AT&T U-verse customers may have to do without these shows if an agreement cannot be reached with Rainbow Media

AT&T U-verse customers may lose access to three basic cable networks in less than two days if a dispute over how much money AT&T should pay for the networks isn’t settled.

Rainbow Media’s AMC, We TV, and the Independent Film Channel are all threatened with removal from AT&T’s nationwide U-verse lineup as a two week extension of carriage negotiations appears to be going nowhere.

In an ironic “now the shoe is on the other foot” twist, Rainbow Media is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cablevision Industries — the cable system serving parts of downstate New York, New Jersey and Connecticut.  AT&T is using some of the same language Cablevision used earlier this year in a dispute over fees charged by Scripps’ Food Network and HGTV, as well as Disney-owned WABC-TV in New York.  Rainbow even borrowed a page from Scripps and launched an AT&T protest site, Facebook page and Twitter account.

“AT&T is acting in an aggressive manner that puts their corporate interests ahead of their customers,” AMC said in a statement. “We are negotiating in good faith with AT&T and are hopeful that we can reach an agreement as soon as possible so that our viewers don’t lose out.”

Meanwhile, AT&T is publicly insulting Rainbow’s cable networks.

“Based on aggregate data we obtained from third party industry sources and our own subscribers, some of the Rainbow channels are among the least-watched and most overpriced per viewer compared to other major programming providers,” an AT&T spokeswoman told Deadline. “They’re also trying to force the renegotiation of a contract for one of their other channels that is not yet expired and force us to carry a new channel that wasn’t even formally presented to us until after the recent July 1 contract extension. We want our customers to know that we can’t and won’t give in to unreasonable deals that unfairly disadvantage our customers.”

Despite AT&T’s bravado, Rainbow may have the upper hand with a more aggressive outreach campaign.  AT&T’s website for U-verse has not mentioned the dispute — a potential PR mistake if it wants to argue its position about programming costs.

Share/Save

Bresnan Communications, the nation’s 13th largest cable operator with 308,000 customers in Colorado, Montana, Wyoming, and Utah, has been sold to Cablevision for $1.36 billion dollars — $4,300 a subscriber — well above the asking price of one billion dollars, including the company’s debt obligations.

Providence Equity Partners Inc. of Providence, Rhode Island, majority owner of Bresnan unloaded the cable company to help boost its earnings for clients.  Private equity firms like Providence have been suffering in the current economic climate, turning in their worst returns since 2000.  Many are selling off holdings to pay investors.

Bresnan spokesman Shawn Beqaj said the sale had nothing to do with founder William Bresnan’s death last November at age 75.

Bresnan, 30 percent owned by Comcast, today specializes in providing service in the sparsely populated mountain west states that have been ignored by larger companies.  At least 44 percent of Bresnan’s business is in Montana, where 688 of the company’s 1,300 employees work.  But the company’s founder, William Bresnan didn’t start out providing service in any of the states where the company operates today.

The acquisition by Cablevision, known mostly for its suburban New York City-area cable systems, would bring Bresnan’s current owners a considerable bonus over the asking price, and Cablevision (and the debt-financing banks) will pay in cash.

Other bidders included Suddenlink and a company controlled by former cable czar Dr. John Malone.

Cablevision managed to leverage the deal with less than $400 million of its own equity, financing the remaining $1 billion dollars between Citigroup and Bank of America Merrill Lynch in non-recourse debt.  That means if Cablevision’s buyout of Bresnan falters, the banks can only recoup their losses by seizing and selling the acquired Bresnan systems.  They can’t go after Cablevision’s other cable systems or sports ventures to make up the difference.

Considering Bresnan subscribers in the Northern Rockies face little prospect of robust competition, and Bresnan cable broadband can easily exceed broadband speeds offered by telephone rival Qwest, most analysts expect few problems from the deal.

Click here to view the embedded video.

CNBC explains the Bresnan-Cablevision Deal.  (3 minutes)

Bresnan Founder’s Story Is Echoed Across the Entire Cable Industry

The late William Bresnan -- Founder, Bresnan Communications

Bresnan’s journey through the cable industry over several decades tells the story of the often-ruthless deal-making, horse-trading, and customer-financed  mergers and acquisitions starting after cable deregulation in 1984.  Rates spiked to pay ever-increasing sums to buy and sell cable properties.  To own a cable system, it was said in the late 1980s, was a license to print money.

Bresnan’s involvement in the cable industry began with a job in the engineering department of a midwestern cable company and moved into management at a number of companies, most now long-gone after waves of consolidation.  Those with cable television dating back to the 1970s may even recall some of the names:

H&B American Cablevision: Operator of rural cable systems, most with around 12 channels, offering residents clear reception of over-the-air television signals.  They had a loyal customer base, stable earnings, but little potential for growth.

TelePrompTer: The nation’s largest urban and suburban cable operator through much of the 1970s, but a 1972 bribery scandal for a cable franchise agreement in Trenton, N.J., lead to bribery and perjury charges for TelePrompTer’s principal owner, Irving Berlin Kahn.  The famous songwriter’s nephew ordered the company to spend nearly everything to help mount his defense.  The TelePrompTer scandal would ultimately force the company to sell itself to…

Group W Cable: Westinghouse acquired the financially-troubled TelePrompTer in 1981.  Group W itself would exit the business by 1986 with an acquisition feeding frenzy among four other cable operators — American Television and Communications Corp.; Tele-Communications Inc.; Comcast Corp. and Daniels & Associates Inc.  Ironically, only Comcast would survive merger-mania intact.  ATC systems eventually became a part of Time Warner Cable.  TCI systems were acquired by Comcast.  Daniels was itself a buyer and seller of cable systems.

Bresnan Communications was founded in 1984, not in the mountain west, but in the upper peninsula of Michigan where Bresnan acquired and ran several small cable systems thanks to the help of cable czar Dr. John Malone, CEO of Tele-Communications, Inc., (TCI).  Millions of Americans are familiar with TCI’s own journey through consolidation, first becoming AT&T Broadband and then later as a part of Comcast.

Over the next 14 years, Bresnan expanded operations with Malone’s help.  At one point Bresnan jointly operated cable systems with TCI in northern Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska, Georgia and Mississippi serving approximately 660,000 customers. The company even bought cable systems in post-Communist Poland and in Chile, the latter eventually sold outright to TCI.

Bresnan Customers Benefit from Founder’s Technical Background

What set Bresnan Communications apart from the rest of the smaller players in the industry was the founder’s in-depth understanding of cable technology.  Bresnan understood where the industry was going, and had an insatiable appetite for new technology that would also leverage additional growth in the business.

