The Commission has heard repeatedly from New Yorkers concerned about Internet access for the poor and disadvantaged. Comcast and its supporters have frequently pointed to Internet Essentials as an example of the kind of altruism Comcast is allegedly known for in its vast service areas.

COMCAST: NOW SERVING BOLOGNA – $9.95 — Protesters outside of Comcast’s Philadelphia headquarters upset about Internet Essentials onerous terms and pre-qualification conditions. (image: Kevin McCorry/WHYY)

Unfortunately, the truth is very different. Internet Essentials is both a political tool for Comcast’s image-building effort and a discount program that carefully avoids cannibalizing the revenue the company already receives from hard-working, income-challenged broadband subscribers – many who might otherwise have qualified for the program had they know about it and made it through the onerous application process without being disqualified.

The Washington Post reported a remarkable admission from Comcast senior vice president David Cohen, who admitted he stalled the introduction of the program to use it as an incentive to win approval of its merger with NBCUniversal:[1]

In fall 2009, Comcast planned to launch an Internet service for the poor that was sure to impress federal regulators. But David Cohen, the company’s chief of lobbying, told the staff to wait.

At the time, Comcast was planning a controversial $30 billion bid to take over NBC Universal, and Cohen needed a bargaining chip for government negotiations.

“I held back because I knew it may be the type of voluntary commitment that would be attractive to the chairman” of the Federal Communications Commission, Cohen said in a recent interview.

John Randall, program manager at the Roosevelt Institute/Telecommunications Equity Project, after studying the terms and conditions and pre-qualifications necessary to sign up for Internet Essentials declared it was more a public (and government) relations exercise than a charitable endeavor.[2] Comcast’s terms protect its revenue base by disqualifying current customers (who presumably pay the regular price for Internet service), establishing a lengthy 90 day waiting period without cable or Internet service before current customers can sign up for the discount program, not allowing participation unless you have school age children qualifying for the National School Lunch Program, and not have an overdue bill or unreturned equipment.[3]

Perhaps that explains why, in 2013, only 150,000 out of 2.6 million households eligible for Internet Essentials were able to sign up. In Comcast’s home city of Philadelphia, only 3,250 families were signed up as of last summer.[4]

Jump through hoops for $9.95 Internet

Comcast continues its revenue protection efforts to this day, even after announcing a recent “Amnesty” program for customers rejected from getting Internet Essentials because of a past due balance.

Just in time for regulators taking a hard look at Internet Essentials, Comcast has announced a 1.5 month special offer that includes “up to” six months of complimentary Internet Essentials service, but only to those who have never applied for the program before. Rejected applicants and current participants don’t qualify. Comcast does not specify whether customers will get an entire six months or a shorter term that seems to be indicated by the language Comcast uses.[5]

Comcast’s new “Amnesty Program,” for Internet Essentials is also replete with pre-conditions and fine print.[6]

Customers with a past due balance more than one year old will, “as long as they meet all the other eligibility criteria, provide amnesty for that back due bill for the purpose of connecting to Internet Essentials.”

It is unclear whether “amnesty” means Comcast will cancel collection efforts on the back balance or simply ignore it as grounds to reject an Internet Essentials application. Customers with a past due balance less than one year old don’t get much “amnesty” at all. Comcast wants them to pay up before they can sign up for Internet Essentials, but might accept an installment plan in certain circumstances.

Time Warner Cable, by accident, has managed to create a superior alternative to Internet Essentials that is open to everyone without pre-conditions or limits, although it costs $5 a month more than Comcast’s program.

Time Warner’s Everyday Low Price Internet ($14.99/month) was originally designed as  a marketing campaign targeting price-sensitive DSL customers. But Time Warner Cable also recognized the 2/1Mbps Internet service would appeal to the income-challenged.[7]

Time Warner’s program is vastly superior to Comcast’s Internet Essentials because every customer automatically qualifies for the service if they choose to enroll. There are no forms to fill out, income qualifications, account audits, waiting periods, or limits on how long you can keep the discounted service. Time Warner Cable seems unconcerned about whether this discounted Internet will cannibalize revenue from higher-priced plans and has launched aggressive marketing campaigns across its service areas.[8]

—

[1]https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/david-cohen-chief-dealmaker-in-washington-is-comcasts-secret-weapon/2012/10/29/151e055e-080a-11e2-858a-5311df86ab04_story.html

[2]http://stopthecap.com/2013/07/10/comcasts-internet-essentials-facade-padding-the-bottom-line-without-cannibalizing-your-base/

[3]https://www.salon.com/2013/07/10/comcasts_new_partner/

[4]http://stopthecap.com/2013/07/10/comcasts-internet-essentials-facade-padding-the-bottom-line-without-cannibalizing-your-base/

[5]https://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/comcast-to-offer-six-months-of-free-internet-essentials-service-and-announces-debt-forgiveness-plan

[6]https://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/comcast-to-offer-six-months-of-free-internet-essentials-service-and-announces-debt-forgiveness-plan

[7]https://newsroom.charter.com/

[8]https://newsroom.charter.com/

Should this merger be approved, Comcast will control 40-50 percent of all broadband access nationwide.[1] That offers Comcast market power that can be used to discriminate against others.

