This is an interesting case. The notion of advertising broadband speeds as
being capable of “up to” some theoretical speed is not new. My AT&T DSL worked
this way, and my Cox Broadband does this today.
THe DSL service rarely if ever provided the advertised speed. My Cox service
typically meets or EXCEEDS the rate I am paying for, but can be slower at
times.
In this case, however it looks like the facts are on the courts side. If
Charter installed modems that were not capable of achieving the advertised
speed under ideal conditions, they are likely guilty.
As for invoking the FCC in this argument, there are two issues. Using the FCC
methodology for measuring broadband speed appears to be a legitimate practice.
Saying that the recent changes in FCC regulations is just absurd. Charter would
be liable under both regimes...
Regards
Craig
On Mar 2, 2018, at 9:52 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Charter's claim that the net neutrality repeal order preempts the state
lawsuit is contradicted by the FCC's own statement that the commission will
not 'disturb or displace the states' traditional role in generally policing
such matters as fraud, taxation, and general commercial dealings,' the court
said."
That, and probably more, right? The FCC has washed its hands of all of this,
leaving other matters, disclosure of company policies, to the FTC. Again, the
FCC being hoisted by their own petard.
Still, this is interesting because it's a test case of what consumer
protections remain. Perhaps, on this matter, the broadband company can state
flatly that the aggregate capacity, whatever speed is specified as "up to,"
is shared among x households. And then suggest testing in the wee hours.
I wonder if the courts are going to be more aggressive in these remaining
provisions, with the repeal of the neutrality mandate.
Bert