DC Circuit Court

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has agreed to begin contemplating the legality of the Federal Communications Commission’s Net Neutrality rules on an expedited schedule, with written briefs from the cable and wireless industry challenging the rules due by July 30.

The schedule could allow the court to begin hearing oral arguments about whether Net Neutrality and Title II reclassification of broadband as a telecommunications service are legal as early as late fall, with a decision coming in 2016.

Both sides advocated for the court to make its decision as soon as possible.

To help the judges, the court has ordered all parties to limit the length of their written briefs and avoid using telecom jargon at all costs. The judges expect to read a series of at least 13 written briefs from all parties in the case before oral arguments are heard and has imposed limits ranging from 2,000-33,000 words on each submission to cut the workload.

Those objecting to Net Neutrality are not challenging the FCC’s rules prohibiting blocking of websites, paid prioritization or speed throttling. They are more worried about Title II reclassification, which gives the FCC wide latitude to oversee the broadband business. They are also challenging the vaguely defined “catch-all” general Internet conduct standard which allows the FCC to regulate if providers attempt end runs around specific rules to achieve comparable results. The FCC argues it needs the latitude to respond to a rapidly changing Internet. Internet providers also have a track record of finding and exploiting loopholes, something the FCC wants to limit.

Signing a three year contract usually meant a cheaper device.

Canadians still stuck on an old three-year wireless contract may be able to leave their current carrier penalty-free as soon as June 3rd as the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s (CRTC) deadline on lengthy wireless contracts takes full effect this Sunday.

In June 2013, the CRTC banned three-year cell phone contracts in its wireless code to give customers a chance to switch providers more often without an expensive early termination fee to deter them. The commission set a two-year transition period which will end June 3.

But it turns out wireless carriers have not made the process of leaving penalty-free easy and the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services (CCTS) expects the ombuds office will be forced to intervene on behalf of consumers. Some providers have applied creative interpretations of the wireless code the industry earlier sued to block on the grounds it created retroactive interference with contractual rights. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the wireless industry’s lawsuit last week. The CCTS is notifying providers what it expects from them.

There are two primary groups of customers affected by the June 3rd deadline:

• Those who signed a three-year contract before June 3, 2013:

These customers will see their three-year contracts cut to two years, and all will expire June 3. They can leave their current provider without any early termination fees or penalties.

• Those who signed a three-year contract between June 3-Dec. 3, 2013:

Things get more complicated for customers in this window. While carriers quickly introduced new two-year plans, there are a number of customers who managed to sign a three-year contract during this transition period. These longer contracts have also been cut to 24 months by the CRTC, but an early termination fee may still apply if the contract has not run a full two years and carriers will be permitted to get back their device subsidy if you have not yet paid off your device.

If you like your current carrier, you can stay on your existing contract and nothing will change. If you are ready to leave for another provider, you will need to calculate the termination fee you are likely to owe when you cancel service.

If you accepted a device subsidy to reduce the cost of your device, here is the formula to determine your payoff amount:

Jane Smith signed a contract with Rogers in the late fall of 2013. She is now about 20 months into her contract, which the CRTC has now automatically shortened from its original three years to two. For our purposes, let us say she received a device subsidy of $240 (the exact amount of the device subsidy you received is available from your provider.)

Carriers like Vidéotron offer customers discounts if they bring their old device along.

To calculate the payoff amount to buy out and cancel the contract, take the original device subsidy and divide it by 24. In our example, that equals $10. That means for each month Jane has been in her contract, she has repaid $10 towards the $240 subsidy she received. In this example, she has made 20 payments under contract, which means she has paid back $200 and still owes an additional $40. When she cancels service to switch to Bell (or whatever other carrier she chooses), her exit fee will be $40.

The CRTC also allows carriers to collect an Early Termination Fee (ETF) from customers who paid for a device upfront or brought their own when they signed a contract. These no-subsidy customers must either wait until 24 months have passed from the contract signing date or pay an ETF of the lesser of $50 or 10% of the minimum monthly charge for the remaining months of the now two-year contract.

