Slashdot Mirror


New York Threatens To Kick Charter Out of State After Broadband Failures (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Charter Communications could lose its authorization to operate in New York State because of its failure to meet merger-related broadband deployment commitments, a key government official said. NY Public Service Commission (PSC) Chairman John Rhodes said that "a suite of enforcement actions against [Charter] Spectrum are in development, including additional penalties, injunctive relief, and additional sanctions or revocation of Spectrum's ability to operate in New York State," according to a PSC announcement last week. Charter agreed to expand its network in exchange for state approval of its 2016 purchase of Time Warner Cable (TWC). New York officials say that Charter has failed to meet its commitments, even though Charter claims it has. Rhodes accused Charter of "gaslighting" and noted that the PSC has already ordered Charter to stop making misleading claims about its broadband deployment progress. The PSC last month ordered Charter to pay a $2 million fine and complete the promised network construction. If Charter doesn't meet its merger-related obligations, the company will "face the risk of having the merger revoked," the commission said at the time. A revocation of the merger could force Charter to spin off its Time Warner Cable division in New York, but it wouldn't affect Charter's ownership of TWC in other states.

53 of 83 comments (clear)

  1. Obligatory Nelson Muntz by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

    Haw-haw!

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  2. Pay attention Alanis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sounds like Charter is about to ..... lose its charter.

    1. Re:Pay attention Alanis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      yeeeeeeeeaaaahhh!!!

  3. Cue whining of shills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They will blame New York State for this, in the entirety, and seek to exonerate the poor innocent corporations of their just and due share of blame.

    1. Re:Cue whining of shills by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Living in Charter/Spectrum territory. They have greatly increased internet speed for all the users with 100mbs as the baseline from 30mbs 2 years ago with TWC.
      However their push was them saying how much they are going to expand coverage in the area. And NY should hold them to these claims. Bandwidth improvements is just a flip of a switch.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re: Cue whining of shills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well I live near San Antonio, TWC was at 200Mbps and they jusy rolled out the new modems to upgrade everyone to 300Mbps for free.

      Spectrum happened, suddenly ads about Spectrum's "blazing fast" 100Mbps plans being the only option.

    3. Re:Cue whining of shills by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I've had a very positive experience with Charter/Spectrum too. I used to pay $70 for 25Mbps internet. When Spectrum came in, I was able to get 100 Mbps for $65 a month. So no complaints from me. Of course, they didn't automatically convert us over. They would still be happily charging me the $70 for 25Mbps if I hadn't taken the initiative after seeing the new price structure on their website.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    4. Re:Cue whining of shills by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      New York seems like it doesn't take what corporations say at face value much, and instead hold them accountable. It's almost as if New York has had extensive experience with organized crime which puts them in the right place to deal with corporations.

    5. Re:Cue whining of shills by dublin · · Score: 1

      That's certainly not true of Time-Warner/Spectrum where I live in Austin. I pay for 200 Mbps service (there's no point in paying for more, as you'll see in a moment), but I have NEVER gotten more than 60 Mbps on any speed test ever. It galls the crap out of me to be paying so much and getting so much less.

      The problem is that actually fixing the real problem is expensive (I live in the hard limestone hills - trenching to run new fiber is expensive, so they're still running crappy coax infrastructure), so despite 1-2 truck rolls a year for 20 years, they've never been able to fully deliver their promised speed, and reliability is simply deplorable - cable modems are forced to reset every few hours much of the year. I've decided it just wont' get any better than this, and sadly, there are no real alternatives (AT&T only offers their laughably slow DSL from last century as an alternative.)

      TWC/Spectrum is literally the WORST company and service I've ever paid for (and that takes some doing), but due to the corruption of the Austin City Council, I have no alternatives: Any competitors are fist required to build out the "underserved" parts of town that will never buy enough to support themselves, leaving no cash to continue the buildout to the parts of town that want it and can pay for it. (This policy almost bankrupted Grande Communications, which spent a fortune on infrastructure in East Austin to reap only a pittance in revenue. Google saw this and has successfully bribed the council to allow Google Fiber to cherry-pick to ensure the maximum number of subscribers, so long as they offer free 5 Mbps Internet to low-income customers.)