Comcast paid homeless people to “hold their seats” at an FCC hearing in 2008. (Image: Free Press)

Comcast’s recent past contains several disturbing incidents that came as a result of its market power and its vast resources to influence telecommunications public policy debates:

• In 2008, Comcast admitted to paying homeless people in Boston to pack an FCC meeting on Net Neutrality, keeping company critics out of the room.[2]
• The company that now promises to abide voluntarily to Net Neutrality regulations is also one of the few found culpable for violating the principle. In mid-2008, the FCC ruled that Comcast’s policy of interfering with peer-to-peer file traffic was a violation of Net Neutrality rules. When customers found out, the company voluntarily ended the speed throttling, imposing usage caps instead.[3]
• This month, Comcast reportedly stepped in and ordered the removal of news content critical of its Net Neutrality policies from a publication in which it has an ownership interest.[4]
• In May 2011, a Comcast manager threatened to pull funding from a Seattle-based media advocacy group that criticized the company for hiring a former Republican FCC official, Meredith Attwell Baker, just after she supported the NBC Universal deal.[5]
• Comcast has aggressively pursued agreements with over-the-top (online video) competitors that effectively force them to sign special connection agreements that mitigate the deteriorating quality of streamed video Comcast customers receive from services like Netflix.[6] Comcast’s size gives it de facto control over its customers’ online experiences.

While we note Comcast has agreed to temporarily abide by Net Neutrality principles, the Commission should know Comcast has a long record lobbying against Net Neutrality on philosophical grounds.[7]

Comcast agreed to abide by Net Neutrality principles as a condition to win approval of its acquisition of NBCUniversal, approved by the FCC in 2011. But as Brian Fung from the Washington Post noted, its agreement with the government will expire just four years from now[8]:

But what Comcast doesn’t say is that its commitment to “full” net neutrality expires in 2018. After that, it will no longer be legally bound to follow the 2010 rules, and it’ll be free to abandon that commitment literally overnight.

Just one year earlier, Comcast was before the United States Court of Appeals – D.C. Circuit suing the FCC over its authority to enforce Net Neutrality policies. Comcast won its suit.[9]

If Comcast now feels favorable towards Net Neutrality, it should voluntarily agree to abide by its guiding principles in perpetuity.

—

[1]http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/judiciary-raises-programming-broadband-control-issues-comcasttwc/130396

[2]http://www.adweek.com/digital/homeless-comcast-will-pay-to-attend-fcc-hearings/?red=ny

[3]https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/net-neutrality-violations-history/

[4]http://www.republicreport.org/2014/comcast-affiliated-newsite-censored-my-article-about-net-neutrality-lobbying/

[5]https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/comcast-yanks-funds-for-nonprofit-after-tweet-about-fcc-bakers-jump/2011/05/19/AF7aGG7G_blog.html

[6]http://dr.marketwatch.com/dr/

[7]http://dr.marketwatch.com/dr/

[8]https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140724/13525627992/comcast-ramps-up-ad-campaign-claiming-to-support-net-neutrality-even-as-it-really-supports-killing-it.shtml

[9]https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/EA10373FA9C20DEA85257807005BD63F/$file/08-1291-1238302.pdf

This week’s revelation that a Comcast-controlled enterprise deliberately and consciously removed news content critical of Comcast and its public policy lobbying practices speaks to the impact media concentration has on news dissemination.

It also exposes the close relationship Comcast maintains with non-profit groups it financially supports, encouraging the kinds of positive letters about its operations the New York Public Service Commission can now find on file in this case.[1]

The group involved in the current controversy reportedly received $350,000 from Comcast and promptly began a vocal opposition campaign against Net Neutrality, an open Internet policy Comcast still opposes being enacted as official FCC policy.[2]

Professor Todd Gitlin of Columbia University called Comcast’s close relationship with the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council (MMTC) the “closest thing I can imagine to a political quid pro quo. The fact NewsOne saw fit to delete a report that they previously posted without any claim that anything was mistaken in the report tells you something about their commitment to open discourse.”

