As a consumer, this transition will be annoying to deal with, but as a resident, I'm proud of my state for pushing expansion of rural broadband where federal efforts have failed. Not sure how the transition will work though, as Spectrum/TWC own the cable infrastructure.
Spectrum has sent a veritable tree's worth of junk mail to my house in the past year, goading me to sign up for their television and landline phone bundle. Spectrum, please die quickly.
It’s so strange to read this. Where I live, Charter Spectrum is virtually celebrated as awesome. My bill for internet has barely increased at all over the past 10 years but on multiple occasions they have contacted me to upgrade my service for free. Even replaced my cable modem at one point.
I’ve gone from 15 to 30 to 60 to 100 and I’m currently at 200. There’s probably been two outages during that entire time period.
I see so many people in other parts of the country complaining about their providers and it makes me realize how good we have it here. ATT is still terrible though.
Very quickly after my TWC connection became Spectrum my rate for 50 megabit internet in Brooklyn went from $40/mo to $65/mo and I am absolutely bombarded with various forms of deceptive marketing junk mail trying to get me to upgrade to some bundled TV/phone package. I disliked Time Warner's marketing beforehand but Spectrum really took it to a new level.
Charter, Spectrum, Charter Spectrum, whatever the hell it is now, stopped offering 300Mbps in my area about a year ago (from what I've been told: due to low demand). However, they allowed my account to remain at 300Mbps, likely because I've never had a contract with them. Ever since then, they've hiked my bill up about $50 in $10 increments. I can only assume they want me to ditch it for their "Supreme Ultimate God-Tier Just-Enough-Of-A-Contract-To-Fuck-You-Shall-You-Cancel Phone, Internet, and Hulu Streaming Bundle Bonanza" package that they keep sending me extremely-official-looking snail-mail for. Whenever I call to ask why I'm being charged more, they give me the runaround and have even told me to downgrade my internet package. I'm not playing their little game... I'll hopefully be ditching them all together soon. I wish the FTC, BBB, etc gave a shit about these practices...it's sad. /rant
I think a big part of the issue is that there is this Spectrum umbrella that has appeared around multiple companies. In my area before it was just "Charter" and then they became Charter Spectrum and now they try to go by just Spectrum.
Which is all well and good except in other areas nearby TWC went under that same umbrella...and TWC was always terrible and totally guilty of exactly the behavior you're describing. Under the Spectrum name, they continue to be terrible.
> I'm proud of my state for pushing expansion of rural broadband where federal efforts have failed.
Not me. I live in a small apartment that I pay tens of thousands of dollars a year for. In Franklin County people can get a lot more space for a lot less money. Why should I subsidize their broadband rather than them subsidizing my living space?
Life is all about tradeoffs. Wanting to get all the benefits of your choices and have other people pay to ameliorate the downsides is understandable but unreasonable.
If we are going to subsidize broadband at all, we should do it statewide and means test it.
This isn't a subsidy. It's an effort to redirect some of Charter's ~$10B yearly profit[0] toward public benefit, in exchange for allowing further consolidation of local monopolies (which would otherwise amplify potential for abuse of market power).
That's a tax (passed on to consumers) and a subsidy by another name though. GP's point is they don't want to pay it. Please debate the finer points of whether or not to have such a policy, but don't say that it's not a subsidy when it clearly is.
By this logic, any company subject to government regulation is taxing its customers.
An observation that doesn't particularly enrich the conversation, unless the point you're making is that we should do away with all government regulation of private companies?
Except that some regulations are more like subsidies than other regulations. Coverage mandates are, in economic terms, almost always a cross subsidy. The regulated company builds uneconomic infrastructure to comply with the mandate, and pays for it by raising prices on everyone else.
Regulation is appropriate where there is some market failure or externality you're trying to address. E.g. regulating pollution is economically efficient, because it prevents companies from being able to externalize their costs onto the public.
It's not appropriate to use regulation to simply achieve an end result you hope to achieve just because you're unhappy with the market equilibrium. If the end goal really is important, than rather than distort the market for everyone else the government should simply provide the desired service or pay for it directly.
> It's not appropriate to use regulation to simply achieve an end result you hope to achieve [... If one wants it to happen,] the government should simply provide the desired service or pay for it directly.
That's the most libertarian-progressive argument I've ever heard. ;)
When the effect of the regulation would be the same as if there was a tax and a subsidy, yes, very much so.
If I had to take a position on this one, I'd probably be in favor of it, even though I dislike subsidies in general, for the reasons some others have stated -- though I'd have to think more about it. And I don't think we should assume (as further up) that people who live in rural areas are doing it for subsidies like this. But this regulation is very much a subsidy.