Bresnan spent heavily to upgrade his cable systems, deploying the hybrid fiber-coaxial cable architecture (HFC) in 1997 which is still in use at most cable systems today.  HFC would set the stage for Bresnan to compete with satellite television’s multi-hundred channels, and would let him sell telephone and broadband service to his customers.

That was unprecedented for smaller cable operators.  In the 1990s, it was still common to find small cable systems running only a few dozen channels.  If these legacy cable systems didn’t upgrade, DISH and DirecTV could eat them for lunch.  For those that would raise the necessary money, upgrades were performed.  For those that couldn’t, many would exit the business, selling their cable systems to larger, better-equipped enterprises.

Buy Low, Sell High

Beyond anything else, Bresnan was a businessman.  He had a track record of acquiring cable systems at fire sale prices and selling them for a tidy profit.  So during the height of the dot.com boom, he could hardly ignore a 1999 call from Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen.  Flush with cash to spend, Allen saw cable systems as a key component of his dream for a “wired world.”  Cable companies owned dozens of networks brimming with content that he believed could help drive people to broadband.  Owning both the content and the pipeline to deliver it could drive up the value of both, and Allen could control both.  He had already established himself as owner of Charter Communications, itself a medium-sized cable operator.

Allen’s cable acquisition shopping spree inflated values of cable systems to all-time highs, finally reaching nearly $5,000 per subscriber in crazed bidding wars.  Allen offered $3.1 billion dollars for Bresnan’s small cable empire.  Bresnan sold.

Bresnan Communications Recreated

By 2003, the dot.com boom was well over and done with, and those high-spending online tycoons saw the value of their acquisitions and enterprises erode away.  For Allen, his much-treasured vision had become a cash-sucking albatross.  Charter Communications’ stock by then had lost 95 percent of its original value.  Consumer protection regulation had also arrived in 2003, putting a stop to subscriber rate increase-fueled bidding wars.  Cable rates had risen 61 percent from the time the industry was deregulated in 1984 until legislative relief took effect in early 2003.  When the Money Party ended, stock prices for cable operators crashed.

Bresnan saw the deflation in the industry as an opportunity to buy his way back in, and started shopping.  That year AT&T Broadband, formerly TCI, found itself considering an acquisition offer from rival Comcast.  AT&T owned cable systems large and small, several of which were in the Northern Rockies, hardly cable’s fast lane.  While Comcast had big plans for AT&T cable systems in larger areas, it would be willing to part with smaller systems acquired as part of the deal.

By the time Bresnan arrived with an offer in hand, cable system values dropped further, and his bid for the roughly 300,000 subscribers that comprise today’s Bresnan Communications would be accepted at the fire sale price of $2,100 per subscriber.

Since the acquisition, Bresnan upgraded its systems, offering speeds up to 15/1 Mbps in its rural service area and maintains a reputation in the industry for running well-managed cable operations.

Share/Save

As predicted, Cablevision and Disney-owned WABC-TV New York reached a settlement of their dispute over retransmission fees, returning WABC-TV to more than three million Cablevision subscribers minutes after the start of the Academy Awards telecast.

WABC released a statement indicating a tentative agreement had been reached:

“ABC7 and Cablevision have made significant progress and have reached an agreement in principle that recognizes the fair value of ABC7, with deal points that we expect to finalize with Cablevision. Given this movement, we’re pleased to announce that ABC7 will return to Cablevision households while we work to complete our negotiations.”

Details of agreement were not released, but many expect WABC-TV will be paid 50-60 cents per month per Cablevision subscriber.

“It is a deal that is fair to our customers and in line with our other programming agreements,” Cablevision spokesman Charles Schueler said. “We are very grateful to our customers for their support and pleased to welcome ABC back.”

WABC-TV officially returned 8:43 pm Sunday, Cablevision said. The awards show began at 8:30 pm.

Share/Save

Cablevision characterizes the dispute as a "TV tax" on its subscribers

More than three million Cablevision subscribers in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut are without their local ABC station as another retransmission fee dispute reached an impasse late Saturday night.

WABC-TV, the top-rated television station in New York went dark on Cablevision customer screens Sunday morning, potentially depriving cable customers access to tonight’s Academy Awards telecast.

“If Cablevision is serious about doing right by their customers and returning ABC7 and its programming to them, then they need to act now. The ball is in their court,” WABC-TV president and general manager Rebecca Campbell said in a statement.

The station says it sent Cablevision a new proposal earlier today, but Cablevision had not yet responded.

Cablevision argues it already pays $200 million dollars a year for Disney-owned cable networks like ESPN, and WABC’s request for what the company characterizes as $1 per month per subscriber is too much.

Cablevision is telling subscribers “it is wrong for ABC to demand $40 million in new fees to help pay the salaries and bonuses for top ABC executives” and characterizes the additional fees as a “TV tax.”  That argument might have some sway had Cablevision not recently agreed to some hefty pay raises and bonuses for its own management, while customers faced another rate increase.

Coming just two months after another high profile dispute between the cable operator and Scripps’-owned Food Network and HGTV, some Cablevision subscribers have had enough.

Stop the Cap! reader Jen said she ordered Verizon FiOS for her Long Island home as soon as she heard about the dispute.

“We’ve been here before and I just knew these guys would not get serious about negotiations until after the station was pulled, and I’m tired of them playing with my lineup arguing over who gets my money,” Jen writes.  “Verizon FiOS had a great sign-up offer and they don’t have these bull-headed disputes that drag customers into the middle of the ring to get repeatedly gored.”

Jen’s service was installed Friday, so she’s enjoying tonight’s Oscar telecast while her neighbors might not.

“Maybe we’ll have them over so they don’t have to play around with rabbit ears,” she adds.

Cablevision has been hounded by politicians who are also annoyed with programming disputes.  Cablevision says it would agree to binding arbitration and wants the Federal Communications Commission to intervene.  Both possibilities are highly unlikely, however.

What is likely is the high profile Academy Awards broadband will act as a de facto deadline for the two sides to hammer out a final agreement in time to allow WABC back on the lineup.  Most likely, both sides will settle around the 50-60 cent range for New York’s channel seven.

Click here to view the embedded video.

WABC-TV New York tells viewers Cablevision dropped channel 7 early Sunday morning after negotiations failed to resolve a dispute over fees. (2 minutes)

Click here to view the embedded video.

