Suddenlink Pisses Off The FCC – Gets $25,000 NAL
Washington, D.C. - This story is only marginally connected to the DTV transition, but is so amusing that I just had to pass it on.
Apparently, the Federal Communications Commission received a number of complaints about the cable television provider when it decided to switch certain analog channels on its cable system to digital this past month. The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau launched an investigation into the matter and ordered Suddenlink to answer a number of questions and provide documentation on the matter via an official Letter of Inquiry (LOI). It gave Suddenlink two weeks to respond.
Rather than comply with the LOI, or even attempt to comply, some bonehead acting on behalf of the company decided to send back a letter questioning the FCC’s authority on the matter and actually accused the Commission of breaking federal law by not complying with the federal “Paperwork Reduction Act”, among other things. They also questioned the FCC’s authority to demand such information within two weeks, which they deemed not enough time. They never suggested exactly how much time they thought would be more appropriate. Three weeks, perhaps?
Anyone who has ever dealt with the Federal Communications Commission is well-aware that anyone falling under their authority (Suddenlink definitely does) who is stupid enough to question their judgment or jurisdiction is just asking for trouble. To put it mildly, the FCC has no sense of humor when it comes to these matters. The fact that someone this incompetent at Suddenlink has been put in a position responsible enough to respond to official inquiries from the U.S. Government simply boggles my mind. I am used to seeing these kinds of responses from dimwitted CEO’s of telecommunications resellers, but to see this coming from a licensed, facilities-based carrier is just plain scary. If the company was publicly-traded, I would advise dumping their stock immediately, as corporate incompetence such as this rarely results in a solid bottom line. As it is, I’m just lucky that I don’t have to suffer through being a Suddenlink customer.
In any event, the results were completely predictable. Suddenlink was issued an NAL, or Notice of Apparent Liability, for $25,000 for its part in thwarting the FCC’s investigation. An NAL is sort of like a speeding ticket. The company has the right to a hearing, but it’s pretty much just a kangaroo court that is run by the same people who ordered the NAL in the first place. You can’t fight city hall. Duh!
This may not be the end of the matter, by a long stretch. If Suddenlink continues to stonewall the FCC, the Commission will simply keep piling-on the fines. In theory, they could actually revoke Suddenlink’s ability to offer its services. I have to believe that there must be someone with an ounce of sanity at the company who will step-in before it comes to that though. Until then, Suddenlink customers will likely look forward to higher cable bills as a result of the NAL. After all, someone has to pay for the $25,000 penalty, and it quite certainly isn’t going to come out of the pockets of Suddenlink executives.
A copy of the NAL in Adobe Acrobat format is attached for your reading pleasure.
http://www.fcc.gov/suddenlink.pdf
Topics: analog, cable, cable television provider, channel, complaint, D.C., demand, digital, DTV, dtv transition, Enforcement, FCC, fined, government, hdtv, information, Inquiry, jurisdiction, law, letter of inquiry, LOI, NAL, new, order, paperwork reduction act, SuddenLink, switch, television, transition, tv, U.S., U.S. Government, Washington
I’m with Suddenlink. This post misrepresents the situation. The facts are that we responded as fully and completely to the FCC’s request for information as the circumstances allowed. Furthermore, we demonstrated in our response that we had increased, not decreased, the overall number of analog cable channels we offer during the time period studied by the FCC, a point that went to the heart of the agency’s inquiry. We are evaluating next steps, to demonstrate to the FCC that we do not deserve to be fined in this matter.
Pete,
My point was NOT what information Suddenlink did or did not choose to provide in their response. It was as to their choice to make allegations of wrongdoing by the Enforcement Bureau and question their authority on the matter. In a word, such a response is just, plain dumb.
If you were on trial in a criminal case, would respond to a question from the judge with a personal accusation against him and question his authority? Only if you were trying to get a longer sentence. This is just common sense.
Telecommunications regulation has never had anything to do with “right and wrong”. The laws are whatever the government wants them to be, and are basically just arbitrary. If any of us really believed otherwise, we would all start withholding taxes from the Internal Revenue Service in order to keep government operations we deemed “wrong” or “illegal” from being funded. Unnecessary war, biological weapons, abortion, executions, torture, whatever. We probably all disagree with something that the government does, but if we don’t pay our taxes, we go to prison, no matter how strong our personal convictions. This case is no different, and the sooner that Suddenlink realizes this, the better off it will be.
Hey, it may be tyrany, but that’s the government we the people have given-away our power to. Right or wrong, that is the reality of the situation. Arguing with the government is generally pointless. They have most of the guns, control all of the money and taxes, employ all of the police, the army, the judges, the prosecutors, the investigators and own all of the nuclear bombs. Sticking a finger in their eye is just asking for trouble, IMHO. The federal government may be morally bankrupt, but they have absolute power over all of us, cable companies included. Suddenlink knew all this when they chose to go into the cable business in the first place though. Good luck with the legal route.
William Van Hefner – Editor