      One thing's sure: I'll kick Spectrum to the curb as soon as there's any competition...

      --
      "The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last ./ post
    6. Re:Cue whining of shills by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Of course, they didn't automatically convert us over. They would still be happily charging me the $70 for 25Mbps if I hadn't taken the initiative after seeing the new price structure on their website.

      I discovered that literally yesterday. I've been piddling along with 50 megabit for $65/month for years. Come to find out I should be getting 200 megabit for the same price, in my area.

      Telcos are evil.

  4. About f**king time. by sconeu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    These telecoms make all these promises to get regulatory approval and then never follow through.

    It's about time someone held them to account (even if it's minor).

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    1. Re:About f**king time. by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The Governor of NY, Andrew Cuomo, is probably trying for a 2020 bid against Trump, and facing reelection this year. While he has a track record of being conservative for a Democrat, he is trying to rebrand himself as progressive (the Anti-Trump) and pushing agendas he never cared for before.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:About f**king time. by Spamalope · · Score: 1

      They know it's cheaper to pay off the right folks than to keep the promises.

    3. Re:About f**king time. by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Dude, this is what you're asking for:

      Me: OK, AC. Give me a million dollars and I promise I'll build you a two million dollar house!

      [five years later]

      AC: Where's my 2 million dollar house
      Me: Oh, I haven't gotten around to it.
      AC: OK, we'll just forget your promise.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    4. Re:About f**king time. by fafalone · · Score: 1

      Cuomo is a textbook example of a spineless career politician interested exclusively in getting reelected, scarcely making a single statement that hasn't been focus grouped and reviewed by committee. He's been trying to pick up a couple social wedge issues to distract from his god awful record. He seems to expect us to believe he won't swing right back towards conservatism after the primary challenge he's facing now. A year ago he's calling marijuana a gateway drug and opposing legalization, suddenly he's facing a primary a swaps positions.
      Outside of identity politics stuff, dude's half a Republican. Party leadership still hasn't figured out that just supporting LGBTQIA+ rights and some feminist issues isn't enough to take the stink off of "moderates" (who, by the standards of the rest of the world, are already well right of center) who don't support traditional liberal values.
      Dude's a slimeball. I hope Nixon wins the primary and blows up his political career. He's definitely another road to Trump 2020; no way enough people turn out for him.

    5. Re:About f**king time. by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      Wait, which Trump? He's doing a terrible job, or have you not noticed his major free trade gaffes that pissed off every single senior Republican? Of course he seems to be changing his mind at the last minute, and this is his trademark style of deal making - keep threatening until someone blinks and then say "just kidding!" The economic damage to farmers (a core Trump base) is much larger than the tax cuts and his $12 pledge of subsidies isn't going to help much (and giving handouts to farmers just pisses them off, which he would know if he had ever met one).

      His management of zero-tolerance at the border was laughably inept, separating parents from children with absolutely no idea how to reunite them sometime in the future (the post office knows how to track packages so maybe they should be in charge of the border?). What the hell were they thinking?

      Trump seems to have a major case of a swollen ego and takes everything personally, he offends our allies and kisses our enemies, he seems to always switch his views and agree with whoever the last person he spoke too was which makes predicting his policies impossible, and he seems to pay more attention to conspiracy shows than to his own staff of advisors. He's only around because he's got a small but loyal base that is hoping to see the government burn to ash.

      The republicans are also losing some long and short term members who are keeping to their standards and principles. I keep expecting the party to split but they seem to suck it up out of fear of an election backlash if they show any spine. Of course, the democrats are unorganized and inept and can't manage to show a united front, while the republicans will happily embrace the wacky wings of their party and show a united front of strange bedfellows and they beat the drums to get out the vote.