Jeff Cohen, an associate professor of journalism at Ithaca College, also commented on the NewsOne decision. “Just as corporate cash can corrupt civil rights groups, this incident shows how corporate power can corrupt and censor the news.”[3]

Time Warner Cable operates local news channels in most of the major New York cities it serves. These channels will also come under the umbrella of Comcast, giving it an even greater news voice through its NBC and Telemundo networks, MSNBC, local cable news operations, and owned and operated local broadcast affiliate stations in New York City.

In closing, as a reminder to the Commission, Comcast’s list of broadcast, cable and digital media assets is already enormous and will grow even larger if a merger with Time Warner Cable is approved.[4]

Comcast-NBCUniversal

Broadcast Television
NBC Television Network
NBC Entertainment
NBC News
NBC Sport Group
Universal Television (UTV)
Universal Cable Productions
NBCUniversal Domestic Television Distribution
NBCUniversal International Television Distribution

NBC Local Media Division
NBC New York (WNBC)
NBC Los Angeles (KNBC)
NBC Chicago (WMAQ)
NBC Philadelphia (WCAU)
NBC Bay Area (KNTV)
NBC Dallas/Fort Worth (KXAS)
NBC Washington (WRC)
NBC Miami (WTVJ)
NBC San Diego (KNSD)
NBC Connecticut (WVIT)
NBC Everywhere
LX TV
Skycastle Entertainment

Telemundo
KVEA (Los Angeles)
WNJU (New York)
WSCV (Miami)
KTMD (Houston)
WSNS (Chicago)
KXTX (Dallas/Fort Worth)
KVDA (San Antonio)
KSTS (San Francisco/San Jose)
KTAZ (Phoenix)
KNSO (Fresno)
KDEN (Denver)
KBLR (Las Vegas)
WNEU (Boston/Merrimack)
KHRR (Tucson)
WKAQ (Puerto Rico)
KWHY (Los Angeles) (Independent)

Television Channels
Bravo
Chiller
CNBC
CNBC World
Comcast Charter Sports Southeast
Comcast Sports Group
Comcast SportsNet Bay Area
Comcast SportsNet California
Comcast SportsNet Chicago
Comcast SportsNet Houston
Comcast SportsNet Mid-Atlantic
Comcast SportsNet New England
Comcast SportsNet Northwest
Comcast SportsNet Philadelhpia
SNY
The Mtn.-Mountain West Sports Network
CSS
Comcast Sports Southwest
New England Cable News (Manages)
NBC Sports Network
The Comcast Network
E! Entertainment Television
G4
Golf Channel
MSNBC
mun2
Oxygen Media
Cloo
Sprout
The Style Network
Syfy
Universal HD
USA Network
The Weather Channel Companies
Syfy Universal (Universal Networks International)
Diva Universal (Universal Networks International)
Studio Universal (Universal Networks International)
Universal Channel (Universal Networks International)
13th Street Universal (Universal Networks International)
Movies 24 (Universal Networks International)
Hallmark Channel (non-U.S.) (Universal Networks International)
KidsCo (Interest) (Universal Networks International)

Film
Universal Pictures
Focus Features
Universal Studios Home Entertainment

Parks and Resorts
Universal Parks and Resorts

Digital Media
DailyCandy
Fandango
Hulu (32%)
iVillage
NBC.com
CNBC Digital
Plaxo

Communications
XFINITY TV
XFINITY Internet
XFINITY Voice

Sports Management
Comcast-Spectator
Philadelphia Flyers
Wells Fargo Center
Global Spectrum (Public Assembly Management)
Ovations Food Services
Front Row Marketing Services
Paciolan
New Era Tickets (ComcastTIX)
Flyers Skate Zone

Other
Comcast Ventures, which is invested in numerous companies.

Time Warner Cable

Local channels`
Time Warner Cable News[5]
NY1: Manhattan, Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island
NY1 Noticias: Spanish language news for New York City
NY State of Politics Blog
TWC News Capital Region (Albany, Amsterdam, Saratoga and Berkshire counties)
TWC News Central NY (Syracuse, Ithaca/Cortland, Utica/Rome)
TWC News Hudson Valley
TWC News Northern NY (Watertown/Ft. Drum)
TWC News Southern Tier (Elmira/Corning, Binghamton/Oneonta)
TWC News Western NY (Buffalo, Finger Lakes Region, Jamestown, Rochester, and Batavia)

Regional Sports Networks
Metro Sports
Time Warner Cable Sports
Time Warner Cable SportsNet
Time Warner Cable Deportes
TWC Sports 32
SNY

Other Holdings
Adelphia — former cable television company in PA
NaviSite — cloud and hosting services company
Insight Communications — cable operator
DukeNet Communications — Fiber optic network
Time Warner Cable Internet
Time Warner Cable Media (advertising)

—

[1]http://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/MatterManagement/CaseMaster.aspx?MatterCaseNo=14-m-0183

[2]http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/06/06/12769/civil-rights-groups-fcc-positions-reflect-industry-funding-critics-say

[3]http://www.republicreport.org/2014/comcast-affiliated-newsite-censored-my-article-about-net-neutrality-lobbying/

[4]https://archives.cjr.org/resources/index.php

[5]http://spectrumlocalnews.com/

Phillip “Comcast isn’t the answer to the problem, it is the problem” Dampier

Just a quick note to alert readers that we haven’t lost interest in keeping you informed about what is going on in the broadband industry. We are taking some time out to do more than just write about what we’re seeing around the country. We’re actually getting involved to try to change things.

