Testimony to Federal Communications Commission
Re: Charter’s Petition to Sunset Merger-related Deal Conditions
July 22, 2020

Stop the Cap! is an all-consumer, all-volunteer advocacy group created in 2008 to oppose data caps on home broadband internet service. Our group does not accept corporate contributions of any kind and our only motivation is to promote better, more affordable broadband service without the imposition of unnecessary data caps or usage-based pricing schemes. We have submitted comments to the FCC in multiple proceedings over the last decade, including the 2016 merger of Charter Communications and Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks.[1] We feel well-qualified to share our views on this issue because our group recommended the FCC ban data caps as a condition of approving this merger.

We are strongly opposed to Charter’s petition to sunset the order that prohibits Charter from imposing data caps and usage-based pricing for a period of 7-years. We are disappointed the company has petitioned the FCC to do so in the middle of a historic pandemic and economic downturn rivaling the Great Depression. Never before has reliable and affordable broadband service been more important to the American people. From at-home learning to tele-commuting for work, online health care and teleconferencing, updates on the coronavirus and testing, filing for unemployment or applying for a job – all require the use of the internet to fully maintain social distancing to keep people safe. Charter’s untimely petition demonstrates it does not have the best interests of its customers at heart.

Consumers Hate Data Caps and Usage-based Pricing Schemes

Time Warner Cable, which today is part of Charter/Spectrum, learned quickly that customers loathe data caps and usage-based pricing schemes. An effort to replace flat-rate unlimited internet with a compulsory usage-based billing scheme flopped after the company announced it would expand a data cap trial to customers in parts of New York, Texas, and North Carolina in April 2009.[2] The trial caused a media sensation in cities like Rochester, San Antonio, Austin, and the Triangle region around Greensboro in North Carolina. Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) proposed federal legislation banning data caps as a result. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) criticized the caps as anti-consumer and anti-competitive.

Just two weeks after word leaked about the expanded data cap trial and protests erupted, then-Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt permanently shelved the plan. That was the last attempt Time Warner Cable would make to impose a compulsory data cap and usage-based pricing scheme on its customers.

Subsequent efforts to test optional usage-based pricing plans were spectacular failures for Time Warner Cable. Consumers simply do not want compulsory data-capped internet service or usage-based pricing. Inadequate competition is the key reason such unpopular plans still exist today.

Time Warner Cable management shared their experiences with data caps with investors while exploring how customers would react to two optional usage-based discount programs the company offered consumers for a time in the early 2010s.

In 2013, Time Warner Cable welcomed new broadband customers with an unlimited Standard Broadband plan for $44.99/month. (Today, Charter’s Standard Internet plan starts at a less affordable $65/month, although it delivers substantially faster speed than Time Warner Cable’s basic plan did in 2013.) The voluntary usage-capped plan that Time Warner Cable offered that year provided a paltry $5/month discount off the price of Standard Broadband if subscribers agreed to keep usage under 5 GB a month. The cost of that usage-based plan was $39.99/month. In that year, average broadband usage was approximately 28 GB a month, according to the company. Assuming a customer enrolled in the usage capped plan accidentally consumed the average amount of data most customers used, their total bill including overlimit fees would have been $62.99, far more than the cost of the unlimited option. Consumers fearing unplanned bill shock made the company’s traditional unlimited plans far more attractive.

Former Time Warner Cable CEO Rob Marcus told investors in September 2013:

“Most customers today — the vast, vast majority — take our unlimited offering and I think over time most customers will continue to take unlimited,” said Marcus, who was serving as Time Warner Cable’s chief operating officer at the time. “They value it and will be willing to pay for it. I think that is great and we have no desire to change that.”[3]

In the spring of 2014, Marcus told investors at a Deutsche Bank investor conference that its attempt to introduce a more generous, optional 30 GB usage plan was also a major failure.

“If you take the 30GB a month and compare it to what median usage is, let’s say high 20s — 27GB a month, that would suggest a whole lot of customers would do well by taking the 30GB service,” Marcus said. “Notwithstanding that, very few customers — in the thousands — have taken the usage-based tiers and I think that speaks to the value they place on unlimited — not bad because we plan to continue to offer unlimited for as far out as we can possibly see.”[4]

Based on Marcus’ figures, less than 1% of Time Warner Cable customers enrolled in one of their usage-based billing schemes.

Coincidentally, just prior to Charter’s announcement it would merge with Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks, the company suddenly shelved its own data caps.[5]

Despite the overwhelming distaste for data caps and usage pricing in the home broadband marketplace, many providers have ignored consumer sentiment and implemented data caps averaging 1 TB, with a punishing overlimit fee that averages an extra $10 for each additional 50 GB increment of usage.

The Seven-Year Ban on Charter Imposing Data Caps Remains Warranted

Stop the Cap! argues, and the FCC stated in its May 5, 2016 “Memorandum Opinion and Order” granting the merger between Charter, Time Warner Cable, and Bright House Networks, that data caps can be an anticompetitive weapon to protect video profits, are a tool to earn even more revenue from subscribers, and can be symptomatic of a lack of competition in the broadband provider marketplace.

The FCC’s reasoning for the imposition of a 7-year ban on Charter imposing data caps was to protect consumers and competition. In fact, the FCC found that absent conditions, the merger deal Charter proposed was not in the public interest. Specifically, the FCC concluded that Charter’s desire to protect its video profits “will increase incentives to impose data caps and usage-based prices in order to make watching online video more expensive, and in particular more expensive than subscribing to a traditional pay-TV bundle.”[6] To approve the deal, the FCC required “New Charter” to comply with certain conditions to clearly demonstrate “its claimed public interest benefits so that the transaction’s benefits will clearly outweigh the likely public interest harms.”[7]

Nearly five years after the merger was approved, Charter is now petitioning the FCC to sunset various deal conditions early, including a prohibition on implementing data caps or usage-based billing. Charter’s petition narrowly focuses its argument on the state of the competitive video marketplace.

