplace.[3] We also note Mediacom did not disclose what we suspect is an extremely low percentage of customers finding that plan adequate for their needs. Again, we point the Commission to comments in this docket filed by actual consumers to get an understanding of how much they dislike data caps.

Also appropriate for consideration are the candid conclusions reached by former Time Warner Cable executives admitting that consumers overwhelmingly rejected the company’s “budget” data allowance plans, and to such an extent the company discontinued them several years ago.

Speaking at the Deutsche Bank Media, Internet and Telecom Conference in Palm Beach, Fla., in March 2014, Time Warner Cable Inc. Chairman and CEO Rob Marcus said very few broadband subscribers opted for its internet plan that caps data use at 30 gigabytes per month. In fact, the number of subscribers taking the use-based service tier is running only “in the thousands” — a very tiny slice of the MSO’s roughly 11 million US broadband customers.[4]

Many of the groups that have supported Charter’s petition are also recipients of donations from the cable company and their views must be considered in that context. Many were specifically invited by Charter to participate in this proceeding. At least one, the Niagara Falls Boys and Girls Club, remarkably and publicly repudiated its own initial support for Charter’s petition after we publicly asked why the organization took a stand on an issue that seems far afield from its mission.

As a Buffalo TV newscast noted:

“After a quick whirlwind of events, the Niagara Falls Boys & Girls club went from supporting a measure after receiving a donation from Charter to then distancing themselves entirely.

But if this wasn’t enough of a Nancy Drew novel for you, we have this update:

Charter is apologizing to the Niagara Falls Boys & Girls Club.

[…] The reality of the situation is there’s nothing illegal here. What stands out is that the Niagara Falls Boys & Girls Club has only submitted one FCC comment, as far as WGRZ can determine. The comment came after they received a donation from Charter Communications, and the letter was in support of an initiative that Charter Communications wants regulators to approve.

This situation, and others that WGRZ has also discovered, raises serious questions about the position non-profits are put in after they receive a donation from a large company.”[5]

At the same time, consumers with no financial interest in Charter beyond being customers are continuing to share their views with the Commission to this day. They are overwhelmingly hostile to the idea of Charter being given an early sunset to the very modest deal conditions imposed by the FCC. We believe consumers should have the benefit of a much longer comment window to express their concerns. The current 14-day extension is wholly inadequate.

Additionally, with the presidential election less than 80 days away and the recent decision by the president to withdraw the nomination of Commissioner Michael O’Rielly to serve a second term, we feel this petition should be addressed by the Commission during the next Administration and after his replacement is confirmed and seated, which would still allow for a decision prior to the fifth anniversary of the merger order, the earliest the imposed deal conditions can sunset.

Because the FCC did not invest any time and energy to defend the related court challenge of other Charter deal conditions before the D.C. Circuit, it is clear the FCC has much higher priorities under consideration at the moment. Therefore, it should move to delay further consideration of this matter, accept additional input from interested parties, and assure a decision will be forthcoming early next year, before the fifth anniversary of the merger order. This would not harm Charter and would clearly demonstrate the Commission was not rushing this petition through, which could give the perception the FCC was unfairly biased towards Charter to the detriment of consumer interests.

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to severely impact the United States, the last thing consumers should face is a higher bill for internet access, either with the imposition of data caps or charging interconnection fees that could force video services to increase pricing. Americans are relying on the internet to stay entertained, informed, work, learn, and shop from home, and manage health care needs through tele-health video conferencing. Charter has told the Commission its network has been more than capable of handling the increased traffic from these activities.

There is no urgency here and no evidence a delay until early 2021 would harm Charter’s interests in any way.

Yours very truly,

Phillip M. Dampier
Founder and President

[1] “Charter Seeks FCC OK to Impose Data Caps and Charge Fees to Video Services” https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/06/charter-seeks-fcc-ok-to-impose-data-caps-and-charge-fees-to-video-services/

[2] “Reply of Charter Communications” https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10806999321971/Charter%20Merger%20Conditions%20Sunset%20Petition%20Reply%20(8-6-20).pdf

[3] Mediacom ex-parte communication https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/108172969830849/Mediacom%20August%2017%2C%202020%20ex%20parte.pdf

[4] “TWC Subs Say No to Data Caps” (3/2014) Light Reading: https://www.lightreading.com/services-apps/broadband-services/twc-subs-say-no-to-data-caps/d/d-id/708194

[5] “Charter Regrets Misunderstanding With Niagara Falls Boys and Girls Club.” (WGRZ-TV Buffalo) https://www.wgrz.com/article/news/local/charter-regrets-misunderstanding-with-niagara-falls-boys-girls-club/71-f50b6957-dd26-4560-bb0c-d6d5828c1cd1

Newsmax, a conservative media operation, is worried about how data caps will impact its streaming video service.

Newsmax Media is going above and beyond to fight Charter Communications’ efforts to win back the right to impose data caps on Spectrum internet customers, questioning the FCC’s timing on how it is handling Charter’s petition and the company’s claims about why it wants the right to impose caps two years before the FCC’s requirement banning them expires.

The conservative media outlet depends heavily on the internet to distribute its video network — Newsmax TV, and claims Spectrum’s ability to impose data caps and charge video service providers interconnection fees could significantly harm Newsmax’s business.

Last week, Newsmax CEO Christopher Ruddy spoke directly with FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, a Democrat. An “ex parte” filing divulging the meeting quickly followed, with Ruddy arguing Charter’s petition was improperly filed too early and questioned why the FCC has hurried to put the matter on its calendar, presumably before the potential demise of the Trump Administration in the November elections.