    6. Re:About f**king time. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Rules are for other people, said every CEO ever.

    7. Re:About f**king time. by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      and giving handouts to farmers just pisses them off, which he would know if he had ever met one

      They don't seem to have a problem with the handout that's the biennial Farm Bill. Or forcing all gasoline to contain a percentage of corn derived ethanol.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    8. Re:About f**king time. by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      spineless career politician

      Worse than spineless. He's a weasel hiding in the skin of progressive voters. And the Democrat voters would be committing political suicide if they voted him to be their PotUS candidate. He doesn't grasp how much damage he did to himself nationally by railroading in the NY SAFE act (a draconian, Potemkin village anti-gun bill).

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    9. Re:About f**king time. by jwhyche · · Score: 1

      Wait, which Trump? He's doing a terrible job,

      I'm sure that is what you have been told. Hell, you may even believe it. But by virtually every real world indicator Trump is doing a good job. An this is truth no matter what you have been told or choose to believe. Now this might not be truth tomorrow but as it currently stands as truth now.

      Now I've learned not to debate with people with TDS so this will be the last thing I say in this thread on it. Take it as truth or not, it really doesn't matter to me..

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    10. Re:About f**king time. by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Despite what the talking heads on TV keep saying Trump is actually doing a good job as president.

      Thanks for the the laugh. That said, Trump is going to be tough to beat in 2020, but not because of the job he's doing - but because Mueller will still have jack and shit on his probe. Allowing Trump to run against hacks in the media and hacks in the Democratic party - and he'll be right.

      They could start by distancing themselves from the more radical congressional members and those running like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

      If a policy is supported by a supermajority of Americans, including a majority of Republicans - then by definition it's not radical.

    11. Re:About f**king time. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that is what you have been told.

      Who cares what I've been told. All you have to do is observe and it's obvious from that.

      But by virtually every real world indicator Trump is doing a good job.

      Lolnope.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    12. Re:About f**king time. by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Democrats are promoting the most radical arms of their party right now. I guess the consensus was that they should have went with Bernie Sanders--because that is their official direction at the moment.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    13. Re:About f**king time. by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Moving the embassy to Jerusalem was an unabashed off-script fuck up. Trump will have a lot of friends in Israel for life though. It bolstered support for Arab right-wing movements giving them almost total control. So, Hamas, who was effectively marginalized, have now re-surged as the prominent party--militant terrorist organization. Peace was going to happen soon...but this has pushed us in the wrong direction and emboldened Israel in their land grab and extreme surveillance.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    14. Re:About f**king time. by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      peace was NOT going to happen soon

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    15. Re:About f**king time. by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      One of these slimeballs is going to make a deal with Trump and run third party. Guaranteed Trump 2020.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    16. Re:About f**king time. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      They really aren't. When it comes to getting funding from the DNC, they are reluctant to support candidates that they don't see as viable.

      Remember awhile back when Gore lost the elections, the Democrats unfairly blamed the Green party and Nader for spoiling the election. The truth is, the Democrats expected the the Green party voters to end up voting for them by default and so they failed to do significant work to attract those voters.

    17. Re:About f**king time. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      There really are a lot of conservative farmers that are unhappy with subsidies, as they see it akin to welfare.

    18. Re:About f**king time. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Trump's foreign policy seems to be all about picking friends and enemy's randomly. Someone whispers in his ear "it's so sad the embassy isn't in Jerusalem" and the next minute the tweets start flying. I honestly believe that Trump usually has no opinion on so many issues but instead pays attention to whoever whispered in his ear last or whatever late night show he watched. That why he seems to flip flop so much and do unexpected things (like pointing out a non-existent crisis in Sweden that left Swedes scratching their heads in confusion).

