New York Is Right to Kick Out Spectrum, and I'm Terrified

Casimiro PT /

Late last week, the State of New York's Public Service Commission kicked Charter Communications, which runs the internet service provider (ISP) Spectrum, out of the state. It's unprecedented, but its reasoning is sound. But if you're a Spectrum subscriber (like me) you're also a little worried.

The commission's reasoning is that Charter didn't meet promises it made about its 2016 merger with Time Warner Cable, which made it the country's second biggest cable company. Charter had agreed to increase speeds and expand its broadband offerings to 145,000 homes and businesses in rural areas of the state. According to the commission, it didn't meet those agreements, and now Spectrum has got to go. (Charter says that it reached 86,000 new homes and businesses, which is nice, but far from the promised goal.)

Charter has 60 days to file a plan with the state to find a new provider for its subscribers and must continue service without disruptions. And with Charter sure to appeal, this will likely go to court for a long time. If you have Spectrum, it's probably not going anywhere immediately.

But...what if it does?

That's the unanswered question. By all rights, New York is doing the appropriate thing here. It is exercising its power against a giant corporation that made promises to better internet access and speeds for citizens but didn't follow through. But for many New Yorkers, Spectrum is the only option. In theory, another provider will step up and buy the network--perhaps Comcast, RCN, or Optimum. Who knows? Maybe Charter will create a shell company and sell Spectrum to itself somehow. And with all of the appeals, this will probably takes years, not months, to resolve in court.

But this highlights a big issue in New York and across the United States: a lack of choice in ISPs. If something goes wrong, and if there is a disruption in service, thousands of people will be left without internet. If customers don't like their new ISP, there really isn't anywhere else to go.

And perhaps I'm one of the rare people in New York to say it, but Spectrum has been working out OK for me. Sure, they raise my rates for no other reason than they can, but the alternative in my building, Verizon Fios, would require me to purchase their proprietary router.

In my last apartment, though, it was Spectrum or bust. My only other option would have been DSL, which, for a person who makes a living on the internet and streams an unhealthy amount of Netflix, is just unusable. Charter and Spectrum didn't deliver, but if you're one of the thousands of subscribers in New York without anywhere else to go, a question is in the back of your mind: what happens to my internet access next?

So yes, let them go. But for New York (and every other state), it's not enough to just get rid of the ISPs that don't meet their goals. You need to get more ISPs in to drive down prices and foster healthy competition. While it may take a few years for this to get through the courts, a lot of us don't know what will happen to our broadband next.

Andrew E. Freedman is a senior editor at Tom's Hardware focusing on laptops, desktops and gaming. He also keeps up with the latest news. A lover of all things gaming and tech, his previous work has shown up in Tom's Guide, Laptop Mag, Kotaku, PCMag and Complex, among others. Follow him on Threads @FreedmanAE and Mastodon

  • spdragoo
    Must be a regional thing. I've been with Spectrum since they bought TimeWarner Cable here in Ohio, & I've had zero issues with the service: no outages, no slowdowns, no caps...& zero rate hikes. If anything, they actually improved my service, as they upgraded their minimum speed from 60Mbps to 100Mbps with no change in the monthly rate.

    Maybe it's because I only have Internet, though -- no VoIP or cable TV bundled with it, so introductory rate, nothing like that.
  • Xenophage2112
    You are a thrall of the state. This is a story about the government trampling on private property rights, but you use the phrase "By all rights," indicating your belief that no such rights exist. "Giant corporations" are evil and, if they're going to exist at all in your estimation, they will only do so at the pleasure of the government and according to whatever arbitrary demands it makes. You want more ISP's and faster internet, but you don't care at all about the people who provide it for you, which includes the investors whose rights you are so cavalier with. But continue on this path and see where it leads. You don't want DSL, and you don't want to pay for Verizon's FIOS router - but you will end up paying, one way or another, and you will not have anyone to blame but yourself and your like-minded neighbors.
  • fball922
    Perfectly stated, XENOPHAGE2112.
  • justin.m.beauvais
    Charter not living up to its promises is one thing, but that can be handled with fines or heavy oversight. Kicking them out of the state is entirely another and kills the free market. The government is basically saying that they decide who is free to do business, and that isn't capitalism or a free market economy at all. This is market dictatorship. Cable companies need to be held accountable for their practices, they need to be forced to treat the consumers better. There is a lot wrong with the way that cable companies deal within the US, but kicking them out of areas is actually worse for the consumers. If anything they need to be forced to compete. This crazy oligopoly they have is insanely anti-consumer, but no one is doing anything about that. Now, they are taking that oligopoly and encouraging even less competition.

    This is as far from a good thing as you can get and we should all be very worried when the state decides it has this much power.
  • jstein6870
    Now, I'm not familiar with the specifics, but say New York State has antitrust laws enacted by their legislature which is duly elected by the people then is is not constitutionally at the government's pleasure but the people's pleasure. If the people of New York State agreed to let Comcast pass antitrust scrutiny by promising something in return, then New York State rightly should levy a penalty against Comcast for failing to meet that promise, effectively a breech of contract. I don't know if ejecting them from New York is the appropriate measure, but that's a different matter altogether.
  • jstein6870
    Sorry, that's Charter, not Comcast.
  • jstein6870
    Not Comcast, sorry. Charter.
  • gregorenstein
    since most new yorkers don't have a choice in ISPs it would be nice if they created a cable co-op where the customers get to vote on the direction of the company. The more you pay the more shares you get in the company. so if you just have internet you get one vote; tv internet and phone 3.
  • razor512
    You do not need to purchase a router from verizon fios, the only time you need their router, is if you also use their TV service , since for some reason, it gets everything directly from the ONT except the on-demand content and guide data, in which case, you connect the verizon router behind the actual good router that you want to use. (just change its local IP to anything other than, and then disable its DHCP, then connect it as LAN to LAN.

    If you need the remote access functions on the DVR, then you will also need to forward ports 69, 1701, 35000, 63145 to the DVR.
  • littleleo
    When I 1st got cable it was $100 and I have Phone, TV with 2 DVRs, and Internet. Now 20 years later My bill is $110 and all I have is Internet. As they kept raising my prices I found cheaper alternatives. Now there are no other broad band ISPs in my area so when Spectrum raised my prices $20 and dropped my speed I had no options. Funny how ISPs never seem to have overlapping converge. I think in this case NY should setup it's own internet service and fine Spectrum to pay for setting it up.