Spectrum workers on strike during the 2017 Labor Day parade in New York City. (Image courtesy: IBEW/Local 3)

New York City officials are giving Charter Communications 10 days to send $6 million in unpaid franchise and royalty fees or make a strong and credible case for why it shouldn’t pay, with likely litigation and the possible non-renewal of Spectrum’s contract to supply cable service on the line if the mayor isn’t satisfied.

In a letter addressed to Charter CEO Thomas Rutledge, New York Mayor Bill De Blasio accused the company of deliberately shorting the city’s share of revenue from Spectrum’s advertising sales, calculating the city’s cut based on the lower net amount collected after expenses, instead of on gross revenue, as the contract requires. The mayor also claims Charter is withholding royalty revenue from an ancillary business Charter partly owns.

“Charter Spectrum has proven time and time again that they’re unwilling to play by the rules,” the mayor told the Daily News. “This is money that can be reinvested in our communities instead of going into Charter’s coffers as they continue to hike rates for New Yorkers. [This latest] default is another thing we’ll take into consideration when their contract expires in 2020.”

Charter’s Endless Labor Problems Upset New York Officials

Charter is already in hot water with New York officials over its treatment of workers represented by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 3, which have been on strike since March 2017. The highly skilled technicians were incensed when they learned hard-fought benefits were being clawed back by Charter, even as the company paid its CEO a record-breaking $98 million in compensation.

Mayor de Blasio

Over 1,800 middle class workers represented by IBEW Local 3 have suffered greatly over the past two years, according to labor reports. Many have had to cash in retirement savings, some have lost their cars or homes to foreclosure, others face mounting medical bills, in addition to family pressure at home. The union argues it is one of the last bastions to protect all middle-income earners from a race to the bottom mentality that is reducing wages and benefits. When a union worker is replaced with a less-skilled contractor, the pay and benefits Charter offers are significantly lower. Those technicians, regardless of their intentions, are also often poorly trained and risk alienating customers when repairs are incomplete or fail.

Many politicians in New York City have sided with the union strikers and have deplored the seemingly endless strike. Time Warner Cable, in contrast, had reasonably good relations with its unionized workforce. Prior to the merger, the biggest cable vs. labor union friction in the city was between the Communications Workers of America and Cablevision, which began after the CWA started organizing workers in Brooklyn and the Bronx in 2012.

With the Charter dispute approaching its second anniversary, the cable company has been spending subscriber dollars on a slick effort to convince its replacement workers to team up with the cable company to vote for decertification of IBEW Local 3 with the National Labor Relations Board.

Ironically, the same company that has dragged its feet settling the dispute has sent email to replacement workers claiming the union has done a lousy and ineffective job… of wearing down Charter.

In a Jan. 31 internal email obtained by In These Times, Charter Communications regional vice president of New York City operations, John Quigley, told workers, “In my opinion, Local 3 has not earned the right to represent you. Over the past several years they have misled their members, led them out on a strike without a clear plan, mishandled almost every aspect of the strike, made it very clear what they think of employees who are working with us today, and continue to make empty threats about harming our business. We hope that you vote ‘no’ and give us a chance to continue to make Charter a great place to work together.”

Race to the Bottom for Workers, Higher Rates for You

If Charter is successful in organizing replacement workers to side with the cable company and vote in larger numbers than the strikers, the current union representation will essentially end, along with the strike, handing total victory to Charter Communications. The cable company will likely impose its own terms on workers shortly afterwards. Critics claim that should be a familiar story for Spectrum subscribers.

“The company is basically union busting in New York City, and they’ve come in, raised rates on people and set their own terms because they hold a monopoly right now and there’s really no one to stop them from doing what they’re doing,” Troy Walcott, a striking worker, told In These Times.

With ongoing controversies with Charter on both the state and local levels, the company is likely to face increased scrutiny if the cable operator applies for a franchise renewal with the city next year, assuming state regulators do not move to enforce their own July 2018 decision to effectively kick Charter Communications out of New York State.

Brindisi, as he appeared in an ad slamming Charter Spectrum in the summer of 2018.

Rep. Anthony Brindisi (D-N.Y.) today introduced a bill in Congress to force cable operators fined by a state telecommunications regulator to publicly reveal the actual performance of their internet services, subscriber counts, and a complete price listing including all fees and surcharges.

The Transparency for Cable Consumers Act comes in response to New York’s experiences with Charter Communications, which was fined for failing to meet its commitments under a 2016 merger agreement allowing Charter to acquire Time Warner Cable. Brindisi made the cable company’s performance a core issue in his 2018 campaign, brazenly buying commercial time on Spectrum cable systems for 30-second ads slamming the cable company.

