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

Despite an avalanche of press releases promising a flood of new small cells to manage America’s growing 5G networks, the vendors responsible for equipment, siting, and connectivity report small cell deployment is moving much slower than expected.

Cowen, a Wall Street analyst, noted communications infrastructure provider Zayo’s CEO Dan Caruso told investors the 5G small cell business is playing out differently than expected.

“Specifically, carrier activity is more tempered than their messaging five years ago, and the lease-up of second tenants has been slower,” Cowen noted.

Light Reading noted that suppliers and capacity providers have been boosting investments and manufacturing capacity to manage expected orders for millimeter wave 5G equipment that so far are not materializing. Cell tower management company Crown Castle increased its spending dramatically to support Verizon’s claim it would install hundreds of thousands of small cells nationwide. Crown Castle will likely provide a significant amount of the leased space for wireless providers’ small cells. Not only can Crown Castle earn significant revenue from leasing space to Verizon, it can make more selling AT&T and T-Mobile access to those same locations for their own respective small cells. But so far, business has been slow.

To build a nationwide 5G network capable of what the press releases claim, operators will need to lay millions of miles of fiber optic cables, construct 80,000 new cell towers for lower frequency 5G networks, and at least 130,000 locations this year for highly localized millimeter wave 5G small cells.

Analysts note much of the slowdown seems to be disproportionately affecting U.S. mobile networks, with much less of a slowdown among global operators moving rapidly to construct their own 5G infrastructure. Some analysts speculate operators are reducing investments because of a lack of competitive demand, while others suspect providers are now hoarding cash to bid on forthcoming “C” band spectrum that is expected to be auctioned off soon. AT&T, in particular, has also been winding down its own spending programs for fiber buildouts and the government-funded FirstNet first responder mobile network. AT&T’s stock price has been anemic for much of 2020 as investors question AT&T’s lavish spending, especially on its HBO Max and AT&T TV businesses.

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.

SpaceX’s Starlink service is unlikely to compete in the same arena as fiber and cable internet service providers, if leaked early speed test results are an accurate indication of the service’s performance.

A sub-Reddit for Starlink, the low earth orbiting (LEO) satellite internet service, is buzzing with activity after one or more anonymous users in Washington State shared speed test results in a public forum, in apparent violation of the non-disclosure agreement SpaceX insists alpha testers sign.

Starlink’s current alpha test, open to rural areas in Washington State only, will give SpaceX data on how well the platform performs in the marketplace. As beta tests begin later this year, testers will be required to have an unobstructed view of the northern sky, live within 44 and 52 degrees latitude, be willing and able to complete multiple surveys about the service over a two-month period, and agree to receive and properly install the equipment. All alpha and beta testers will receive the service for free, but will be asked to pay $1 to test Starlink’s billing system.

Testers are supposed to keep information about their Starlink experiences private, as per a detailed non-disclosure agreement that each tester must sign. But anonymous leaks about the service, along with ‘telling’ questions, have frequently appeared in a public forum about the satellite service, frustrating SpaceX. The satellite provider has reportedly issued multiple “takedown requests” to remove violating content.

Last week, Starlink began requesting more detailed information from those seeking to enroll in future beta tests, a sign it is gearing up to test the service more widely soon.

So far, Starlink testers in Washington State willing to leak their experiences are reporting download speeds no better than 60 Mbps, with upload speed averaging between 10-15 Mbps. Latency, a constant problem with satellite internet, was a more impressive 50 ms on average, but can vary between 31-94 ms.

Only a small number of people in Washington State are estimated to be taking part in current trials, which started before SpaceX’s entire satellite fleet is in orbit. SpaceX previously claimed the service was designed to deliver “blazing fast speeds” up to 1,000 Mbps. That clearly is not happening at the moment. Some testers have been told that speed will increase as more satellites are placed into orbit, but others are wondering if early results are good enough, especially considering they are conducted on satellite infrastructure that currently has a light load with almost no users.

Starlink’s speed and performance will be crucial indicators of how the broadband industry will respond to the emerging market of LEO-based satellite internet. If 60/10 Mbps service is what many users can expect to get, that might deflate SpaceX’s boasts that its Starlink platform could be a competitive game-changer. Cable and fiber providers will likely dismiss Starlink as a serious competitor in the urban and suburban markets they serve, noting wired internet performance is already considerably faster. Still, the project could provide much-needed internet service in exurban and rural areas bypassed by cable companies, leaving consumers with a current choice of <10 Mbps DSL from the phone company or no service at all.

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.