My point is that all regulations are subidies / taxes, if one wants to be pedantic about it.
So is a rural build requirement a subsidy? Sure, but so is a requirement not to use lead paint, or to avoid dumping toxins into waterways, or to use rights of way, or to maintain the ability for the government to tap calls.
Consequently, it's disingenuous to argue against this specifically because it's a subsidy.
Maybe rural access isn't a social good we want to promote, but it's not different than the massive number of other things we're paying for (vs a completely free market) in the same way.
What exactly is the relevance of the $10 billion number? Charter ran large losses every quarter for more than a decade prior to the merger: https://ycharts.com/companies/CHTR/net_income_ttm. Does that affect your view that its recent profit should be "redirect[ed] toward public benefit"? What exactly is the limit to that principle? What other companies should have their profits "redirect[ed] toward the public benefit?" What criteria do you use to decide?
Your comment suggests you're thinking about the problem in moralistic/score-keeping terms. But the question is not "does the state have leverage," but rather "what are the economic effects of using this leverage to impose a particular policy?" State and municipal regulators love the idea of a free lunch. "They have to get our approval, and we can extract these concessions, and it's free!" But that's not how the economy works. Every policy has a cost. State and municipal regulators not only fail to balance those costs, they don't even realize that those costs exist.
The most damning example is, of course, the reason why we have so much market concentration in broadband to begin with. State and municipal regulators thought they could get universal cable coverage for their constituents, so they gave out municipal franchise monopolies with universal-coverage obligations. They thought they were getting a free lunch, instead they created massive market distortion.
The fact that a regulation is easy to extract because it is imposed as part of a merger approval has no bearing on the economic effects of that regulation (except to the extent that the condition is directly aimed at reducing the anti-competitive impact of the merger, e.g. a spin-off requirement, which is not the case here).
To go back to OP's point: the government telling a company that the have to service a bunch of uneconomic households is a subsidy to those households. Either other customers' costs will rise in order to pay for that service, or capital will be diverted from upgrading or expanding service to economic customers. There is a very large economic cost to servicing uneconomic customers--that money has to come from somewhere. The idea that you can rig the merger so that it comes out of corporate profits with no consumer impact is nonsense.
> the government telling a company that the have to service a bunch of uneconomic households is a subsidy to those households.
Which we have decided as a society is worth it. Everyone should be able to communicate, and it helps those people be more productive too, helping everyone.
> Either other customers' costs will rise in order to pay for that service, or capital will be diverted from upgrading or expanding service to economic customers.
On the other hand, having less competition for something with huge last-mile costs can save money overall. The tricky part is keeping the downsides of low competition in check, by forcing more responsibility on the company as it gets more power.
> The idea that you can rig the merger so that it comes out of corporate profits with no consumer impact is nonsense.
If the merger let them go from negative profits to $10B, then the consumer impact already happened. If none of that can be rigged into rural expansion, then the merger shouldn't have been allowed, and they can go back to minimal profits.
> Which we have decided as a society is worth it. Everyone should be able to communicate, and it helps those people be more productive too, helping everyone.
Except we haven't. One of the consequences of imposing these sorts of obligations through hidden cross subsidies is that it obscures the cost of these outcomes. Would the public be willing to pay through taxes the $X million it would cost to serve those uneconomic households? Probably not. But when a regulator forces them to pay that amount indirectly, they're not in a position to evaluate whether it is "worth it." (Which is why unelected bureaucrats love these "free lunch" measures--it allows them to tax the public indirectly for things the public would not willingly pay for directly.)
> On the other hand, having less competition for something with huge last-mile costs can save money overall. The tricky part is keeping the downsides of low competition in check, by forcing more responsibility on the company as it gets more power.
This is exactly the New Deal-era thinking that has been resoundingly debunked. Regulators applied this kind of thinking to everything from railroads to airlines. But deregulation of those things has yielded enormous real gains. (And not just in the U.S., in many respects western Europe and Japan have been more aggressive in deregulation than the U.S., and have seen concomitant benefits.)
> If the merger let them go from negative profits to $10B, then the consumer impact already happened.
TWC and Charter did not previously compete, so it's unlikely that the swing is due to increased pricing power. Rather, it's more likely due to (1) the fact that TWC was already profitable; and (2) reduced expenses through the elimination of internal redundancy.
Yes we did. Look at phone rules. We 100% decided that.
> deregulation
You don't need trains and airlines to serve every house. And the most effective way to avoid regulation is to avoid monopolies, I'd say. Do you think "no merger, no rules applied" would have been better?