Since the 2016 order granting the merger, some consumers have chosen to drop Spectrum’s TV packages in favor of new linear TV streaming packages like Sling TV, YouTube TV, and AT&T TV Now, while a potentially larger number have chosen on-demand video content from Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime Video, and others.

Charter argues the presence of these “OVD” services and their relative success is evidence that data caps already imposed by other companies have not stifled their growth. Charter’s core argument is that the prohibition on data caps imposed by the FCC leaves Charter on an unlevel playing field where other providers are free to impose data caps while it cannot until the 7-year ban sunsets.

But the likely outcome of rescinding the ban on data caps would result in direct harm to consumers, potentially deterring usage either by limiting the quality of streamed video to keep data consumption down, or foregoing certain viewing opportunities. Charter seems to forget that other cable operators in the marketplace did not approach the FCC requesting approval of the largest cable industry merger deal in at least a decade – a merger the FCC declared was not in the public interest without conditions like the data cap ban.

We submit that any imposition of data caps on residential broadband service is anti-consumer and anti-competitive, providing strong evidence of the pricing power of a concentrated, uncompetitive marketplace for high-speed internet service – one that became even more concentrated with the merger of Charter, Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks. The FCC itself found no discernable justification for usage-based billing or data caps in its 2016 Memorandum and Order approving the transaction:

“While wired BIAS providers sometimes claim there are cost-based and efficiency justifications for implementing usage-based billing policies, the Applicants fail to advance such a justification or demonstrate any cost-based or efficiency enhancing rationale for the implementation of data caps or UBP.”[8]

Charter’s petition also conveniently ignores the question of competitiveness in the high-speed internet marketplace. High-speed internet is required to take advantage of online video streaming services. Few companies would alienate their customers with unpopular usage-based pricing plans unless they understood consumers lacked good alternatives. The FCC’s 2016 Memorandum and Order noted the 7-year ban on data caps came partly as a result of concern about the lack of choice in broadband providers (emphasis ours):

“Seven years may also provide the high-speed BIAS provider market sufficient time to develop further with additional investments in fiber from established wireline BIAS providers, Wireless 5G technology, use of smartgrid fiber for broadband, additional overbuilding, and other potential competitors to traditional wired BIAS providers. It is our expectation that these developments will foster competition in the market to make the anticompetitive use of data caps less tenable in the future.”[9]

We submit there is already evidence that strong competition deters the imposition of unpopular data caps or usage-based pricing schemes. Comcast has conspicuously not imposed data caps or usage-based pricing in the northeast and mid-Atlantic regions where Verizon FiOS is its largest competitor.[10] Charter claimed in its petition that Verizon FiOS engages in usage-based pricing, which we argue is in error. As evidence, Charter cites Verizon’s prepaid offerings, which do not involve usage pricing.[11] In fact, Verizon FiOS has marketed its internet service without any disclosed data caps or usage pricing since its inception.

Stop the Cap! submits there has been only an incremental increase in competition among home broadband providers in the United States over the last four years. Fiber overbuilders have made some progress, but have also been hampered by pole attachment disputes, long permit and easement delays, and the need for more investment.[12]

AT&T has successfully completed its fiber expansion program, largely undertaken as a condition of the Commission’s 2015 approval of AT&T’s merger with DirecTV.[13] But AT&T is already the incumbent provider in those markets, which limits competitive benefits. One relatively new entrant, Google Fiber, once cited as a new and potentially strong competitor in the broadband marketplace has clearly retrenched from further expansion, at least for now.[14]

The launch of 5G as a wireless home broadband replacement has been modest, limited to a handful of neighborhoods in a very small number of cities. While 5G will certainly deliver an incremental upgrade to wireless mobile device users, its prospect as a direct competitor to wired cable and phone company home broadband products is questionable.[15] In December 2019, cable executives scoffed at 5G’s potential to deliver serious competition in the home broadband business. Dexter Goei, CEO of Altice USA, called available 5G plans “deeply flawed” because 5G service is not financially viable outside of densely populated urban areas.[16]

Stop the Cap! believes as of the date of this filing, there is still insufficient competition in the broadband marketplace. An early sunset of Charter’s prohibition on data caps will once again make the original merger deal not in the public interest. We agree with the FCC that strong and robust competition will likely eventually resolve the data cap issue, but we see no evidence of any potential marketplace entrant having sufficient scale and market share within the next two years to deter incumbent providers from engaging in anticompetitive data caps and usage-based pricing abuse.

Charter’s Claim It Has No Plans to Impose Data Caps or Usage-Based Pricing, Despite Lobbying for Permission to Do So is Suspect

Charter’s public comments on this issue are not reassuring:

“Once the conditions expire, Charter will weigh the options as we would any business decision, but is currently not even considering implementing data caps or charging for interconnection and has no plan to do so. What Charter seeks is a level playing field so that we can continue to grow and provide superior service to our customers across the country.”[17]

Charter can easily argue it isn’t currently considering implementing data caps because the earliest date that prohibition would sunset is nearly a year away: May 18, 2021. It is highly likely that “weighing the options” would include an assessment by Charter of the existing marketplace and level of competition. That would also include an analysis of Charter’s broadband pricing power, price elasticity and what some industry executives have suggested is broadband’s “long runway” for pricing. Broadband providers enjoy a scarcity in competition and a high demand for their product, which makes price increases inevitable. S&P Global quotes Kagan analyst Tony Lenoir noting “that in the long run, the industry could see more conversation around data caps as usage continues to grow.”[18]

It is questionable why a company like Charter would spend its valuable resources attempting to sunset deal conditions early only to reject taking full advantage of implementing data caps during the next two years before the conditions would have originally expired.

