Altice, which operates Cablevision’s Optimum brand cable service in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, has informed regulators of a broad-based “rate event” that will take effect on June 1, 2018. Unless a customer is currently enrolled in a price-locked promotion, these new rates generally affect all customers, except as noted.

Altice told Connecticut regulators the rate changes “reflect the rising cost of programming and our significant investment in the customer experience. Optimum pricing is competitive when compared with other providers, and the Company continues to offer a wide array of products to meet all consumer needs and budgets.”

Altice has told Wall Street a different story, noting it is prioritizing a reduction of the company’s massive debts that came from aggressive acquisitions of other cable systems. Altice also told investors in February Altice USA will distribute a special cash dividend to shareholders of $1.5 billion to celebrate Altice USA’s split from its Netherlands-based parent company Altice NV. The company also told shareholders it was happy with its latest profitable results, showing Altice’s residential business growing to just over 80% of total revenue, up 2.9% in 2017 and 1.8% in the fourth quarter of 2017. Business services is growing in mid single digits.

Altice also plans to continue increasing marketing on its advanced all-in-one-box solution — Altice One, which costs $25 a month.

Changes effective June 1, 2018:

• Set-Top Box: For customers who elect to receive a traditional set-top box from Optimum, the monthly rate will increase from $10.00 to $11.00. Does not apply to existing commercial customers.

• CableCARD: For customers who request a CableCARD from Optimum, the monthly rate will increase from $2.00 to $2.50.

• Sports Surcharge: To partially cover the continually increasing costs that programmers charge Altice to carry sports, the Sports Surcharge will increase from $6.97 to $7.97, for customers subscribing to the Optimum Core or higher tiers. (Broadcast Basic & Economy customers are not charged the Sports Surcharge.)

• Broadcast TV Surcharge: New residential Broadcast Basic and above customers currently pay a $3.99 monthly “Broadcast TV Surcharge” to partially offset the high costs that broadcasters charge. This fee will increase to $4.99 a month and will also be applied to existing Broadcast Basic residential customers and new commercial customers.

• Broadcast Basic Tier: New residential customers currently pay $19.99 per month for Broadcast Basic. To align basic tier rates, this same rate will apply to existing residential Broadcast Basic customers currently paying a monthly rate over $13.95. As an accommodation to existing Basic Tier customers currently paying $13.95/month, the new monthly Basic rate will be $14.95.

• Sports and Entertainment Package: This a la carte subscription will increase from $8.95 to $10.00.

• Residential Service Protection Plan: In addition to the free 24/7 technical support that Optimum offers all customers, the optional Service Protection plan covers any fees assessed for service visits. To align our rates, existing customers who currently pay $4.99/month will pay the same $6.99 fee currently applicable to new customers.

• Restoration Fee: Optimum customers who do not pay their bill within 30 days of the due date, despite multiple reminder notices, are currently subject to a $4.99 per service fee to restore their service. Effective June 1, the minimum service restoration fee will be $10.00 for single and double product customers and $15.00 for triple product customers.

• Installation Fee: Starting June 1, the prices paid by customers for standard and premium installations will increase from $69.00 to $99.00 and $99.00 to $129.00, respectively. Customers are being notified 30 days in advance for each of these changes through bill messages or inserts. In addition, rate information will be available on our website at www.optimum.net.

Connecticut taxpayers will underwrite the cost of Charter Communications new 500,000 square foot, 15-story headquarters building with a $10 million direct loan and an additional $10 million in tax credits.

The cable company, which has the highest paid CEO in the United States, will use taxpayer dollars to help fund its new corporate offices at the Gateway Harbor Point, with an option to further expand the site into a two building campus. It won taxpayer support for committing to create 400 jobs in 2012 under the state’s First Five Program. Now it has agreed to create an additional 1,100 jobs at its corporate headquarters in Stamford and make an investment of $100 million in capital expenditures in Connecticut over several years. The more jobs Charter creates in Stamford, the more tax credits the company can receive.

“Since relocating Charter’s headquarter operations to Stamford in 2012, the company has undergone a transformation to become the second largest cable provider in the U.S.,” said Tom Rutledge, chairman and CEO, Charter Communications. “This new, state-of-the-art facility in downtown Stamford will provide Charter the necessary resources to facilitate its continued growth. We are excited to continue expanding in Connecticut, and thank Governor Malloy, Mayor Martin, the Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development, and the entire Stamford-area federal, state and local delegation of elected officials for their continued partnership and support.”

“Today is a great day for Connecticut,” said Governor Dannel P. Malloy. “Charter’s announcement to create an additional 1,100 jobs shows that our strategic investments are continuing to spur economic growth and create good paying jobs in the state. We look forward to the continued success of Charter Communications as they grow within the state.”

What has been good for Connecticut has not proven so great for Charter Communications workers in other states. Several hundred have been laid off, mostly at call centers. But a number of employees working at Time Warner Cable’s headquarters in Manhattan have also left.

Frontier Communications spent $2 billion in 2014 to purchase AT&T’s Connecticut wireline business, believing it could make a fortune selling internet and cable television service to wealthy Nutmeg State residents over a network AT&T upgraded to fiber-to-the-neighborhood service several years earlier.