Cablevision is running this message for subscribers explaining the loss of WABC-TV from the cable lineup. (3 minutes)

Share/Save

Cablevision subscribers: Just two months after facing the loss of HGTV and the Food Network, get ready to lose WABC-TV — the ABC affiliate in New York, just hours before the Oscars telecast is set to begin.

Cablevision’s contract with Disney-owned WABC-TV will expire March 7th, and both sides have not reached an agreement.

The dispute centers around retransmission rights fees.  Currently, WABC permits Cablevision to carry its channel on their lineup for free.  But now the station wants to be paid.  WABC claims Cablevision earns $18 million a month from its broadcast basic lineup of mostly-local channels, and it’s time to share a portion of that with the station.

Cablevision has so far not agreed to the asking price.

“Cablevision’s position is that ABC7 is worth little to nothing to its business and its proposed offers have been consistently unreasonable and unrealistic,” said Rebecca Campbell, president and general manager of WABC-TV. “We think these shows are valuable, and your bill shows that Cablevision must agree since you already pay for ABC7 as part of your Broadcast Basic Tier – a service for which, as a Cablevision customer, you pay as much as $18 each month.  Cablevision charges you for ABC7 and then keeps all the money.”

WABC has started a website to educate customers how to drop Cablevision and switch to a competitor such as Verizon FiOS, or get access to the station over-the-air.

Cablevision fired back accusing ABC of asking consumers to pay a TV tax amounting to $40 million that would have to be passed onto subscribers in another rate increase.

“It is not fair for ABC-Disney to hold Cablevision customers hostage by forcing them to pay what amounts to a new TV tax,” said Charles Schueler, Cablevision executive vice president.

Both sides indicate negotiations are continuing, and some compromise may still be reached before the deadline.

Click here to view the embedded video.

WABC-TV is running this 30-second ad telling viewers about the dispute with Cablevision, along with stories on their newscasts. (4 minutes)

Share/Save

The battle between Cablevision and Scripps over the carriage of two popular cable channels has been resolved, but customers in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut are now wondering where their refunds are for three weeks of interrupted viewing.

“Why are we paying for two channels they’re not delivering,” asks Stop the Cap! reader Alvira in New Jersey.  Many others are wondering the same thing, now that Cablevision is billing customers for January service that delivered an incomplete cable lineup.

The town supervisor of Ramapo, in Rockland County, New York, is demanding rebates for customers.

“We want a refund,” said Christopher St. Lawrence.  “We have over 10,000 [customers] right here in the town of Ramapo.”

Click here to view the embedded video.

WABC-TV New York reports on customer demands for refunds from Cablevison. (2 minutes)

The resolution over the carriage dispute came last week, after negotiations finally achieved an agreement restoring the channels.

“This is the resolution everyone wanted, and to have achieved anything less would have been a profound disappointment,” said John Lansing, executive vice president of Scripps.

Scripps had demanded about 75 cents per month from each subscriber for the two networks.  Cablevision formerly paid 25 cents per month.  In the end, industry watchers suggest the two companies ended up agreeing on about 45 cents per month.

Share/Save

A Torrington man wants a law empowering consumers to charge their cable companies “rent” for allowing their unwanted cable boxes to stay in customers’ homes.

“I’ve got to keep it warm, I’ve got to feed it electricity. If anything happens to it, I’ve got to pay $175,” Stephen Simonin shared with the regulatorily-toothless Litchfield County Cable Television Advisory Council.  “It’s absolutely insane,” he said before being elected chairman of the Council.

The Republican-American covered the converter box debacle, and the ongoing dispute between Cablevision and Scripps-owned HGTV and Food Network, thrown off the cable lineup on New Year’s Day.

The growing variety and intensity of disputes between consumers and largely deregulated cable operators may signal a growing backlash against the cable industry and its potential for a more regulated future.

In the absence of regulation, Simonin said, “it is like the wild west.”

Simonin lodged official complaints about his converter box long before his wife began griping about the absence of Food Network from the family television. State regulators are equally powerless to force cable companies to provide content without converter boxes, or specific channel offerings, as are the various cable advisory councils.

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, now a candidate for the U.S. Senate, said he opposed the federal law that deregulated the cable television industry in 1996, and continues to oppose it.

“I have said again and again and again over the years, Congress not only stripped states of their power to effectively protect consumers, but also failed to provide for federal protections,” Blumenthal said. There “really is no effective oversight or scrutiny.”

Telecommunications company-owned equipment, and the rental fee income earned from it, can occasionally be a source for profit-padding, especially when providers don’t allow customers to purchase and own their own equipment.  Television sets were supposed to be designed to accommodate digital cable transmissions without a required converter box as the country adopted new digital television-capable sets, but consumer experiences with a cable-box-free CableCARD plug-in cards have been mixed.

“The situation is infinitely more complicated than that suggests,” said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president and CEO of Media Access Project. Schwartzman said about 90 percent of the televisions currently in use do not have the capability Simonin describes, though he agrees “companies like Cablevision are, in fact, monopolizing the set top box to their benefit.”

Schwartzman said the FCC has promised prompt review of a petition filed two weeks ago that demands consumers be allowed to purchase a converter box from a third party, rather than be forced to rent a box from their cable provider.

“This is a very active issue right now,” Schwartzman said.

Share/Save

Negotiations between Scripps and Cablevision continue to drag on in the northeast as New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey Cablevision cable subscribers go without their HGTV and Food Network.

Progress has been incremental at best as Cablevision continues to refuse to accept paying the increased fees Scripps wants.  Cablevision’s declaration that is expects to never carry Scripps programming again doesn’t help.

Meanwhile, Food Network president Brooke Johnson has been running from one news channel to another to talk about Scripps’ position on the dispute, and that “hundreds of thousands” of viewers have complained about the loss of their two networks, a number Cablevision disputes.

Pali Research analyst Richard Greenfield, who covers the cable industry, defended Cablevision, giving credit to the Dolan family that owns Cablevision for standing up to Scripps’ rate increase request.

Greenfield accused Comcast and Time Warner Cable of “essentially rolling over” in their negotiations with Scripps, agreeing to price hikes for their networks, an allusion to Time Warner Cable’s campaign to fight back against programmer price increases.

If those cable companies “had taken a far harder stance with Scripps, Cablevision’s pushback may actually have forced Scripps’ hand,” Greenfield wrote.

Still, most viewers could care less about the power plays between cable and the programmers.  They just want their HGTV and Food Network back.

Click here to view the embedded video.

WCBS-TV New York ran these two reports during their 6pm and 11pm newscasts describing the battle between Scripps and Cablevision, and consumer reaction.  (4 minutes)

Click here to view the embedded video.

