AT&T was unhappy with the low internet speed score the FCC was about to give the telecom giant, so it made a few phone calls and got the government regulator to effectively rig the results in its favor.

“Regulatory capture” is a term becoming more common in administrations that enable regulators that favor friendly relations with large companies over consumer protection, and under the Trump Administration, a very business-friendly FCC has demonstrated it is prepared to go the distance for some of the country’s largest telecom companies.

Today, the Wall Street Journal reported AT&T successfully got the FCC to omit DSL speed test results from the agency’s annual “Measuring Broadband America” report. Introduced during the Obama Administration, the internet speed analysis was designed to test whether cable and phone companies are being honest about delivering the broadband speed they advertise. Using a small army of test volunteers that host a free speed testing router in their home (full disclosure: Stop the Cap! is a volunteer host), automated testing of broadband performance is done silently by the equipment on an ongoing basis, with results sent to SamKnows, an independent company contracted to manage the data for the FCC’s project.

In 2011, the first full year of the program, results identified an early offender — Cablevision/Optimum, which advertised speed it couldn’t deliver to many of its customers because its network was oversold and congested. Within months, the company invested millions to dramatically expand internet capacity and speeds quickly rose, sometimes beyond the advertised level. In general, fiber and cable internet providers traditionally deliver the fastest and most reliable internet speed. Phone companies selling DSL service usually lag far behind in the results. One of those providers happened to be AT&T.

In the last year, the Journal reports AT&T successfully appealed to the FCC to keep its DSL service’s speed performance out of the report and withheld important information from the FCC required to validate some of the agency’s results.

The newspaper also found multiple potential conflicts of interest in both the program and SamKnows, its contracted partner:

• Providers get the full names of customers using speed test equipment, and some (notably Cablevision/Optimum) regularly give speed test customers white glove treatment, including prioritized service, performance upgrades and extremely fast response times during outages that could affect the provider’s speed test score. Jack Burton, a former Cablevision engineer said “there was an effort to make sure known [users] had up-to-date equipment” like modems and routers. Cablevision also marked as “high priority” the neighborhoods that contained speed-testing users, ensuring that those neighborhoods got upgraded ahead of others, said other former Cablevision engineers close to the effort.
• Providers can tinker with the raw data, including the right to exclude results from speed test volunteers subscribed to an “unpopular” speed tier (usually above 100 Mbps), those using outdated or troublesome equipment, or are signed up to an “obsolete” speed plan, like low-speed internet. Over 25% of speed test results (presumably unfavorable to the provider) were not included in the last annual report because cable and phone companies objected to their inclusion.
• SamKnows sells providers immediate access to speed test data and the other data volunteers measure for a fee, ostensibly to allow providers to identify problems on their networks before they end up published in the FCC’s report. Critics claim this gives providers an incentive to give preferential treatment to customers with speed testing equipment.

Some have claimed internet companies have gained almost total leverage over the FCC speed testing project.

The Journal:

Internet experts and former FCC officials said the setup gives the internet companies enormous leverage. “How can you go to the party who controls the information and say, ‘please give me information that may implicate you?’ ” said Tom Wheeler, a former FCC chairman who stepped down in January 2017. Jim Warner, a retired network engineer who has helped advise the agency on the test for years, told the FCC in 2015 that the rules for providers were too lax. “It’s not much of a code of conduct,” Mr. Warner said.

An FCC spokesman told the Journal the program has a transparent process and that the agency will continue to enable it “to improve, evolve, and provide meaningful results as we move forward.”

The stakes of the FCC’s speed tests are enormous for providers, now more reliant than ever on the highly profitable broadband segment of their businesses. They also allow providers to weaponize  favorable performance results to fight off consumer protection efforts that attempt to hold providers accountable for selling internet speeds undelivered. In some high stakes court cases, the FCC’s speed test reports have been used to defend providers, such as the lawsuit filed by New York’s Attorney General against Charter Communications over the poor performance of Time Warner Cable. The parties eventually settled that case.

