In an effort to keep up with Comcast, Cox Communications has quietly expanded its internet overcharging scheme to customers in Arkansas, Connecticut, Kansas, Omaha, Neb, and Sun Valley, Ida. (perhaps the only community that can afford Cox’s threatened overlimit fees). Cox’s customers have noticed and told DSL Reports about the forthcoming highway robbery.

These unlucky customers join those in Cleveland, Oh., Florida and Georgia who have already been enduring Cox’s usage cap and penalty fee system.

Cox hasn’t shown any interest in listening to customers who do not appreciate usage allowances and have repeatedly told the company they want unlimited access, especially considering how much they already pay Cox for service.

“It’s a total ripoff and customers have no option to keep unlimited, unless they move to the next city over where Charter/Spectrum offers internet access without any data caps,” notes Cleveland resident Shelly Adams.

Cox has followed Comcast by boosting most usage allowances given to customers to 1TB, an amount many believe was set high enough to avoid threatened regulatory scrutiny of stingy data caps by the FCC under the former Obama Administration.

As with every provider that has ever conjured up an internet overcharging scheme, no matter what the allowance is, the company always claims it is generous and impacts almost nobody. Cox claims 99% of their customers will never hit the cap, which always begs the question, if it affects so few customers why spend time, money and energy creating a data cap, usage measurement tools, and billing scheme for only a handful of customers? Is that Cox’s idea of innovation?

Usage caps for one and all.

In fact, Comcast has claimed the same thing, but their math came into question when more than 13,000 Comcast customers managed to stumble their way to the FCC’s complaints bureau in one year and write a formal protest about Comcast’s own overlimit fee scheme. We are certain there are many more customers with overlimit fees on their bills than that, and guess only a small fraction took the time to write a complaint and submit it.

As Stop the Cap! has said for almost a decade, beware of cable company “generosity” because it usually comes with fine print.

“Cox High Speed Internet packages include 1 TB (1,024 GB) of data to provide you with plenty of freedom to stream, surf, download, and share,” the company writes on its support website (its much rarer Gigablast gigabit plan includes 2TB). For now, if you use Cox Wi-Fi or CableWiFi hotspots, usage on those networks does not count toward your data plan.

Cox reserves itself some extra freedoms, such as automatically charging customers who exceed their allowance a $10 overlimit penalty for each 50GB of usage they incur until the next billing cycle begins. Cox’s generosity ends with the unused portion of your allowance, which Cox keeps for itself, not allowing customers to roll over unused data to the following month.

In an effort to get customers to accept the scheme, Cox calls it a “data plan,” similar to what wireless customers might pay, and says other companies have data caps too. But none of this justifies the practice.

You’re over our arbitrary usage limit!

In another “generous” move, Cox is offering a grace period for two consecutive bill cycles before it slaps overlimit penalties on customer bills for real in Arkansas, Connecticut, Kansas, Omaha, and Sun Valley. The grace period window begins with bills dated on or after Feb. 20, 2017. To make sure you get the message, the company will bill you the overlimit fee it claims almost nobody will ever pay along with a corresponding grace period credit for two months, just to put the scare in you. After May 22, it is time to pay up.

Cox will make sure you can’t claim you “didn’t know” you ran through your allowance by harassing you with data usage messages via Cox browser alert, email, text message, or an automated outbound call when you have used about 85% and 100% of your monthly data plan. You will receive additional alerts when you have reached 125% of your monthly data plan, at which point Cox will throw a party in your honor with thanks for allowing them to run up your bill.

Coincidentally, Cox isn’t testing their scheme in markets rife with competition from providers like Verizon FiOS, where usage is effectively unlimited. In many of Cox’s usage-capped markets, customers have AT&T as their alternative, and they have a 1TB usage allowance as well.

Incoming FCC chairman Ajit Pai is on record opposing any involvement in regulating usage-based pricing schemes, claiming it amounted to government meddling in business. But customers can complain directly to Cox and threaten to cancel service. It may be a good time to renegotiate your cable bill to win discounts that may help cover any overlimit fees that do make it to your bill.

There remains little, if any justification for a company like Cox to peddle data plans with usage allowances to their customers. The company is moving towards gigabit broadband speeds but apparently lacks the resources to manage customers that want a hassle-free unlimited experience? If Cox is being honest about how few customers will ever be affected by the cap, there is no reason the company cannot continue an unlimited plan at current prices.