Charter’s petition is in direct conflict with what it argued before the Commission in 2016:

“Charter in particular emphasizes its aversion to data caps, stating that instead of enforcing usage limits it chooses to market the absence of data caps as a competitive advantage. Charter also argues there is a strong business case for not implementing caps. Specifically, Charter explains that it terminated its enforcement of the usage limits trial in the AUP in January 2012 because the benefits to customers of continuing the trial (minimizing bandwidth consumption to preserve a positive Internet experience) would not exceed the program’s costs. Charter also states that caps create marketing challenges because they complicate consumer purchasing decisions. Furthermore, Charter argues that data caps increase churn among subscribers. Finally, Charter states that it plans to distinguish itself from its competitors based largely on the quality and speed of its broadband offerings and that data caps undermine that marketing message.”[19]

Charter’s apparent understanding of how much consumers dislike usage caps and usage-based pricing is admirable, and no doubt was influenced by the lackluster reception Time Warner Cable received when it trialed optional data-capped tiers referenced above. Charter has also emphasized the fact it imposes no data caps in most of its broadband advertising to this day. But when a company faces few competitors, there are no market forces deterring Charter from changing its mind. Only the FCC’s 7-year ban on data caps has assured Charter’s customers they will not face the near-term prospect of data caps, usage pricing, and a possible regime of overlimit fees and costly add-on plans promising to restore unlimited service for an additional $30-40 a month.[20] [21]

Broadband Usage Growth During the Pandemic Exposes the Folly of Data Cap/Usage Pricing Arguments

After an unprecedented number of Americans remained in their homes to work, learn, and entertain themselves while socially distancing to stop the spread of COVID-19, broadband providers saw historic growth in network usage. In fact, a report from OpenVault, which collects U.S. cable subscribers’ usage behaviors and puts them into data sets, found a 47% increase in broadband traffic year-over-year during the first quarter of 2020.[22]

Average broadband consumption increased from 273.5 GB in the first quarter of 2019 to 402.5 GB in the first quarter of 2020. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, OpenVault had projected that average consumption would reach 425 GB by the end of the year. Instead, due in large part to subscriber self-quarantines and work from home policies, OpenVault said the average monthly usage for April was on track to top 460 GB.

OpenVault also predicted at least 10% of broadband subscribers, an unprecedented number, are now using in excess of 1 TB a month, which could subject them to usage penalties or overlimit fees if their provider has data caps. About 1.2% of customers consume more than 2 TB a month, which would likely result in additional monthly overlimit charges of $100, using Comcast’s overlimit penalty policy as an example.[23]

The average Charter Spectrum internet customer exceeds OpenVault’s averages. Charter Communications disclosed to investors in May 2020 that the average broadband-only Spectrum customer averaged over 600 GB of usage per month, increasing by more than 20% since the fourth quarter of 2019.[24] Despite the higher usage, Charter’s only significant disclosure of unusual first quarter capital expenditures was $87 million of mobile costs. Charter also told investors (emphasis ours), “Charter currently expects 2020 cable capital expenditures to decline as a percentage of cable revenue versus 2019.”

In other words, the costs to support rapidly increasing usage of Spectrum’s broadband service are not significant enough to require unusual investment. There is no evidence that justifies a need to implement usage caps or usage-based pricing. The cable industry’s largest lobbyist and trade organization, the NCTA, has touted how the cable industry has taken COVID-19 related traffic growth in stride, well prepared to manage current and future traffic increases.[25]

In fact, since the merger closed, Charter stock has more than doubled in value, from $227.41 on May 18, 2016 – the date the merger deal closed, to over $560 as of today, demonstrating the company’s current products, services, and pricing are more than adequate to deliver financial results that provide an excellent return on shareholder investments.[26]

We urge the Commission to carefully review claims that usage pricing and data caps deliver savings to any customer. Historically, any modest savings from discounts are more than absorbed by regular rate increases and occasional overage fees.

Charter’s claim that restricting it from imposing data caps “hamstrings Charter’s ability to allocate the costs of maintaining its network in a way that is efficient and fair for all of its customers—above-average, average, and light users alike” is simply not supported by the available evidence.[27] Except for the aforementioned, barely marketed offer of a slight discount for users agreeing to limit usage to 5 or 30 GB per month previously offered by Time Warner Cable (that has long been discontinued), and a somewhat similar discount offered in 2013 by Comcast which attracted almost no customers, no major cable operator or phone company has priced internet service fairly for “light users.”[28]

Charter, like many providers, already balances network costs and usage by offering different prices and speed tiers to meet the needs of its light, moderate and heavy users. The result is that Charter still collects increasing amounts of revenue from light and moderate use customers through periodic rate increases and heavy users often voluntarily upgrade to premium priced, faster speed tiers that more than cover any increased usage costs.

Every provider that implements data caps also claims those caps will affect almost none of their customers. Today, many providers choose a monthly usage allowance of around 1 TB, which sounds generous. But as we have shown above, average usage is rising quickly. But at the same time, costs to provide the service have not. The result has been costly broadband service that is also highly profitable. Giving a company like Charter permission to begin imposing usage caps in 2021 will leave many of its customers effectively trapped with that single monopoly provider, with the only alternative often a telephone company capable of providing only slow speed DSL service that does not meet the FCC’s standard for broadband speed.