Same story, different city as WTNH-TV viewers in New Haven, Connecticut share their views on the dispute.  (2 minutes)

Click here to view the embedded video.

Food Network president Brooke Johnson appeared on CNBC to take questions about the dispute and changing business model of cable TV and programmers.  (5 minutes)

Click here to view the embedded video.

Johnson also turned up on Fox Business News to discuss the dispute, how negotiations are going, and how viewers are reacting.  (6 minutes)

Click here to view the embedded video.

…And Johnson also appeared on Bloomberg News accusing Cablevision of paying themselves top dollar for AMC, a network they own, while refusing to negotiate over a price increase for the “more popular” HGTV and Food Network amounting “to pennies per subscriber.”  (6 minutes)

Share/Save

Cablevision, the nation’s fifth largest cable operator, yanked Food TV and HGTV from suburban New York cable systems early this morning in another fight over programming fees.

The two popular cable channels, owned by Scripps Networks, were “no longer authorized” to be shown to Cablevision customers after the two companies failed to reach an agreement over what the cable operator should pay per month for the two networks.

Perhaps overshadowed by the bigger profile Time Warner Cable-Fox dispute which impacts cable customers across the country, the fight between Cablevision and Scripps has been nasty even by the standards of knockdown, drag-out fights characterizing most of these contract spats.

Cablevision characterized Scripps as “financially troubled” in its own account for the press this morning:

“We are sorry that Scripps’ current financial difficulties are making it impossible for them to continue our relationship on terms that are reasonable for Cablevision and our customers,” the company said in a statement. “We wish Scripps well and have no expectation of carrying their programming again, given the dramatic changes in their approach to working with distributors to reach television viewers.”

That’s about as final as it gets, as the cable operator signals it’s done haggling over prices, at least for now.

Cablevision has a website of its own to explain the decision to drop the two networks

As usual, customers are caught in the middle in an advertising and PR war back and forth.

Click here to view the embedded video.

This morning, Cablevision customers found this message running on the channels formerly occupied by HGTV and Food Network.

Scripps has set up websites for consumers to get their take on the matter, and has also taken to running some 30-second ads of its own, along with network personalities giving their testimony about why the channels are going to be missed.  I Love HGTV and I Love Food Network largely mirror each other’s content in a blog format.  Scripps argument for Food Network, which basically also applies to HGTV:

1. Food Network is among the most popular brands on television, consistently ranking among the Top 10 networks in cable and satellite. In fact, Food Network attracted record numbers of viewers in 2009.
2. Cablevision does not pay Food Network comparably to what it pays other Top 10 networks; yet it pays some networks that deliver substantially smaller audiences significantly more for their programming.
3. The rates currently paid to Food Network by Cablevision are among the lowest in the industry. In 2009, Food Network is 75^th of the 79 Nielsen-rated cable and satellite networks in terms of average rates received from distributors per subscriber. (Source: Kagan Research)
4. Cable subscribers on the whole, responding to the 2009 Beta Subscriber Study, said Food Network is worth $1.03 per month, which is considerably more than Cablevision is paying for the network’s programming and more than Food Network is asking in the current contract negotiations.
5. Cablevision customers pay an average subscription rate of $83 per month. The monthly fee Cablevision pays for Food Network is a small fraction of that figure.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Scripps fires back with its own ad alerting Cablevision subscribers to call and ask for HGTV and Food Network back on their lineup.

Judging from the comments left on both of Scripps’ sites, consumers know they are stuck in the middle and many are not thrilled with either party.  Some of the comments:

Each of you blames the other, but it’s probably a lot of both, and we, the viewers, are the real losers.  Thanks a lot to both Cablevision and Scripps. You’re just like the Republicans and Democrats — neither side seems to understand the meaning of or necessity for compromise to benefit the masses. Have a wonderful New Year.

You guys are schmucks. You waited until the very last minute, on New Years Eve, to tell everyone about this before launching your stupid campaign. You are using your customers to fight your battles, and are ultimately punishing all of them at the end of the day. And that’s pathetic.

YOU guys are the scumbags! You’re so greedy, I hope Cablevision snubs you. If Cablevision picks you back up at your hiked rate, we’ll be the ones paying an even higher bill, you idiots.
Thanks loads and happy new year to you, too. Greedy morons.

Whatever the disagreement is on funding, ultimately, it is us as the consumer who are paying the bill. My wife LIVES for the Food Network and would be willing to pay for it as a Premium channel. If that’s the road both sides want to take, both will lose out. Only a few like myself would be willing to pay extra for it……there will be other subscribers that could care less either way.

I turned on my TV this morning to watch the Rose Parade at 11 am and found an obnoxious rotating statement from Cablevision instead of the channel. I then went online to the web address they provided on screen and read their say -nothing statement that put the entire blame on Scripps networks. Instead of telling the customers there was a problem and asking what we would want to pay for these networks, they just yanked them. They are the most customer-unfriendly company I have seen, and it is not just from this action where I form this opinion.

We have enjoyed the FoodNetwork and HGTV but you deserve to be off Cablevision, there is no way your combined networks are worth almost $2 a month, 25 cents is about right. My cable bill is too high now, 2 bucks for what you have? Forget it, I will have to do it the old fashion way. We lived without you before and will live without you again.

To Cablevision, I have had my rates raised countless times over the past 10 years, and have nothing to show but more CRAP channels. I can’t watch NFL channel, I don’t get my hard to find football games because I am a fan of an out of area team, and now, I can’t watch the ONE CHANNEL that I regularly follow, FOOD Network. The fact that companies like you have spurned the “a-la-carte” system that would allow me to choose and pay for the channels I want (which I would gladly do for Food Network and HGTV) and instead want to keep your profit margin as large as possible is a testament to the corporate GREED that you embrace instead of a value based system. You can talk tough and try to put all of the blame on Scripps, but the truth is, you are both to blame.

Somehow, I don’t think this was the kind of reaction either company expected from customers who have wised up to who will ultimately pay to resolve this in the end.

Click here to view the embedded video.

HGTV’s Vern Yip speaks to Cablevision customers about how to get HGTV back on their cable lineup.  (30 seconds)

Click here to view the embedded video.

Food Network’s Guy Fieri is “blown away” with Cablevision’s decision to drop Food Network from the lineup. (30 seconds)

Share/Save

Cablevision serves communities surrounding the metropolitan New York region

Despite the tight economy for most Americans, executives at some of the nation’s largest cable players will enjoy millions from their contract extensions, bonuses, and eye-popping stock options that could net upwards of $10 million more for a select few.  And you thought your rate increase was due to “increased programming costs.”

