Do you ever wonder why your local cable system suddenly decided to begin carrying barely known networks like Centric, Logo, Palladia, and a dozen other channels you can’t recall ever watching even as providers perennially complain about “increased programming costs?”

The cable dial has gotten increasingly crowded with secondary cable networks that usually occupy three digit channel numbers somewhere in cable dial Siberia, unlikely to be encountered by anyone other than the most hearty channel surfer.

Welcome to the cable network racket, run by the corporate owners of popular cable networks that allegedly force cable operators to also carry (and pay for) lesser-watched networks as part of a broader carriage deal.

Today, Cablevision filed an antitrust lawsuit against Viacom in Manhattan federal court for illegally forcing the cable company to carry and pay for more than a dozen ancillary cable networks it claims customers don’t want, just so Viacom will sell access to popular cable networks including Comedy Central, MTV and Nickelodeon.

“The manner in which Viacom sells its programming is illegal, anti-consumer, and wrong,” Cablevision indicated in a prepared statement. “Viacom’s abuse of its market power is not only illegal, but also prevents Cablevision from delivering the programming that its customers want and that competes with Viacom’s less popular channels.”

Cablevision argues Viacom is hostile with cable operators who don’t want these add-on channels, coercing carriage agreements by threatening “massive financial penalties” or exclusion of popular channels altogether until operators sign up for the majority of Viacom networks.

Cablevision’s complaint asserts that Viacom is engaged in a “per se” illegal tying arrangement in violation of federal antitrust laws. Cablevision also claims Viacom has engaged in unlawful “block booking,” a form of tying  conditions on the sale of a package of rights to the purchaser’s taking of other rights.

Cablevision is seeking a number of remedies including voiding the carriage agreement Cablevision signed with Viacom just last December, a permanent injunction banning Viacom from making carriage agreements conditional on adding other networks, and financial relief in the form of damages and legal costs related to bringing the suit.

Yes

Viacom-owned networks customers actually want:

• MTV
• MTV2
• Nickelodeon
• VH1
• Spike
• TV Land
• Comedy Central
• BET

What?

Viacom’s 14 extra networks you may have never heard of and may not want to pay for:

• Centric
• CMT
• MTV Hits
• MTV Tr3s
• Nick Jr.
• Nicktoons
• Palladia
• Teen Nick
• VH1 Classic
• VH1 Soul
• Logo
• CMT Pure Country
• Nick 2
• MTV Jams

Viacom issued a statement minutes ago claiming it would “vigorously defend this transparent attempt by Cablevision to use the courts to renegotiate our existing two-month-old agreement.”

Viacom argues it does not force operators to carry any of its networks, but admitted it does offer financial incentives in the form of lower prices when operators agree to also carry its lesser-known networks. Viacom said that it had “long offered discounts to those who agree to provide additional network distribution.”

Press “1” to talk to James Dolan, CEO of Cablevision.

Cablevision has filed a lawsuit against the Communications Workers of America District 1 and its Local 1109, which represents area workers, in Nassau County Supreme Court.

The cable operator is accusing the union of launching harassing robocalls which have given customers the chance to pester CEO and president James Dolan.

At least 20,000 robocalls were made to Cablevision subscribers in three days, from Jan. 31 – Feb. 2 which the cable company alleges were designed to cost the company money and its reputation.

If customers pressed “1” during the call, they were automatically forwarded to a Cablevision call center to complain about recent rate increases and recent job losses at the company. On Feb. 3, Cablevision alleges the robocall campaign was adjusted. Now if customers press “1” during the call, they are directly connected to the phone sitting on Dolan’s desk. In just two days, Cablevision alleges Dolan’s line received 1,193 calls.

The following day, the union was also accused of sharing Dolan’s direct number on social media websites.