Bill Smith brought his old iPhone to Telus and signed a three-year contract at the same time Jane did. The CRTC has already lopped off one year of his contract. He will hit the 24 month mark four months from now, but wants to leave to switch to Vidéotron Mobile today. The minimum monthly charge on his Telus bill is $65. For the remaining four months on his contract, he has to pay 10% of $65 for his termination penalty, which amounts to $26 total — his ETF.

Howard Maker, chief executive officer of the CCTS, said, “The calculation is maybe a bit challenging, because not all customers’ contracts will indicate what the device subsidy is.”

Some customers have used the impending end of their contracts as a tool to negotiate a better deal, but it can be tough finding one. After the demise of the three-year contract, last fall many Canadian cell providers raised the monthly price of service on two-year contracts to recoup lost profits.

If it works properly

Comcast has blamed its customer for the failure of its home security system to detect a break in and alert police before intruders terrorized and tortured their son.

Last fall, Stop the Cap! told readers about the plight of the Rawat family, in Kirkland, Wash., who depended on home security services provided by Comcast and now wished they didn’t.

In November 2013, police say Vincent Sisounong and Blessing Gainey planned a home invasion to steal vehicles, electronics, and money from the family. To achieve their plan, the 21 and 19-year old had to defeat Comcast’s Xfinity Home security system. According to a lawsuit now being heard in a bench trial this week, the two men didn’t have to do anything because the system never worked properly.

After entering the Rawat home, the two planned to find the family’s 18-year old son Deep and “chop off one of his arms and legs with various cutting tools” as an intimidation tactic. The attack started in Deep’s bedroom. The two men dragged him to the basement, where Sisounong instructed Gainey to hack at Rawat’s leg down to the bone, and then stabbed Rawat himself. Court documents said Sisounong told detectives that he wanted the victim to “fight for his life,” and when asked if the experience was enjoyable, he said, “yeah.”

Sisounong (L) and Gainey (R)

For nearly half an hour, the struggle between the two intruders and Deep continued inside the home and finally ended when the intruders walked out the door. At no time did Comcast’s security system sound. The family had to ask neighbors to call police.

Comcast quickly blamed the family for not installing and using its system properly, despite the fact its installation was planned and performed by a Comcast subcontractor.

This week, the torture victim and his parents, Leena and Manoj Rawat, argued that Comcast and its contractor Pioneer Cable Contractors, Inc. improperly installed the Xfinity Home system. A recommendation from the installer placed the system’s motion detector in the basement, where it provided no protection when the family was home. The installer allegedly told the family they did not need window sensors because the motion detector was a suitable alternative. Although window sensors are usually constantly monitored, motion detectors are not when a family is home to prevent false alarms.

“This advice runs counter to every standard in the industry,” Rawat family attorney Ken Friedman argued during his opening arguments Monday. “The system as set up was useless, or in some cases worse than useless, because it provided a false sense of security.”

Friedman is also fighting to overcome Comcast’s terms and conditions, which require customers to protect Comcast’s interests above their own at all times, even when the company is found negligent. To emphasize the point, Comcast places it in bold, extra-large capital lettering:

Comcast’s security contract lets the company walk away from responsibility for almost everything.

YOUR DUTY TO PROTECT/INDEMNIFY THE COMPANY APPLIES EVEN IN THE CASE OF THE COMPANY’S OWN NEGLIGENCE.

“If their argument is to be accepted, they could put in empty black boxes throughout the house and say, ‘That’s your system.’ And then something goes wrong, and they say, ‘We never promised you it would work,’” said Friedman.

A better option?

The Rawat’s lawsuit alleges negligence, breach of contract and express and implied warranties, and a violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act.

Comcast’s response is that their alarm system was never at fault.

“The malicious attack by the two criminals was motivated by pure evil and warrants every last second of punishment that they receive,” Comcast attorney Timothy Pastore said. “However, what happened to Deep Rawat is not the result of anything that Comcast or Pioneer did or did not do.”

Pastore claimed the family specifically ordered the alarm as it was installed, and it was working properly. The fault lied with the family because they failed to arm the system’s motion detectors by setting it to the “away” mode while they were asleep.

