Early last year, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman sued Charter Communications (Spectrum) for, among other things, knowingly selling broadband speeds company executives knew they couldn't provide. The lawsuit alleged all manner of shady behavior by the cable giant, from admissions that it was actively gaming FCC efforts to measure speeds (via the custom-firmware embedded routers the FCC uses for said purpose), to acknowledging that it was considering actively causing congestion at interconnection points to drive up costs for transit and content companies.
Charter had tried to have the lawsuit dismissed, arguing, among other things, that states lack the authority to hold ISPs accountable under consumer protection law.
Last month a Judge disagreed, ruling that New York's lawsuit against the company could continue, and that New York state was well within its rights to protect consumers.
Charter has since appealed that ruling, and continues to argue that FCC "authority" (which these days consists of rubber stamping every incumbent ISP whim) pre-empts state level authority over ISPs. Charter lawyers argue that the court "erred as a matter of law in denying Charter's motion to dismiss the complaint's allegations regarding actual broadband speeds, because those claims directly conflict with the FCC's regime for measuring and disclosing broadband speeds and are therefore preempted."
The AG's inquiry found that Charter speeds for its premium plan (100, 200, and 300 Mbps) were up to 70% slower than promised. The lawsuit alleges that WiFi speeds were even slower, claiming that many subscribers get WiFi speeds that are more than 80% slower than what was advertised. The complaint notes that Spectrum-TWC charged New Yorkers as much as $109.99 per month for premium plans, but couldn't actually deliver what was advertised.
But the lawsuit also catches Charter executives on e-mail admitting they were interested in gaming the SamKnows FCC router program in order to trick regulators and customers into believing they were getting the speeds they pay for. E-mails also hint that Charter execs considered letting peering points congest as part of a widespread industry attempt to kill settlement free peering and drive up costs for competitors like Netflix. You might recall that incumbent ISPs like Charter, Verizon and Comcast breathlessly denied this practice a few years ago after Netflix, Level3, and Cogent accused them of the practice and Netflix customer streaming performance began to mysteriously degrade.
Charter has also been under fire lately after its merger with Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks, a deal Charter repeatedly promised would deliver untold "synergies" to consumers, resulted in fewer network upgrades, higher prices, and even worse customer service than the cable giant was already known for. Charter was also
fined $13 million by regulators for failing to adhere to the modest deployment conditions attached to the deal.