> reduced expenses through the elimination of internal redundancy.
...I think that directly contradicts "The idea that you can rig the merger so that it comes out of corporate profits with no consumer impact is nonsense."
> Yes we did. Look at phone rules. We 100% decided that.
We decided, in the 1930s, to bring phone service everywhere. That has been done and the expenses have been incurred. We never decided to take on new expenses to extend that concept to broadband. We certainly never decided that the way we should achieve that outcome is through wired communications, rather than cheaper wireless communications. The FCC's attempts to do so have been achieved by unelected bureaucrats through regulatory fiat.
> You don't need trains and airlines to serve every house.
But you do need trains and airlines to serve every region above a given size, and that raises the same considerations about duplicated infrastructure.
> I'd say. Do you think "no merger, no rules applied" would have been better?
The merger is a red herring, since TWC and Charter did not previously compete with each other. What I think would've been better would have been to abandon build-out requirements, so that they (or other companies) could come in and compete in areas that will support competition. Then, if there are areas that we feel like aren't being sufficiently served, we can use tax dollars to close those gaps. That allows you to serve the people who need it (and subjects those efforts to cost-benefit analysis in terms of whether cheaper or more expensive technology is used to achieve the result). And it prevents you from distorting competition in areas that could reasonably support 2-3 ISPs.
> ...I think that directly contradicts "The idea that you can rig the merger so that it comes out of corporate profits with no consumer impact is nonsense."
In what way? The government can't control what the company does with the savings it achieves from the merger.
You were arguing that there is a large cost to consumers, and no possible way to pay for the requirements without consumer impact.
Now you're explaining a way for the merger to free up huge amounts of money.
If they free up lots of money by merging, they could use some of it to fund expansion without impacting customers.
The government can't force them to use profits and expenses to cancel each other out, but it's not exactly an esoteric behavior. Especially when the same contract is responsible for both. The idea of it happening is definitely not "nonsense".
Utility regulation in the U.S. is steeped in New Deal ideas from back when we didn't understand how economics worked. Did you know that in the New Deal era, competition was considered a bad thing, so companies had to get permission from the government before building new infrastructure because it might create competition? There's still tons of that in the Communications Act. For example, 47 U.S.C. 214.
What's really telling is that while many in the U.S. want more utility-style regulation, Europe is actively getting away from it. For example, our universal service cross-subsidy system is an antediluvian throwback compared to Sweden (tax credit of about $600 for rural folks to build their own fiber).
If you built airplanes the way U.S. municipal entities regulate utilities, government officials would just declare the acceleration of gravity to be 2.5 m/s/s and pat themselves on the back for basically having solved the problem. Not only do municipal-level regulators not really understand the underlying economics of the system, but they don't even realize they're dealing with an economic system. They don't understand that the economy that cannot simply be moved a desired end state by legislative fiat, but rather takes legislation as an input into an economic process that produces an equilibrium state that might include many unintended consequences, and may not include the desired end state at all. This is a problem with regulators generally, but is particularly a problem in the U.S. In Europe, things like telecom regulation are handled at the national level by the most sophisticated regulators and economists. In the U.S., most important telecom decisions are made by generalist municipal bodies, who have little understanding of these issues.
And yet, despite the shortcomings of local governance and economics rationalization, I have (very!) reliable water, sewer, power, natural gas, and trash services, provided by my local municipality and regulated utilities (respectively). My internet connectivity need not be any different. I'm willing to tolerate growing pains as local and state governments adapt to this "new normal" compared to the traditional monopoly/duopoly for-profit status quo.
Power has been radically deregulated in the U.S., and is primarily regulated the national/regional level, so that's not a great example example. You don't have good water service--it might be reliable, but it is artificially cheap because (1) municipalities have been underinvesting and deferring maintenance; and (2) municipalities externalize the cost of forgoing needed infrastructure upgrades by externalizing costs (i.e. dumping raw untreated sewage into waterways when under-sized treatment facilities overflow). U.S. water rates are very low compared to those in other developed countries, in part because dysfunctional municipal politics is unable to set prices at sustainable levels. The net result is that we're facing $1 trillion in needed water/sewer infrastructure spending: https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/cat-item/drinking-w....
And, of course, there is no "universal service" for water, sewer, or natural gas. Our county builds out public water/sewer based on density, and if you get water/sewer to your house you're on the hook for $20,000+ in construction costs. This is typical.
It's also worth noting that out of the top 10 countries for internet speeds (on Akamai's tests), all have highly deregulated internet, and none have state-owned broadband service. Denmark, for example, got rid of its telecom regulator in 2011: https://techliberation.com/2017/03/27/who-needs-a-telecom-re.... If we were a "progressive" European country, we might well be trying to figure out how to privatize WMATA or the NYC MTA. Instead, we're trying to figure out how to turn one of the few bits of American infrastructure that isn't an international embarrassment into a public service.
