Charter Hires Leading Net Neutrality Advocate To Write Its Net Neutrality Commitments, Promises To Go Further Than FCC Rules

from the who-are-you-and-what-have-you-done-with-the-cable-company? dept

By and large, the mega-ISP version of net neutrality has unsurprisingly been a far cry from the consumer and small business definition of net neutrality. At the moment, most ISPs argue that net neutrality only means they won't throttle or outright block competing content. It's this vague, incomplete definition (in that it doesn't cover issues like usage caps, interconnection or zero rating) the incumbent carriers have used when they've told regulators they "promise to adhere to net neutrality" if the latest merger-du-jour is allowed to go through. That's why, when Comcast promised it would adhere to "net neutrality" if it was allowed to buy NBC (and more recently Time Warner Cable), it meant -- to use a highly-scientific term -- jack shit.

So it's interesting to see Charter Communications -- which is trying to gobble up Time Warner Cable after Comcast's failed merger attempt -- suddenly promising to adhere to real net neutrality to get their deal done. The company is apparently dedicated enough to the idea that they've hired leading net neutrality and consumer advocate Marvin Ammori to help hash out a meaningful commitment that would appeal to a more consumer-focused FCC. Ammori, if you're unaware, was basically the key player in making sure the FCC passed good rules instead of the original terrible rules.

According to a piece by Ammori over at Wired, he actually wound up writing Charter's commitment:
"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."
That in and of itself is pretty impressive; I've covered the broadband industry for the better part of a lifetime, and the vast, vast majority of ISP merger conditions are promises that are utterly, mind-bendingly meaningless. They're almost always fluff and nonsense, political show ponies written by ISP lawyers to sound good to the clueless, even if they accomplish less than nothing. So for a cable company to bring on board a fierce neutrality critic to pen their commitment to neutrality is unprecedented. What's more, while the FCC has so far turned a blind eye to more clever types of neutrality violations (like usage caps and zero rating, pretty much ground zero of the current neutrality debate), Marvin managed to get those included in Charter's commitment as well:
"Since zero rating favors some sites over others based on the broadband provider’s preferences (not the users’), my allies and I urged the FCC to ban zero rating in all forms, but the FCC didn’t go that far. Charter necessarily will. In fact, it will commit to no data cap at all–and no usage-based billing–therefore it will be unable to exempt any applications from those practices."
That Charter -- a company that's flirted with usage caps on and off for years -- has agreed to avoid not only zero rating but usage caps entirely is a pretty big deal. Most cable operators are aggressively eyeing usage caps to jack up consumer broadband bills, well aware that inevitably users will chose to cut the TV and cable VoIP cord in exchange for over the top data services. Though only catch here, as Ammori notes, is that the restrictions only apply to Charter for a three year span, after which (especially if the FCC's neutrality rules are killed by the courts) all gloves are off and the fight begins anew. It's also important to remember that while Charter's busy making these promises, it's actively engaged in suing the FCC to destroy the net neutrality rules as a member in the NCTA.

Still, that Charter's willing to go this far is night and day from Comcast's merger approach, which was to dazzle everyone with an endless parade of utter bullshit and hope that nobody was smart enough to see truth, buried as it was under a junk yard of meaningless promises.

Filed Under: commitments, conditions, data caps, marvin ammori, merger, net neutrality, open internet, zero rating
Companies: charter communications, time warner cable


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2015 @ 1:43pm

    I don't think he realizes he's being used. I doubt they'll actually adhere to their commitments. They'll likely violate them like Comcast did the conditions of their NBC purchase.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mason Wheeler (profile), 25 Jun 2015 @ 2:01pm

      Re:

      Exactly. That's what I thought when I saw this: "They're not going to violate this seven ways from Sunday before the ink's even dry? I'll believe it when I don't see it."

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2015 @ 2:39pm

      Re:

      They will adhere to them, then they will be allowed to buy TWC due to their adherence. What happens after the commitment period will determine what type of company Charter is.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2015 @ 5:29pm

        Re: Re:

        Sounds about right.
        What would be funny, of course, is if they tried to back off from being super net-neutral and what have you and suddenly found the spotlight of criticism focused on them even brighter than before...

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 25 Jun 2015 @ 2:35pm

    Words are nice, but ultimately meaningless

    Actions are what really matters.

    They can say whatever they want and it doesn't cost them a thing. They can promise no caps, no throttling, and that every customer will get a free Ferrari, but that doesn't mean anything if they never follow through.

    Cable companies are great at making promises, especially when it comes time to knock out some competition via merger, but when it comes to following up on those promises, more often than not they fail spectacularly, so while this 'commitment' may sound nice on paper, as the saying goes, "I'll believe it when I see it".

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    sorrykb (profile), 25 Jun 2015 @ 3:53pm

    I'm concerned it's a trap: Lure him into their HQ and then replace him with a replicant.

    Call me paranoid, but this is a cable company after all.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Coyne Tibbets (profile), 25 Jun 2015 @ 5:22pm

    Same story coming up

    Even though Comcast broke its last set of merger promises worse than a Faberge egg crushed by a steamroller, the government will say, "Oh, so long as you make promises, go ahead with your thing then." [Stage instruction: hand waving dismissively]

    Then, maybe in another ten years, the government will notice these new promises were broken worse than a Faberge egg under a pile driver, and threaten to fine Comcast for a dollar...and, boy, will that ever teach Comcast a lesson!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Hephaestus (profile), 25 Jun 2015 @ 6:01pm

    The FCC should turn them into dumb data pipes and be done with it...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Agonistes (profile), 26 Jun 2015 @ 12:14am

    I've been on these guys for over a decade and I've actually been left alone and had pretty good service plus I've paid the same price for over 2-3 years I think...not too high either, so all this Charter sucks/Charter's great stuff is blowing my mind. I'm probably going to get a big dose of Internet karma all at once and be screwed soon now.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    TDR, 26 Jun 2015 @ 8:31am

    If you don't get cable at Charter, please get cable somewhere...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Andy Tiller, 7 Jul 2015 @ 9:33am

    Zero rating - can someone explain why it violates net neutrality?

    I get the concept: "...zero rating favors some sites over others based on the broadband provider’s preferences (not the users’)". OK, but so what? How is this against the interests of the end user? Should we ban 1-800 phone numbers as well?

    I also understand the argument that in the long term the sites which can afford to sponsor their own data traffic might win out over smaller sites which can't afford to do so, which therefore reduces competition. But isn't that just business? Should we prevent those bigger sites from advertising as well, because they can get an unfair competitive advantage from having larger advertising budgets?

    I genuinely want to know if there is a real argument against zero rating, rather than just a whole load of negative sentiment against big corporates whom we all love to hate...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.