Busted FINALLY

>>107716
>Charter's Spectrum sued for slow internet speeds

>New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman believes the company has failed to live up to its promises.

New York's attorney general is suing the second-largest cable operator in the US, claiming the company lied about internet speeds.

Eric Schneiderman filed the lawsuit ( pdf) in Manhattan's State Supreme Court on Wednesday, following a 16-month investigation. The attorney general argues that Charter and its subsidiary, Spectrum, have provided subpar services, with internet speeds slower than the company advertised.

Spectrum had been known as Time Warner Cable before Charter purchased it for about $60 billion, in a deal that was completed in May 2016. Schneiderman wants Charter to pay back its customers for broken promises on internet speeds for a period stretching from Jan. 1, 2012, to today.

With 2.5 million New Yorkers using Spectrum-Time Warner, Charter would have to reimburse customers up to $1 billion for each year since 2012, according to the lawsuit.

In today's connected world, internet speeds matter greatly to consumers for countless everyday activities, from streaming Netflix shows and Spotify tunes to paying bills, doing homework, shopping for shoes and gabbing on social media.

The attorney general's investigation found that Spectrum-Time Warner's speeds were much slower than advertised, with executives ignoring engineers' warnings that the promised speeds were impossible.

Customers paying $110 a month for 300 Mbps, were on average, only getting 85 Mbps, Schneiderman said at a press conference Wednesday. Those paying $70 a month for 100 Mbps were barely getting 50 Mbps. On average, Wi-Fi speeds were 80 percent slower than what customers were promised.

The investigation found internal emails from the company's executives acknowledging their internet speeds didn't match what they advertised.

"It is a consistent story of bad performance and a long-term business plan built on deceit," Schneiderman said.

The lawsuit also criticized Spectrum-Time Warner for charging customers $10 a month to rent subpar modems that slowed down internet speeds even more. In internal emails, the company's engineers recommended at least D3 modems, even as Time Warner's executives continued dishing out D2 modems to save costs.

Between May 2012 and February 2016, subscribers paid $600 million in modem fees alone.

Charter said it had made "significant commitments" to improve Time Warner Cable's services since acquiring the company.

"We are disappointed that the NY Attorney General chose to file this lawsuit regarding Time Warner Cable's broadband speed advertisements that occurred prior to Charter's merger," the company said in a statement.

Schneiderman's office started looking into slow internet speeds in October 2015, through a survey asking New Yorkers what their actual speeds were compared to what their companies advertised.

"New Yorkers should get the internet speeds they pay for. Too many of us may be paying for one thing, and getting another," Schneiderman said in December 2015, when he launched the probe.

The attorney general had blasted Time Warner Cable in the past, telling Charter Communications in his letter than the company "earned the miserable reputation it enjoys among consumers."

When Charter first acquired Time Warner, Schneiderman warned the company to deal with Time Warner Cable's service issues, including slow speeds.

holy shit
finally some good news

>>107716
I'm happy about this. I never bought those packages because I'm cheap but it's nice to see a ISP pay for the bullshit they do.

>>107716
Good.

Cox next plox

Dont worry, Charter will slip them some money and this whole thing will silently go away so they can continue fucking over their customers.

>>107716
Haha, suck a dick TW.

>>107716
Oh god please let my state Attorney General join this lawsuit.

>but how did they get away with it for so long? Anon wondered to himself, scratching his neckbeard with cheetos crusted fingers

So every IP in the country has been doing this and I am as pleased as punch that there is finally going to be a precedent to this horseshit.

Basically, you got that 100Mbps plan. If you get on during off hours (2-6 am or 10am-2pm) you got that speed. See goyim? Theres that blazing fast internet you paid for! But then its 3 pm and people start heading home from work. And kids are getting home from school. And you know how you have a wifi router with 8 people on it it will slow down? Its like that, but its 800,000 on the main line for your city/block. Suddenly your speed drops to 20 Mbps. You can still get netflix if you turn off other connected devices, but other people in your line are using them. You call the company because its unnacceptable that your family gets a fifth of what you paid for and they tell you its peak hours and theyre doing everything they can, if you want though theyll discount your first months upgrade to the 200Mbps package. Youll repeat this proccess until you reach the package that you can live with it, despite paying for 1/5th of an advertised product.

Thought id share since there are people who dont experience the horror that is peak traffic internet.

>>107716
Well they did say your speed was UP TO XXmbps, at least in the adverts I've seen. Besides it's common knowledge in the networking industry that ISP's over lease their bandwidth. Why waste money on infrastructure when you can meet demands 90% of the time. If you take a look at how hilariously lopsided their upstream throttle is you can see what their actual capacity is. In my case I have 50mbps down but 5mbps up, so they're fine with large but short bursts of data but if every one of their clients were using it at the same time they could only handle around that measly 5mbps. I don't really blame them either, our area has had terrible ISP's, and at best 2mbps satellite, so they've been a blessing really, them skimming excess funds so that they can expand and get more user's mediocre service has been good in our state's case.

>>108028
Don't defend sketchy business practice, just fucking don't.

>>108050
This is America anon, companies can do no wrong. Only be slightly misguided.

>$110/mo for 300mbps
Let me guess there's a data cap on that as well?
1Gbps, $65/mo here in Switzerland. Feels good.

>>108125
Time Warner is actually Data Cap Free, thankfully, but the speeds are shit, and the kikes outsource Customer Service to Pajeets.

I use Spectrum/Brighthouse.

>>107994
>So every IP in the country has been doing this and I am as pleased as punch that there is finally going to be a precedent to this horseshit.

I would certainly hope not. We need less government in our personal lives, not more. If people are unsatisfied with a private company's product, then they should find another, or just not buy the product period. It's not like the internet is a need anyways; it's a want.

>>108241
There isn't always an alternative though and if every company is doing it, then what?

>>107902
I think Sudden Link should be next. As shitty as they all are, Sudden Link is the worst. When I was living in West Virginia an economic report came out saying that the company was actively harming the economy of the state because poor internet services were one of the top reasons that nobody wanted to move their business there.

>>108241
ISPs have monopolies in many areas. There's no "going to another service."

>>108267
>>108244
Consumer boycotts work you know.

>>108270
>boycot the only thing

>>108270
Only if enough people participate, but given how vital the internet is today to conduct basic buisiness and communicate, the lack of choice that is implied when I said that there was a MONOPOLY, and the fact that all companies are doing it, a boycott wouldn't be very effective which is why the government holding those companies accountable is the only way anything will change.

>>108270
That doesn't work with monopolies.