“I’ve heard from thousands of Upstate New Yorkers who are sick and tired of dealing with frequent rate hikes, poor customer service, and failed promises,” said Brindisi. “This is more than just an inconvenience. For families on fixed incomes, an unexpected rate hike could wreck their budget. And for people in rural communities, crawling internet speeds can take away their connection to jobs, health care, information, and important online services. When a company enters into an agreement, it should be required to hold up its part of the bargain.  We can’t keep giving these companies a free pass. If we don’t hold them accountable, nothing will change.”

Brindisi has bristled over the New York State Public Service Commission’s decision to repeatedly extend the deadline given to Charter to file an orderly exit plan winding down its cable operations in the state. The most recent extension was approved on Wednesday, now giving Charter Communications until April 5, 2019 to appeal the Commission’s decision and until May 9, 2019 to file its six-month exit plan.

Brindisi complains Spectrum is being allowed to linger even as consumers continue to contact his office with complaints about frequent rate hikes, slow internet speeds, and poor customer service. His December 2018 letter to the PSC asking the Commission to stop giving Charter additional time extensions has gone unanswered, according to Brindisi.

Brindisi’s bill attempts to walk a fine line around the federal government’s wholesale deregulation of the cable industry. Various deregulation measures stripped federal, state, and local officials of most of their powers to oversee the internet and Voice over IP telephone service. Cable television remains subject to some local oversight and regulation, but not in all areas. Many states also have so-called “state franchise” laws in place, which gives blanket authority for cable operators to offer cable television in the state without seeking a separate agreement with each community.

The Transparency for Cable Consumers Act, would require a cable or internet company to disclose information about its operations if it is fined by a state regulator:

• The number of cable and broadband internet customers in each county;
• The average cable bill and broadband internet bill amounts in each county;
• A full accounting of all fees charged customers in each county; and
• The average broadband internet speeds delivered in each county.

Rep. Anthony Brindisi (D-N.Y.) appeared on the House floor this afternoon to introduce the Transparency for Cable Consumers Act. (1:18)

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, with fellow Senate Democrats and FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel (upper left corner), speaks at the announcement of a new bill that would codify net neutrality as federal law.

Democrats in Congress this morning unveiled a new bill that would effectively reinstate the 2015 Open Internet rules repealed under the Trump Administration’s Republican-dominated Federal Communications Commission.

The new bill, “Save the Internet Act of 2019,” was hailed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) as a “pillar of economic opportunity” for the digital 21st century information economy and a bill that will stop internet service providers from raising broadband prices even higher.

“A full 86% of Americans oppose the Trump assault on net neutrality including 82% of Republicans,” Pelosi said at an announcement ceremony held in Washington this morning. “With the Save the Internet Act, Democrats are honoring the will of the people and restore the protections that do this — stop unjust discriminatory practices by ISPs that try to throttle the public’s browsing speed, block your internet access, and increase your costs. This is about freedom, this is about cost.”

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai announced his intention to repeal net neutrality in 2017, and despite tens of millions of letters protesting that decision, Pai began rolling back net neutrality rules last year.

The three-page bill was co-sponsored by 46 Democrats in the U.S. Senate. It codifies the language from the FCC’s 2015 Open Internet rules as a standalone federal law, no longer subject to reinterpretation or dismissal by the FCC. A companion bill is expected to be introduced in the House on Friday.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) implored Senate Republicans to get on board with Democrats to support the re-establishment of a level playing field on the internet, criticizing their lack of support during last year’s effort to resurrect net neutrality.

“Unfortunately, all but three Senate Republicans voted on behalf of the special interests,” Schumer said, noting the measure still passed the Senate in 2018 but ultimately was shelved by the then-Republican controlled House. “So now we have a Democratic House, and Republicans will have a second chance — there are second chances — to right the Trump Administration’s wrong.”

Here’s the Save The Internet Act of 2019 that nearly every Senate Democrat joined me in introducing today. 3 pages that will restore #NetNeutrality. Let’s pass it and make the internet free and open again. #SaveTheNet pic.twitter.com/BCYtcmcMe3

— Ed Markey (@SenMarkey) March 6, 2019

Net neutrality has faced multiple legal challenges and intense lobbying by the telecommunications industry, especially by large cable and phone companies that generally oppose the concept, claiming it would impede management of their networks and block the creation of new innovative services that could deliver extra bandwidth on demand. Telecom companies also complain content providers like Netflix unfairly utilize their networks without fair compensation.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Senate Democrats introduce the Save the Internet Act of 2019, a bill re-establishing net neutrality as federal law. (31:35)

Comcast and an independent contractor the cable giant relied on to perform repairs and installations in northern California and Washington have agreed to settle a class action lawsuit on behalf of 4,500 technicians who claimed they were forced to lie about meal breaks they could not actually take and were underpaid $8.7 million dollars.

