Charter

Spectrum owner Charter Communications is nearing the finish line in its long-awaited $34.5-billion purchase of Cox Enterprises to form the nation’s largest internet and cable television company.

California’s Public Utilities Commission is scheduled to vote next week to approve the merger that would bolster Southern California’s dominant provider with more than 5 million customers. Securing the approval of California regulators — the deal’s final hurdle — has been a slog as federal officials gave Charter their consent months ago.

Customers of privately held Cox, the Atlanta-based company that serves Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills Estates, Las Vegas and large parts of Orange and San Diego counties, would be switched to Spectrum service. Charter is the industry leader, providing Spectrum internet, phone and cable TV packages for Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura counties.

It’s been more than a year since the companies unveiled their proposed union, and they hope to combine operations this month. But flaps have flared up in the last lap.

Public interest groups have argued that the PUC’s proposed settlement with Charter doesn’t go far enough to ensure long-term affordable internet for low-income residents or accommodations for customers reeling from natural disasters such as last year’s Eaton and Palisades fires.

In addition, advocates have asked utilities commissioners to demand that Charter commit to fostering workplace diversity, equity and inclusion among its proposed 9,000-member workforce in California. Such programs have been under siege since President Trump returned to the White House.

“State regulators like the CPUC have an important role to play — they have a voice and leverage if they choose to use it,” said Jason Solomon, director of the National Institute for Workers’ Rights, a Bay Area group that is lobbying for Charter to renew its commitment to a diverse workplace.

“It’s important that California stand up for its own laws, policies and values,” Solomon said.

A Spectrum truck in New York City.

(Star Max/IPx)

The five-member commission is set to vote on the Charter-Cox merger Thursday. The panel will consider two competing proposals; both would allow the merger to go through with various conditions.

Charter years ago pledged to create a diverse workplace but scaled back its public statements amid Trump’s vocal demands that companies dump DEI programs. Trump’s Federal Communications Commission chairman, Brendan Carr, also has championed eliminating diversity programs, saying they are discriminatory.

The FCC in February approved Charter’s proposed purchase of Cox’s residential cable, commercial fiber, cloud and information technology businesses. To win Carr’s approval, Charter agreed to “new safeguards to protect against DEI discrimination,” according to the FCC.

Charter is in a bind. It disavowed diversity efforts to win the FCC’s blessing but now is facing calls in California to embrace such commitments.

“In a state as diverse as California we should protect diversity in the workplace,” said Jessica J. González, co-chief executive of advocacy group Free Press. “We have a responsibility to stand up to what’s been going on in the federal government, and in the Trump administration, to force companies to roll back their policies.”

In its public filings, Charters said it would reach out to diverse suppliers and work with business groups, including the Women’s Business Development Council, the California LGBTQ Chamber of Commerce, the African American Chamber, the California Hispanic Chamber and the Cal Asian Chamber.

“This transaction will be good for consumers, community leaders, and businesses across California as it will provide them with lower prices, greater value, better service, and support from Spectrum’s 100% U.S.-based employees,” the Stamford, Conn. company said in a statement.

Concerns heightened among activists after one of the two proposed settlements, hashed out between Charter and Commissioner Matthew Baker, the commission’s Public Advocates Office and the California Emerging Technology Fund, failed to include diversity efforts.

Advocates viewed Baker’s proposal as weaker on broadband access provisions too, including commitments to provide low-cost internet for disadvantaged residents and communities that lack service.

“For us, it’s really about making sure everyone in Cox’s and Charter’s service territory benefits from this transaction,” said Paul Goodman, counsel for the Berkeley-based Center for Accessible Technology.

“We want to make sure that communities that have been historically overlooked get the same benefits from the transaction as everyone else,” Goodman said.

For example, a coalition of advocacy groups is seeking to prevent Spectrum from tacking on equipment charges for customers on low-income plans.

Commissioners will be asked to select from Baker’s draft decision or last month’s proposal from the agency’s administrative law judge, Jamie Ormond. Advocates are urging the panel to adopt Ormond’s version because it contains more compliance conditions, including mechanisms to foster an inclusive workplace.

Commissioners have “a statutory duty” under the state’s utilities code “to deny the transaction outright rather than approve a weaker deal,” the advocates argued in a recent filing.

Solomon’s group is pushing for an “organizational infrastructure for equal opportunity compliance,” including reporting compensation and promotion data for Charter’s California workforce and pay equity audits.

The state has required diversity measures before — despite such initiatives being out of favor in Washington. In January, the commission approved Verizon Communications’ purchase of Frontier Communications.

In that proceeding, Verizon pledged to “further California’s public policy goals of diverse supply chains and workforces, including a $10 million partnership with the California State University system,” the PUC said.

Under both Ormond’s and Baker’s proposals, Charter would be required to offer affordable broadband to low-income residents, including California LifeLine service tiers. It would have to sell stand-alone broadband plans for five years, although advocates would like to see that extended to 10 years.

The company has agreed to spend at least $275 million to upgrade its California network and complete its 1-gigabit service capability across its legacy service areas within three years.

Charter also agreed to invest at least $30 million in customer outreach initiatives, such as digital literacy training and device access for low-income communities. The company also is being asked to provide free broadband and Wi-Fi service for about 50 eligible institutions, including schools, libraries and community centers for several years.

Charter was criticized after the January 2025 fires for charging fees for equipment that burned, said Natalie Gonzalez, director of Digital Equity Los Angeles, one of the advocacy groups that is asking for Charter to “improve disaster response and customer service standards … during life’s most challenging moments.”

Charter pushed back on that contention, saying it helped residents in the burn areas.

“We opened all our wifi hot spots to anyone (non Spectrum customers) and were deeply involved in the restoration efforts,” the company said in its documents.