Cox’s scheme does shine light on the uncompetitive broadband marketplace that continues to afflict this country. As one reader pointed out, customers are constrained by the offerings of whatever provider has set up shop in a city that typically has, at best, one other choice (usually a phone company selling DSL or up to 24Mbps U-verse). A truly competitive market would give customers a wide choice of “data plans” that include unlimited plans customers enjoyed for years and want to keep. But safe in their broadband duopoly, cable companies like Cox have no incentive to treat customers to a better or even fair deal.

The real reason for usage caps and data plans with penalty pricing was exposed by Wall Street analysts like Jonathan Chaplin, a research analyst for New Street Research LLP. Although he was speaking to a cable company executive at the time, his words traveled to our ears as well:

“Our analysis suggests that broadband as a product is underpriced,” Chaplin said. “Our work suggests that cable companies have room to take up broadband pricing significantly and we believe regulators should not oppose the re-pricing (it is good for competition & investment).”

“The companies will undoubtedly have to take pay-TV pricing down to help ‘fund’ the price increase for broadband, but this is a good thing for the business,” Chaplin added. “Post re-pricing, [online video] competition would cease to be a threat and the companies would grow revenue and free cash flow at a far faster rate than they would otherwise.”

Exactly.

Former Bright House Networks customers in Florida are unhappy with a $9.99 Wi-Fi Activation Fee that appeared on some customer bills in December.

Several customers converting to Charter Spectrum service reported the activation fee to the Tampa Bay Times and noted Charter initially told them the fee was required after Charter bought Bright House.

Most of the affected customers had cable service from Bright House for years and could not understand why they were being charged for the service. The company began admitting it had made a mistake and is waiving the fee on an individual basis, but only to customers who call and complain. Charter Spectrum began billing Bright House customers for service in November, which may explain why the charge is only appearing now.

Spectrum spokesman Joe Durkin told the newspaper the fee is probably a mistake and should not apply to customers the company inherited from Bright House who already had internet service. But this does imply Charter intends to charge an activation fee for new customers now or in the future. Whether the charge applies to customers using a company-supplied router to provide in-home Wi-Fi or relates to Bright House’s extensive network of Wi-Fi hotspots around Florida is not known.

Durkin told the newspaper this was not a widespread issue, but in response to its first story, the newspaper printed a follow-up the following day, noting it was continuing to receive complaints.

Some customers are suspicious.

“Their customer-service representatives were dismissive of me,” said Lara Bartelds, a Charter Spectrum customer in Clearwater. “A lot of people don’t notice these kinds of charges. I think Spectrum was hoping we’re just not paying attention to our bills.”

Verizon Communications has opened preliminary talks with officials close to Charter Communications about a possible merger of the two companies, concerning regulators worried the massive combined telecommunications company would have a near-monopoly on residential broadband service in New York and western Massachusetts.

The Wall Street Journal reports Verizon is working with advisers to study the potential transaction, and warned there is no guarantee a formal deal will materialize. A merger of Verizon and Charter would combine more than 114 million Verizon Wireless customers, 16 million landline customers, and over 6 million broadband customers with Verizon DSL or FiOS with Charter’s 21 million television, phone and broadband customers. The deal could fetch a price of more than $80 billion, no small amount for Verizon, already $100 billion in debt. An acquisition by Verizon would be a remarkable development for a cable company that became America’s second largest only eight months ago with the acquisition of Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks.

Preliminary Talks

The newspaper reported Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam has talked with Liberty Broadband CEO Greg Maffei. Liberty has a 25% voting stake in Charter Communications, and Maffei is a close ally of John Malone, Charter’s largest single shareholder. McAdam’s back channel discussions have likely been designed to test Charter’s potential interest in a deal. For Malone and the former owners of Bright House Networks who control another 7% of Charter’s shares, making money appears to be their primary motivation and neither would likely to stand in the way of a deal.

McAdam

The newspaper was less certain about Charter’s CEO Thomas Rutledge. Rutledge is approaching his fifth anniversary as president and CEO of Charter Communications, now greatly enlarged with the combination of Time Warner Cable and Bright House. He spent the last 34 years in lesser roles at Cablevision, Time Warner Cable, and its predecessor American Television and Communications (ATC). Rutledge is reportedly interested in continuing his leadership role at Charter as it seeks to grow even larger, something unlikely to happen if Verizon acquires the cable company and rebrands it as Verizon under their own management. However, Rutledge’s personal interests will likely be secondary to the potential shareholder and executive windfall likely to come from any deal.

