May 2015

Time will tell how Altice Group’s proposed acquisition of Suddenlink Communications affects the company’s video strategy in the months and years ahead (Suddenlink has been working closely with TiVo), but it’s clear that both companies have something in common on the broadband side of the business -- the pursuit of gigabit speeds. Altice Group has already signaled that it will deploy DOCSIS 3.1, a next-gen IP platform for HFC networks designed to pump out multi-gigabit speeds.

In April, Altice announced it would tap Cisco Systems’ “evolved” Converged Cable Access Platform (we now know it as the cBR-8) to serve as the foundation for its migration to D3.1, starting with Numericable in France. Suddenlink, meanwhile, unveiled Operation GigaSpeed in August 2014, announcing plans to raise its top high-speed Internet speeds to 1 Gbps in 90 percent of its footprint by 2017. The MSO hasn’t revealed a technology roadmap for that initiative, though it’s expected to involve today’s DOCSIS 3.0 platform, factor in D3.1 when that technology is ready for prime time, and possibly include FTTP, at least in targeted, greenfield situations.

When the 2012 Hurricane Sandy destroyed all of its copper facilities in its Manhattan (NY) Broad Street Central Office (CO), Verizon decided to rebuild the site from scratch with fiber, kicking off a widespread copper-to-fiber migration across all of its network. Sampath Sowmyanarayan, senior vice president of transformation for Verizon, said by converting that CO to only fiber, it was able to realize immediate new revenue opportunities because it could extend FiOS to more customers in New York City. "This was the first CO where we transferred everything from copper to fiber, so this is a whole CO that does not have an ounce of copper in it," Sowmyanarayan said. "In that process, we created new revenues because we were able to bring fiber to more premises, a new cost model and truly transforming the network."

Sowmyanarayan added that the telecommunications company has a long way to go until it can claim network transformation throughout the company. It still has another 2,000 sites to convert from copper to fiber. "We have done this copper-to-fiber conversion seven times now, which is the good news," Sowmyanarayan said. "We now have 2,000 more to go."

It’s a question we’re asked a lot. “What happens if I’m the target of a Federal Trade Commission investigation involving data security?” We understand -- no one wants to get that call. But we hope we can shed some light on what a company can expect.

First things first. All of our investigations are nonpublic. That means we can’t disclose whether anyone is the subject of an investigation. The sources of a data security investigation can be news reports, complaints from consumers or other companies, requests from Congress or other government agencies, or our own initiative. FTC staff typically begins with an informal investigation, usually by reviewing publicly available information or even reaching out to the company directly. Sometimes no further action is necessary. In other instances, what we initially learn may lead us to conduct a full investigation, often by sending a formal request to the company for documents, information, or testimony. We may ask to review materials like audits or risk assessments that the company or its service providers have performed; its information security plan; privacy policies and any other promises the company has made to consumers about its security; and employee handbooks and training materials. In addition, we may want to speak with people at the company knowledgeable about its data security practices. We may gather information from others, too, like experts, consumers, and other companies, perhaps including vendors or banks. The next step is to review this information and consider both the facts and potential legal theories. We look at what a company says about its data security practices -- as well as what it actually does -- to determine whether its practices are reasonable in light of the sensitivity and volume of consumer information the company holds, the size and complexity of its business, and the cost of available tools to improve security and reduce vulnerabilities. If a company is subject to certain statutes, like the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act or the Fair Credit Reporting Act, we may consider additional company policies to evaluate compliance with those requirements.

Dish Network responded to critics of its bidding strategy in a recent auction of wireless licenses, saying it followed all the rules and helped competition. The company came under fire from rivals and some lawmakers after it won big at the $45 billion auction that ended in January. Dish itself didn’t win any licenses, but the two firms it bankrolled placed $13.3 billion in winning bids -- second only to AT&T’s $18.2 billion -- then claimed $3.3 billion in discounts aimed at small business.

Dish’s reply came in a response to a letter sent in April by Sen John Thune (R-SD), who suggested Dish’s strategy may have violated auction rules. AT&T and Verizon Communications have also argued that Dish’s coordination with the firms suppressed competition in some instances and created the false impression of increased demand in others. Dish said auction rules allowed it and the two firms, called SNR Wireless and Northstar Wireless, to collaborate on bids and discuss strategy during the auction because it disclosed the arrangement in advance. Dish also pointed to past government auctions where other carriers have collaborated in similar fashion with smaller firms. The company said its participation in the auction was good for competition, and its collaboration with SNR and Northstar helped the firms beat out industry giants AT&T and Verizon for some licenses they may otherwise have lost.