    19. Re:About f**king time. by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      As long as they hate the Farm Bill & useless mandates to subsidize corn prices, they're okay in my book. Otherwise, fuck their hypocrisy.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
  5. Escrow? by RyoShin · · Score: 2

    Wouldn't requirements like this--promise of some sort of future, demonstrable action in order to allow a current one--be good for an escrow-type setup? An approximate cost and timeline of the project is defined as part of the agreement for it, the promisor puts that amount into the escrow account, things move ahead. As the promisor makes and shows progress, they can remove funds from the escrow to cover those costs. If the project is satisfactorily completed, promisor gets anything left in the escrow account including any interest it may have earned. If the escrow account goes dry and the promisor does not complete the project as agreed, fine come into pay.

    Should the promisor fail their duty, the government in question uses the funds to implement the action themselves (insomuch as the funds will actually allow) in addition to risk of the merger being revoked.

    Puts an extra stick to the company to keep up their agreement.

    1. Re: Escrow? by reanjr · · Score: 1

      Then you're putting your public works under the thumb of lenders. When capital dries up in a bad economy, you don't want that to impact your ability to improve things.

  6. If TWC/Charter are booted... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

    If TWC and Charter are booted, will we be left with Verizon as a monopoly in some areas? The same Verizon that reneged on its agreement to roll out fiber in all of NYC by 2014. (Yeah, yeah, Sandy, but it's 2018 now, and there are still buildings stuck on copper; copper which isn't even being maintained properly.)

    1. Re:If TWC/Charter are booted... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      They could split off the New York part of TWC into it's own company as hinted in the summary.

    2. Re: If TWC/Charter are booted... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Paper insulated. Great for NN internet. The same speed.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:If TWC/Charter are booted... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      They could split off the New York part of TWC into it's own company as hinted in the summary.

      So, what's the legal basis for that action? Seriously, revoking their charter to operate in NY is certainly within their power, but I can't see any way they can order the company to divest itself that way, if Charter-TWC don't want to do it.

      Note, of course, that the Federal government has that power. Which in no way implies that the NY government has that power....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    4. Re:If TWC/Charter are booted... by dublin · · Score: 1

      FWIW, NOBODY can afford to "properly maintain" their copper infrastructure anymore, given how little revenue can be extracted from it these days. In many cases, especially in northeastern states, the incumbents like Verizon are *prevented* from fully replacing their copper infrastructure, since they are the "carrier of last resort", and must continue to offer POTS service by law....

      --
      "The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last ./ post
    5. Re:If TWC/Charter are booted... by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      So, what's the legal basis for that action? Seriously, revoking their charter to operate in NY is certainly within their power, but I can't see any way they can order the company to divest itself that way, if Charter-TWC don't want to do it.

      Note, of course, that the Federal government has that power. Which in no way implies that the NY government has that power....

      The state government has considerably more power than you know. If Charter doesn't do as its told, 100% of its infrastructure in New York State can be confiscated. It's called eminent domain, and the Supreme Court of the United States has already upheld its use for purely economic purposes. New York State could take control of every inch of cable Charter used to own in the state and either run it itself, or sell it off to any other company it chooses. This has already been litigated. There's nothing Charter could do to more than delay it. It could not be stopped.

      Revoking their corporate charter is the least of Charter's worries.

    6. Re:If TWC/Charter are booted... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      POTS can also run over fiber. Phone-only FiOS is legally considered POTS.

    7. Re:If TWC/Charter are booted... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      They don't order the company to divest, but they order the company to stop operating in the state. The divestiture occurs naturally at that point.

  7. Bah by Greyfox · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just allow municipal broadband, New York. We did that in Colorado and now everyone's slowly getting gigabit. And weed. OBTW gigabit internet is *awesome*. Also weed.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Bah by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2

      It appears to be legal, at least in NYC. Read about LinkNYC. As far as weed, looks like NY is moving in that direction, though not quickly enough. Enforcing weed wastes a lot of resources that could be put to better use.

    2. Re:Bah by fafalone · · Score: 1

      LinkNYC, that program to install porn viewing stations for the homeless right in the middle of the streets they live on? Good one.