But thanks to a combination of management incompetence, cord-cutting, and Frontier’s competitors, the phone company’s dreams have turned bad in Connecticut, where the company lost hundreds of millions in the last three years along with at least 22% of its customers in the state. As a result, Frontier has turned a business that made AT&T $1.3 billion four years ago into one that earned Frontier $901.9 million last year.

Hartford Business notes Frontier’s biggest challenge is holding on to customers once they disconnect their landline service. In Connecticut between 2014 and 2016, Frontier lost 154,000 landline customers in the state, leaving just under 522,000 remaining landline customers. That is way down from the 675,000 customers AT&T had just before it sold the service area to Frontier. AT&T struggled with a similar problem, having more than one million landline customers in 2011, according to numbers from Connecticut’s Public Utilities Regulatory Commission (PURA). What made AT&T different is its investment in U-verse — AT&T’s answer to the challenge of lost landline customers. AT&T invested in a new fiber to the neighborhood network to boost broadband speeds and sell television service, giving departing landline customers a reason to continue doing business with AT&T.

For millions of Frontier Communications customers in its “legacy service areas” — owned and operated by Frontier for years, if not decades, those upgrades have been slow to come, if they have come at all. As a result, dropping Frontier service in favor of a wireless or cable company is not a difficult decision for many customers, and cable operators report significant growth where their only competition is DSL service from Verizon or Frontier.

Frontier’s own executives admit broadband upgrades are essential if Frontier is to survive the challenges of landline disconnects.

Customers are increasingly taking a pass on landline service.

“It’s a surprise to no one that we have voiceline declines in Connecticut,” Mark Nielsen, Frontier’s general counsel and executive vice president told the business newspaper. “The challenge is to build our internet and video business so as to offset the declines in voice. We are very committed to the Connecticut operation, we see great potential in it.”

That commitment is coming in the form of internet speed upgrades. Frontier’s primary competitors in the state are cable operators Comcast, Charter, and Cox, some offering speeds as high as a gigabit. Frontier is trying to compete by introducing speeds at or greater than 100Mbps, but so far only in a few parts of the state.

According to Nielsen, Frontier’s profitability is less important to investors than maintaining positive cash flow, which means assuring more money is coming into the operation than going out.

“Cash is what’s available to make investments to return capital to shareholders,” Nielsen said.

But that represents a conflict for Frontier, because many shareholders are attracted to the stock’s long history of returning money to shareholders in the form of dividend payouts. If Frontier has to invest more of its capital on upgrades and network upkeep, that can result in a dividend cut, which usually causes the share price to decline, sometimes dramatically. If Frontier can manage to invest less and cut costs, that frees up more money that can be paid to investors.

For the past several years, Frontier’s business plan has been to avoid spending large sums on network upgrades. But the company was willing to spend handsomely to acquire more customers from a three-state deal with Verizon that cost $10.5 billion. Frontier’s acquisition of Verizon landline customers in Florida, California, and Texas made sense for many shareholders because it would dramatically increase the number of customers served by Frontier, and that in turn would boost revenue and cash flow, from which Frontier’s dividend to shareholders would be paid. Frontier acquired a fiber rich, FiOS service area in all three states, which automatically meant the company would not need to undertake its own significant and costly upgrades.

But Frontier did have to transfer its newest customers from Verizon’s systems to those operated by Frontier. If a company spends enough time and money to protect customer data during such “flash cutovers,” they are usually successful. A company that attempts it without careful planning causes service to be disrupted, sometimes for weeks, which is exactly what happened after Frontier switched customers in the three states to its systems. Customers have never forgotten, and have left every quarter since the deal was first announced.

Financial analysts see where this is headed.

“Each and every quarter their revenues decline, and each and every quarter their customer totals decline,” David Burks, a financial analyst at Hilliard Lyons, told the newspaper. He called Frontier a company that is struggling. He added Frontier needs to stem revenue erosion. He downgraded Frontier’s stock last month after the company reported a second-quarter net loss of $662 million. He could not ignore what he called “disturbing trends,” such as an 11.5 percent year-over-year decline in total customers across Frontier’s entire operation.

To win new customers Frontier must improve its network with upgrades that will cost the company billions — spending that is certain to affect Frontier’s shareholder dividend. Even if it does spend money to upgrade, some analysts are wondering whether it is too late.

“The time to play catch up has passed, given the time to market advantage that cable has, and we expect continued pressures from cable as DOCSIS 3.1 steps up the speed advantage that cable already enjoys,” wrote Jeffries in a a report written about by FierceTelecom. “In our view, it is far too late for the ILECs to ramp spend to compete, particularly given high leverage and the significant cost required to expeditiously play catch up.”

A class action lawsuit has been filed in New York alleging Cablevision’s new owner — Altice USA, illegally changed the terms and conditions of its cancellation policy without adequate notice and was unjustly enriched charging millions for service departing customers did not receive.