The advocates, including Digital Equity LA and the California Alliance for Digital Equity, compiled evidence to help commissioners determine whether the merger was in the public interest.

Should the deal go through, Cox subscribers will soon see changes. Charter plans to roll out its Spectrum products and fees to Cox customers next month.

Subscribers can opt for their existing pricing or switch to a Spectrum bundle that includes such apps as Disney+, Hulu, ESPN and Paramount+.

Charter has also said it would offer Cox subscribers a year of free service when they switch their cellphone carrier to Spectrum.

The Charter name will be dropped in one year and the combined company will become Cox, although consumer products will keep the Spectrum brand.

The switch is because the Cox family — descendants of an Ohio press baron who bought his first newspaper in 1898, began acquiring cable systems in 1962 — will become the firm’s largest shareholder group, with about 23% of the stock.

In a recent earnings call, Charter Chief Executive Chris Winfrey told investors the combined company would have nearly 37 million customers nationwide.

It expects to generate $67 billion a year in revenue and about $28 billion in earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization.

In a few days, Los Angeles voters will be casting ballots for city attorney — and in a few months, they could be voting to sharply diminish the city attorney’s authority.

The city’s Charter Reform Commission has proposed splitting the city attorney’s office into two parts — an elected city prosecutor, charged with handling criminal misdemeanors, and a mayor-appointed and City Council-confirmed city attorney who would represent the city in civil cases and advise the mayor, city council and city departments.

The City Council is reviewing the recommendation as part of sweeping changes to city government, including expanding the council from 15 to 25 seats, which could go before voters in the Nov. 3 general election.

The proposed changes to the city attorney’ office, however, come in the midst of a heated primary campaign, where incumbent Hydee Feldstein Soto is up against three challengers, including a state deputy attorney general and a deputy district attorney.

Both of those challengers say plans to bifurcate the city attorney’s office are rooted in longstanding conflicts between Feldstein Soto and the City Council.

Council members have expressed frustration over her handling of rising costs from an outside law firm, where the payout amount has grown to nearly $7.5 million — with some attorneys billing the city roughly $1,300 an hour.

And last year, City Council took a 12-0 vote to direct Feldstein Soto to withdraw an effort to halt a federal judge’s order prohibiting LAPD officers from targeting journalists with crowd control weapons.

“When I first heard about this idea, I thought it was probably the greatest indictment of the current city attorney that I’ve heard yet,” said John McKinney, a Los Angeles County deputy district attorney who is running for city attorney in Tuesday’s primary.

McKinney opposes the bifurcation, saying it will cause overlap and confusion. “If she was doing a good job … we wouldn’t even be having this discussion,” he said.

Marissa Roy, another candidate in the race, hasn’t taken a position on bifurcation but said Feldstein Soto’s actions triggered the proposed change.

“The only reason that bifurcation, or splitting the city attorney’s office, is even going to be going before voters is because we’ve had an incumbent city attorney who has gone so rogue to politicize the role,” said Roy, a deputy state attorney general.

Roy said accused Feldstein Soto of inappropriately blocking an affordable housing project in Venice. And in her office’s role of drafting ordinance language, Roy said, Feldstein Soto has returned to city council ordinance language that isn’t “faithful to the intent of the drafter.”

Feldstein Soto said the proposal to bifurcate the office has nothing to do with her performance.

“This issue comes up every single time charter reform comes up,” Feldstein Soto said. “To me this is all political opportunism.”

Feldstein Soto has opposed the split, and former city attorneys have also come out against it, saying an appointed position threatens the independence of the city attorney’s office, takes away from voters the right to elect a city attorney and could cost taxpayers money in order to split the office.

In a March letter to the Charter Reform Commission, Feldstein Soto said an attorney “serving at the pleasure” of the mayor and city council would face an “innate, human pressure to harmonize legal advice with the political goals of the appointing officials.”

“I have been able to provide honest, accurate legal advice to the Mayor, City Council, Controller and departments — even when that advice is unwelcome — precisely because I am an independently elected officeholder with an ultimate duty to the public,” she wrote. “An appointed City Attorney, serving at the pleasure of the Mayor and City Council, faces enormous political pressure on all of these issues, behind closed doors, cloaked in privilege without an independent voice.”

Burt Pines, a former city attorney who served from 1973 to 1981, deeply opposes the bifurcation proposal, citing the threat to independence as the largest issue at stake. As city attorney, he said, he was empowered to tell city officials when a proposed action was unlawful and refuse to support it.

“You want to be able to call the shots as you see them, true to the law,” Pines said in an interview.

Advocates say other cities have bifurcated offices, and splitting it could reduce conflict and provide a clear delineation of roles.

After consulting with experts and good governance groups, the commission agreed the benefits of bifurcation outweighed the negatives, and it passed unanimously by the commission.

“It was easy to get consensus on this,” said Raymond Meza, chair of the commission. The commission’s proposal calls for the city attorney to be nominated by the mayor, and confirmed by the City Council.

In its report, the commission said that “the current structure creates conflicts when the same office advises the city and prosecutes cases. Separation provides clearer roles, reduces conflicts, and allows each function to be performed effectively.”

Other cities have different models for the city attorney’s office: Long Beach has a similar model with bifurcated duties, while New York City has legal representation split up several ways. The San Francisco City Attorney provides legal representation for the city and county of San Francisco, and the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office handles criminal cases in the city and county.

Mike Bonin, executive director of the Pat Brown Institute, said he has seen the question of splitting the office come up with at least three different city attorneys to varying degrees.

“Given that the city attorney is an elected position, there’s always going to be somebody who doesn’t like them,” Bonin, a former city council member, said. “You need to divorce the question from the occupant and focus on the role — the charter is not about a particular person, the charter is about the function of the office.”