      Sarcasm about the (real) problem of porn aside; public WiFi isn't an acceptable alternative to in-home wired connections, and given the density of NYC, even the lightening-fast LinkNYC speeds we get now would be seriously degraded if big portions of whole buildings started piling on them with the bandwidth demands of a home instead of mobile. (I'm also not sure public WiFi hotspots count as a consumer ISP for the purposes of any regulation the might address municipal providers).

    3. Re:Bah by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      So if the internet sucks, wouldn't the week make up for it?

    4. Re:Bah by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      Oddly not as much as you'd think. You usually end up eating half a tub of ice cream and watching my little pony reruns on netflix.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  8. Sadly, it likely is just posturing by RevDisk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Telecoms are big business, understand to regularly bribe politicians and typically have friendly endless court battles. Local and state governments can and will be overruled by federal courts. This has kinda be the way of things for decades. We pay telecoms substantial amounts to built broadband, in tax revenue. They don't spend the money. Or rather, they spend the money on everything except for broadband. They charge through the nose for relatively modest bandwidth (saving money on their backend). And then repeat.

    Municipal ISPs can provide gigabit fiber, often with a backup of mesh WiFi of many/most areas, for very modest rates. Majority of the time it's not city employees doing the work, it's some outside small ISP doing everything. And they still pull a modest but respectable profit.

    Until we reform the laws, which means addressing the corruption issues, the bandwidth picture is not going to change. Hell, you don't even need to do THAT. Just force telecoms to justify the money that they are given from taxes. It'd be hilariously easy to charge them with fraud.

    1. Re:Sadly, it likely is just posturing by skam240 · · Score: 1

      What you say makes complete sense but sadly there is a fairly large body of Americans who believe that the government doing anything is always bad. That coupled with big telecom money makes change almost impossible some places.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  9. Re:Good! by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

    Good luck -- it will cost them more to remove it than to just pull out. Much more.

  10. Doubtful by sizzlinkitty · · Score: 1

    I hope Charter gets kicked out of NY, they deserve it. The company has a major lack of regard for keeping commitments.

  11. Re: Good! by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

    Isn't it part of the issue that they didn't built out infrastructure they promised to do?

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  12. Let's say they kick them out by wyattstorch516 · · Score: 1

    Charter can just shut down their systems and everybody that is using them would have to switch. I bet the price for FIOS goes right through the roof if that were to happen. I doubt they could force them to sell but even if they did Charter could tie them up in court for years.

    1. Re:Let's say they kick them out by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Charter can just shut down their systems and everybody that is using them would have to switch.

      That assumes there's an option to switch to. Where I live, my only wired broadband option is Spectrum. FIOS wasn't expanded to my area so they're not an option. The closest other things to an alternative for me are DSL (much slower, older technology that the phone companies want to shut down, and costs just as much as Spectrum) or going fully mobile (slower, low caps or throttling for "unlimited" plans, much more expensive, wouldn't be cost-effective for my household downloading 500GB a month). If Spectrum shut down tomorrow, I'd be left with no Internet.

      Of course, I don't think it'll come to that. At worst, Spectrum would spin off a "Time Warner Cable NY" company that's technically different but essentially the same as Spectrum. Then, after some time passed and they greased the right palms, they'd reacquire TWC-NY.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    2. Re:Let's say they kick them out by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      I doubt they could force them to sell but even if they did Charter could tie them up in court for years.

      New York State can force Charter to sell. It's called eminent domain, and it's an open and shut case in federal circuit court because the Supreme Court has already ruled on the subject recently. Charter could sue to prevent it. They would lose. They could appeal. The appeal would be denied. Kelo v. City of New London is settled case law. Takings for purely economic purposes are the law of the land, federally.

      New York State was not one of the states that amended its constitution in response to Kelo. New York State did not even pass any state laws prohibiting economic development takings. New York State did not even pass the law that would have established a study committee to examine the possibility of prohibiting economic development takings.

      And it was the Rehnquist court, a majority Conservative (big 'C') Supreme Court, that wrote that ruling.