D.C.’s perpetually revolving door for regulators and lobbyists keeps on spinning.

FCC chairman Ajit Pai today announced he will appoint Charter Communications’ former general counsel as the next head of the FCC’s Consumer and Government Affairs Bureau.

Patrick Webre has taken several trips through D.C.’s revolving door over the last seven years, serving 11 months as an associate chief of that same bureau under former FCC chairman Julius Genachowski. Starting in November 2010, Webre took a position as senior director and senior counsel at Charter Communications. Starting in 2012, Webre was hired by Huron Consulting Group and later as a staff attorney at corporate D.C. law firm Jenner & Block.

Jenner & Block’s profile notes while working for Charter, Webre “was their primary advocate to commissioners and staff at the FCC, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Justice, and Members of Congress and their staff.” In short, he was effectively Charter’s lobbyist.

Jenner & Block claims it achieves “excellent results for our clients,” which have included Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon, among others.

“Our lawyers combine broad experience with inside perspective into the inner workings of the FCC, the Department of Justice and other regulatory agencies across the country,” the firm’s website notes. “Our practice includes a former FCC general counsel and senior FCC policy advisor, a former senior counsel to the chairman for Transactions, numerous Supreme Court and Court of Appeals clerks and nationally recognized lawyers who have extensive experience handling cutting-edge telecommunications and media law issues. […] Together, we have tackled numerous important issues before the FCC and the courts, including net neutrality, media ownership, online video and content restrictions on video programming and video games.”

Webre

Jenner & Block does not represent you — the average American consumer. It represents big-pocketed telecom companies interested in getting their corporate agendas through the regulatory and legislative workings of Washington. In its message to clients, the law firm touts its achievements:

AGENCY PROCEEDINGS AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS

Jenner & Block represents telecommunications and media clients at the FCC, the Department of Justice and other regulatory agencies across the country.  We have developed particular expertise in matters concerning video regulation, the Internet and other advanced services, spectrum and wireless issues, and telephone competition.  Recent matters include program access and program carriage disputes, media ownership proceedings, proceedings on the status of on-line video providers, net neutrality, spectrum and interference proceedings, universal service and intercarrier compensation.

MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS

Jenner & Block regularly represents media and telecommunications clients in mergers and acquisitions and other transactions involving license transfers.  Our work includes both securing regulatory approval from the FCC and other regulatory agencies and, with our Corporate practice, negotiating and executing agreements.  Representative transactions include Comcast-NBCU, AT&T-T-Mobile, Verizon-Frontier, Verizon Wireless-ALLTEL and CenturyTel-Embarq.  We have also successfully represented clients in numerous radio and television station transactions.

Mr. Webre’s new job at the FCC is to ostensibly represent the interests of consumers. The Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau develops and implements the commission’s consumer policies, including disability access. Its consumer center is directly responsible for addressing consumer inquiries and complaints about some of the same cable and phone companies Mr. Webre used to represent.

Pai issued a statement suggesting Webre would be his perfect choice to replace current chief Alison Kutler, who was originally appointed by former FCC chairman Tom Wheeler.

“Consumers sit at the core of the FCC’s work, and the FCC’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau serves as our primary liaison to them,” said Pai in a statement. “Whether reviewing consumer complaints or developing policies to stop robocalls, CGB works hard to serve the public interest. Patrick’s skill and experience will enable us to continue this important mission.”

Every week brings the threat of yet another programming blackout because cable programmers want to be paid more and cable operators want to pay the same or less. This time, Fox Networks Group has sent a final warning to Charter Communications that their customers will lose several cable networks as soon as Wednesday if the two companies cannot reach a renewal agreement.

“Fox and Charter have an agreement to carry the Fox networks that Charter has chosen to ignore,” Fox said in a statement that was updated today. “We’re disappointed that despite our best efforts to reach a resolution, Charter Spectrum subscribers could lose access to multiple Fox sports and entertainment networks on April 12.”

The latest dispute surrounds the lucrative volume discounts that Time Warner Cable formerly negotiated for some of Fox’s non-news-related cable networks. Charter Communications acquired both Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks to secure those kinds of volume discounts for itself. In general, the larger a cable system is, the lower the wholesale rate charged for cable programming. Charter hoped it could continue paying the lower rates Time Warner Cable managed to secure after acquiring the much larger cable system. But cable programmers are not buying Charter’s approach and in one case sued.