I’ll still prefer local governance over shareholder control of a for-profit entirety providing me a utility service, regardless of fiscal solvency issues.
> If we were a "progressive" European country, we might well be trying to figure out how to privatize WMATA or the NYC MTA. Instead, we're trying to figure out how to turn one of the few bits of American infrastructure that isn't an international embarrassment into a public service.
My understanding is that the private companies that ran Brooklyn Manhattan transit and others couldn’t run as private companies which is how we have the MTA? They started private as well, right?
If you’re worried about cost, follow the money. Why are police officers the highest paid MTA employees? For all this talk of union busting, why isn’t any of it directed at the police?
Long ago we decided as a country there were significant collective benefits to near-universal electrification and phone service. Internet is a bit more complicated for various reasons such as wireless options but there’s at least an argument for government rural broadband initiatives.
Of course it's more complicated. The relative cost of doing those things is much higher today (it's labor intensive and labor is a lot more expensive today), and the alternatives (wireless) are much cheaper than running wire.
Which is why I laugh when the FiOS salesman tries to offer me a (temporary) "deal" for $50 when I get exemplary cable internet for $30 with no bullshit rate hikes. Nope, your modem gets to sit idle in the closet until some new sucker comes along.
The wireless alternatives suck. Even mmWave will suck due to line of sight requirements and weather restrictions. Fiber is the only viable media for Gbps symmetric bandwidth.
> there were significant collective benefits to near-universal electrification and phone service
If we keep having to subsidise these areas because it is uneconomical to build infrastructure there, and most new technologies require infrastructure development, does it really make sense for people to keep living there?
The Rural Electrification Act was also a work program in the middle of the Great Depression, so there were some pretty good reasons to do it back then besides just altruism.
Though I honestly think we don't actually even need real subsidies here, supporting municipal broadband providers and One Touch Make Ready regulation (which NY could have passed as a State without the FCC) would probably do more good than holding Spectrum's feet to the fire.
> If we keep having to subsidise these areas because it is uneconomical to build infrastructure there, and most new technologies require infrastructure development, does it really make sense for people to keep living there?
Do you like to eat? You can't run a farm inside a city. You also can't run a farm alone, so there needs to be a community and infrastructure around those farms.
Most of these communities are not farming communities, most farms are huge multi-million dollar enterprises that do not need a broadband subsidy, food can be imported, there's a whole market for paying people for the food they produce, etc.
Please don't post personal attacks to HN, regardless of how little someone knows. Maybe you don't owe them better, but you do owe the community better. The container is fragile here.
Communication is integral to society. Haveing a different class of communication technology that is not accessible by a large portion of the population pushes the haves and have nots apart
> If we are going to subsidize broadband at all, we should do it statewide and means test it.
This makes me sad. We need less means testing, not more. I fully support a more progressive tax scheme but we should eliminate means testing from government services.
>As a consumer, this transition will be annoying to deal with, but as a resident, I'm proud of my state for pushing expansion of rural broadband where federal efforts have failed. Not sure how the transition will work though, as Spectrum/TWC own the cable infrastructure.
There isn't going to be a transition, at least not in the short term, as this will likely be tied up in the courts for some time, and probably settled.
Spectrum is funny. They kept raising my rates, randomly, every 6 months. And every 6 months I’d threaten to cancel.
Finally, I got irritated and penned letters to my state AG and state Senator. Spectrum went into overdrive. Credited a year of service, wanted me to get on a conference call with their GC, a voicemail wishing me happy birthday (super weird).
Would you mind sharing more about the content/format of your letter? Verizon has hiked my rates a few times (with no improvement in service, naturally), so I'm wondering what to write if it happens again. Does needlessly increasing rates violate some law/statute?
> Would you mind sharing more about the content/format of your letter?
Sure! I filed a complaint with the Bureau of Internet & Technology under New York's Attorney General [1]. I've pasted the redacted text below.
"In 2017 I called Spectrum because the rate we were being billed ($104.99) was higher than what we had signed up for (around $80) and more than the rate on Spectrum's Residential Rate Card Information & Disclosure for our apartment
(https://www.spectrum.com/browse/content/ratecard.html). I was told, on the phone, that the rate would be lowered to $89.99 per month.
On February 20th, 2018 I was charged $104.99 by Spectrum. I called and was told that my billing information would be changed to $89.99 for future bills (see Change of Service Confirmation, attached).