Charter’s Performance Post-Merger is One of “Persistent Non-Compliance”

Stop the Cap! also reminds the Commission Charter Communications established a record of egregiously failing to meet its obligations to the State of New York. As a participant in the proceedings by the New York State Department of Public Service/Public Service Commission (NYDPS) to review Charter’s 2016 merger proposal, Stop the Cap! advocated for deal conditions including a requirement to expand its service area to cover unserved, rural areas of New York State.

The NYDPS ultimately approved the merger with the understanding Charter would expand service to 145,000 homes and businesses in largely rural, unserved areas on a strict timeline. In 2018, Charter failed to meet its merger obligations in what the NYDPS called “persistent noncompliance” and the Commission ultimately revoked the company’s franchise in New York State.[29]

The various instances of misconduct included:

• The company’s repeated failures to meet deadlines;
• Charter’s attempts to skirt obligations to serve rural communities;
• Unsafe practices in the field;
• Its failure to fully commit to its obligations under the 2016 merger agreement; and
• The company’s purposeful obfuscation of its performance and compliance obligations to the Commission and its customers.

After lengthy negotiations and additional fines and revised buildout requirements, the NYDPS reversed its decision. Still, Charter has a history of failing to meet its commitments, and we argue that makes the company’s commitments suspect.

Conclusion

A 7-year commitment to not data cap customers is a very small price to pay for the approval of a colossal merger worth more than $70 billion dollars. A deal is a deal. For customers, a guaranteed reprieve from the implementation of data caps and usage pricing provides solace in these extremely difficult times. It assures customers of internet service they can use as needed without worrying about a usage meter or overlimit fees.

Charter Communications has been extremely successful marketing its broadband products without data caps and clearly does not need them to achieve the kind of financial results that have doubled the company’s stock price. In most industries, adequate competition would dissuade companies from attempting to extract more money from customers with no discernable improvement in service. Absent that competition, some cable operators and phone companies have imposed arbitrary and unjustified usage caps as a result of market power.

To argue to also be allowed to impose similar unjustified usage caps as representative of a level playing field is ludicrous. It would be one of those rare cases where companies competed to see who could raise prices the most and the fastest.

Americans already pay too much for internet access. It is crucial for the FCC to do all it can to protect consumers and foster true competition that can demonstrably bring prices down and force unnecessary data caps from the marketplace. For now, the way to protect consumers is easy and clear: tell Charter a deal is a deal and the company has just two years left of a sensible, pro-consumer requirement that it not implement usage caps or usage-based billing.

[1] Stop the Cap! Comments on 2016 Merger of Charter, Time Warner Cable, et al. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/60001328856.pdf

[2] “Time Warner Cable shelves some Internet cap plans” https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=7368388&page=1

[3] “Time Warner Cable’s Incoming CEO Promises to Keep Unlimited Broadband Tier” https://stopthecap.com/2013/09/12/time-warner-cables-incoming-ceo-promises-to-keep-unlimited-broadband-tier/

[4] “Time Warner Cable Admits Usage-Based Pricing is a Big Failure – Only Thousands Enrolled” https://stopthecap.com/2014/03/13/time-warner-cable-admits-usage-based-pricing-is-a-big-failure-only-thousands-enrolled/

[5] “FCC Demands Details About Charter’s Suddenly Retired Usage Caps” https://stopthecap.com/2015/09/23/fcc-demands-details-about-charters-suddenly-retired-usage-caps/

[6] May 5, 2016 Memorandum Opinion and Order, page 4, executive summary number 7.

[7] May 5, 2016 Memorandum Opinion and Order, page 4, executive summary item numbers 8-9.

[8] 2016 Memorandum and Order, page 42, paragraph 84

[9] 2016 Memorandum and Order, page 44, paragraph 86

[10] https://www.xfinity.com/support/articles/data-usage-find-area

[11] Charter petition, page 22.

[12] “Access Issue Slows Rollout of Fiber Optic Network in Erie” https://www.goerie.com/news/20190609/access-issue-slows-rollout-of-fiber-optic-network-in-erie

[13] “FCC Grants Approval of AT&T-DirecTV Transaction” https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-334561A1.pdf

[14] “Why Google Fiber stopped its plans to expand to more cities” https://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-world/national/article110655177.html

[15] “What You Need to Know About 5G in 2020” https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/08/technology/personaltech/5g-mobile-network.html

[16] “5G Broadband is a threat to cable companies but execs aren’t worried.” https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/01/5g-broadband-is-a-threat-to-cable-companies-but-execs-arent-worried.html

[17] “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/

[18] “Broadband ARPU is Growing As Homes and Businesses Ask for Faster Speeds” https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/broadband-arpu-growing-as-homes-businesses-ask-for-faster-speeds-analysts-say-58637057

[19] 2016 Memorandum and Order, page 38, paragraph 78

[20] Comcast Xfinity Unlimited Data Pricing https://www.xfinity.com/support/articles/exp-unlimited-data

[21] Sparklight Unlimited Data Pricing https://www.sparklight.com/internet

[22] “Broadband usage spikes due to COVID-19” https://www.fiercetelecom.com/operators/due-to-covid-19-broadband-usage-spikes-47-q1-nearly-surpassing-all-2020-s-projections

[23] Comcast Xfinity Overlimit Fees https://www.xfinity.com/support/articles/data-usage-exceed-usage

[24] Charter 1^st Quarter 2020 Results https://ir.spectrum.com/news-releases/news-release-details/charter-announces-first-quarter-2020-results

[25] “Why Cable’s Broadband Network is Handling the Pandemic and Ready for the Future” https://www.ncta.com/whats-new/why-cables-broadband-network-is-handling-the-pandemic-and-ready-for-the-future?utm_source=NCTA+Updates&utm_campaign=a959c28eb0-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_04_29_05_11&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_58679950e4-a959c28eb0-90061877