“The union will no doubt claim that their telephone harassment scheme is designed to allow customers to communicate substantive messages to the CEO, but such an argument cannot sustain the slightest scrutiny,” reads the complaint. “The unions knows full well that no Fortune 500 CEO can possibly handle a concentrated barrage of one-on-one phone calls with subscribers and others, and that companies like Cablevision have designated and publicly known call centers established precisely to handle such calls in an orderly, responsive manner – including mechanisms for escalating certain such calls to the CEO, if necessary.”

The CWA and Cablevision have fought over an effort to unionize cable company workers in Brooklyn, N.Y.

A year ago, Cablevision workers in Brooklyn voted to form a union, but Cablevision/Optimum management has allegedly stonewalled the unionization effort.

On Jan. 30, about two dozen workers sought to speak with Cablevision management under the company’s “open door” policy, specifically about the lack of progress in completing a contract. Cablevision terminated the 22 employees on the spot, deeming them “permanently replaced.”

Cablevision’s suit requests court costs and an injunction ordering the union not to harass it, aid or abet harassment, or falsely and deceptively display any Cablevision phone number on robocalls.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CWA Fired Cablevision Workers 2-2013.flv[/flv]

 The Communications Workers of America produced this video highlighting what they consider the unfair termination of 22 workers after seeking an “open door” meeting with Cablevision management.  (2 minutes)

The case involves late fees charged to Frontier FiOS video customers in the state of Oregon.

Frontier Communications FiOS video customers that paid late fees for service in the state of Oregon may be entitled to a partial refund after the telecom company settled a class action case.

The settlement, announced today will cover both current and former customers.

Some key points:

• Customers that are potentially included in this class action settlement will receive a separate notice in the next 60 to 90 days;
• The separate notice will include additional information and instructions regarding steps they can take if they are eligible for a refund;
• A claims administrator will be identified and responsible for providing notices to former and existing customers;
• Customers must wait until they receive a notice regarding the settlement from the claims administrator which outlines additional steps that must be taken.

The company was accused of unjustly charging and collecting late fees for video customers whose payments were processed late as the company assumed control of the FiOS service from Verizon Communications.

An internal memo sent to Frontier employees and obtained by Stop the Cap! suggests the company is expecting calls from customers inquiring about the settlement. Other than telling employees to express empathy, company officials have asked customer service representatives to avoid speculating about the case and referring customers to forthcoming communications from the settlement administrator within the next two to three months.

The lawsuit only covers Oregon residents.

Cahill

A New York assemblyman is telling his upstate constituents to stop wasting money on Time Warner Cable’s monthly broadband modem equipment fee and buy your own device.

“I want consumers to know that they do not have to waste their hard-earned money on a product which was considered free for years,” said Assemblyman Kevin Cahill (D-Kingston) in a statement to members of his district. “Over the course of a year or two, depending on the model, the purchase of a new modem will pay for itself. Additionally, the models for purchase have more features than leased modems, like faster speeds and the capability to handle unlimited wireless devices.”

Time Warner expects less than three percent of its customers will take Cahill’s advice and avoid the $3.95 monthly fee, which opens a new, lucrative revenue stream for a cable operator that already enjoys up to 95 percent gross margin on its broadband service.

Cahill complained the 1996 U.S. Telecom Act prohibits the state’s Public Service Commission from intervening, but reminded customers there is a joint New York-New Jersey class action lawsuit against the cable operator over how the modem fee was implemented.

As of Jan. 14, Time Warner Cable has approved the following modems-for-purchase that can be activated for use with its broadband service, with our recommendations in red:

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s cowardly lion act. The rhetoric rarely matched the results.

Washington insiders are predicting Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski will leave his position early in President Obama’s second term.

It cannot come soon enough, as far as we’re concerned.

One of the biggest disappointments of the Obama Administration has been the poor performance of a chairman that originally promised a departure from the rubber stamp-mentality that allowed Big Telecom providers to win near-instant approval of just about anything asked from the Republican-dominated FCC of the Bush Administration. If only to underline that point, former FCC Chairman Michael Powell joined Republican ex-commissioner Meredith Atwell-Baker on a trip through the D.C. revolving door, taking lucrative jobs with the same cable industry both used to oversee.