But if they had done as Pastore suggested, the motion sensor would have sounded the alarm if any family member moved around inside the home. The window sensors were designed to work at all times and would not sound unless a window was opened or broken. For added security and peace of mind, you can click here to visit Maverick Windows for free consultation and expert guidance in choosing the ideal windows for your home.

ESPN today filed a lawsuit against Verizon Communications, claiming FiOS TV’s new slimmed-down television packages violate ESPN’s contract provisions that forbid placing the network in an optional add-on “sports tier.”

Verizon’s new packages represent its efforts to control the cost of cable television. Custom TV offers a base package of networks for $55 with optional add-on channel bouquets covering genres like sports, lifestyle and family programming.

ESPN’s lawsuit, filed in New York Supreme Court, claims Verizon has no right to offer its networks as part of a theme-based package of optional channels.

A Verizon spokesperson shot back, “It looks like they are suing consumers to force them into a one-size-fits-all bundle.”

“Consumers have spoken loud and clear that they want choice, and the industry should be focused on giving consumers what they want,” Verizon said in a statement. ” We are well within our rights under our agreements to offer our customers these choices.”

Staff attorneys that have reviewed details of the Time Warner Cable/Comcast merger proposal are prepared to make a recommendation as early as next week that the Department of Justice should block the deal because it is anti-competitive and anti-consumer.

The staff in the Justice Department’s antitrust division have spent more than a year reviewing documents submitted by both cable companies to determine what impact the merger would have on the cable television and broadband landscape.

Bloomberg News today reported the attorneys did not like what they saw and believe the merger would harm consumers. For the first time, a cable company merger deal was reviewed not so much for its impact on cable television programming, but on broadband.

When the Federal Communications Commission redefined broadband as an Internet connection of at least 25Mbps, Comcast suddenly found itself the largest broadband provider in the country. If the merger with Time Warner Cable is approved, Comcast will have a 56.8 percent market share of U.S. broadband customers, far exceeding any other provider.

In upstate New York, Comcast would have more than a 75% market share — nearly 9o% if you just consider non-Verizon FiOS areas. In California, Comcast would control more than 80% of the market, not only picking up Time Warner Cable customers, but Charter customers in Southern California as well. 

Comcast and Time Warner Cable have argued competition is not affected because the two companies never compete with each other. But a de facto broadband monopoly could allow Comcast to raise rates at will and bring a return to usage-related billing. It would also discourage new competitors from entering the market – particularly those relying on broadband to deliver video services, and hand Comcast more leverage to force compensation from online content companies like Netflix.

Under consideration by the Justice Department:

• Whether the combined entity would have too much control over nationwide broadband Internet delivery;
• whether Comcast could use its financial influence to strike exclusive cable deals that could keep programming off other platforms;
• whether Comcast could limit how programming is delivered through video streaming services (usage caps, etc.);
• if Comcast complied with terms under a previous merger deal with NBCUniversal.

Renata Hesse, a deputy assistant attorney general for antitrust, will take the analysis and ultimately decide, along with the division’s top officials, whether to file a federal lawsuit to block the deal. Bloomberg reports lawyers at the Justice Department have contacted outside parties to collect evidence to strengthen their potential case against the merger.

Another clear sign the merger is not being received well inside the Justice Department and the Federal Communications Commission is a complete lack of negotiations with Comcast over possible concessions to make the deal less anti-competitive. That also happened with the AT&T/T-Mobile merger where negotiations to ease anticompetitive concerns never seriously got off the ground before the Justice Department sued to block the deal. The FCC quickly announced its own opposition later that same day.

A lawsuit does not necessarily kill the merger deal. Comcast could take its case to federal court to win approval over the objections of the Justice Department. The company might also counter-propose new concessions to address concerns raised by the lawsuit. 

After learning of today’s Bloomberg News story, spokespeople at both Comcast and Time Warner Cable are either confident or in denial:

“There is no basis for a lawsuit to block the transaction,” said Sena Fitzmaurice, a Comcast spokeswoman. The merger “will result in significant consumer benefits — faster broadband speeds, access to a superior video experience, and more competition in business services resulting in billions of dollars of cost savings.”

Time Warner Cable spokesman Bobby Amirshahi said “we have been working productively with both DOJ and FCC and believe that there is no basis for DOJ to block the deal.”