[26] Charter Historical Stock Pricing for May 18, 2016 https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/CHTR/historical?siteid=mktw&date=may%2018%2C%202016&x=0&y=0

[27] Charter petition, page 23, paragraph 2

[28] “Comcast testing a 5GB plan for subscribers. But don’t worry, you get a $5 discount!” https://gigaom.com/2013/08/01/comcast-testing-a-5gb-plan-for-subscribers-but-dont-worry-you-get-a-5-discount/

[29] PSC RESCINDS CHARTER MERGER APPROVAL https://apps.cio.ny.gov/apps/mediaContact/public/view.cfm?parm=9FA0F8EE-EFFA-9F23-60B0A25F0043BDD8

Several progressives were surprised to learn that CREDO Mobile (formerly Working Assets Wireless), a mobile virtual network operator that advocates for progressive causes, today closed down its CREDO Action activism arm and announced it was ceasing all further involvement in activism campaigns.

The CREDO Action website, which had recently been protesting against perceived Republican bias against the impeachment of President Donald Trump, was the advocacy arm of CREDO, a self-described social change organization that funds grassroots activism campaigns and progressive non-profit groups with revenue earned from CREDO branded credit cards, CREDO Mobile phone service and CREDO Energy. The group, originally launched in 1985 under the Working Assets Long Distance brand, had been integrally involved in many progressive campaigns, including preserving net neutrality, and has been a strong supporter of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

No explanation was given on the CREDO Action website, beyond thanking supporters and linking to a video reviewing the group’s major accomplishments in 2019. Many progressives were shocked by the surprising announcement, which came this afternoon without warning.

Holy cow, I cannot believe it: @CREDOMobile shut down CREDO Action. A terrible day for progressive activism. https://t.co/iSCLwbyU3d

— Lauren Miller (@laurenm) January 7, 2020

The decision is likely to cause the loss of jobs for at least a dozen of CREDO Action’s leadership and campaign staffers, who managed the group’s outreach and calls to action.

Sad but true: CREDO Action shut down today.

We put together a document with info about some of the brilliant & talented folks who are now out of a job at no fault of their own: https://t.co/4faUB8rj0q

Below I’ll share the email we’re sending to the CREDO email list today. https://t.co/jP2q04a2ZH

— Josh Nelson (@josh_nelson) January 7, 2020

honestly, still processing this news.

CREDO Action has been a critical part of the progressive infrastructure for years, and I’ve been honored to work alongside many of them. they’re colleagues, fellow campaigners, and friends.

this is a tough loss, and i want to know more. https://t.co/AYTz2kMlNz

— John Lee Brougher (@johnbrougher) January 7, 2020

Many of the same civil rights groups that regularly advocate their support of giant corporate telecom mergers are back once again to show their support for the controversial T-Mobile/Sprint merger. But that support does not come for free.

A “Memorandum of Understanding” (MOU) that includes “philanthropy and community investment” that does not exclude direct financial contributions from the two wireless companies to these civil rights groups is a major part of a new “understanding” announced today between several organizations founded to represent minority interests and T-Mobile and Sprint that the wireless companies hope will deliver an imprimatur for the troubled merger deal with regulators and politicians.

The key items in the MOU:

1. Standing up a national diversity and inclusion council comprised of non-employees from diverse groups, including each of the multicultural leadership organizations that are party to the MOU, and other highly esteemed community leaders to facilitate open communication over the development, monitoring, and evaluation of diversity initiatives and to provide advice to the New T-Mobile senior executives.

2. With the help and input of the council, developing and implementing a Diversity Strategic Plan addressing each of the key elements of the MOU and reflecting best practices in the industry.

3. Increasing the diversity of its leadership and workforce at all levels including its Board governance, to reflect the diversity of the communities in which it operates.

4. Making a targeted effort to increase partnerships, business, and procurement activities with diverse business enterprises in a range of categories such as financial and banking services, advertising, legal services and asset sales. New T-Mobile aims to become a member of the Billion Dollar Roundtable by 2025.

5. Expanding wireless offerings to low-income citizens, underserved minority populations and insular and rural areas, and to organizations serving these underserved communities [including] a significant philanthropic investment for institutions serving disadvantaged or underrepresented communities to support tech entrepreneurship and to bridge the gap in literacy.

The groups, most familiar to Stop the Cap! readers that have followed civil rights groups engaged in pay for play advocacy, include:

• National Urban League: A notorious friend of big cable and phone companies, the Urban League is a regular supporter of telecom mergers and opposes net neutrality.
• The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC): Brazenly photographs its executive leadership accepting big checks from AT&T and other telecom companies.
• National Action Network: Rev. Al Sharpton’s group loves to support telecom mergers and acquisitions and lobbies to block consumer protection regulation.
• UnidosUS: Receives most of its funding from corporate interests.
• Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC
• OCA – Asian Pacific American Advocates: One of Comcast’s special friends, OCA advocated against new consumer privacy rules two years ago claiming poor people want more intrusive ads.

In a joint statement, the groups urged the FCC to approve the T-Mobile/Sprint merger “so the combined New T-Mobile can definitively launch these enhanced diversity efforts and expansion of service to all communities included in the MOU.”

“T-Mobile is honored to partner with these visionary organizations to create an action plan of this magnitude that includes commitments to diversity and inclusion that are bolder than ever before,” John Legere, CEO of T-Mobile and CEO of New T-Mobile, said in a statement. “With this MOU, we have doubled down on ensuring we represent the communities we serve today and will serve as the New T-Mobile in the future. We are excited for the New T-Mobile to become a reality so we can get to work on delivering these commitments.”