In June, Charter asked the FCC to “sunset” — or end — the conditions Charter itself agreed to in return for approval of its merger deal with Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks. The most significant of those conditions required Charter not to impose data caps or usage based billing on its internet customers or charge fees to video streaming companies like Netflix and Hulu for seven years. A loophole in the final order approving the merger allowed Charter to request an early exit from those conditions two years early, if marketplace conditions warranted. Charter’s petition claimed broadband and video services are now subject to a dramatic increase in competition, making the conditions no longer necessary. But critics, including Stop the Cap!, argued against Charter’s petition claiming the broadband industry has remained concentrated and anti-competitive, and data caps are a symptom of that lack of competition.

Ruddy also noted that more recent comments from Charter in its effort to rebut its critics include an attempt to submit new information to the Commission, which should not be permitted because Commission procedure does not allow the public to comment or rebut Charter’s latest arguments.

One potential complication for Charter’s effort to push for a Commission vote is a recent spat between the president and Commissioner Michael O’Rielly. Earlier this month, O’Rielly publicly crossed the president by questioning the authority of the FCC to reinterpret Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. That reinterpretation is at the heart of President Trump’s demand for a crackdown on social media networks like Facebook and Twitter, which he claims have a conservative bias and are “illegally” critical of both the president and the administration. The president allegedly retaliated against O’Rielly by pulling back his earlier renomination of O’Rielly to serve an additional term at the FCC.

More recently, reports have surfaced in Washington that the president is prepared to nominate someone else, which traditionally would leave O’Rielly with little alternative but to recuse himself from Commission matters, or resign entirely. That would end the Republican majority on the Commission until the president’s nomination was approved by the Senate, which is highly unlikely to happen before the November election. That would leave the FCC evenly divided with two Democrats and two Republicans. Observers suspect Charter’s petition would end up in a tie vote, with the two remaining Republicans in favor of the cable company and the two Democrats opposed. That would stall the matter at least until January, when either President Trump begins his second term or Joe Biden begins his first.

A tropical storm that swept up the east coast of the United States took out Frontier Communications’ landline network, its backups, and 911 service for residents of Orange and Sullivan Counties, N.Y. for 13 hours last night, requiring a response from local fire officials after Frontier’s backup equipment also failed.

Tropical Storm Isaias brought significant, but not unprecedented wind and rain to the Hudson Valley of New York on Tuesday. While most of the damage and service outages were further east in the New York City, Long Island, and New Jersey areas, a general power failure in the City of Middletown started a chain of events that left two counties without Frontier phone, internet, or 911 service from 7:30 pm Tuesday night until 8:30 am Wednesday morning.

When the power failure began, Frontier’s switching network went down. Calls to 911 failed to connect, and customers reported no dial tone or internet access. Frontier’s backup battery system, designed to operate in the event of a power failure, itself failed and literally melted under the pressure, spilling enough toxic chemicals to force Frontier to request assistance from the Middletown Fire Department and Orange County Hazmat, which responded to contain the toxic material. Frontier had to drive in a replacement backup solution from another service area to get its network up and running again.

“There were several equipment failures there related to the power outage,” Brendan Casey, commissioner of emergency services told the Times Herald-Record. “Their backup system failed, their switch failed, battery issues that resulted in a minor hazmat issue. It was like everything just failed up there.”

After dealing with the failed battery equipment, county officials, firefighters, and Frontier technicians were left in the building’s parking lot cooling their heels until 2 am trying to figure out how to restore 911 service to the area, without success. Casey reported Frontier successfully restored 911 service later Wednesday morning.

Orange County, N.Y.

As Frontier technicians gradually restore service to individual customers affected by the storm, county officials are calling on the New York Public Service Commission to conduct a review of the incident and investigate if Frontier was adequately prepared to deal with the storm. Frontier will not be alone. Gov. Andrew Cuomo blasted utility companies across downstate New York, accusing them of being ill-prepared to handle the storm. Some customers are expected to be without power, phone, and internet service for up to a week.

“We know that severe weather is our new reality and the reckless disregard by utility companies to adequately plan for tropical storm Isaias left tens of thousands of customers in the dark, literally and figuratively. Their performance was unacceptable,” Cuomo said. Cuomo ordered the PSC to “launch an investigation into Verizon, PSEG Long Island, Con Edison, Central Hudson Gas & Electric, Orange and Rockland Utilities, and New York State Electric & Gas to understand how such a failure could have taken place. New Yorkers deserve answers and they deserve better. The large volume of outages and the utilities’ failure to communicate with customers in real-time proves they did not live up to their legal obligations. The fact that many customers still do not know when their power will be restored makes it even more unacceptable. The worst of this situation was avoidable, and it cannot happen again.”

Frontier was not the only telecommunications company embarrassed by the tropical storm. Along the Westchester-Putnam border, power outages knocked out cell service. At one location, a backup generator designed to provide backup power to the cell tower immediately caught fire, causing damage to the building at the base of the tower.

“While there was a fire at the cell tower in question, I have no information if all carriers on that tower are down or just one. What we do know is that cell services across the county are negatively impacted for all carriers. We had reports that cell towers in this region (Putnam, Orange, Rockland, Passaic) were damaged during the storms,” said Thomas Lannon, director of Putnam County’s technology office.

Frontier filed for bankruptcy protection in April 2020.