O.C. Communications of Elk Grove, Calif. and Comcast have jointly agreed to settle the lawsuit with a settlement payment of $7.5 million to provide restitution to thousands of contract technicians who were ordered to lie about their work hours and mandatory break times.

The plaintiffs claimed the contracting firm repeatedly ordered workers to claim meal breaks they were rarely allowed to actually take — forced to continue working at job sites to fulfill an unreasonable work schedule. The plaintiffs also submitted evidence that workers’ time cards were forged or manipulated to undercount work hours and paperwork showing reasonable work-related expenses went unreimbursed.

The plaintiffs claimed they were well on their way to proving O.C. Communications, hired by Comcast, flagrantly violated the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act and state laws governing wages and labor conditions in California and Washington.

“The gross settlement amount of $7,500,000 […] represents more than 86% of the approximate $8.7 million that we calculated in unpaid wages that would have been owed to all class members if each class member had been able to prove that he or she worked 2.5 hours off the clock in every workweek during the relevant time period,” the plaintiffs said.

The lawsuit was dispensed with through an elaborate mediation process involving both O.C. Communications and Comcast.

Verizon, the country’s leading provider of millimeter wave 5G wireless broadband, is promising to expand service nationwide, but admits it will only service urban areas where the economics of small cell/fiber network infrastructure makes economic sense.

At the Mobile World Congress conference in Barcelona, Spain, Verizon’s vice president of technology planning told PC that when it launches its mobile 5G network later this spring, home wireless internet service will come along for the ride.

“It is one network, based on 5G, supporting multiple use cases,” Verizon’s Adam Koeppe said. “Enterprise, small/medium business, consumer, mobility, fixed. When the 5G network is built, you have a fixed and mobile play that’s basically native to the deployment you’re doing.”

That means Verizon’s millimeter wave 5G network is designed to be shared by everyone and everything, including businesses, residential customers, cell phone users on the go, Internet of Things applications like smart meters and intelligent traffic systems, and more. But that network will not be everywhere Verizon or Verizon Wireless currently provides service.

“Our deployments of millimeter wave are focused on urban centers. It’s where the people are, where the consumption is,” Koeppe said.

Verizon faces significant costs building out its 5G wireless network in areas where it does not already offer FiOS fiber to the home service. Verizon’s 5G network is dependent on a fiber optic-fed network of small cells placed on top of utility and light poles at least every few city blocks. That means Verizon is most likely to get a reasonable return on its investment placing its 5G network in urban downtown areas and high wireless traffic suburban zones, such as around event venues, large shopping centers and entertainment districts. The company has chosen to deploy 5G in some residential areas, but only within large city limits. So far, it has generally steered clear of residential suburbs in favor of older gentrified city neighborhoods with plenty of closely-spaced multi-dwelling apartments, condos, and homes, as well as in urban centers with converted lofts or apartments.

Koeppe

Rural areas are definitely off Verizon’s list because the millimeter waves Verizon prefers to use do not travel very far, making it very expensive to deploy the technology to serve a relatively small number of customers.

Other carriers are not committing to large scale 5G deployments either.

At a debate held earlier today at Georgetown Law’s Institute for Technology Law & Policy, former FCC commissioner Mignon Clyburn, now a paid lobbyist for T-Mobile, warned that unless T-Mobile was allowed to merge with Sprint, its deployment of 5G will only happen in “very limited areas.”

Sprint has plans to introduce its own flavor of 5G, which won’t use millimeter wave frequencies, by June in nine U.S. cities. T-Mobile has talked about deploying 5G on existing large cell towers, which means one tower will serve many more customers than Verizon’s small cells. But with more customers sharing that bandwidth, the effective speed customers will see is likely to be only incrementally better than T-Mobile’s existing 4G LTE network. AT&T is initially moving in the same direction as T-Mobile, meaning many customers will be sharing the same bandwidth. That may explain why AT&T’s current 5G hotspot service plan also comes with a 15 GB data cap.

Verizon says its millimeter wave network will, by geography and design, limit the number of people sharing each small cell, making data caps unnecessary for its 5G fixed wireless home broadband replacement, which delivers download speeds of around 300 Mbps on average.

“We engineer the network to give the customer what they need when they need it, and the results speak for themselves,” Koeppe said.

Verizon is already selling its 5G service in limited areas for $50 a month to Verizon Wireless customers, $70 a month for non-customers. There are no data caps or speed throttles.

Based on the plans of all four major U.S. carriers, consumers should only expect scattered rollouts of 5G this year, and only in certain neighborhoods at first. It will take several years to build out the different iterations of 5G technology, with millimeter wave taking the longest to expand because of infrastructure and potential permitting issues.