Cablevision is where the real Money Party has just gotten started.  The top three executives alone could receive a combined $50,000,000 next year… that is fifty million dollars, just for running a regional cable company with just north of three million subscribers.

Here is the breakdown:

Dolan

Cablevision CEO James Dolan: Cablevision has always been under the control of the Dolan family, who own a controlling interest in the stock.  James Dolan gets a five-year extension in his contract, with a base salary of $1.5 million per year plus a bonus of up to four times that amount.  In 2010, Dolan is also entitled to an additional bonus package in cash and equity worth around $7 million.  He is also on track to get that same bonus each of the next five years, but only if the company does well.  Dolan is also CEO of Madison Square Garden/MSG/Radio City Music Hall.  For managing those assets, he’ll receive an extra $500,000 in salary, a bonus up to four times that amount, and an extra cash and equity bonus expected to be about $1.75 million per year.

Dolan founded Cablevision in 1973.

Ratner

Cablevision Vice Chairman Hank Ratner: Ratner gets a base salary of $500,000 a year, an annual bonus up to four times that salary, $1.2 million annually for his role with MSG, and extra cash and equity around $1.4 million annually.  And just because he’s a great guy — a one-time stock award worth $1.75 million due on March 31, 2010.  But wait, there’s more.  He also deserves extra cash and equity as MSG’s chief, targeted at $5.4 million in 2010 and each year thereafter.

Ratner joined Cablevision in 1987.  Ratner helps to set corporate direction and strategy, and is the primary executive overseeing major business partnerships and transactions.  Prior to being appointed Cablevision vice chairman, he served as vice chairman of Rainbow Media Holdings, the company’s programming subsidiary.

Rutledge

Tom Rutledge, Cablevision’s chief operating officer: He’ll get $1.63 million annually in salary, plus an annual bonus up to four times that amount.  He’s a special guy, so he also gets a “special payment” of $7.75 million within ten days of putting his ‘John Hancock’ on the new contract.  Call it a signing bonus.  But he also gets extra cash and equity compensation aiming at $6.8 million in 2010.

Cablevision isn’t alone is spreading around the walking around money.

Liberty Media, one of those programmers that keeps upping the rates charged to cable and satellite providers, who in turn pass those increases on to you, have a reason for doing so.  Their salary costs keep going up for the special few on the top floor.

Maffei

Greg Maffei, prexy-CEO of the company, just got his own five year contract renewal taking effect January 1st.  He’ll earn a base salary of $1.5 million per year, with a guaranteed 5 percent raise every year and an annual bonus amounting around $3 million.  But he’ll also get more than 10 million options of Liberty’s three stocks, most in the high-tech Liberty Interactive, which is developing online applications and services.

What do you get?  A rate increase and programming you don’t want but have to pay for, and now you know why.

Share/Save

I realize this is a bit off topic for us, but I was bemused to learn Cablevision, the cable operator in suburban New York (and elsewhere), has launched iO TV Quick View, three new channels that display nine different kids, sports and news networks all on one screen.

Who is this for?  I suppose the carpel tunnel-suffering channel surfer that has worn his finger out moving up and down the cable dial looking for something to watch and never making it all the way to the end of the lineup.

Cablevision says these three channels will let viewers highlight each window showing a network and, with one button press, jump to the channel they want to see.

No doubt these three channels will be part of the pointless bragging rights cable companies play over the number of channels they offer customers, as if most are still concerned with counting them.

The 500 channel universe already threatens to become littered with networks like Cat Fur Entertainment, Dorm Room Cooking Channel, Log Rolling 24/7, Uncle Fred’s Aquarium TV, and the Uighur News Network, before someone came up with this.

Channel 670 (like you’ll find that):  Kids Quick View channel features box views of Disney Channel, Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, Boomerang, Discovery Kids, Disney XD, Nicktoons, Nick Jr. and Kids Thirteen.

Channel 671: News Quick View channel features News 12, News 12 Traffic & Weather, MSNBC, CNBC, CNN, Fox News Channel, CNN Headline News, Bloomberg TV and BBC World News.

Channel 672: Sports Quick View, featuring MSG, MSG+, YES Network, ESPN, ESPN2, Speed Channel, Golf Channel, SportsNet NY and Versus.

Versus TV

I can already guess there will be some clashing between Cartoon Network’s more-adult oriented cartoons and Nick, Jr., among others.  Putting channels with Glenn Beck, Nancy Grace, and Ed Schultz all on one channel will blow a hole in the fabric of space on 671, and few will pay attention to actual sports on 672 when the scantily clad ladies on Versus turn up… regularly.

“Our focus in the development of iO TV Quick View has been on discoverability and helping our customers find the perfect program to watch,” Cablevision’s SVP of strategic product development, Patrick Donoghue, said in a prepared statement.

“With so many channels to choose from, this new enhancement allows us to present current options in a number of popular programming categories, literally at a glance. And the end result is a visually beautiful presentation with easy navigation both within the mosaic and to the specific channels being spotlighted.”

Yeah, you’re going to pay for it.

Share/Save

Back in the mid-1980s, I first got involved in the fight against the cable television industry’s consumer abuses.  Cable had gotten cocky, and began to use their monopoly position to extract ever-increasing amounts of money from consumers, providing lousy service and engaged in anti-competitive abuse all over the marketplace.  Back then, competition for the overwhelming majority of consumers came from just one place – giant 10-12 foot satellite dishes.  These were the days before Direct Broadcast Satellite providers like Echostar/DISH and DirecTV (and PrimeStar, the cable industry’s own satellite provider that claimed to ‘compete’ with cable) provided competition to cable.

In the mid and late 1980s, your choice was a giant TVRO (TV-Receive-Only) satellite dish in the backyard or you hooked up to cable.  A tiny handful of communities had wireless cable, a service that was supposed to compete with cable but was seriously limited in channel capacity (in many communities, wireless cable ended up providing access to ‘adult’ content that cable wouldn’t carry as their biggest selling point) and quickly faded from view by the mid 1990s.