In 2018, the key takeaway from the report celebrated by providers in testimony, marketing, and lobbying, was that “for most of the major broadband providers that were tested, measured download speeds were 100% or better of advertised speeds during the peak hours.”

Comcast often refers to the FCC’s results in claims about XFINITY internet service: “Recent testing performed by the FCC confirms that Comcast’s broadband internet access service is one of the fastest, most reliable broadband services in the United States.” But in 2018, Comcast also successfully petitioned to FCC to exclude speed test results from 214 of its testing customers, the highest number surveyed among individual providers. In contrast, Charter got the FCC to ignore results from 148 of its customers, Mediacom asked the FCC to ignore results from 46 of its internet customers.

Among the most remarkable findings uncovered by the Journal was the revelation AT&T successfully got the FCC to exclude all of its DSL customers’ speed test results, claiming that it would not be proper to include data for a service no longer being marketed to customers. AT&T deems its DSL service “obsolete” and no longer worthy of being covered by the FCC. But the company still actively markets DSL to prospective customers. This year, AT&T also announced it was no longer cooperating with SamKnows and its speed test project, claiming AT&T has devised a far more accurate speed testing project itself that it intends to use to self-report customer speed testing data.

Cox also managed to find an innovative way out of its poor score for internet speed consistency, which the FCC initially rated a rock bottom 37% of what Cox advertises. Cox claimed its speed test results were faulty because SamKnows’ tests sent traffic through an overcongested internet link yet to be upgraded. That ‘unfairly lowered Cox’s ratings’ for many of its Arizona customers, the company successfully argued, and the FCC put Cox’s poor speed consistency rating in a fine print footnote, which included both the 37% rating and a predicted/estimated reliability rating of 85%, assuming Cox properly routed its internet traffic.

The FCC report also downplays or doesn’t include data about internet slowdowns on specific websites, like Netflix or YouTube. Complaints about buffering on both popular streaming sites have been regularly cited by angry customers, but the FCC’s annual report signals there is literally nothing wrong with most providers.

Providers still fear their own network slowdowns or problems during known testing periods. The Journal reports many have a solution for that problem as well — temporarily boosting speeds and targeting better performance of popular websites and services during testing periods and returning service to normal after tests are finished.

James Cannon, a longtime cable and telecom engineering executive who left Charter in February admitted that is standard practice at Spectrum.

“I know that goes on,” he told the Journal. “If they have a scheduled test with a government agency, they will be very careful about how that traffic is routed on the network.”

As a result, the FCC’s “independent” annual speed test report is now compromised by large telecom companies, admits Maurice Dean, a telecom and media consultant with 22 years’ experience working on streaming, cable and telecom projects.

“It is problematic,” Dean said. “This attempt to ‘enhance’ performance for these measurements is a well-known practice in the industry,’ and makes the FCC results “almost meaningless for describing actual user experience.”

Tim Wu, a longtime internet advocate, likened the speed test program as more theoretical than actual, suggesting it was like measuring the speed of a car after getting rid of traffic.

Charter Communications has notified customers of Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks’ home security services that it intends to discontinue both services in February, leaving many customers with hundreds of dollars in equipment that will be rendered useless when the service closes down.

“At Spectrum, we continually evaluate our products to ensure we are bringing you superior, consistent and reliable service. We perform regular reviews of our services and as a result, effective February 5, 2020, we will no longer be providing or supporting Spectrum Home Security service.”

Formerly known as Time Warner Cable IntelligentHome and Bright House Networks’ Home Security & Control, the two home security services are legacies of the two former cable companies acquired by Charter Communications. Charter showed no interest in marketing the security services under the Spectrum brand, although the company agreed to continue supporting existing customers until now. Top executives were reportedly disinterested in the prospect of selling home security products and services.

The news has not been welcomed by customers, many who made substantial investments in optional alarm system add-ons that were purchased by customers. At least one spent over $1,200 bolstering the basic security system offered by the two cable companies with additional door contacts, motion detectors, smoke detectors, keypads, fobs, and other extra cost add-ons. That equipment, which normally supports the Zigbee standard, will be rendered inoperative in February because both companies locked the hardware to their specific cable systems, making it currently impossible to repurpose the equipment with another alarm system or service.

