Home » public interest group » Recent Articles:

Updated: New York PSC Announces Delay in Comcast/Time Warner Cable Merger Consideration

Phillip Dampier September 26, 2014 Comcast/Xfinity, Competition, Consumer News, Public Policy & Gov't Comments Off on Updated: New York PSC Announces Delay in Comcast/Time Warner Cable Merger Consideration

The staff of the New York Public Service Commission has requested extra time for consideration of Comcast’s application to assume control of Time Warner Cable’s operations in New York State.

“Pursuant to a request from Department of Public Service staff in the above-referenced matter, Comcast Corporation and Time Warner Cable Inc. agree to action by the Public Service Commission on the Joint Petition at the November 13, 2014 Commission Session, with a final order being issued no later than November 19, 2014,” says a filing published late this afternoon by the Commission.

The merger was to be on the agenda for approval or rejection at a meeting in early October. New York public interest groups are continuing to mount opposition campaigns against the merger. Many feel the proposal has not been given enough attention and the public remains largely unaware of their ability to take part in discussions about the proposal.

Update: 9/29/14:

Public Service spokesperson James Denn sent this statement to City Newspaper on Monday:

“The Comcast proceeding, affecting 2.2 million cable customers in New York and representing an approximate New York transaction value of $3 billion, has led to an intense stakeholder focus producing nearly 3,000 public comments, making it one of the most active proceedings in commission history. Given the depth and breadth of the public record and the importance of the issues presented, the commission has accepted the extension of the period for review so that it may consider the matter more fully at its November 13 session.”

Start the Countdown Clock on Julius Genachowski’s Departure from the FCC

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:

Comcast Changes Language Over Xbox-Usage Cap Spat: Same Story, Different Words

Comcast has changed its explanation why the company’s XFINITY TV service, streamed over Xbox 360 has been made exempt from the company’s 250GB usage cap.

Last week, the company claimed the service traveled over the company’s “private IP” network, exempting it from usage restrictions.  That created a small furor among public interest groups and Net Neutrality supporters because of the apparent discrimination against streamed video content not partnered with the country’s biggest cable operator.

Stop the Cap! argued what we’ve always argued — usage caps and speed throttles are simply an end run around Net Neutrality — getting one-up on your competition without appearing to openly discriminate.

Now Comcast hopes to make its own end run around the topic by changing the language in its FAQ:

Before:

After:

Although the words have changed, the story stays the same.

The key principle to remember:

Data = Data

Comcast suggests its Xbox XFINITY TV service turns your game console into a set top box, receiving the same type of video stream its conventional cable boxes receive.  The cable company is attempting to conflate traditional video one would watch from an on-demand movie channel as equivalent to XFINITY TV over the Xbox.  Since the video is stored on Comcast’s own IP network, the company originally argued, it creates less of a strain on Comcast’s cable system.

AT&T's U-verse is an example of an IP-based distribution network.

But the cable industry’s inevitable march to IP-based delivery of all of their content may also bring a convenient excuse to proclaim that data does not always equal data.  They have the phone companies to thank for it.

Take AT&T’s U-verse or Bell’s Fibe.  Both use a more advanced form of DSL to deliver a single digital data pipeline to their respective customers.  Although both companies try to make these “advanced networks” sound sexy, in fact they are both just dumb data pipes, divided into segments to support different services.  The largest segment of that pipe is reserved for video cable TV channels, which take up the most bandwidth. A smaller slice is reserved for broadband, and a much smaller segment is set aside for telephone service.

AT&T and Bell’s pipes don’t know the difference between video, audio, or web content because they are all digital data delivered to customers on an IP-based network.  Yet both AT&T and Bell only slap usage caps on their broadband service, claiming it somehow eases congestion, even though video content always uses the most bandwidth. (They have not yet figured out a way to limit your television viewing to “maintain a good experience for all of their customers,” but we wouldn’t put it past them to try one day.)

What last mile congestion problem?

Comcast’s argument for usage limiting one type of data while exempting other data falls into the same logical black hole.  Comcast’s basic argument for usage caps has always been it protects a shared network experience for customers.  Since cable broadband resources are shared within a neighborhood, the company argues, it must impose limits on “heavy users” who might slow down service for others.

We've heard this all before. Former AT&T CEO Dan Somers: "AT&T didn’t spend $56 billion to get into the cable business to have the blood sucked out of (its) veins."

But in a world where DOCSIS 3 technology and a march to digital video distribution is well underway or near completion at many of the nation’s cable operators, the “last mile” bandwidth shortage problem of the early 2000s has largely disappeared.  In fact, Comcast itself recognized that, throwing the usage door wide open distributing bandwidth heavy XFINITY TV over the Xbox console cap-free.