The abusive practices were all over the place back then:

• Cozy arrangements between cable companies and local governments resulting in outright bans of satellite dishes for aesthetic reasons, using zoning laws either prohibiting their installation or requiring landscaping to hide them from view (to the neighbors and to the satellites they were trying to receive, making them useless), or requiring expensive permit fees;
• A rush to scramble/encode satellite signals and then require consumers to purchase, outright, a costly descrambler from General Instruments called the VideoCipher II for $399 (or have it incorporated within a satellite receiver that typically cost $800-1000 and was available only for purchase), only to be replaced a few years later by the VideoCipher II+ (which consumers were also forced to purchase).
• Cable companies, which had ownership interests in most cable networks (which was nearly a pre-condition for getting your network on cable systems), often had exclusive rights to sell that programming, and frequently provided it “only on cable” or to satellite customers who could not subscribe to cable.  Some networks refused to sell to competitors, including dish owners, at any price.
• Anti competitive pricing was by far the biggest problem.  Prices for programming packages encrypted on satellite were sold to consumer dish owners in small or large bundles at pricing comparable or above what cable subscribers paid, despite the fact all of the costs to provide, install, and service reception equipment were borne by consumers.  No cable TV company overhead, no infrastructure or staffing and support costs, yet satellite dish owners were expected to pay the same high costs that cable subscribers paid, and also purchase their own equipment.  That was quite an investment: a 12 foot dish, satellite reception equipment, decoder, and installation routinely ran well over a thousand dollars, depending on the equipment and installation complexity, and that was before programming costs were factored in.

Rural consumers really got the short end of the cable stick, not able to buy cable even if they wanted to, and forced to spend big money, upfront, just to get satellite TV.

That inspired the consumer groundswell of support for legislation to stop the abuses, which overrode a White House veto by President George H.W. Bush.  Among other things, the Cable Act of 1992 put a stop to exclusive programming contracts which denied competitor access to cable networks.

Without that legislation, there would be no DirecTV or DISH today.

Now the cable industry is back, high-fiving over their victory to have the 30% ownership cap dispensed with, and are now taking on the next provision of the 1992 Cable Act they don’t like — the ban on exclusive programming contracts.

That’s right, it’s Back to the Future as Comcast and Cablevision take their legal business to the same friendly DC Court of Appeals that savaged the 30% cap, now seeking an immediate repeal of the exclusivity ban as well.

Oral arguments start September 22nd.

Most amusing of all is the argument made by Comcast and Cablevision, who claim despite the time and attention they are spending on overturning the law, not to mention the legal expense, the practical effect of an end to exclusivity bans would be… absolutely nothing.

“Widespread withholding is now implausible,” said the attorneys in the filing. “[T]here are proportionally fewer services to withhold. The limited withholding that may still occur will not threaten competition: most vertically integrated services have closely similar substitutes, and, when competitive MVPDs [multichannel video programming distributors] have sunk massive investments, withholding can no longer cause market exit.”

That’s right.  Big cable companies throw money away on attorneys who will presumably fight this case and the inevitable appeals for the next few years for no practical change whatsoever in the current competitive landscape.  The believe people will accept that an industry that had to be forced by regulation to compete on a level playing field will continue to respect that playing field once they plow it up.

Just trust us.  We’re your cable company.  You love us.

So it could be “nothing” as they suggest, or it could be a defensive response to challenges of their business plans from telephone company TV and online video competition.  Would you subscribe to a competitor that didn’t offer the networks you wanted to see because they were “exclusively” available only from the cable company?

Be it usage caps, consumption billing, exclusive contracts, “price protection agreements” that hold customers in place for 12-24 months (or longer), the war to keep consumers from choosing when, where, and how they access content is becoming fully engaged.

Satellite television in the mid-1980s was highlighted by Granada Television

Share/Save

When Verizon FiOS is moving in on your turf, one way to preserve customers is to hand out free Wi-Fi service for your customers on-the-go.  Cablevision’s Optimum Wi-Fi service aims to do just that, with thousands of Wi-Fi hotspots installed across metropolitan New York, Connecticut and New Jersey.  Many hotspots can be found at shopping centers, on main streets and train platforms, in parks, marinas, and at sports fields.  The company claims Optimum WiFi, running for a year now, is already available at nearly 96% of commuter rail platforms and station parking lots serving Long Island and Westchester County.

Now the company wants to extend access into the trains commuters across the area ride every day and evening.  The New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority has been seeking proposals to provide Wi-Fi to customers.  Cablevision has filed a proposal to provide the service in partnership with the MTA, providing access to Cablevision customers at no charge, and perhaps sharing revenue with the MTA for non-Cablevision customers signing up for temporary access.

“As one of the nation’s leading telecommunications providers and a well-established local company that has already made a significant commitment to deploying Optimum WiFi across the New York metropolitan area, Cablevision is uniquely positioned to quickly and seamlessly deliver a high-quality WiFi network across the LIRR and Metro North railroad system,” said Kevin Curran, Cablevision’s senior vice president of wireless product development. “We have delivered a proposal that would provide significant benefits to all parties, and are excited and encouraged by the prospect of providing Optimum WiFi service to the MTA and its ridership. We look forward to participating in a process that will result in the availability of fast and reliable WiFi service on the railroads.”

Click here to view the embedded video.

Cablevision’s Introduction to Optimum WiFi

Share/Save

Opponents of Net Neutrality regularly dismiss concerns about providers blocking, interfering with, or rejecting content as little more than scare-mongering.  Even in the case of competitors, they assure us, no provider would ever consider getting between the customer and the services they choose to use.  Therefore, we don’t need Net Neutrality provisions enacted into law.

Wouldn’t you know, Cablevision-owned Newsday, a newspaper on Long Island, just unknowingly illustrated what happens when a company puts its own competitive and ownership interests ahead of not only the customer, but also newspaper common sense.

As any newspaper reader knows, the local cable and phone companies are not shy about advertising their products.  For years, Verizon has been spending several hundred thousand dollars a year to run full page ads touting its FiOS service on Long Island.  Such regular advertisers are hard to find these days in the ailing newspaper industry.  Last year, Newsday itself was put up for sale, acquired by Cablevision for $650 million dollars.

Now that the local cable company owns Newsday, they’ve decided to reject advertising from Verizon for its FiOS service. Verizon is now Cablevision’s biggest competitor, providing fiber optic service for television, broadband, and telephone service across Long Island.

The New York Times reports that Newsday has basically told Verizon “don’t call us, we’ll call you” when the phone company inquired about advertising space.

Newsday won’t comment about the reasons why Verizon’s ads were rejected, other than issuing a generic statement:

“We do not comment on specific ads except to say that Newsday, like every other media company, including The New York Times, accepts or rejects advertising at its own discretion,” said Deidra Parrish Williams, a Newsday spokeswoman.

Eric Rabe, a senior vice president of Verizon, told the Times that was fine with him, noting that’s money from Verizon’s pockets not going to feed Cablevision’s pervasive presence across Long Island.