On March 2nd, 2018 we received a bill for $104.99, due March 18th, 2018. I called (855) 243-8892, the support phone number provided on Spectrum's website (https://www.spectrum.com/contact-us.html), and spoke with [PERSON] (employee number [redacted]). [PERSON] acknowledged the Change of Service Confirmation, and said a technical error had prevented my billing information from being able to be updated. [PERSON] discussed the matter with one of her supervisors, [SUPERVISOR], who said a technician needed to visit my apartment to replace my modem. Until this visit was done, the billing information could not be changed. I asked [PERSON] for anything in writing confirming that after an in-person visit, my billing information would be updated. [PERSON] said she was technically unable to fulfill that request. [PERSON] then said a technical issue prevented her from scheduling a technician visit to my apartment."
...
I then called my State Senator’s office and asked who deals with telecom policy. Got their name and sent them a copy of the complaint along with a very brief cover letter.
I only get weekly calls from them begging me to add cable to my internet package. Conveniently they do it during work hours and use a different number each time.
They've started calling me using a number in my phone's area code (instead of an 800 number or one of the area codes common where I live). I've heard of scammers using this technique so I was surprised to see a major company doing it
That's funny. Probably 90% of my spam calls are spoofing local numbers, so I've entirely stopped answering local numbers I don't recognize. I can't recall the last time I got a spam call from an 800 number, so there's actually a slim chance I would answer that. Wonder how their strategy is working out...
My spectrum bill rocketed after the 1st year and after numerous unpleasant long calls with their representatives, I haven't been given any viable option. They keep forcing me to take their cable connection which would 'lower' my rates for the internet connection but I would end up paying them more than for just an internet connection.
The saddest revelation through all this is that I couldn't find any other provider in my area (DTLA) which can promise me 100Mbps. I'm stuck with them and I'm not a happy customer! I so wish there were other competing ISPs in this area..
This has been my experience as well. And they damn well know there's no other options. Multiple sites, articles and people say 'call every six months and threaten to cancel for a lower rate' in my area, the reps will gladly cancel your subscription with no hesitation or attempt for retention. Just 'okay you want to cancel, sounds good. Return our equipment and bye, good luck'. At the same time, my bill continues to rise with no explanation of why. America, especially rural America, needs more options for compition in this space.
At least you're getting 100Mbps. I'm one of the original TWC customers who refuse to switch over to their new "no contract" plans because I don't want them to jump my rates like they did yours. Their retaliation? I get 10Mbps down, 1Mbps up. No speed upgrade for me.
Nothing else in my area gets even close to 100Mbps either. I hope NYS can work something out or I'm going to have to move.
> I hope NYS can work something out or I'm going to have to move.
I share your sentiments.. In my mind decent internet access is more of a right than an accessory today. Those without it are disproportionately disadvantaged in numerous ways. I can imagine doing something drastic, in protest, if I'm pushed.
If you're unhappy with your Internet, move. Whether you have good internet or not is mostly a function of your locality. I can get gigabit through either Verizon (fiber) or Comcast (fiber or cable). The service is second in reliability only to the public water/sewer (it went down once because a tree fell on the fiber).
It's not because Verizon is nicer than Spectrum. It's because my county makes it cheap, easy, and relatively hassle free to build and maintain the infrastructure. The love affair places like NY and CA have with regulation is self-defeating. There is a reason why fricking Kansas City has fiber and LA doesn't (and NYC got it a decade after backwaters in MD and VA).
They have to provide service beyond what is specified in existing contracts?
I would expect the merger agreement to say that they have to make higher speeds available, not that they have to deliver a higher level of service than is specified in existing contracts.
AT&T fiber doesn't offer services in my area. Calls with them is another story.. After booking my connection with them twice and them not doing anything about it, they finally tell me that they can only provide a satellite connection which doesn't meet my speed requirements.
It’s pretty incredible speed. However, their customer service is atrocious. I signed up for a $70/m deal for the first year. This was confirmed by the sales rep. Then I was billed $80/m. They refused to do anything about it, saying the $70/m offer never existed.
I live in New York and the only provider is spectrum. Yesterday I (and all my neighbors) got a letter from Optimum, offering better prices and higher bandwidth.
After calling Optimum I got told that Optimum doesn't service my area.
Speaking as an ISP: I would guess more of a fuckup in a database merge for a direct mail campaign. They know what zip codes are their turf and where they have right-of-way, and don't want to waste money on USPS bulk mail targeting people they can't serve. As an example Seattle is a patchwork quilt of either Wave or Comcast cablemodem service areas, it would be pretty rare to see a Comcast solicitation in areas where the cable plant is entirely owned by Wave. Or vice versa.
