Slashdot Mirror


Charter Hires Net Neutrality Activist To Make Policy

An anonymous reader writes: The Federal Communications Commission has been at loggerheads with many ISPs lately, after the agency pushed through net neutrality rules that have now gone into effect. The defeat of Comcast's attempted acquisition of Time Warner Cable was hailed by many net neutrality activists as a victory, but then came the news that Charter was looking to buy TWC instead — which brought the worries back. But now Charter has taken the unusual step of hiring one of those activists to help develop its policy: Marvin Ammori. He says, "Charter hired me—which, to be honest, took some humility on its part since I have helped lead public campaigns against cable companies like Charter—to advise it in crafting its commitment to network neutrality. After our negotiation, I can say Charter is offering the strongest network neutrality commitments ever offered—in any merger or, to my knowledge, in any nation. In fact, in the end, I personally wrote the commitments." Put briefly, Charter agreed to abide by the interconnection mandates and prohibition of paid prioritization — regardless of the outcome of pending litigation from the ISPs fighting it — for a minimum of three years. The company has also promised no data caps and no usage-based billing.

16 of 70 comments (clear)

  1. Well its simple by future+assassin · · Score: 2

    if they are the first out of the gate they will get the most customers if they actually follow through with their changes. They really have nothing to lose and everything to gain by giving the customer the features that are requested the most.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    1. Re: Well its simple by nachtelfjeiu · · Score: 2

      It's simple indeed. Commitment to net neutrality for only three years is worthless. That guy should be ashamed.

    2. Re:Well its simple by GrandCow · · Score: 3

      So they gave you a legitimate compromise of finding a *single* other person interested to make their groundbreaking worth it to them in case you cancelled your contract at the end and leaving them in the red... and you said no?

      There's a person who is wrong here... but I don't think it's the person you think it is.

      --
      "Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try." -Homer Simpson
    3. Re:Well its simple by fnj · · Score: 2

      You really blew it. You might be kicking yourself for a LONG time.

    4. Re: Well its simple by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      Its not just three years, Its three years regardless of the outcome of the ISP lawsuit over the FCC's move. That means if the lawsuit gets the rules tossed out next month, they are still going to give it a go for the three years. If the lawsuit fails, they should already be there and positioned to be compliant.

  2. Alternately ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But now Charter has taken the unusual step of hiring one of those activists to help develop its policy

    Alternate "tinfoil hat" explanation:

    Once he's in house, sufficiently "re-educated" and compensated, and once the lawmakers have been paid off properly, then he will become a lobbyist to tell us in newspeak that net neutrality is slavery, and that corporations should be able to block competitors and promote their own services as innovation.

    I hope this guy is honest and sticks to his guns. But my experience in the world suggests a much darker outcome.

    I keep putting more layers, and the world keeps showing me I'm not paranoid enough.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Alternately ... by Solandri · · Score: 2

      I think it's legit. Net neutrality is one of those least common denominator things where everyone has to do it, or it doesn't work. If Charter had decided to honor net neutrality, while Comcast, TW, Verizon, etc. were being double-paid for traffic by their customers and by websites like Netflix, then Charter would've had to charge their customers higher prices in relation to the other cable companies just to provide the same level of service. That would've put them at a competitive disadvantage. Not directly due to the local franchise monopolies used in this country, but when time came to renew that franchise contract, another company could've waltzed in and said "we can offer the same level of service at a lower price for your customers." The higher real price of their service having been shifted instead into higher prices for services like Netflix (which customers are still paying for).

      So as long as some companies were allowed to be evil, all the other companies would've felt compelled to follow along just to remain competitive. Just like hard drives used to be labeled 1 MB = 2^20 bytes. Until one company (Maxtor?) decided to label their drives with 1 MB = 10^6 bytes. At which point all the other companies had to switch to the new definition of MB, lest they lose customers who were being fooled into thinking they were getting a better deal with the mislabeled drives.

      Now that the FCC has firmly established that everyone has to abide by net neutrality, that sets a level playing field. Not at the level Comcast, TW, Verizon had wanted, but still level. Companies are now free to set their pricing with net neutrality built in, knowing that other companies will not be able to undercut them by not honoring net neutrality. (This is why I said an alternate solution to net neutrality if the FCC hadn't acted was for Netflix to charge Comcast, TW, and Verizon companies a higher monthly fee - exactly offsetting the bandwidth charges the cable companies were collecting. All they had to do was prominently label it "Verizon bandwidth surcharge" on their monthly Netflix bill, so the customer would know exactly why they were being charged for it.)

    2. Re:Alternately ... by sexconker · · Score: 2

      This is the obvious outcome, tinfoil hat or not.

  3. Since when do corporations actually obey the law? by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 2

    Or their own commitments? Charter's going to do whatever the fuck it wants to do.

    --
    A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
  4. What does it say when this is... by Immostlyharmless · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What does it say when this is the strongest commitment ever?

    "We promise if you consider letting this go through that we won't break the law for at least....um....yeah 3 years sounds good to us, what do you think?"

    Are they fucking kidding?

  5. I actually like Charter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I know it goes totally again the slashdot manifesto to actually like a cable company, but in my area (West Michigan) Charter has been nothing but fantastic for over a decade now. They have been incredibly reliable, very responsive (are happy to bury new cables to your home if your old ones aren't up to the job, for example) to problems, offer an "internet only" package at a (small) discount, are at least 3x as fast as any other company in the area (Comcast and AT&T, both of which completely suck in this area). They have never blocked or throttled any traffic. Their representatives at the local office are even friendly and helpful. I can't wait until Charter finally takes over most of the Comcast network in my area, as many of my clients are on Comcast, which is around 25% the speed of Charter in my area (AT&T's top speed in my area is even worse). Crazy, but true.

  6. Usual coportate reaction by manu0601 · · Score: 2

    When we attempt to impose rules on corporation, first they scream they will not be able to do business anymore and this will destroy whatever is at stake.

    But in the end, while there is non zero profit to be made, corporation will cope with the new rules.

  7. I can actually say this on behalf of Charter by MillerHighLife21 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    About 10 years ago their service was not very good where I am. About 5 years ago that started to change. 2 years ago they called me up and just said, hey, just FYI I know you bought your own modem but we're sending you a new one for free. We just increased everybody to 60mb service (also no extra charge) and the modem you have won't work at those speeds.

    Charter + Cable Card + Tivo Roamio has turned into just about the best tv/internet experience I've had. I never thought I'd say that about a cable company, but at least in the Greenville, SC area Charter does a great job.

    --
    "Don't teach a man to fish, feed yourself. He's a grown man. Fishing's not that hard." - Ron Swanson
  8. 3 years? by whistlingtony · · Score: 2

    So... They promise to not fuck people for 3 years, but after that they're good. That's just insulting...

  9. You had me until 3 years by Dega704 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I was actually buying this until the "for a minimum of three years" part. Why only 3 years? Why not 10 years? Why not indefinitely? How can a "Net Neutrality Activist" actually have the nerve to present that to us with a straight face? I certainly think that Charter is better than Comcast, but this looks like a publicity stunt to get their merger approved.

    1. Re:You had me until 3 years by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 2

      This is a temp job.... writing the documents about Charter's "net neutrality" system only has to be done once.