A Verizon/Charter Merger Would Establish a Broadband Monopoly in New York and Western Massachusetts

Verizon and Charter are the only significant direct competitors in residential broadband and landline telephone service in western Massachusetts and most of New York State, except a portion of New York City, Long Island and Westchester County (served by Altice’s Cablevision) and Rochester (served by Frontier Communications). A source at the New York Department of Public Service told Stop the Cap! this morning New York regulators would have a tough time approving a merger of this size and scope unless Verizon divested its landline and FiOS network in the state or Charter sold its cable properties in New York. A Verizon divestiture would likely attract Frontier Communications as a buyer, while a Charter sale of New York assets would probably bring bids from companies like Comcast or Altice.

“We would be very concerned about how this would impact broadband service competition and to lesser degree wireline service for New York,” the source, not authorized to speak to the media, told us this morning. “Gov. Cuomo has an ambitious agenda for broadband deployment in rural New York and this deal could also be a problem for the governor’s office. Verizon is perfectly aware of the regulatory challenges such a deal would face in Albany.”

Verizon’s Heavy Dependence on Wireless Was a Mistake

Verizon is under significant pressure to act after Wall Street punished the company for a poor fourth-quarter earnings report that illustrated the days of easy money in the wireless business seem to be over. Verizon suffered the third quarter in a row of sales declines after six years of continuous growth. Analysts point to increasing competition from T-Mobile and Sprint as the single biggest factor for Verizon’s struggles. As Verizon Wireless remained slow to cut prices and remained militant about not giving new and current customers access to unlimited data plans, customers have cut back on services or switched to other providers. Revenue dropped 4.9% in the last quarter and a growing number of Verizon’s most valuable postpaid customers are now leaving — mostly for T-Mobile and Sprint. Wireless churn reached a higher-than-expected 1.1% in the last three months.

Verizon Wireless is also having trouble attracting new customers. Analysts expected Verizon would add 726,000 customers during the last quarter, but only managed to attract 591,000. Wall Street punished Verizon’s latest financial results with a 4.4% slash in the stock price, Verizon’s worst day in more than five years.

Several Wall Street analysts have urged Verizon to diversify its business to reduce its dependency on wireless. In the last three years, Verizon has invested most of its attention and resources on bolstering its wireless network. In 2014, AT&T decided to spread its risk around with significant investments in its U-verse wireline broadband network, an acquisition of satellite-TV provider DirecTV, and its bid to buy content company Time Warner, Inc. In contrast, in 2014 Verizon spent $130 billion buying out its partner’s share of Verizon Wireless. That made UK-based Vodafone cash-rich and left Verizon mired in debt.

So far, Verizon’s diversification efforts have relied on acquiring affordable companies whose best days are long past, including AOL and Yahoo. An effort to entertain Millennials with video clips and other content over its go90 mobile app has largely been a flop, and investments in telematics and machine-to-machine wireless communications are years away from paying off, if they ever do.

Verizon May Want Charter’s Extensive Fiber Backhaul Network

Verizon executives have shown little interest in acquiring assets that rely primarily on linear/live television, which is why the company never moved to counter AT&T’s acquisition of DirecTV with an offer for its satellite competitor Dish Networks.

Verizon is very interested in fiber optics — ironic for a company that largely abandoned expanding its FiOS fiber to the home service seven years ago.

Verizon will need a lot of fiber assets to power the 5G wireless networks the company is interested in deploying. This will require a massive network of fiber-connected “small cells” that will deliver wireless services at speeds faster than today’s 4G networks. These small cells will be capable of serving individual neighborhoods or planned communities and could theoretically rely on Charter’s fiber backbone to deliver service. Without access to Charter’s network, Verizon would have to undertake to build out its own fiber network throughout its service areas.

Regulatory Climate Warms for Big Business Mergers

Although President Donald Trump has voiced his opposition to AT&T’s merger with Time Warner, Inc., his appointments to manage the day-to-day affairs of government are strident believers in deregulation and are unlikely to stand in the way of merger deals. The most likely opposition to a Verizon-Charter deal would come from state telecommunications regulators in New York and Massachusetts. On the federal level, significant opposition may be unlikely. Among the Trump appointees that would likely review a Verizon-Charter merger:

• Joshua Wright is the leading contender to head the Justice Department’s antitrust division. He’s a conservative law professor who believes regulator reviews of corporate mergers should be hands-off to a degree that has failed to withstand court scrutiny. Wright’s approach during his term as a commissioner at the Federal Trade Commission was so business-friendly, some joked his middle name should be “Laissez-Faire.” He believes mergers rarely have a bad impact on competition and prices and in fact offer consumer benefits. Courts have blocked mergers he supported and judges have criticized his standards of proof that “had no support in the law.”
• Sen. Jeff Sessions is Trump’s nominee for Attorney General. While Sessions claimed he had no problem blocking anti-competitive mergers and acquisitions, Wall Street believes the Trump Administration will not stand in the way of a frenzy of mergers. Evercore ISI’s Terry Haines made it clear what is likely to come from a Sessions-led Justice Department: “Sessions’ likely nomination and confirmation by the Senate, in which he has served since 1997, is a market positive for merger and acquisition activity. Sessions as attorney general would shift immediately from the current mostly ‘red light’ Obama antitrust/competition policy and move towards one that would be friendlier to M&A activity.”
• The Federal Communications Commission would also scrutinize the deal, but under the chairmanship of Ajit Pai and a Republican majority, any significant opposition to the deal seems unlikely. Pai has never opposed any major telecommunications merger deal on principle, although he has fought with former chairman Thomas Wheeler over the terms and conditions the FCC sought to impose in return for the agency’s approval.

Higher bills, confusing and conflicting services and pricing, and badly trained customer service representatives are just a few of the problems afflicting customers transitioning from Bright House Networks and Time Warner Cable to service plans being gradually introduced around the country by Charter Communications/Spectrum. Stop the Cap! has collected more than 50 reports from customers experiencing problems, bill shock, lost access to Wi-Fi hotspots, and “bait and switch” promotions promised by one representative only to be reneged on later when the first bill arrives.

The $58/Month Charter Spectrum Rate Hike

Park La Brea resident Lydia Plona is one of dozens of customers in California that have complained to the Los Angeles Times about their soaring cable bills after Charter/Spectrum replaced Time Warner Cable in Southern California. It was among the first regions in the country to say goodbye to Time Warner Cable and hello to Charter and their Spectrum-branded service plans. Unfortunately, Charter has already worn out its welcome with customers like Plona. When Charter was done with her, the $96 Time Warner Cable bill she used to pay was replaced with a new $154 bill from Spectrum — a $58 rate hike per month, which amounts to almost $700 more a year.

Much of the Midwest just completed its transition away from Time Warner Cable and Bright House to Spectrum and confusing pricing and plans and expensive upgrade fees are troubling customers from Wisconsin to Ohio.

Want More than 60Mbps? Pay $199 Upgrade Fee

Micah Lane, a former Time Warner Cable customer in Columbus, Ohio faced a major dilemma — should he switch from his current Time Warner Cable broadband plan to Spectrum? He originally assumed the answer would be yes, believing he could upgrade from a 50/5Mbps Time Warner Cable plan to a 100Mbps Spectrum plan for around $30 more than he had paid Time Warner. He discovered an upgrade was ready and waiting, but would cost him a one-time $199 upgrade fee.

“I was told repeatedly when a Time Warner Cable customer moves to Spectrum, they are automatically assigned a base plan of 60Mbps,” Lane told us. “Any speed above that in a non-Time Warner Cable Maxx market is considered an upgrade subject to the $200 upgrade fee. My parents would not be happy with that on their bill.”

Stop the Cap! has communicated with a dozen Spectrum converts, and heard from at least 40 others about problems experienced with their plan transitions. The most common complaints reference a hard-to-avoid $200 broadband upgrade fee, charged even when moving from a 100Mbps Time Warner Cable plan to a 100Mbps Spectrum plan, and promised bundled package offers that ended up costing much more when the first bill arrived.

Charter’s standard broadband plan offers 60Mbps service.

“You better be ready for the fight of your life because I had to threaten to escalate my complaint to the Better Business Bureau and the FCC to get that $200 fee off my bill,” said Stop the Cap! reader Roger. “Nobody ever told me about the fee but it was applied to my online statement hours after I changed plans and of course there is no way to go back to Time Warner’s plans once you make the change.”

Charter/Spectrum has become increasingly intransigent about that $200 fee, which the company claims is necessary to verify your home connection is suitable for faster internet speeds. But some representatives have also blamed the fee on the need to recoup expenses from network upgrades, even when many of those upgrades were performed by Time Warner Cable before the company was sold.