We had high hopes for Mr. Genachowski when he took the helm at the FCC — particularly over Net Neutrality, media consolidation, and predatory abuse of consumers at the hands of the comfortable cable-telco duopoly. Genachowski promised strong Net Neutrality protections, better broadband — especially in rural areas, an end to rubber stamping competition killing mergers and acquisitions, and more aggressive oversight of the broadband industry generally.

What we got was the reincarnation of the Cowardly Lion.

The Washington Post reviews Genachowski’s tenure during the first term of the Obama Administration and reports he has few unabashed supporters left. Telecom companies loathe Genachowski’s more cautious approach and consumer groups hate his penchant for caving in when lobbyists come calling. In short, another Democrat that talks tough and caves in at the first sign of trouble.

“His tenure has been nothing but a huge disappointment because he’s squandered an opportunity to give consumers the competitive communications market they deserve,” Derek Turner, head of policy analysis at public interest group Free Press told the Post. “If someone like him upholds compromise, it quickly leads to capitulation, which is what he’s done. He folds…to the pressure of big companies.”

Genachowski’s Record:

• Heavily promoted rural broadband and oversaw a review program measuring actual broadband speeds against those claimed by providers. But much of the money available for improving rural broadband has been separately awarded to “middle mile” and “institutional networks” that are not accessible to most consumers or businesses. Genachowki has heaped automatic praise on many of the phone companies winning broadband funding, despite the fact many of them are satisfied giving consumers no better than 4Mbps service;
• Reformed the outdated Universal Service Fund, which long outlived much of its usefulness, into a broadband expansion fund. But some unintended consequences have led to some rural providers suspending network upgrades because of funding uncertainties still unresolved;
• Approved a blockbuster merger deal between Comcast and NBC-Universal that included temporary “hard-won” concessions Comcast later admitted they were going to offer anyway – merger or not. The result is a new high bar for tolerating super-sized media consolidation with no serious consideration of the impact on consumers. The latest evidence: support for Rupert “Phone Hacker” Murdoch’s latest efforts to buy more newspapers in the United States;
• Rejected an AT&T/T-Mobile merger deal, but only after the Justice Dept. took the lead dismissing it as an anti-consumer, anti-competition nightmare. Within hours, Genachowski’s office issued a “me, too” press release condemning the deal he said little about earlier;
• Demanded a strong Net Neutrality framework to protect the open Internet, but utterly caved under pressure from politicians receiving hefty corporate contributions from AT&T and others. The resulting loophole-ridden “protections” do not apply to wireless, and the industry-approved compromise is now the subject of a lawsuit filed by some of the same companies that earlier applauded Genachowski’s flexibility;
• Genachowski handed out his direct phone numbers to the CEO’s of the top Big Telecom companies, and has been directly lobbied by those “super-citizens,” while ordinary consumers are stuck filing comments with the FCC’s arcane Electronic Comment Filing System. Genachowski also directed closed-door meetings be held on the subject of Net Neutrality with large telecom companies. These meetings were closed to the public with no consumer representatives on hand;
• Genachowski refused to reclassify broadband as a “telecommunications service,” which would give the agency clear-cut authority to oversee the service. Instead, he has stuck with former FCC Chairman Michael Powell’s odd interpretation of broadband as “an information service,” not subject to much review by the agency;
• Appropriately nixed Philip Falcone’s LightSquared venture, the biggest threat to GPS navigation around. But Genachowski’s controversial early boosting of the venture, including support for expedited special permission to launch the network without the usual scrutiny, resulted in an embarrassing about-face after long-standing critics’ fears of navigation interference were vindicated;
• In 2012, Genachowski’s cozy relationship with the industry reached whole new levels with unabashed support for Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and consumption billing, despite no evidence justifying them. The FCC has continued to ignore repeated requests for a review of these pricing schemes.