The Dolan family, which runs Cablevision, dominates Long Island, running the cable system, a popular news channel – News 12, and is still the primary place consumers go to acquire broadband service.  Now they also own the biggest newspaper on Long Island as well.

This hasn’t been the first instance that Cablevision-owned Newsday has gotten embroiled in ethical controversy.  The Times notes:

In January, the top three editors at Newsday did not report for work for a few days amid reports that they had been fired or had resigned in a dispute with Cablevision over the paper’s coverage of the New York Knicks basketball team, which is also owned by the company. The editors returned to duty, and neither they nor the company offered a full explanation of what had happened.

Newsday also recently rejected advertising from the Tennis Channel, which is upset with Cablevision because it will not carry the channel.  The Tennis Channel was rebuffed by Newsday when it tried to buy ads inviting viewers to find the network on Verizon FiOS or satellite.

Kelly McBride, the ethics group leader at the journalism foundation Poynter Institute, was troubled by Newsday‘s antics.

“Newspapers accept ads at their own discretion, but they generally set the bar pretty high for rejecting advertising, because they don’t want to be seen as denying access to free speech,” she said. She added that appearing to deny an ad for competitive business reasons, rejecting an ad that is not obviously offensive or failing to explain the rejection, could undermine a paper’s credibility.

Could a company that considers it has the discretion to reject competitors’ access to its properties also extend that notion to its broadband service?  If a competing video provider used broadband to deliver access to its channel lineup, would a competitive threat like that be welcome on Cablevision’s Optimum Online?  How about criticisms of the company or its assets?

Newsday has chosen loyalty to its owner over lucrative advertising revenue to help sustain the paper.  That has disturbing implications for the broadband world as well.

Enacting Net Neutrality protections into law guarantees a company never finds itself in a quandary over where loyalties lie.  These protections guarantee that providers do not hamper, block, or interfere with the online services customers want to utilize.  No “competitive reasons” need ever be used as an excuse to block service from consumers.

Cablevision has not engaged in any online bad behavior to date, but why wait around to find out what the future holds?

Share/Save

Despite continued financial pressure on cable companies’ core cable television business, Cablevision Systems was able to grow its broadband service, and retain broadband customers.  The company also announced it will spin off its Madison Square Garden unit into an independent entity, still owned by Cablevision shareholders.  Madison Square Garden includes the arena of the same name as well as ownership of two sports teams – the New York Knicks and New York Rangers.

The spinoff will create two distinct entities for Cablevision – an entertainment company comprised of Cablevision cable systems and Rainbow Programming, which runs several basic cable networks, and MSG, which will be sports-oriented.

In its earnings report, Cablevision said the Madison Square Garden unit had an operating loss of $8.4 million, and according to cable analyst Craig Moffett of Sanford Bernstein, will likely face a $500 million dollar charge for renovation of the arena in the coming years.  Cablevision said it earned $87 million, or 29 cents per share, in the most recent quarter, compared with $94.7 million, or 32 cents per share a year ago.  The decline in earnings was attributed to pressure from MSG losses and a drop in the number of basic video subscribers, as well as losses from its Newsday newspaper operation.

Cablevision’s broadband service retained strong customer loyalty.  It also stands out as being free of Internet Overcharging, and proud of it.  The company has made it clear it appreciates broadband growth in the United States and considers broadband usage “addictive,” and wants to be certain it remains so.

Cablevision is also considering introducing additional features to its Wi-Fi service, including the provision of a wireless voice service available to customers in New York and New Jersey.

Share/Save

Richard Greenfield, Pali Research

Wall Street media analyst Richard Greenfield of Pali Research is telling investors that the era of quick cash from “digital phone” service customer additions is probably coming to an end.

Greenfield penned a research note last week pointing out that despite the blizzard of postcards, mailers, and wall-to-wall advertising cable operators do to promote their “digital phone” services, it’s getting tougher to sign up new customers.  Mike Farrell in Multichannel News condensed the marketspeak down:

In a research note, Greenfield noted that industry-penetration leader Cablevision Systems, which has telephony in 40% of its homes passed and more than 60% of its basic-video base in a triple-play bundle, took six years to reach those milestones. Time Warner Cable after five years has about 15% penetration (27% of subs in a bundle); Comcast, four years into telephony, has 13% phone penetration and 24% of its subs in a triple-play bundle.

The year 2008, the analyst noted, was the first that net telephony additions fell for both Comcast and Time Warner Cable.

“While Cablevision is way ahead of its peers in telephony, the question is now becoming, will its peers be able to get to even 25% penetration, let alone the 40%-plus levels Cablevision has achieved or is the opportunity to further cement the bundle simply dwindling by the day?” Greenfield asked.

For the uninitiated:

• “Homes passed” refers to homes where cable service is available;
• “Triple play bundle” refers to customers who take three services – cable TV, Internet, and telephone service in a bundled package from a provider;
• “Penetration” refers to market share.  In the case of Time Warner Cable, only 15% of their subscribers sign up for “digital phone” service, but the number is higher for those with a bundled package.

Greenfield, who often annoys cable companies and instigates angry press releases from some cable trade associations, represents the Wall Street investor types, who are not pro-company or pro-consumer.  They are simply pro-money for investors.

Investors are very concerned this year about cable company stock value.  They worry customers are starting to cancel cable television packages (or at least downgrade their service to get fewer channels), and are now also concerned telephone revenue will not grow at the traditional rate it has since “digital phone” service was introduced.

Broadband service is the exception.  It remains highly profitable and is continuing to grow even during hard economic times.

Stop the Cap! believes that cable operators will look more and more to broadband profits to help prop up their stock price, making it imperative that broadband service deliver as much profit as possible, while operators crack down on costs.  Internet overcharging schemes, such as limiting and discouraging access, raising prices, or a combination of both can reduce costs even further while maximizing profits, particularly in markets where limited or no competition exists.

Share/Save

Frontier Essentially Accuses Time Warner Cable of Being a Shakedown Artist

Early indications of a more challenging second quarter of 2009 may be what’s behind the sudden speed increases and new promotions being run by providers, who are also counting on signing new customers, now that moving season is in full swing.  A roundup of promotions and service adjustments customers may find enticing them:

AT&T

U-verse Internet Max customers received free upgrades last week in most areas, boosting broadband download speeds from 10Mbps to 12Mbps.  AT&T previously announced a slowing of U-verse deployment for economic reasons.  AT&T competes with cable operators offering video, voice, and broadband service.