“There is really massive confusion at Charter and the information you get is totally inconsistent from one operator to the next,” said Paul Friedrich in Cincinnati. He rents an apartment with a roommate and after being told the $200 upgrade fee was non-negotiable, he told Charter to stuff it. “We can get the same or better service without the upgrade fee from Cincinnati Bell so bye bye Spectrum. When we threatened them with canceled service, however, the fee magically disappeared!”

The “savings” Charter promised to bring Time Warner Cable customers have not exactly materialized in Ohio, either.

“I just called TWC/Spectrum to see if I could get upgraded internet,” wrote DSL Reports reader cmiz87 in Grove City. “I’m currently on the old 50/5Mbps plan. To upgrade to the 100/10Mbps plan would cost $104.99/month PLUS a $199.99 “activation” fee, even though I have my own modem. That is just for internet only.”

Especially aggravating to many Time Warner Cable customers in non-Maxx service areas is the special treatment Maxx customers received when their areas were converted to Charter Spectrum. Customers with at least 200Mbps service were initially transitioned from their Time Warner Cable Maxx service plans to Charter Spectrum’s 300Mbps plan without any upgrade fee. For those areas where the clock ran out waiting for Maxx upgrades when Charter completed its deal to acquire Time Warner Cable, it’s ‘pay $200 or no upgrade for you.’

“Customers in northern Kentucky [were already getting] 300Mbps service as a free upgrade for the last six months,” noted DSL Reports reader dougm0. “Last year Time Warner Cable was going door-to-door in my neighborhood in Cincinnati [telling us] you will get 300Mbps service free in a couple of months. Just two weeks ago I chatted with a rep that said I would still get a 300Mbps upgrade automatically when launched.”

Now Charter/Spectrum is charging what he calls “this bogus $200 fee.”

“My wife and I are planning our exit from Charter and going back to Cincy Bell,” he reports. “Free install and same speed for less.”

Business Class for 300Mbps

In Reno and other cities, some Charter customers are moving to Business Class service to get 300Mbps service, which is not yet available in most former Time Warner Cable areas. But it will not be cheap. New customers can sign up with a promotion for as little as $159/month, but after two years that price jumps to $279.

Residential Pricing Confusion

Charter’s residential pricing seemed simple enough when it was announced. But in practice, readers report it is all over the map. In Wisconsin, one customer in Franklin signed up for 300Mbps service for $110 per month and agreed to pay the $200 upgrade fee. But in Green Bay, Spectrum is charging $110 a month for 100Mbps — half the speed — along with the $200 upgrade fee. That was a dealbreaker. In Kenosha, one customer moving from a Time Warner Cable internet plan to Charter Spectrum’s basic 60Mbps plan found two unpleasant surprises on his bill:

01/19/2017 Change Of Service Fee $52.74
01/19/2017 Spectrum WiFi Activation $10.54

Adding even more confusion were prices quoted to another customer in West Wauwatosa:

• Ultra: 300/20Mbps, $105/mo, $199.99 upgrade fee
• Regular: 60/5Mbps, $68.63/mo, no upgrade fee

Confusion for Some Legacy Time Warner Cable Customers As Well

A surprise last upgrade for Time Warner Cable customers in Rochester, N.Y.

In markets that still have not transitioned to Charter Spectrum, there is confusion to be found there as well. Upstate New York will see an introduction to Spectrum service plans in February-March, but a few Time Warner Cable upgrades have been quietly introduced in the meantime. Rochester, N.Y., which never made it officially to the Maxx city upgrade list, now has 100Mbps broadband as an option, but representatives denied it for at least a week when customers called to upgrade.

The new speed option was supposed to only be offered to customers qualified to get it, as upgrades were gradually completed around the area, but a website issue marketed the upgrade to everyone, including to some customers as far away as Buffalo.

For those successfully signing up with what is likely to be their last Time Warner Cable plan, many are hoping the investment will help them avoid the $200 upgrade fee when Spectrum’s 100Mbps plan becomes available in the next month or two. But some former Time Warner Cable customers in other cities already transitioned and two Charter representatives we queried about this scenario say they will be out of luck.

Customers start with a 60Mbps standard internet plan from Charter in non-Maxx areas. If a customer chooses a higher speed plan, even if they had 100Mbps from Time Warner Cable before, the $200 upgrade fee still applies. Both representatives claimed the fee was mandatory.

