Phillip DampierApril 20, 2017Charter Spectrum, Consumer NewsComments Off on Fox Nears Deal With Charter to Keep FX and Fox Regional Sports on the Dial
Fox Networks Group is nearing a deal with Charter Communications that will keep several Fox-owned channels from disappearing from the Spectrum cable dial.
Recently, Fox has stopped running ads attacking Charter’s potential disruption of FX, National Geographic, and a number of Fox regional sports networks. Fox has also extended its deadline several times, and Fox programming continues uninterrupted on Charter’s cable systems as the talks continue.
Now FNG president and COO Randy Freer is ready to say publicly, “we’re working out the issues.”
Broadcasting & Cablereports one of those issues could be the ongoing lawsuit between Fox News Channel and Charter that was filed after acquiring Time Warner Cable. Charter began paying Time Warner Cable’s considerably lower FNC affiliate fee in markets where Charter’s original cable systems were under contract at a higher rate. One part of the agreement may be a settlement of that lawsuit.
There is no word on exactly when a final agreement will be reached, but it is increasingly unlikely the negotiations will result in any dropped channels for Charter customers.
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)
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.
Be Sure to Read Part One: Astroturf Overload — Broadband for America = One Giant Industry Front Group for an important introduction to what this super-sized industry front group is all about. Members of Broadband for America Red: A company or group actively engaging in anti-consumer lobbying, opposes Net Neutrality, supports Internet Overcharging, belongs to […]
Astroturf: One of the underhanded tactics increasingly being used by telecom companies is “Astroturf lobbying” – creating front groups that try to mimic true grassroots, but that are all about corporate money, not citizen power. Astroturf lobbying is hardly a new approach. Senator Lloyd Bentsen is credited with coining the term in the 1980s to […]
Hong Kong remains bullish on broadband. Despite the economic downturn, City Telecom continues to invest millions in constructing one of Hong Kong’s largest fiber optic broadband networks, providing fiber to the home connections to residents. City Telecom’s HK Broadband service relies on an all-fiber optic network, and has been dubbed “the Verizon FiOS of Hong […]
BendBroadband, a small provider serving central Oregon, breathlessly announced the imminent launch of new higher speed broadband service for its customers after completing an upgrade to DOCSIS 3. Along with the launch announcement came a new logo of a sprinting dog the company attaches its new tagline to: “We’re the local dog. We better be […]
Stop the Cap! reader Rick has been educating me about some of the new-found aggression by Shaw Communications, one of western Canada’s largest telecommunications companies, in expanding its business reach across Canada. Woe to those who get in the way. Novus Entertainment is already familiar with this story. As Stop the Cap! reported previously, Shaw […]
The Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission, the Canadian equivalent of the Federal Communications Commission in Washington, may be forced to consider American broadband policy before defining Net Neutrality and its role in Canadian broadband, according to an article published today in The Globe & Mail. [FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s] proposal – to codify and enforce some […]
In March 2000, two cable magnates sat down for the cable industry equivalent of My Dinner With Andre. Fine wine, beautiful table linens, an exquisite meal, and a Monopoly board with pieces swapped back and forth representing hundreds of thousands of Canadian consumers. Ted Rogers and Jim Shaw drew a line on the western Ontario […]
Just like FairPoint Communications, the Towering Inferno of phone companies haunting New England, Frontier Communications is making a whole lot of promises to state regulators and consumers, if they’ll only support the deal to transfer ownership of phone service from Verizon to them. This time, Frontier is issuing a self-serving press release touting their investment […]
I see it took all of five minutes for George Ou and his friends at Digital Society to be swayed by the tunnel vision myopia of last week’s latest effort to justify Internet Overcharging schemes. Until recently, I’ve always rationalized my distain for smaller usage caps by ignoring the fact that I’m being subsidized by […]
In 2007, we took our first major trip away from western New York in 20 years and spent two weeks an hour away from Calgary, Alberta. After two weeks in Kananaskis Country, Banff, Calgary, and other spots all over southern Alberta, we came away with the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: The Good Alberta […]
A federal appeals court in Washington has struck down, for a second time, a rulemaking by the Federal Communications Commission to limit the size of the nation’s largest cable operators to 30% of the nation’s pay television marketplace, calling the rule “arbitrary and capricious.” The 30% rule, designed to keep no single company from controlling […]
Less than half of Americans surveyed by PC Magazine report they are very satisfied with the broadband speed delivered by their Internet service provider. PC Magazine released a comprehensive study this month on speed, provider satisfaction, and consumer opinions about the state of broadband in their community. The publisher sampled more than 17,000 participants, checking […]