As broadband advocates and industry insiders continue the debate about whether this constitutes a Net Neutrality violation or not, a greater truth should be considered.  Stop the Cap! believes providers have more than one way to exercise their control over broadband.

Naked discrimination against web content from the competition is a messy, ham-handed way to deal with pesky competitors.  Putting up a content wall around Netflix or Amazon is a concept easy to grasp (and get upset about), even by those who may not understand all of the issues.

Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and speed throttles can win providers the same level of control without the political backlash.  Careful modification of consumer behavior can draw customers to company-owned or partnered content without using a heavy hammer.

Simply slap a usage limit on customers, but exempt partnered content from the limit.  Now customers have a choice: use up their precious usage allowance with Netflix or watch some of the same content on the cable company’s own unlimited-use service.

Nobody is “blocking” Netflix, but the end result will likely be the same:

  • Comcast wins all the advantages for itself and its “preferred partners”;
  • Customers find themselves avoiding the competition to save their usage allowance;
  • Competitors struggle selling to consumers squeezed by inflexible usage caps.

It is all a matter of control, and that is nothing new for large telecom companies.

Back in 1999, AT&T Broadband owned a substantial amount of what is today Comcast Cable.  Then-CEO Dan Somers made it clear AT&T’s investment would be protected.

“AT&T didn’t spend $56 billion to get into the cable business to have the blood sucked out of [its] veins,” Somers said, referring to streamed video.

Obviously Comcast agrees.

Florida Woman Gets $201,000 T-Mobile Bill: Data Roaming Bill Shock Nightmare

A Miami woman fell to pieces when T-Mobile sent her a cell phone bill that was higher than the purchase price of many nice suburban homes, after a two-week trip to Canada turned into a data roaming disaster.

Celina Aarons is the latest victim of bill shock — when phone and cable companies send surprise bills that throw families into turmoil, begging for help from the provider that could either aggressively collect or save your sanity by reducing the bill.

Aarons appealed to WSVN Miami’s consumer reporter Patrick Fraser for help after the bill arrived.

“I was freaking out. I was shaking, crying, I couldn’t even talk that much on the phone,” Aarons said. “I was like my life is over!”

It turns out her deaf brother uses a phone on her account to communicate… a lot.  He routinely sends thousands of text messages a month, in addition to relying heavily on the mobile smartphone’s Internet access.  He had no idea a two-week trip to Canada would invoke an insanely high data roaming rate — $10 per megabyte.  Text messages sent while roaming in Canada run $0.20 each, with or without a texting plan.  Just running an online video at those rates will easily rack up charges well over $1,000.  And they did.

Unfortunately for Celina, T-Mobile claims to have sent a handful of warning messages — to her brother’s phone, never to hers.  He claims he never saw them.  She’s ultimately responsible for the bill, and she’s upset T-Mobile didn’t notify the primary account holder — her — of the rapidly accumulating roaming charges.  T-Mobile told her they don’t send such notifications for “privacy reasons.”

[flv width=”630″ height=”374″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSVN Miami Help Me Howard – High phone bill 10-17-11.mp4[/flv]

WSVN in Miami explains what happened when Celina Aarons received her 40+ page T-Mobile bill… for $201,000.  (4 minutes)

Life's for sharing a $201,000 cell phone bill.

That’s how parents end up receiving bill shock of their own, when children handed phones run up enormous charges mom and dad never learn about until the bill arrives in the mailbox.  By then, it’s too late.

The Federal Communications Commission was supposed to take direct action to put an end to bill shock by demanding carriers send clear warnings when usage allowances are used up or when roaming charges begin to accrue.  It was a priority for FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, until wireless industry lobbyists convinced him to abandon the effort, choosing an industry-sponsored voluntary plan instead.

Genachowski quietly put the FCC’s own proposed bill shock regulations on hold, which also likely means an abdication of the agency’s responsibility to closely monitor the wireless industry’s adherence to its own voluntary guidelines.

The CTIA Wireless Association, the industry’s largest trade and lobbying group, will be coordinating the “early warning” program, but will take their time implementing it.  The industry wants until October 2012 to implement the first phase of its program, which will send text messages for usage allowance depletion and excessive usage charges.  It also wants even more time — April 2013 — before the industry is expected to adopt additional service alerts.

Genachowski: Abdicated his responsibility to protect consumers in favor of the interests of the wireless industry.

The wireless industry’s plan is based entirely on early warning text messages.  It does not provide any of the top-requested protections consumers want to end the wallet-biting:

  1. The ability to shut off services once usage allowances are depleted until the next billing cycle;
  2. An opt-in provision which requires customers to authorize additional charges before they begin;
  3. The ability to shut off services and features on individual handsets on their account;
  4. The ability to easily opt-out of all roaming services, so sky high excess charges can never be charged to their accounts;
  5. Provisions to require providers to eat the bill if it is demonstrated that warning messages never arrived;
  6. Fines and other punishments for carriers who fail to meet the provisions of either a regulated or voluntary plan.