Cablevision

Cablevision Systems continues to offer new customers taking at least a combined broadband and phone package a $200 American Express gift card through June 30.  The company already announced major increases in premium speed levels, and promises no limits on consumption.

Comcast

Reduced pricing in highly competitive Washington, DC market for premium 50Mbps service to under $100, for customers signing up for at least two Comcast services (video, voice, and/or broadband)

Frontier

A substantial mailing offering discounts and giveaways was sent through postal mail to consumers in many Frontier service areas.  Frontier is using a cable-critical mailer depicting their cable competitor as “Rob” and “Bill.”

Rogers (Canada)

Rogers, which earlier increased rates for subscribers, announced a “free speed increase” to its “Hi Speed Internet Express” package, from 7Mbps to 10Mbps, and “Internet Lite” from 1Mbps to 3Mbps.  Rogers limits its customers typically to 60GB of consumption per month for standard levels of service.  Much lower limits are placed on economy packages.

Time Warner Cable

Time Warner Cable is continuing to mail customer postcards and other mailings promoting its existing service packages, but this week also attempts to pick up customers trapped in Frontier term contracts by agreeing to cover early contract termination penalties, up to $200.  Time Warner Cable is also hinting that cable customers will soon be able to use Tivo software for their Digital Video Recorder (DVR) boxes, which permit customers to record programming.

Verizon

Verizon announced substantial speed increases throughout their service area. The company also has engaged in a price war with Cablevision over gift cards. Verizon offered $150 gift cards to new customers signing up for a service bundle (although Cablevison beat their offer by $50).  The company also began promotional giveaways to customers signing a contract agreement.

To date, AT&T continues tests limiting consumption to as low as 20GB per month in Beaumont, Texas and Reno, Nevada.  Comcast has a straight limit of 250GB of consumption per month for residential customers nationwide.  Frontier defines “acceptable use” at 5GB consumption per month, but does not enforce it at this time.  Rogers limits consumption based on the level of speed selected by the customer.  Most customers face a 60GB monthly limit.  Time Warner Cable tested, but temporarily shelved, tiered pricing and consumption limits.  Other providers not listed have no Internet Overcharging schemes in place.

Share/Save

Although Time Warner Cable has downplayed the impact of deploying DOCSIS 3 upgrades to their broadband network outside of New York City, other cable operators making the switch are now enjoying the benefits of bragging rights, higher returns from “heavy users,” and a whole lot of happy customers.

Cablevision delighted the cutting edge crowd when it announced the launch of the fastest residential broadband service in the country — 101Mbps for $99 a month, and absolutely no cap on usage.  Now other players are maneuvering to follow their speed lead.  Broadband Reports noted this morning it had a source claiming that the nation’s largest cable operator, Comcast, was cutting prices on its 50Mbps tier by $40 a month to $99.95 for customers taking a product bundle.    The website earlier noted the company may have a 100Mbps plan in place shortly as well.  Comcast’s cap at 250GB per month does seem to apply.

Even bankrupt Charter Cable is enjoying the benefits of their super premium 60Mbps broadband service in the St. Louis area.

Heavy broadband users, as these companies have learned, often turn out to also be the “early adopters” that will readily respond to marketing for higher priced tiers of service offering higher speeds, as long as those companies don’t also bring along draconian usage caps which completely devalue the deal.  Cable operators enjoy the extra revenue they earn from these customers, retain customer loyalty, and earn praise from customers.

When Time Warner Cable proposed a 50Mbps/5Mbps service for $99 a month, we heard from several readers who were interested in the offer, right up until they learned it would come with a usage cap starting at 150GB per month, which meant customers would pay a whopping 67c per gigabyte, which represents an enormous markup.  Interest evaporated immediately.

The contrast could not be more clear — Cablevision gets industry and customer praise for offering an uncapped premium plan at twice the speed proposed by Time Warner Cable for $100 a month, while Time Warner Cable  dangled a 50/5 tier for the same price, but only after customers supported a consumption billing system and a vague, non-specific timeline for the eventual deployment of DOCSIS 3 which would make that possible.

Share/Save

It’s back again.  For at least the last decade, the trade press has speculated about whether Cablevision would survive as an independent cable operator in an increasingly concentrated industry, where the big players get bigger, and the smaller operators exit the cable business.

Charles Dolan, Cablevision CEO

The Dolan family, which has owned Cablevision since its founding on Long Island, is routinely said to be cash crunched, looking for a healthy cash bonanza on the way out the door, or dealing with internal family dramas which pit those advocating a sell off against those who wish to keep the business running.  When Cablevision launched its Voom HD satellite service, which turned out to be a disaster and money pit, the intensity of speculation achieved a fever pitch, and that was several years ago.  The Dolan family still runs Cablevision.

The New York Times sports page, of all places, is the latest home of pondering a sell off of Cablevision’s remaining cable systems to Time Warner Cable to raise cash for the Dolan family’s sports ventures, including ownership of the Rangers, Knicks, and Madison Square Garden.  It was all borne from a single line in the latest earnings report from Cablevision, which indicated the company intended to “explore the spinoff of its Madison Square Garden business.”

Cablevision's Service Area in Northeastern US

Cablevision’s bread-and-butter business is supplying cable television, broadband lines and Internet phone service to 3.1 million subscribers in the New York metropolitan area. The company, based in Bethpage, N.Y., has faced stiff competition from Verizon, which has spent heavily to build a fiber-optic network that competes with it and Time Warner Cable.

Industry analysts have speculated that Cablevision may eventually sell the entire company to Time Warner Cable, or sell its sports entertainment group to raise cash to compete in the cable business.

“Cablevision watchers [and we’d put ourselves in that category] have long pondered possible endgames, and the notion that the Dolans would retain ownership of MSG and the New York sports teams long after the rest of the assets had been divested has always been viewed as among the most likely outcomes,” Craig Moffett, a senior analyst at Bernstein Research wrote in a report after Cablevision’s earnings release Thursday morning.

People have grown old pondering questions like this.  Cablevision is positioned to compete just fine with Verizon FiOS after completing an aggressive rollout of DOCSIS 3.  Cablevision does not compete with Time Warner Cable at all.  Industry boosters have traditionally cheered on consolidation efforts, so it’s no surprise even the smallest tidbit will restart the Spec-U-Plex all over again.  Should Cablevision decide to sell, Time Warner Cable would almost certainly be the buyer, because their largest cluster of systems are adjacent to existing Time Warner franchise areas.  But I wouldn’t be in a hurry to shove the Dolan family out the door.

Share/Save