You've posted about ISP related things in the past. How viable do you think it would be to start a WISP in rural New York State? I'm mostly interested in last mile rural stuff (I don't like cities), but from the looks of the rest of this thread it would probably be more profitable to start a WISP in NYC itself.
It really depends specifically where, how much competition exists and what type of last mile tech that competition uses. How big the market is in population and small to medium businesses.
There are a large number of ISPs that use licensed PTP gear on rooftops in NYC already, in combination with their fiber networks.
If you have a specific area in mind for a rural part of the state, send me an email address and I'll contact you to see what might be possible.
No, though it might look like a mesh in a physical or logical diagram, they use point to multipoint FCC part 15 (unlicensed band) radio systems. Sector antennas, omnis, horns with systems such as the ubnt rocket AC radios, cambium pmp450, mikrotik 802.11ac based, etc.
And various types of PTP links for node-to-node links.
I used to have Time Warner with a 3mb plan for $15. After the Spectrum takeover I can keep my plan but the next level is $70. There is nothing cheaper. I would like to get something a little faster but I have no need for 100mb at $70 which is the only option I have. Its really annoying that there is zero competition. Spectrum knows exactly that a lot of people will get a connection that's way too fast for them and more expensive but they have no choice.
And every month I get several cheerful letters about "deals" that aren't deals. I really hate Spectrum.
Same with the 400/20 in Manhattan. Mind you, I’m probably a sports whale (cable bill is > $200), but I don’t have any service complaints. Also, my “Spectrum plan” is cheaper the my old “TWC plan”. Honestly, if Charter sold the rest of the state and kept NYC I would be okay with that.
The cheapest I am offered is $14.99 for 3/1 (as well as something called 30/4 Spectrum Assist).
I suggest you check out your rate card [1]. These are the services and rates you were legally offered, and is required to be disclosed to you under New York law.
I am on the same plan too though they raised my rate to $20. Such a small world - I didn't think anyone else in the world had this TW legacy plan. AT&T has been really evil to me so I will avoid them as much as I can - Spectrum by comparison has been 'reasonable'.
NC rolled over for TWC against its own cities. Nice to see NY not get bought off.
I'm fortunate that AT&T fiber has been available in my neighborhood for about a year now ($70/mo for gigabit service). Before that I was stuck with TWC's ever increasing prices and worsening service. Now that it's Spectrum it's still more expensive for slower, less reliable service.
I feel like the political implications of this aren't being discussed.
So the 60 day period after which Spectrum would cease operations seems to end September 25, a week before online voter registration ends for the November elections... and even independent of that, it's at a critical moment for campaigning.
For many without a fiber connection in the NYC area, Optimum is now the only game in town, and it has no reason not to price gouge (there's no regulation forcing them to offer now-unnecessary promotional pricing to people). So many low-income people in old housing may need to go without internet and cable during the time immediately preceding the elections. Yes, most phones have data plans nowadays, but quick question: how many people do you know who would be able to print the PDF voter registration form easily from their computer, but would have no idea how to do so from their phone, and can't figure out how to set up a hotspot?
Imagine if New York were a swing state - it's normally not. On the one hand, you're making it suddenly more difficult to register to vote last-minute; that's not necessarily voter suppression, but it certainly smells like it. On the other hand, you're suddenly raising the effective price of (for example) Fox News/MSNBC, their online presences, access to Facebook on desktop computers (where ads are more prevalent), and streaming access to both Alex Jones and Bill Maher. You're cutting people off from information that reinforces their world view, and (gasp) they may need to watch basic cable, the most "mainstream" of mainstream media, while eating breakfast. That's ridiculously impactful.
Perhaps some of these concerns are overblown. Perhaps Optimum will, um, optimize for long-term goodwill and provide a reasonable upgrade path. But at the very least, we should be discussing these implications.
> During the transition process, Charter must continue to comply with all local franchises it holds in New York State and all obligations under the Public Service Law and the Commission regulations. Charter must ensure no interruption in service is experienced by customers, and, in the event that Charter does not do so, the Commission will take further steps, including seeking injunctive relief in Supreme Court in order to protect New York consumers.
Fair. I wanted to phrase my comment in a way that would be colorfully illustrated but not single out a specific political viewpoint. However, it is monumentally difficult to find a media personality on the left as dedicated to discrediting scientific consensus as Alex Jones. I chose the most outspoken left-leaning voice I could think of at the time.
Any lack of equivalency, though, should not reflect on the merit of the underlying issue: that a decision to cut off a vital service provider is not without political consequences.