The CTIA’s plan won’t stop some of the horror stories Genachowski spoke about earlier this year, when he was still advocating immediate action by the Commission.  Among them:

  • Nilofer Merchant: Racked up $10,000 in international roaming and overlimit fees while visiting Toronto.  AT&T waited until after she returned to the United States before notifying her of the charges.  They “generously” agreed to reduce the bill to $2,000, which they ultimately pocketed.
  • A woman who rushed to attend to her sister in Haiti after the 2010 earthquake found more tragedy when her provider billed her $34,000 in roaming charges;
  • A man whose limited data plan ran out faced $18,000 in overlimit fees before the provider notified him his bill was going to be higher than normal that month.

The wireless industry’s chief lobbyist, CTIA president Steve Largent, declared total victory.

“Today’s initiative is a perfect example of how government agencies and industries they regulate can work together under President Obama’s recent executive order directing federal agencies to consider whether new rules are necessary or would unnecessarily burden businesses and the economy,” Largent said.

Consumer groups are less excited.

Text message warnings or not, the wireless industry still wants to be paid.

Joel Kelsey, a policy analyst at public interest group Free Press, said he was skeptical providers would be making their customers their first priority under the voluntary program.

“Asking the uncompetitive wireless industry to self-police itself is like asking an addict to self-medicate,” said Kelsey. “The FCC is charged by Congress to protect consumers, and they should use their authority to write a rule that puts an end to $16,000 monthly cellphone bills.”

“Wireless carriers are not charities — they will make the most revenue they can from their user base,” Kelsey said. “And since competition is weak in this industry, there aren’t natural incentives for companies to be on their best behavior.”

T-Mobile, which is in the process of trying to merge with AT&T, has agreed to discount Aarons’ bill to $2,500 and give her six months to pay.  Stop the Cap! reader Earl, who shared the story with us, suspects that kind of charity won’t last long.

“This won’t happen again if AT&T merges with T-Mobile,” Earl suspects.

While $2,500 is a considerable discount over the original bill, customers who have suffered from bill shock would prefer an even better deal — no surprise charges at all.

That kind of deal is unlikely if the FCC continues to defer to the wireless industry, who have few incentives to provide it.

Consumers can reduce the chances of wireless bill shock by checking with their wireless provider to see if roaming services can be left turned off unless or until you activate them.  Many companies also offer smartphone applications to track usage and billing, useful if you have a family plan and want to verify who is doing what with their phone.  Avoid taking your cellphone on international trips, and that includes Canada.  If you need a cell phone abroad, we recommend purchasing a throwaway prepaid phone when you arrive and rely on that while abroad.  Such phones can be had for as little as $10, and per-minute rates are usually substantially lower than the roaming charges imposed by providers back home.

If you must travel with your phone, carefully consider roaming rates before you go.  Some carriers may offer international usage plans that discount usage fees.  You can use Wi-Fi to manage data sessions, but it’s best to avoid high bandwidth applications while abroad altogether.  One movie can cost a thousand dollars or more in international roaming charges.

While T-Mobile could have provided warnings to Aarons’ own phone as her bill began to skyrocket, T-Mobile’s bill was ultimately correct.  Wireless phone users must take personal responsibility for the use of phones on their account.  Aarons’ brother ignored the handful of warnings T-Mobile claims to have provided, and the agony of the resulting bill no doubt created tension inside that family.  Don’t let a wireless phone bill tear your family apart.  Take steps to protect yourself, because it’s apparent the FCC won’t anytime soon.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/PBS NewsHour New Alerts to Stop Bill Shock 10-17-11.flv[/flv]

PBS NewsHour interviews FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski about the pervasive problem of “bill shock,” and why the Commission elected to defer to the wireless industry to voluntarily alert consumers when their bills explode.  (7 minutes)

The Mayor from AT&T: Tallahassee Mayor on Hot Seat for Dollar-A-Holler Work for Telecom Giant

Divided Loyalties? -- Mayor John Marks

A growing scandal involving AT&T and the mayor of the state capital of Florida has further exposed the link between AT&T’s pay-for-play public policy agenda and the politicians willing to act as puppets for the phone company’s interests.

Tallahassee Mayor John Marks strongly promoted an Atlanta nonprofit group to participate in a $1.6 million dollar federal broadband grant to expand Internet access to the urban poor and train disadvantaged citizens to navigate the online world, without disclosing he was a paid adviser to the group.

What the rest of the city never knew is that the Alliance for Digital Equality (ADE) is little more than an AT&T astroturf effort — a front group almost entirely funded by AT&T that actually did almost nothing to bring Internet access to anyone.