A DSL Reports reader is fuming:

All these devices are Zigbee based, made by a major player in the Zigbee devices game. Under normal circumstances, you would be able to take all your stuff and move it over to your own home automation solution (Samsung SmartThings, Wink, Hubitat to name a few). But nope, not Spectrum’s devices. Early on they were firmware coded to prevent them from being seen and usable within the normal universe of Zigbee devices. With a couple of exceptions Spectrum’s Zigbee devices will only see the Spectrum Zigbee universe. So essentially after Feb. 5, 2020 your house full of Zigbee devices will be useless.

The criminal part in this is that with literally a 10 minute fix and firmware to those devices BEFORE they shutter their service would open them to the universe of compatible Zigbee devices but you can take to the bank that Spectrum isn’t going to do it, otherwise they would have mentioned it with the announcement. All those hundreds of dollars (thousands in some cases) down the drain… how does that make you feel?

Those of you with Home Security should be demanding that Spectrum either buyback each and every device they will be orphaning OR they do the right thing and push a simple firmware update that allows the devices to play in the normal Zigbee universe of devices allowing you to make the decision as to which hub and ultimately service you subscribe to.

Spectrum instead has signed a deal with Abode, a competing provider, that is offering to rip existing Spectrum home security equipment out of subscriber homes and replace it with a new basic system starting at $179 a year. Add-ons will be offered at a 25% discount, but will still require customers to spend hundreds more to replace almost every alarm related sensor in their home. Would-be customers are also warned in the fine print free installation is only applicable for the basic Abode Alarm 8-piece alarm kit. Installation of additional devices or accessories will be at an additional cost, which is likely in the range of several hundred dollars for more elaborate systems.

Charter Spectrum is laying a foundation to convert company-supplied consumer/residential cable modems and routers, which may have an IP address like 192.168.1.1, into public Wi-Fi hotspots, helping the company offload Spectrum Mobile traffic from Verizon Wireless.

Speaking at FierceWireless’ Next Gen Wireless Networks Summit in Dallas this week, Craig Cowden — senior vice president of wireless technology at Charter Communications, said Spectrum is considering converting over 10 million deployed cable modems and routers into shared hotspots, following Comcast’s lead. This would allow Spectrum Mobile and home internet customers to automatically connect to millions of Spectrum’s Wi-Fi hotspots when outside of their own homes.

“We already offload significant traffic onto Wi-Fi,” said Cowden. “Comcast has 19 million hotspots that are called home-as-a-hotspot, using the existing router in the home. We see a benefit of doing that.”

The technology change would activate a company-supplied router’s second Wi-Fi channel, available inside customer homes and accessible to any Charter Spectrum customer. If Charter is planning to adopt the same technology Comcast uses today, customers would continue to have exclusive access to their existing 2.4 and 5 GHz Wi-Fi channels, and any usage on the second (public) Wi-Fi channel would not affect the customer’s own internet speed. Spectrum Mobile devices automatically connect to Spectrum’s Wi-Fi network when signals are strong enough.

Customers that use their own independently purchased cable modem and router equipment will not be affected. Comcast allows their customers to opt out if they object, and Charter may also offer a similar option for Spectrum customers using company-supplied equipment.

Charter Spectrum is launching a new extra-cost sports tier that will feature a dozen sports networks for $5 a month.

Spectrum TV Sports Pack has been soft launched in many markets and will include:

• NFL Network
• Golf Channel
• Tennis Channel
• ESPN Goal Line/Bases Loaded
• ESPNews
• ESPN College Extra
• MAV TV
• MLB Strike Zone
• NFL RedZone
• NHL Network
• Olympic Channel
• Outdoor Channel

The new sports tier means some Spectrum customers that pay extra for Spectrum’s Gold package will lose NFL RedZone, MLB Strike Zone and the Outdoor Channel late next month unless they also subscribe to the Sports Pack.