> So the 60 day period after which Spectrum would cease operations seems to end September 25
I can guarantee you they're not trying to force them to cease operations. There are too many people with triple-play voip and ATA-to-SIP adapters that handle 911/E911 calls to do that.
They are trying to force them to sell the regional ex-TWTC cable assets they acquired in the merger, to another cable operator.
The likelihood of anyone at charter being told to shut off network interfaces/shut off the network in general is about zero percent.
There were already plenty of locations where TWC/Spectrum was the only option available. The cable companies have each had neighborhood-level monopolies for as long as I can remember.
Time Warner Cable has been awful since Spectrum got a hold of it. I didn't have a problem for many years, now I can't even get a customer service rep on the line. I keep getting robocalls about my "upcoming bill". Rates have gone up. Amount of plans have decreased... The list goes on.
Here in Ohio I've had the opposite experience, with the exception of the cost going up. I was one of the ones who would make my annual call to Time Warner to "threaten to cancel" in exchange for another year of discounted service (usually $40 or $45/mo for 30mbit). Spectrum doesn't play that game, so I'm paying $65/mo, but I'm also receiving 100mbit service (where I normally see ~120mbit). I haven't had a single outage since the switch over, but that could also be attributed to the replacement of the old cable modem for a shiny new DOCSIS 3.0 model to support the higher speeds.
As far as robocalls, I had them before, and I still have them now. At least once a month they call me and try to sell me on some other service of theirs. Luckily they use the same phone number on caller ID, so I can avoid the calls.
Probably not because of the merger, though. We have a local company that rolled out fiber in town that is eating their lunch in subscribers, and it is beautiful to see.
Spectrum raised their base speed to 100 Mbps recently, and our local company raised their base to 300Mbps like "checkmate".
>"Time Warner Cable has been awful since Spectrum got a hold of it"
I think there are many who would argue they were awful long before the Spectrum rebranding. I had the misfortune of using their service some years ago. Not that I had any choice as there is no other choice in most areas there.
I get multiple calls and two-second blank voice mails a day (and have for months) from a number that a Google search says is Spectrum. I'm not a customer but they sure are persistent in trying to make me one as I get two or three offers in the mail a week as well.
Verizon also failed to deliver albeit at the city level in, in NYC. The city sued by there has been no such attempt to revoke their charter as far as I have heard:
This is only happening to charter because it was a clause written into their recent large merger with TWC. I don't think the state would have such broad latitude to revoke any other ISPs license to operate.
Verizon was at least smarter about being technically correct, they apparently ran fiber "past every household in the city". The joke probably being, good fucking luck getting your building hooked up to it. If they'd even do it, it'd probably cost you thousands
It blows my mind that people act like Verizon is running fiber past households then refusing to service them for funsies. Passing a household costs more than building the final bit of fiber to the house. It makes no sense for Verizon to pass a bunch of households then not try to recoup that money by hooking up service. The reason for the delay is because New York (particularly New York landlords) are a total nightmare to deal with.
Like many folks living in NYC, Spectrum is my only choice for broadband. The only other option is Verizon DSL with "up to" 7Mbps. If this transition causes issues for my internet, I'm screwed.
I'm in Brooklyn. This thread prompted me to check the Spectrum rates. I was on Time Warner Cable pre-merger, and with Spectrum just called and got a 100MB upgrade that costs me $300 less per year than I was paying. Call was easy/fast with good service. No upgrade fees, etc. And they offered me a technician appointment with a one-hour window within 24 hours. Just one experience, but clearly for this NYC consumer, I seem to be benefitting from the merger.
From Spectrum's Brooklyn rate card (link below):
Spectrum Internet 200/10 = $64.99
Spectrum Internet Ultra 400/20 = $89.99
Spectrum Internet Gig = $124.99
Looks like TWC had topped out at 300MB, and they charged about $110/mo
Fuck Spectrum. They are just awful. The jack your rates, don't follow through, and are so awful to deal with I just am kind of resigned to it. I think Fios may be here soon. They can't be worse, can they?
As bad as it is, how can decreasing the number of competitors increase the quality of options for consumers? Are they preventing other companies from operating?
Since cable companies are already a monopoly, they aren't really decreasing the number of competitors. They are just replacing the one incredibly bad ISP with a somewhat less bad one.
> They are just replacing the one incredibly bad ISP with a somewhat less bad one.
... we hope. That certainly wasn't the case the last time (when Spectrum bought TWC). As far as I can tell, NYS doesn't have any idea who's going to replace Spectrum.