The Comcast Time Warner Cable merger proposal is before New York regulators and this week is the deadline for the first round of comments on the proposal. More than 2,700 New York residents have added their two cents, most strongly opposed to the merger. We’re also seeing out-of-state Comcast-backed non-profit groups sending in comments praising Comcast (chapters of the Boys and Girls Club are by far the biggest offenders — something to remember when they ask you for money).

It is also highly unethical for public officials to lobby out-of-state regulators for a private, for-profit business deal, yet that is exactly what North Beach, Md. Mayor Mark Frazer did. So did Barbara A. Miller on the Board of Selectmen for the town of Peterborough, N.H.  And you thought they represented you and your interests and not those of a giant multi-billion dollar cable company. Your vote can make all the difference, especially with Mayor Frazer who is up for re-election.

We will publish our full submission on Stop the Cap! when finished and appreciate your patience as we spend time documenting our arguments in opposition to this merger deal.

When the community of Batavia, Ill., a distant suburb of Chicago, decided they wanted something better than the poor broadband offered by Comcast and what is today AT&T, it decided to hold a public referendum on whether the town should construct and run its own fiber to the home network for the benefit of area residents and businesses. A local community group, Fiber for Our Future, put up $4,325 to promote the initiative back in 2004, if only because the town obviously couldn’t spend tax dollars to advertise or promote the idea itself.

Within weeks of the announced proposal, both Comcast and SBC Communications (which later acquired AT&T) launched an all-out war on the idea of fiber to the home service, mass mailing flyers attacking the proposal to area residents and paying for push polling operations that asked area residents questions like, “should tax money be allowed to provide pornographic movies for residents?” The predictable opposition measured in response to questions like that later appeared in mysterious opinion pieces published in area newspapers submitted by the incumbent companies and their allies.

Comcast spent $89,740 trying to defeat the measure in a community of just 26,000 people. SBC spent $192,324 — almost $3.50 per resident by Comcast and just shy of $7.50 per resident by SBC. Much the same happened in the neighboring communities of St. Charles and Geneva. 

According to Motherboard, the scare tactics worked, cutting support for the fiber network from over 72 percent to its eventual defeat in two separate referendums, leaving most of Batavia with 3Mbps DSL from SBC or an average of 6Mbps from Comcast.

Much of the blizzard of mailers and brochures Comcast and SBC mailed out were part of a coordinated disinformation campaign. Both companies also knew their claims would go largely unchallenged because Fiber for Our Future and other fiber proponents lacked the funding to respond with fact check pieces of their own mailed to residents to expose the distortions.

When it was all over, it was back to business as usual with Comcast and SBC. The latter defended its reputation after complaints soared about its inadequate broadband speeds.

Kirk Brannock, then midwest networking president for SBC, told city council members in the area that “fiber is an unproven technology.”

“What are you going to do with 20Mbps? It’s like having an Indy race car and you don’t have the racetrack to drive it on. We are going to be offering 3Mbps. Most users won’t use that,” he said.

“All the subscribers got these extraordinary fliers. Ghosts, goblins, witches. I mean, this is about a broadband utility. Very scary stuff. This is real. This is comical, but this is very real,” Catharine Rice of the Coalition for Local Internet Choice said of the fliers at an event discussing municipal fiber earlier this year. “They have this amazing picture, and then they lie about what happened. They’re piling in facts that aren’t true.”

In communities that won approval for construction of publicly-owned fiber networks, the battle wasn’t over. Tennessee’s large state cable lobbying group unsuccessfully sued EPB to keep it out of the fiber business. In North Carolina, Time Warner Cable effectively wrote legislation introduced and passed by the Republican-dominated General Assembly that forbade community broadband expansion and made constructing new networks nearly impossible. In Ohio, another cable industry-sponsored piece of legislation destroyed the business plan of Lebanon’s fiber network, forcing the community to eventually sell the network at a loss to Cincinnati Bell.

The larger Comcast grows, the more financial resources it can bring to bare against any would-be competitors. Even in 2004, the company was large enough to force would-be community competitors to steer clear and stay out of its territory.