“Combining these sports networks into a single tier means more choice and flexibility for customers, especially sports fans,” Spectrum said in a statement.

Spectrum is dropping several other sports channels from its lineup altogether, including ESPN Classic. Other channels being dropped are certain regional sports networks, notably FCS.

Any Spectrum TV customer is eligible to subscribe to the sports channel package, which may allow some customers to downgrade from Spectrum’s costly Gold package if they subscribed primarily for sports networks.

NFL Network, Golf Channel, and the Tennis Channel will also remain as part of existing packages, so if you currently get these networks you will continue to receive them.

Customers can subscribe by contacting Spectrum online or by phone.

Rep. Brindisi

The House of Representatives is showing little love for freshman Rep. Anthony Brindisi’s “Transparency for Cable Consumers Act” (H.R. 1555), a bill that would strengthen consumer protection by targeting the cable industry’s business practices.

The Utica, N.Y. Democrat made Charter Spectrum a significant part of his 2018 campaign, criticizing the cable company in television election ads Spectrum initially refused to air and calling for New York regulators to punish or remove the cable company from the state after failing to meet its 2016 merger obligations.

Brindisi’s bill would increase regulatory oversight of cable operators nationwide, requiring the Federal Communications Commission, Department of Justice, and Federal Trade Commission to do more to protect cable internet subscribers. H.R. 1555 would:

• Detail actions to protect consumers from predatory actions by cable and internet companies, which includes debt collection methods;
• Asks the FCC to propose appropriate regulatory consequences for cable or internet companies fined by a state public utility commission, like Charter Communications was in New York;
• Establishes a working group among the three federal agencies to investigate rising cable internet rates.

Brindisi considers America’s cable industry “predatory” and abusive to its customers. He cites constituent complaints about Spectrum’s debt collection practices as a primary example of that abuse in action.

“Constituents have reported to me Spectrum’s ties to a debt collection company called Credit Management, LP. Spectrum allegedly uses the Plano, Texas, company — whose leadership team is tethered to the cable industry — to collect debts often unrelated to standard non-payment, and instead tied to Spectrum ‘equipment,’ Brindisi alleges. “I urge anyone being harassed by Credit Management, LP, on behalf of Spectrum, to call my office.”

Brindisi is also attacking the recent policy change by Spectrum to stop providing pro-rated refunds when customers cancel service in the middle of a billing cycle.

“Well, Spectrum just raised our rates again, adding insult to injury. And let me tell you something, they are laughing all the way to the bank. Quite literally,” Brindisi added. “Wall Street shares of Charter Communications climbed about 14 percent higher last month thanks, in part, to a ‘boost from higher prices.'”

Brindisi claims lobbyists prowling the halls of Congress have labeled him “The Cable Guy” because of his focus on the cable industry.

“Look, it’s no secret. Spectrum Charter hates me. But what’s more offending, really, is that they think I’ll be quiet,” Brindisi said. “The legislative branch, of which I am included, is one partner in the fight but we need the administration to empower its agencies and regulators to come down hard on Spectrum when they take advantage of us. Right now, I do not see it happening. Instead, I see industry smiling ear-to-ear while it courts — and ‘pays’ — members of Congress to do its bidding.”

Brindisi’s bill has only a slim chance of passage as a standalone measure, so he is attempting to attach it as an amendment to the federal budget, a popular tactic among lawmakers that struggle to get their bills to the floor for individual consideration. Opponents are likely to claim that the measure is unnecessary, redundant, and in conflict with the current administration’s deregulation policies. The bill will need a stronger publicity push to attract constituent support that will be noticed by House lawmakers. Brindisi’s bill has only a single co-sponsor, Rep. Jefferson Van Drew (D-N.J.)

But Brindisi says he is not giving up.

“Well, let me be the first to reiterate: this ‘cable guy’ will not quit until Spectrum blinks, and takes its hand out of your pocket.”