The Alliance for Digital Equality, a group supposedly focused on erasing the digital divide, spends an inordinate amount of time running radio ads under the alias of “Alliance for Equal Access” for competition in cable-TV… when that competition comes from AT&T U-verse. Listen to two radio commercials run in Georgia and Tennessee, both AT&T service areas, promoting legislation that was introduced at the behest of AT&T and promoted by ADE. (2 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

In fact, an investigation by a Tallahassee newspaper reviewing the group’s federal tax returns found four of every five dollars spent by ADE went to board members, consultants, lawyers, and media companies for the purpose of promoting AT&T’s agenda against Net Neutrality and for the company’s various business interests:

Marks also didn’t mention when he brought ADE to the City Commission in September 2010 that AT&T has been paying him since the early 1990s as a lawyer and consultant.

Tax returns for ADE show it got $7.36 million from AT&T from 2007 through 2009. Among its expenses, it spent $2.7 million on consulting and legal fees, $1.2 million on travel, $1.1 million on media and communications and $931,509 in pay to officers and board of advisers members.

ADE spent nothing on projects to provide Internet access to underserved areas from 2007-09. It wasn’t created to do so. The group’s mission, as reported to the IRS, was to advocate “technology inflows to underserved communities by interacting with elected officials, policymakers at all levels of government and private sectors.”

In those interactions, ADE presented the same message as AT&T in opposition to greater price regulation of the Internet.

View the 2007, 2008, and 2009 tax returns for the Alliance for Digital Equality yourself.

Some of ADE’s officers and board members are familiar to Stop the Cap! readers as loyal AT&T advocates.  Even worse, many of them routinely play the “race card” whenever AT&T’s agenda is threatened.  Take Shirley Franklin.  She is the former mayor of Atlanta, but these days her biggest constituent is AT&T.  Last August, Franklin helped lead an attack against Free Press, a consumer advocacy group, that she said “target[ed] women, African-Americans and other minorities” after the group complained about the ties between several civil and minority rights organizations and AT&T.

ADE unsurprisingly is also all-for the merger of AT&T and T-Mobile

Julius Hollis, chairman and founder of the Alliance for Digital Equality, was even more strident.

“I am extremely disappointed in the Free Press, not only in its policies and tactics that they are attempting deploy in their strategy paper, but equally disturbing are its attempts to portray the African-American and Latino consumers as expendable in their efforts to promote Net Neutrality,” Hollis said last year. “In my opinion, this is going back to the tactics that were used in the Jim Crow era by segregationists. It’s no better than what was used in the Willie Horton playbook by Lee Atwater who, upon his deathbed, asked for forgiveness for using such political behavior tactics.”

Stop the Cap! exposed ADE ourselves as a “dollar-a-holler” advocate in August 2010 when we learned the majority of the group’s funds came from AT&T.

Anne Landman, managing editor of the Center for Media and Democracy, told the Tallahassee Democrat the purpose of groups almost entirely sponsored by a single corporate interest is to obfuscate the messenger. “It’s a nontransparent way of operating,” she said. “People don’t know who’s behind these efforts. So it’s fake, and it’s phony, and it gives people wrong information. It’s designed to purposely fool people.”

The newspaper spent months trying to track down financial reports, tax filings, and other documentation about the group, and ran into repeated resistance.  At one point, written requests sent to the group’s headquarters in Atlanta were returned unopened and marked “refused.”

ADE’s corporate influence is bad enough, but when the group uses race, gender, and economic cards to attack real public interest groups, it raises eyebrows, particularly when the group doing the attacking is financed by a corporate entity.  The Black Agenda Report, a website that can hardly be accused of racism, called out Franklin and the organization she represents.

The newspaper’s investigation also found all of ADE’s employees were actually independent contractors.  Non-profit group experts claim the entire structure of ADE is unusual because it funnels all of its money through contractors.

Tallahassee Mayor John Marks is apparently one of them, having received $86,000 as a member of ADE’s board of advisers in addition to AT&T paying him directly as a lawyer and consultant.

With the recent revelations, Tallahassee’s broadband grant is now in ruins and will be returned, unspent.  Marks is reportedly under investigation by the FBI for potential corruption.  And another AT&T astroturf effort has been exposed and has blown up in the company’s face.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WCTV Tallahassee Mayor Under Fire Over ATT-ADE Ethics Scandal 3-29-11 – 9-15-11.flv[/flv]

Stop the Cap! has compiled almost a year of coverage of the burgeoning scandal in the Tallahassee mayor’s office, courtesy of WCTV-TV, which has doggedly pursued the scandal with assistance from its news partner Tallahassee Reports.  (10 minutes)

Search This Site:

Contributions:

Recent Comments:

Your Account:

Stop the Cap!