Except in most cases, these kinds of arrangements serve mostly as window dressing, gussying up otherwise nakedly anti-consumer merger deals under the guise of serving minority or disadvantaged interests. Money often quietly flows between the corporate and the non-profit side, usually in the form of donations. Some groups may also offer token advisory board positions to executives, which usually cements an ongoing advocacy relationship.

Members of these civil rights organizations have a right to be puzzled why such groups are spending significant time and resources engaged in corporate advocacy. The interests of two major corporations cementing a multi-billion dollar merger deal and civil rights groups trying to fight discrimination and improve the lives of their constituents are often tangential, if not in direct opposition to each other. Apparently the money that usually comes with these arrangements matters much more.

Defenders of FCC Chairman Ajit Pai are rushing to defend the Republican majority’s likely support for an initiative to roll back the FCC’s 25/3Mbps speed standard embraced by his predecessor, Thomas Wheeler.

Johnny Kampis, writing for Watchdog.org, claims that broadband speed standard has had an adverse affect on solving America’s rural broadband gap.

After raising that standard, suddenly those areas with speeds below 10 mbps were lumped into the same group with those who could access speeds of 10-25 mbps, resulting in diminished focus on those areas where the broadband gap cut the deepest.

Raising the standard meant, too, that fans of big government could point to the suddenly higher percentage of the population that was “underserved” on internet speeds and call for more taxpayer money to solve that “problem.”

Kampis is relying on the talking points from the broadband industry, which also happens to support the same ideological interests of Watchdog.org’s benefactor, the corporate/foundation-funded Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity. The argument suggests that if you raise broadband standards, that opens the door to more communities to claim they too are presently underserved, which then would qualify them for government-funded broadband improvements.

Kampis’ piece, like many of those published on Watchdog.org, distorts reality with suggestions that communities with 50Mbps broadband service will now be ripe for government handouts. He depends on an unnamed source from an article written on Townhall.com and also quotes the CEO of Freedom Foundation of Minnesota, which is closely associated with the same Franklin Center that hosts Watchdog.org. Kampis’ piece relies on sourcing that is directly tied to the organization hosting his article.

In reality, rural broadband funding has several mechanisms in place which heavily favor unserved, rural areas, not communities that already have 50Mbps internet access. ISPs also routinely object to projects proposed within their existing service areas, declaring them already served, and much of the funding doled out by the Connect America Fund (CAF) Kampis suggests is a government handout are being given to telephone companies, not municipalities.

Kampis

Kampis is satisfied free market capitalism will eventually solve the rural broadband problem, despite two decades of lackluster or non-existent service in areas deemed unprofitable to serve.

“So while Pai’s critics denigrate him because his FCC is considering lowering that broadband standard, he’s just correcting an earlier mistake, with the realization that the free market, not big government, will solve the rural broadband gap if given enough time,” Kampis writes. “And returning to the old standards will help ensure that the focus will be placed squarely on the areas that need the most help.”

Kampis suggests that free market solution might be 5G wireless broadband, which can potentially serve rural populations less expensively than traditional wired broadband service. Communities only need wait another 5-10 years for that to materialize, if it does at all.

Kampis claims to be an investigative reporter, but he didn’t venture too far beyond regurgitating press releases and talking points from big phone companies and opponents of municipal broadband. If he had spent time reviewing correspondence sent to the FCC in response to the question of easing broadband speed standards, he would have discovered the biggest advocates for that are large phone companies and wireless carriers that stand to benefit the most from the change.

Following the money usually delivers a clearer, more fact-based explanation for what motivates players in the broadband industry. In this case, the 25Mbps speed standard has regularly been attacked by phone and wireless companies hoping to tap into government funds to build out their networks. Traditional phone companies are upset that the 25Mbps requirement means their typical rural broadband solution – DSL, usually won’t cut it. Wireless companies have also had a hard time assuring the FCC of consistent 25Mbps speeds, making it difficult for them to qualify for grants. AT&T wasn’t happy with a 10Mbps standard for wireless service either.

Incidentally, these are the same companies that have failed to solve the rural broadband gap all along. Most will continue not serving rural areas unless the government covers part of their costs. AT&T illustrates that with its own fixed wireless rural broadband solution, which came about grudgingly with the availability of CAF funding.

The dark money ATM network hides corporate contributions funneled into advocacy groups.

The free market broadband solution is rooted in meeting Return On Investment metrics. In short, if a home costs more to serve that a company can recoup in a short amount of time, that home will not be served unless either the homeowner or someone else covers the costs of providing the service. By wiping out the Obama Administration’s FCC speed standard, more ratepayer dollars will be directed to phone and wireless companies that will build less expensive and less-capable DSL and wireless networks instead of investing in more modern technology like fiber optics.

Mr. Kampis, and others, through their advocacy, claim their motive is a reduction in government waste. But in reality, and not by coincidence, their brand of journalism hoodwinks readers into advocating against their best interests of getting fast, future-proofed broadband, and instead hand more money to companies like AT&T. The Franklin Center refuses to reveal its donor list, of course, but SourceWatch reported the Center is heavily dependent on funding from DonorsTrust, which cloaks the identity of its corporate donors. Mother Jones went further and called it “a dark money ATM.”

Companies like AT&T didn’t end up this lucky by accident. It donates to dark money groups that fund various sock puppet and astroturf operations that avoid revealing where the money comes from, while the groups get to claim they are advocating for taxpayers. By no coincidence, these groups frequently don’t attack corporate welfare, especially if the recipient is also a donor.

New York’s rural broadband initiative is on track to deliver near 100% broadband coverage to all New York homes and has speed requirements and a ban on hard data caps.

