SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Charter can charge Netflix and other online video streaming services for network interconnection despite a merger condition prohibiting the practice, a federal appeals court ruled today.
The ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturns two merger conditions that the Obama administration imposed on Charter when it bought Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks in 2016. The FCC under Chairman Ajit Pai did not defend the merits of the merger conditions in court, paving the way for today's ruling. The case was decided in a 2-1 vote by a panel of three DC Circuit judges.
[...] The case turned largely on the question of whether the consumers who sued had standing to challenge the conditions. Even if other factors besides interconnection contributed to the price increases, "the subscribers need not show that prohibiting paid interconnection agreements caused the entirety of the price increases, or even that it caused price increases of some specific amount," judges wrote. "For standing purposes, even a small financial injury is enough, and the consumers have shown a substantial likelihood that their bills are higher because of the prohibition on paid interconnection agreements."
[...] Charter told the FCC in a filing that it doesn't "currently" plan to impose data caps or charge video providers for interconnection, but the company wants the prohibitions lifted because they "put Charter at a competitive disadvantage" and "forc[e] Charter to run its network based on arbitrary merger conditions instead of market conditions." Charter's filing also claimed that broadband plans with data caps are "often popular" with consumers.
[...] Wood [VP of policy at consumer-advocacy group Free Press] pointed to a Free Press filing to the FCC that he said shows "Charter was delivering better value and getting better financial results for itself than any other big wired ISP. So the notion that either Charter or its customers have suffered from the conditions is a joke, as is any claim by the litigants that unconditioned mergers and monopolies are somehow better for people."
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday August 19 2020, @12:42AM
I never said you said that. Yes, anyone who provides internet access is an "ISP", technically, but not in the traditional *wired* sense. Until 4G, it hasn't been feasible to use cellular data to replace wired ISPs for many uses (e.g., you can't watch videos on slow 2G connections). What I said was that the cablecos are not cellular providers, which is true, and cellular providers are increasing giving them more competition, and yes, they are separate companies (except for Verizon). Companies owning each others' stock isn't really relevant here; this is very common throughout the markets, and sure, people sitting on the boards for different companies happens too, but still there is competition. There is simply no way that having a cableco plus 3/4 cellular providers offering internet service is not a better situation for consumers than having only a cableco and no one else. Of course, it would be even better if we had an FCC that wasn't totally corrupted by the likes of Ajit Pai, but you can't have everything I guess.