But some of our readers report success in getting that fee off their bills or it was never charged. Speaking to a supervisor or making a service change with an executive level customer service representative can make a big difference avoiding that fee. Customers who establish contact with a Charter representative as a result of a Better Business Bureau or FCC complaint were able to get the fee consistently waived. Results were more mixed when talking to Charter Spectrum’s regular sales department, even when asking for a supervisor to intervene. It may be a case of finding a representative with the authority to waive the fee.

“Even the representative agreed with us it was unfair to charge us $200 for moving from 100Mbps with Time Warner Cable to 100Mbps with Charter Spectrum,” another Stop the Cap! reader in Texas told us. “But they couldn’t do anything about it. When we threatened to cancel, a retention representative finally intervened and got the fee off the bill, only to have it return a month later. We filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau and that finally worked to get the fee removed. But my neighbor couldn’t get anyone to budge on that fee.”

Wi-Fi Woes in Florida

Bright House Networks customers are also experiencing transition troubles. Residential customers reportedly lost any static IP addresses they signed up for when they converted to a Charter Spectrum residential plan. Static IP addresses are still available for Spectrum commercial plans. More troubling for many is the loss of access to Bright House Network’s secure Wi-Fi network.

Customers in central Florida who switched from a Bright House plan to a Charter Spectrum plan lost access to “BHN Secure,” “Bright House Networks,” and secured “CableWiFi” hotspots formerly administered by Bright House. Customers used to access those secure networks using their My Services Bright House username and password. But after transitioning to a Charter Spectrum plan, those credentials no longer work. Customers can still use their Bright House Road Runner e-mail address and password to get access to the very insecure open “CableWiFi” hotspot option, but those doing so should exercise extreme caution using it for any confidential communications, banking, or other sensitive online activities.

Charter’s Bad Advice: Change Your Wi-Fi Password to Your Favorite Sports Team!

Techcrunch noticed some very bad advice coming from Charter’s social media team on Twitter, recommending their 31,700 Twitter followers change their Wi-Fi passwords in support of their favorite sports teams.

Change your WiFi password and show guests where your loyalty lies! #ThatsMyTeampic.twitter.com/7kg04D7GN9

— Spectrum (@GetSpectrum) January 23, 2017

The original tweet has been deleted, no doubt after someone realized the dangerous security lapse it introduced to Wi-Fi hackers who could probably guess the favorite teams of the locals.

The FrankenBundle: Fewer Options, Less Confusion, Higher Prices Later

In Indianapolis, former Bright House Networks customers are being told having fewer options is a good thing.

WRTV-TV talked with Charter spokesman Mike Pedalty, who called his former employer’s packages a “Frankenbundle:”

“We kept adding things and confusing customers, where they didn’t understand what we were adding on and how it was packaged,” Pedalty told the TV station. Now he says most customers will choose from three basic TV packages and ‘best of all you won’t have to fight for a promo rate every year, when your current package expires.’

That’s because Charter has no intention of negotiating a better deal for you as prices gradually increase.

Back in Los Angeles, Plona understands what merger benefits she is really getting from the deregulatory atmosphere that permitted Charter to buy Time Warner Cable.

“When you let these companies do as they please, all they do is raise our rates,” Plona said. “It seems like prices go up every time you deregulate.”

Former AT&T customers who dumped their former carrier for T-Mobile in return for a free year of DirecTV Now are getting a sweeter deal with a free year of Hulu with Limited Commercials as well.

T-Mobile CEO John Legere had avoided criticism of the streaming television service from AT&T-owned DirecTV until customers began complaining it has never worked as advertised, making the T-Mobile’s promotion a “meh” experience.

Legere has been a frequent critic of AT&T in social media, so it isn’t too surprising Legere started taking shots at AT&T’s streaming effort as well this morning.

On Twitter, Legere slammed DirecTV Now and called AT&T executives “delusional” over claims the service exceeded their expectations.

Just last week Randall said #DirecTVNow has been “over the top, very strong”. Uhm, what world do you live in?! #crazytown pic.twitter.com/yWrT4ds2gJ

— John Legere (@JohnLegere) January 25, 2017

“To make things right for those new T-Mobile customers, the Un-carrier is giving everyone who participated in this deal a free year of Hulu — an awesome streaming service that actually works — on top of their free year of DirecTV Now,” said the company in a statement.

Customers need not surrender their existing DirecTV Now service. Hulu’s limited commercials plan comes along for the ride for one year. T-Mobile will send affected customers a promotional code they can use to sign up over the next several weeks.

No word on if customers can also upgrade to the $11.99 no-commercial plan and receive a partial credit.