Raising speed standards does not harm rural broadband expansion. In New York, Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s broadband expansion campaign is on track to reach the remaining 150,000 homes still without broadband access by sometime next year. His program relies on broadband expansion funding that comes with requirements that insist providers offer internet access capable of at least 25Mbps (with a preference for 100Mbps) for $60 or less and a ban on hard usage caps. Kampis claims the 25Mbps speed standard hampers progress, yet New York is the first state in the nation moving towards 100% broadband availability for its residents at that speed or better.

Chairman Pai’s solution is little more than a gift to the country’s largest phone and wireless companies that would like to capture more CAF money for themselves while delivering the least amount of service possible (and keep money out of the hands of municipalities that want to build their own more capable networks). The evidence is quite clear — relying on the same companies that have allowed the rural broadband crisis to continue for more than 20 years is a stupendously bad idea that only sounds brilliant after some corporation writes a large check.

Sock Puppets: Ostensibly “independent” people quietly on the payroll of Big Telecom companies and advocating their positions.

“Net Neutrality would not improve consumer welfare or protect the public interest,” came the considered view of one Jeffrey A. Eisenach, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee in September 2014. “The potential costs of Net Neutrality regulation are both sweeping and severe. It is best understood as an effort by one set of private interests to enrich itself by using the power of the state.”

Mr. Eisenach was introduced on the printed formal agenda as a “visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.” If one looked at a transcript of his written testimony, they would find he also co-served as “co-chair of NERA Economic Consulting’s Communications, Media and Internet Practice.” But his views could have effectively represented all the above and more.

The New York Times this week published a two-part article examining the thin lines between public policy scholars, lobbyists, researchers, advocates, corporations, and private citizens. It is an important piece that details the shady world of bought and paid for research, academia, corporate lawyers and lobbyists, and Washington lawmakers that too often accept what they are told without following the money.

On that September day back in 2014 Eisenach wanted his views to be attributed only to him.

Eisenach

“While I am here in my capacity as a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, the views I express are my own, should not be attributed to A.E.I. or to any of the organizations with which I am affiliated,” Eisenach told the Senate committee.

What was considerably less clear is the name of the client (or an affiliated trade organization) that has underwritten almost every one of a dozen studies he has published on internet-related issues from 2007-2016 — Verizon, the same company that shares his hostile views towards Net Neutrality.

Over the years, it has become difficult to tell whether Eisenach’s views, articles, and study findings are his own, those of his study sponsor, and/or those of his employer. Just tracking Eisenach’s ever-changing employment record was no easy task. In the fall of 2013, Eisenach was the director of the American Enterprise Institute’s new “Center on Media and Internet Policy.” Just a few months later, he joined NERA, one of the country’s oldest economic consultancy firms, as a senior vice president in its telecommunications practice.

From each of these positions, Eisenach can pen the views of some of America’s largest telecommunications companies under the guise of an “independent” study, an invaluable cover tool for a member of Congress confronted with voting on behalf of corporate friends at the cost of consumers in the district.

“A report authored by an academic is going to have more credibility in the eyes of the regulator who is reading it,” Michael J. Copps, a former FCC commissioner who is now a special adviser for the Media and Democracy Reform Initiative at Common Cause, told the newspaper. “They are seeking to build credibility where none exists.”

A former Verizon employee who still does some consulting of his told the Times how the game is played.

“Let’s say you’re in legal and you want to have a paper that says what you want it to say,” said ex-Verizon economist Dennis Weller. “You could have a bunch of economists in house and ask them if they agree with you. How much easier would it be to go to an outside economist and say, ‘How about if I pay you $100,000 to write this?’”

With appropriate disclosure that a company like Verizon paid $100,000 for a report that exactly matches Verizon’s public policy agenda might raise questions on Capitol Hill as to its veracity and independence. If that disclosure goes missing or is hidden under a third-party like a trade association, a lawmaker might assume the report was produced independently and the strong corroboration of Verizon’s views is just a coincidence. That kind of credibility can be worth millions to any company confronting a debate over regulatory policy.

“[Eisenach] is good at linking big theoretical ideas to policy, and he’s been good at making money doing that,” added Weller. “He’s been good at moving from think tank to think tank and company to company, and I don’t think he’s ever lost money doing it.”

The New York Times investigation found while Eisenach testified before Congress ostensibly as a private citizen, he was also filing formal comments to the FCC as a “scholar” with the American Enterprise Institute, was meeting privately with FCC commissioners, organized public briefings that featured powerful senators like John Thune (R-S.D.), who happens to be the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee. That committee also has direct oversight over the FCC and has spent the last three years scrutinizing FCC chairman Thomas Wheeler. Eisenach even briefed the two Republican FCC commissioners about what AEI’s general counsel had to say about Wheeler’s efforts to get Net Neutrality in place at the FCC. Eisenach offered both commissioners speaking time at AEI events, urging at least one of them to attack Net Neutrality.

“Net Neutrality is obviously top of mind,” he said in an email to that commissioner, Michael O’Rielly. “I’d be delighted if you would use the opportunity to lay out the case against.”

The Times reported Eisenach was hardly alone opposing Net Neutrality. Just weeks after becoming chairman, Wheeler received a letter signed by more than a dozen prominent economists and scholars affiliated with various Washington think tanks or academic institutions. They wanted Wheeler to reject Net Neutrality regulations. The letter attempted to distance the signers from any corporate agenda, noting in a footnote that nobody was compensated for their signature on the letter.