In March, Univision blocked Charter from carrying its Spanish-language networks Univision, Unimás, Galavisión, Univision Deportes and El Rey in a similar dispute. A temporary restraining order brought the networks back to the lineup a day later, at least temporarily. Univision sued Charter Communications in 2016 over the programming fee dispute.

A significant amount of money is at stake depending on which side ultimately wins in court.

In the case of Univision, Charter’s own contract with the Spanish language programmer expired on June 30, 2016. That would normally require Charter to negotiate a contract renewal that it knew would be more costly than what it paid under the old contract. Charter learned Time Warner Cable had negotiated a contract with Univision that delivered better volume discounts and was not set to expire until June 2022.

To allow Charter Communications to argue that Time Warner Cable’s contract should continue to apply after the merger, it structured its acquisition (on paper at least) to allow Charter to claim Time Warner Cable would continue to manage all of its cable systems. Charter’s lawyers argued that because “Time Warner Cable” is in charge, the wholesale rates Time Warner Cable negotiated should now apply to all Charter systems.

Univision, among other programmers, balked at Charter’s creative thinking.

“Everyone knows that is simply not true: the longstanding CEO and the senior executive team of Charter, as well as its pre-existing board of directors, now in fact manage and control all such cable systems, and virtually the entire TWC leadership team has departed,” Univision argued in its 2016 lawsuit.

If the programmers win, Charter will have to negotiate new carriage agreements at 2017 prices instead of continuing to pay the lower rates Time Warner Cable won for itself in the past.

A similar dispute is likely behind the current battle between Charter and Fox. Each time a cable company has to negotiate a new contract, programmers tend to ask for a considerably higher wholesale price for their channels and try to get cable systems to also carry their other networks. When a cable operator refuses to pay what it considers to be an unconscionable renewal rate or does not want to carry the programmer’s other networks, a showdown takes place that often leads to channels being temporarily removed from the lineup. Cable companies usually lose these battles after subscribers get hostile, but some smaller cable operators have walked away from programmers like Viacom for good when the renewal price stayed too high.

As is the tradition in these disputes, Fox launched a website and social media blitz to warn Charter customers they are about to lose access to 19 regional sports channels, FX, FXX, FOX Movie Channel, National Geographic TV, Fox Sports and Fox Deportes and asked customers to start calling Charter and complain. The current dispute does not involve the FOX (TV) Network, the Fox News Channel or the Fox Business Channel.

“We’re disappointed that despite our best efforts to reach a resolution, Charter Spectrum subscribers could lose access to multiple Fox sports and entertainment networks on April 12,” FOX wrote on its website. “Charter’s tactics could result in its subscribers missing our popular programming including Fox Sports’ telecasts of the St. Louis Cardinals and Blues, Kansas City Royals, Cleveland Cavaliers, Cincinnati Reds and many other MLB, NBA and NHL teams on Fox Regional Sports Networks, Fox Deportes, National Geographic, and FX’s hit dramas The Americans and Feud as well as much more award winning programming.”

“Fox is trying to gouge our customers using the increasingly common tactic of threats and removal of programming,” Charter responded in a statement. “They are attempting to extort Charter for hundreds of millions of dollars. We will continue to work towards a fair agreement.”

Fox Networks is using this ad to warn Charter Spectrum customers they could lose Fox programming. (0:30)

Cable magnate John Malone’s Liberty Interactive today announced it would acquire Alaska’s largest cable operator General Communication, Inc. (GCI) for $1.12 billion in an all-stock transaction.

Malone is the biggest individual shareholder of Charter Communications, Inc., and has decades of experience running cable companies in the lower 48 states and abroad. He also has experience structuring deals to avoid the U.S. tax authorities, and this deal is no different. Malone will pay zero taxes on the transaction by creatively spinning off the cable operator, first rechristening it as QVC Corp (named after his home shopping channel), then combining QVC Corp with Liberty Ventures and splitting off the combined company to existing Liberty Ventures shareholders. When the transaction is complete, Malone will again rename the cable company GCI Liberty and keep all the proceeds for himself and his shareholders.

GCI’s 108,000 customers won’t see any changes at the cable company and wireless venture this year. The deal is not scheduled to close until 2018.

GCI’s oldest customers may recall John Malone used to own the Alaskan cable operator, but under a different name. Until 1986, it was part of Malone’s Tele-Communications, Inc. (TCI) empire.

Expensive and usage-capped.