I’ve had Fios for about five years and I’ve been pretty happy with it. Reliability is good, support isn’t completely useless, and be price is not bad at all. I’m currently paying $80/month for “gigabit” which is actually 940/940 or something like that. They also offer 100/100 for $40.
Perhaps the best part is that they just give you an Ethernet connection. You can bring your own router and there’s no need for any sort of modem.
You're "fortunate" to live in a Verizon area where Fios is even a "may be". Our local phone company is Windstream, and they can offer you a a whole 15Mbps (as long as you don't live too far from the office...).
I am curious what happens to their assets in the state after their charter is revoked? This would leave large swaths of that state without TV and Internet no?
Well if they just abandoned it they would be leaving a lot of money on the table. They own all that cable plant, the head ends, etc. I don't think they can afford to do that.
Its FTTN - fiber to the node and then coax from the node to the home. Fiber and coax running to nearly every home or neighborhood in a state is quite valuable.
It's valuable to someone with the right to use it where it's already installed. It doesn't seem like something that can be removed and reused, however. Perhaps there will be some sort of down-to-the-wire negotiation between Spectrum and whoever the next anointed turns out to be? "If you don't pay us the first installment on Friday, we'll start tearing out fiber on Monday!" This scenario illustrates the insanity of municipalities selling franchises that include ownership of the networks. They didn't have to do that. Since we'll never need more than fiber, they shouldn't do that ever again.
I had TWC/Spectrum and it was cheaper and faster then the Comcast I get now after moving. What does the state plan on doing for all the millions of people who only had TWC/Spectrum? Maybe they should invite more competitors in rather than kicking them out.
Maybe they should invite more competitors in rather than kicking them out.
Gotta kick one out to make room for the other. New York isn't about to let every ISP in the nation run independent lines over all of the poles in the state.
The good thing is that when the replacement company steps up (or wins the bid), it will know that the state is serious about keeping obligations.
OTOH, this might be when we find out just how much collusion there is between the big companies, if none decide to fill the gap, thus putting pressure on the AG from the voters.
Yeah, there are sort of two different issues at stake here. One is how to get broadband to rural areas, which is why Spectrum is being penalized. The other is how to provide some sort of competition in urban areas, which this move seems to further undermine.
> New York isn't about to let every ISP in the nation run independent lines over all of the poles in the state.
Why not? I would expect the barrier to entry there to be the expense of doing so, not regulatory refusal.
It makes sense for a regulator to require "universal" coverage and prohibit cherry-picking only the profitable areas, which brings the cost barrier back into focus. However, encouraging a monopology would seem to encourage a similar result.
Has the state actually expressed or implied such a policy?
No, it does not, unless you're asserting that India and/or Thailand have comparable regulatory structures for utilities, other than the one detail of which ISPs are permitted on poles.
To whit, I believe you're presenting a false dichotomy between monopoly and completely unregulate free-for-all.
People don't want massive bunches of cable lines running through their neighborhoods. Most people don't even like the few they have unless they're underground and there aren't access pillars every hundred feet.
Voters aren't going to let regulators ugly up their neighborhoods and drive their home values down.
Mostly, I'm trying to determine if your assertion was a speculation based on, say, evidence (either from NYS previous behavior or from another jurisdiction), or strictly your intuition or guesswork.
So far, I've only seen the latter. My own intuition is this has nothing to do with voters and everything to do with legislators and administrative regulators, over whom voters have only a vague influence and only after deals like this are already done.
Even so, do you even have anything to back up your claim that voters (and most of them, at that) care about additional cables on utility poles, especially in New York State (and not just something that shows people merely prefer underground utilities to pole-mounted, which is undisputed)?
I seem to have the opposite experience of people in this thread. I'm down in southern California using Spectrum and they have by far the best rates. 100 Mbps for $40/mo. I suppose there is a lot more competition for internet out here than average though.
Is that just a promotional rate though? I live in Orange County and the list price for 100 Mbps is $65 (and my area has actual competition from FiOS).
The promo rates are good, but they'll expire after a year and unlike TWC, Spectrum won't just renew at promo rates forever. You either have to cancel and re-sign up, or just pay list price.
They just upped mine to 200Mbps at 40$/mo for free in the northern midwest. I went on their website and it was the advertised rate so I emailed there support and they restarted my modem. Make sure to check every once in a while!
As a consumer, this transition will be annoying to deal with, but as a resident, I'm proud of my state for pushing expansion of rural broadband where federal efforts have failed. Not sure how the transition will work though, as Spectrum/TWC own the cable infrastructure.
Spectrum has sent a veritable tree's worth of junk mail to my house in the past year, goading me to sign up for their television and landline phone bundle. Spectrum, please die quickly.