New York resident Christopher Krafczek discovered he was still being billed for Altice’s Optimum cable service after canceling his service. He was caught in Altice’s change of its terms and conditions that took effect Oct. 10, 2016, which declared in all-capital letters Altice doesn’t give refunds for customers electing to cancel service before the end of a billing cycle:

Monthly Charges: Your monthly subscription begins on the first day following your installation date and renews thereafter on a monthly basis beginning on the first day of the next billing period assigned to you until cancelled by you. The monthly service charge(s) will be billed at the beginning of your assigned billing period and each month thereafter unless and until you cancel your Service(s). PAYMENTS ARE NONREFUNDABLE AND THERE ARE NO REFUNDS OR CREDITS FOR PARTIALLY USED SUBSCRIPTION PERIOD(S).

Krafczek and his attorneys are taking Altice to court claiming the cable company broke New York’s General Business Law § 349 for deceptive practices and for unjust enrichment. The class action lawsuit claims the cable operator failed to provide proper written notice of the change in its billing practices.

Customers canceling service before the end of a billing cycle can incur $100 or more in charges for cable service no longer received after turning in cable equipment as part of a move or to switch providers.

Altice is likely to claim Krafczek has no standing to bring the case because Cablevision/Altice subscribers are bound by a mandatory arbitration provision in their subscriber agreement. If a customer did not send Altice a written opt-out request within a limited window of time when mandatory arbitration was first introduced, Altice will likely claim that customer cannot sue or participate in a class action lawsuit.

Company officials told the Asbury Park Press last fall subscribers were given advance notice of the change of terms. A spokeswoman told the newspaper Cablevision included the change of terms notice in several monthly billing statements. The spokeswoman also claimed customer service representatives are trained to tell departing customers that billing would continue until the end of the billing cycle, allowing customers to schedule a disconnect at that time.

The case seeks a minimum of $50 or greater in damages for each class member, based on the amount billed after disconnecting service, attorney fees, and punitive damages.

The lawsuit claims customers in New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey who voluntarily disconnected cable service between October 2016 and May 3, 2017 paid more than $5 million for service they did not want to continue receiving.

The law firm of Mayer Brown LLP is handling the case.

“Of course you know this means war.”

Altice USA has found a way to use CBS’ All Access online streaming service against a Connecticut CBS affiliate that blacked out its signal for some Connecticut Cablevision customers.

Meredith-owned CBS affiliate WFSB-TV in Hartford has been off the Optimum television lineup in two dozen Connecticut towns as of 5pm Friday, Jan. 13 after negotiations between Iowa-based Meredith and Altice USA broke down over the price of renewing a retransmission consent contract that Altice claims is 800% more expensive than before.

That means Optimum customers in Litchfield County no longer have access to CBS programming. Or do they? Optimum’s website is redirecting affected customers to WFSB’s network — CBS — and offering a week’s free trial of CBS’ All Access, which allows viewers online access to all CBS programming on demand.

Optimum’s previously negotiated distribution deal with CBS for the All Access platform has been in place since the summer of 2015, which means CBS cannot pull the offer down from Altice’s website. That effectively means CBS is being used to undercut its own affiliate’s most important leverage — taking away popular programming until a provider finally capitulates and signs a renewal contract.

Matt Polka, president of the American Cable Association, which represents small and independent cable companies, loves it.

“Local broadcasters cannibalized by their own network!” Polka tweeted.

Oh…The #Irony — Local #broadcasters cannibalized by their own network! Gotta love the #Internet and the #ISP that provides it! https://t.co/RABX3BHh4R

— Matthew M. Polka (@MATTatACA) January 16, 2017

Altice USA has promised investors it will hold the line on programming costs even if it means finding alternatives for customers. This seems to be an example at work.

Will CBS All Access weaken Meredith’s position on WFSB to force price concessions? The New Haven Register isn’t sure, reporting there are years of “bad blood” between Cablevision and Meredith over carriage contracts:

During the last retransmission agreement negotiations in 2014, Cablevision Systems called on the Federal Communications Commission to investigate whether Meredith Corp. was meeting public interest obligations that are an important component of all television station licenses. Cablevision also sued Meredith in Connecticut’s court system under the Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The latest dispute has attracted the attention of both of Connecticut’s U.S. senators.

“I typically don’t get involved because it’s not for me to dictate the terms of a dispute between a cable company and a network,” Sen. Chris Murphy said in a statement issued Friday night. “But I haven’t been pleased with Altice’s commitment to Connecticut since it bought Cablevision.”

FierceCable reported the area’s congressional delegation isn’t happy with either company:

Connecticut’s two Democratic U.S. Senators, Richard Blumenthal and Christopher Murphy, sent a letter addressed to both Meredith Corp. CEO Stephen Lacy and Altice USA CEO Dexter Goei.

“While we respect the private negotiations being conducted by Optimum and WFSB and make no representations as to the merits of either side’s position, we believe that the current impasse does a disservice to Connecticut families and we urge you to negotiate in good faith to bring an end to this blackout,” the Senators wrote.

Altice, meanwhile, said in its own statement, “We have been negotiating in good faith for weeks and made multiple offers to Meredith even though their initial request was for more than 800% over what we currently pay.”