Malone’s operating philosophy these days is best represented by Charter Communications. GCI customers can eventually expect to see a dramatically simplified menu of choices for broadband, television, and telephone service. Broadband from GCI is expensive and usage-capped. Its $60 entry-level plan offers 50/3Mbps service that is “speed reduced” after 50GB of usage a month. For that reason, many customers prefer GCI’s “Faster” plan of 100/5Mbps service for $84.99 a month, with speeds curtailed after 250GB of usage. A gigabit tier is available in certain locations offering 1,000/50Mbps for $174.99 a month, speed-throttled after 1TB of usage.

Charter Communications is facing a second lawsuit related to false advertising about its ability to provide fast internet service and allegations the company knowingly supplied customers with deficient equipment.

Hart et al. v. Charter Communications Inc., is seeking certification as a nationwide class action from a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The suit claims that Charter’s subsidiary Time Warner Cable purposely leased out modems and wireless routers it knew were incapable of achieving Time Warner Cable Maxx broadband speeds, consistently oversold its broadband network — resulting in slower internet speeds and performance than the company advertised, and raised customers’ bills without adequate notice.

The California lawsuit closely mirrors one filed in February by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, and focuses on similar claims that Charter is engaged in “false representations and other wrongful business practices.”

The complaint claims:

• The company willfully and intentionally advertised internet service it could not provide, claiming customers would receive internet service that was “fast” with “no buffering,” “no slowdowns,” “no lag,” “without interruptions,” “without downtime,” and “without the wait.”
• Charter leased older generation modems and wireless routers to many of their customers that were incapable of supporting the promised internet speeds. Older technology modems could not provide the full benefit of Time Warner Cable Maxx speeds of 100-300Mbps, and company-provided network gateways delivered Wi-Fi service at speeds considerably lower than advertised.
• Charter regularly failed to manage their network in a manner that would give customers consistent broadband speeds. Instead, “Defendants included too many subscribers in the same service group and provided too few channels for such subscriber, thus causing an internet ‘traffic jam’ (particularly during peak hours) that slowed every subscriber’s connection to speeds substantially below what was promised and paid-for. Indeed, even when consumers resorted to using wired connections, their Internet speeds still fell short of the promised speeds.”
• Defendants also have adopted an unlawful and unfair practice of adding new fees or other charges to consumers’ bills without adequate notice and outside of the terms promised upon sign-up. In 2016, one customer signed up for a promotional “Spectrum Internet with Wi-Fi” plan with a fixed rate of $64.99 and a $10.00 “Promotional Discount,” making her plan cost a total of $54.99 per month. This amount was reflected in her February 2017 bill. However, on her March 2017 bill, the customer was automatically charged $59.99, a $5.00 increase of which she was not given adequate notice and which was improperly charged to her credit card automatically.

The lawyers bringing the case propose to include as class members anyone who purchased internet service from Time Warner Cable/Charter Communications nationwide, those who believed the company’s advertising that claimed speeds were fast and reliable, and customers enrolled in auto-pay who were not properly informed of changes in price or the terms of service. If certified, the potential size of the class action case could involve millions of customers.

Reuters is reporting the Republican-dominated Federal Communications Commission has reversed a pro-consumer mandate requiring Charter to overbuild at least one million homes to offer competitive internet service. The requirement was imposed on Charter Communications as part of the FCC’s approval of its merger deal with Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks in 2016.

The overbuild requirement would have forced Charter to directly compete with incumbent phone and/or cable operators in areas where only one provider now offers service.

Pai

The petition to repeal the condition was personally circulated by FCC chairman Ajit Pai who didn’t feel the FCC should mandate cable companies to compete as part of a merger approval.

Former FCC chairman Thomas Wheeler pushed for the requirement, noting that Charter’s merger offered an opportunity to incorporate pro-consumer deal conditions like increased competition. The overbuild requirement would have required Charter to expand its cable service in areas where only telephone company DSL was available or give an opportunity for consumers to have a choice of cable operators. Pai’s effort gives Charter a big break, now only requiring the company to offer high-speed internet as a de facto monopoly to two million new customers where no internet service currently exists.

It also represents a gift to small independent cable operators and their lobbying arm, the American Cable Association, who feared the overbuild requirement would bring Charter into their service areas as an unwelcome competitor that would have “devastating effects on the smaller broadband providers Charter will overbuild” and could put them out of business.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has its own pending filing asking the FCC to eliminate other deal conditions, including a prohibition on data caps Charter must adhere to for up to seven years.