On the other hand, of the dozen studies that were included or referenced in their letter as “evidence,” more than half were entirely funded by giant telecom companies that oppose Net Neutrality. Mr. Wheeler would need a magnifying glass and plenty of free time to ferret out the industry funding disclosures in those attached studies, which were buried in footnotes.

When the industry took the FCC to court over broadband regulation or Net Neutrality, it was more of the same. Verizon was successful opposing an earlier FCC rule on Net Neutrality by trotting out almost two dozen studies and declarations that opposed regulatory oversight — more than half sponsored entirely by the telecommunications companies or trade associations that despise Net Neutrality. Many other studies were written by think tanks and scholars that also had direct financial ties to the companies.

Litan

Another key factor in the debate about Net Neutrality was the cost of implementing it. Again, the incestuous ties between the telecom industry, think tanks, and academia would serve up the “right answers” for Big Telecom’s case against Neutrality when two economists issued a controversial “policy brief” that claimed Net Neutrality would cost $15 billion in new fees and retard broadband expansion and upgrades. (The $15 billion figure came under immediate ridicule by consumer groups that effectively suggested the study authors ‘made it up,’ a case that may have been proven to some degree when the authors suddenly revised it down to $11 billion.)

Robert Litan, then a senior fellow at Brookings and Hal Singer, who used to work at the Progressive Policy Institute, would quickly come under greater scrutiny than Eisenach, probably because their report became central to the industry’s battle against Net Neutrality. The National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA) even built an advertising campaign against Net Neutrality around their study. Politicians opposed to Net Neutrality also regularly quoted from Litan and Singer’s findings to explain their strong opposition to the net policy.

Lost in the debate is who paid Mr. Litan and Mr. Singer for their work. Their employer, Economists Inc., yet another inside-the-Beltway consulting firm, didn’t exactly publicize their “select clients” included AT&T and Verizon — two of the largest opponents of Net Neutrality.

Using think tanks to bolster corporate lobbying has become so common, it has attracted the attention of some members of Congress.

Litan collided with one of the Senate’s fiercest consumer advocates and watchdogs — Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in a September 2015 hearing about a rules change fiercely opposed by investment bankers that would require financial advisers recommending retirement-associated investments to put their clients’ interests ahead of their own personal gain. Warren has championed the cause of ending high bank and investment-related fees that eat away investor returns. Some of the worst offenders convinced financial advisers to recommend their funds by kicking back large bonus commissions, which enriched the adviser and the investment bank but left seniors hit hard by lost potential earnings.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)

Litan’s research questioned the potential benefits of upping ethical standards. He wrote the costs to the banking and investment community to implement the rules would far outweigh any benefits to investors. Litan casually mentioned his affiliation with Brookings, a think tank, to promote his research’s credibility. He didn’t call attention to the fact his 28-page study was produced for a client: Capital Group — a massive financial services company with $1.39 trillion in assets. It would be directly impacted by the imposition of the new rules, which it strongly opposed.

Capital Group paid Economists, Inc. $85,000 for the study. Litan’s cut of the action was $38,800 — or $1,386 per page.

Warren complained Litan was not exactly forthcoming in disclosing his personal gain and his ties to a major opponent of the new rules under consideration.

“These disclosures are problematic: they raise significant questions about the impartiality of the study and its conclusions, and about why a Brookings-affiliated expert is allowed to use that affiliation to lend credibility to work that is…editorially compromised,” Sen. Warren wrote in a letter to Brookings President Strobe Talbott.

The embarrassment to Brookings, which has increasingly relied on corporate-funded research to fund its work, led to rumors Litan was asked to leave, and he resigned shortly thereafter. Litan downplayed the event, calling it a “minor technical violation” of Brookings’ ethics policy, which prohibits those associated with the think tank from using their affiliation with Brookings in any research report or testimony.

The incident fueled consumer groups’ arguments that cozy arrangements between purportedly independent scholars and academics and corporate entities too often results in bought-and-paid-for- research not worth the paper it is printed on. A clear conflict of interest and the lack of prominent funding disclosures makes such reports suspect at best and worthless in many other cases, because no company paying for a report is going to make it public if it conflicts with their agenda.

Singer

Remarkably, other economists, many also engaged in producing reports for corporate clients, rushed to the defense of… Mr. Litan, calling his removal from Brookings the result of a witch hunt.

A letter signed by former Clinton economic advisers W. Bowman Cutter and Everett Ehrlich; Harvard University international trade and investment professor Robert Z. Lawrence; former Clinton chief budget economist Joseph Minarik; and former Clinton economic adviser Hal Singer, who co-authored the report that got Litan in hot water with Sen. Warren, claimed as a result of Litan’s forced resignation, critics of their reports could threaten the credibility of their work with an “ad hominem attack on any author who may be associated with an industry or interest whose views are contrary to [Sen. Warren].”

“Businesses sometimes finance policy research much as advocacy groups or other interests do,” the economists wrote. “A reader can question the source of the financing on all sides, but ultimately the quality of the work and the integrity of the author are paramount.”

Singer has since left the Progressive Policy Institute.

D.C.’s revolving door has also provided lucrative work for those out of government jobs and now working in the private sector, often lobbying those still in government.

Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) had no problem introducing a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece into the Congressional Record written by Robert McDowell, who wears several hats at the Hudson Institute. He’s a “scholar,” a “telecommunications industry lawyer” at a firm retained by AT&T to fight Net Neutrality, and a lobbyist. If his name is familiar to you, that might be because McDowell used to be a commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission from June 1, 2006 to May 17, 2013. Now he is paid to kill Net Neutrality for AT&T.

None of that seem to faze Walden or raise questions about the credibility of the opinion piece he sought to have added to the official record.

“Everyone’s got their point of view,” Walden said last year. “And some of them get paid to have that point of view.”