Masayoshi Son, chairman of SoftBank Group

Charter Communications is a prime target for a takeover by Japanese giant SoftBank Group Corp., and chairman Masayoshi Son appears not to be willing to take no for an answer.

Last week, Charter executives rejected a bid by Son to combine Spectrum with Sprint, the nation’s number four wireless carrier controlled by SoftBank. Now Son is attempting to put together an offer Charter’s shareholders can’t refuse.

Son could make an announcement as early as this week, according to Bloomberg News.

SoftBank would be acquiring America’s second largest cable operator estimated to have a market value of $101 billion. SoftBank itself is worth approximately $89 billion. The Japanese conglomerate already carries $135 billion in debt, the second most indebted non-financial company in Japan, outdone only by Toyota.

For most Charter customers, a merger would make the second transition in two years, after Charter acquired Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks.

Son originally planned to combine Charter and Sprint into a new public company. Something similar would likely happen if SoftBank attempts a direct takeover of Charter Communications. Son’s investment in Sprint has not paid off. The wireless carrier has lost billions since SoftBank took control of Sprint in 2013.

“We understand why a deal is attractive for SoftBank, but Charter has no interest in acquiring Sprint,” Charter said in a statement over the weekend before Bloomberg reported Son’s latest plans. “We have a very good MVNO relationship with Verizon and intend to launch wireless services to cable customers next year.”

But Charter’s largest shareholder, Liberty Broadband Corp., controlled by Dr. John Malone, is interested in a deal bringing Charter together with a wireless carrier. But there is no word if Malone approves of a tie-up with Charter and SoftBank.

“Overall our view is that Charter likely does not want to sell, but that SoftBank is one of the few companies that could put a bid in big enough to take control,” analysts at JPMorgan Chase & Co., led by Philip Cusick, said in a note. “While we don’t see a deal as very likely, especially given later headlines that Charter is cool to the idea, Masa is never to be counted out as a buyer.”

Son’s urgency to do a deal may be related to Sprint’s ongoing losses and the bonds used to finance that acquisition near maturity.

Spectrum customers will be paying more for their cable TV and broadband service starting in August, according to notifications now starting to appear on customers’ bills around the country.

Important Billing Update. At Spectrum, we continue to enhance our services, offer more of the best entertainment choices and deliver the best value. We are committed to offering you products and services we are sure you will enjoy.

Effective with your next billing statement, pricing will be adjusted for:

• Broadcast TV Surcharge from [generally between $4-6] to $7.50. This reflects costs incurred from local Broadcast TV stations.

• Spectrum Receivers from $4.99 to $5.99 (per receiver).

• Internet Services from $53.99 to $54.99 (for standard 60 or 100Mbps service, depending on area, per modem and bundled with cable TV).

The average customer will see a rate hike of about $4-5 a month as a result. Customers on promotional Spectrum plans may not see a rate change immediately, but all cable TV customers will be subject to the Broadcast TV surcharge, because it is not a part of a promotional package.

Charter traditionally reviews its rates twice a year.

Charter Communications has also updated its Privacy Policy, which takes effect on Aug. 1, 2017. Customers can opt out of targeted emails, targeted marketing campaigns, and targeted TV ad inserts sent to your cable boxes.

Citigroup is advocating for another super-sized merger, this time lobbying Comcast to buy Verizon Communications — a deal worth up to $215 billion.

Citigroup analyst Jason Bazinet believes the more corporate friendly Trump Administration would not block or impede a deal that would bring together the nation’s largest cable operator and wireless provider. Such a merger would leave a significant portion of the mid-Atlantic, northeast, and New England with a monopoly for telephone and broadband service.

Bazinet offers four reasons why the deal makes sense to Wall Street banks like his:

• Verizon Wireless could give Comcast customers internet access seamlessly inside and outside of the home;
• The cost of expanding fiber optics to power faster internet and forthcoming 5G wireless broadband would be effectively split between the two companies and there would be no need to install competing fiber networks;
• Verizon would benefit from additional wireless consolidation because it would no longer face significant emerging wireless competition from Comcast;
• A combined Comcast-Verizon could see their corporate tax rate slashed by a considerable percentage, reducing tax liabilities.

We’d add Wall Street banks that win the enviable position of advising one company or the other on a merger deal stand to make tens of millions of dollars on consulting fees as well.

Such a merger would be unthinkable under prior administrations, if only because a combination of Verizon and Comcast would eliminate the only significant telecommunications competitor for tens of millions of Americans, giving the combined company a monopoly on telecommunications services.

Some Wall Street analysts believe a deal is still possible with Republicans in charge in Washington. But some spinoffs are likely. One scenario would involve selling off Verizon’s wireline assets in areas where Comcast and Verizon compete. But increasing questions about the financial viability of a likely buyer like Frontier Communications may make a deal bundling old copper wire assets and FiOS Fiber in New Jersey, the District of Columbia, Maryland, Delaware, Massachusetts, and Virginia a difficult sell for other buyers.

“If Brian came knocking on the door, I’d have a discussion with him about it,” Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam reportedly said this spring, according to Bloomberg News, referring to Comcast CEO Brian Roberts.

McAdam shouldn’t wait in his office, however. This morning, as part of a quarterly results conference call, Roberts made clear he wasn’t particularly interested in a merger with a wireless provider.

“I thought we were really clear last quarter,” Roberts said. “Yes, we always look at the world around us and do our jobs related to the opportunities that are out that. But we love our business. No disrespect to wireless, but that’s a tough business.”

A Wall Street media analyst called today’s television model of high returns and relentless rate increases passed on to pay television customers unsustainable.

Sanford Bernstein media analyst Todd Juenger told attendees of The Independent Show (courtesy: Multichannel News) in Indianapolis that media companies expecting to profit from linear TV’s increased advertising revenue and retransmission or carriage consent fees are going to get slapped in the face soon as consumers revolt.

Juenger, like BTIG’s Rich Greenfield, is becoming increasingly pessimistic about today’s costly bundled-TV model. Juenger warns high revenue and profit expectations are only going to accelerate the growth of disruptive technologies like on-demand, online video.

Juenger notes cable and television networks never seem satisfied with the massive amounts of revenue they are already earning, and keep seeking ways to raise prices further. The TV business, Juenger notes, already enjoys some of the highest profit margins of any U.S. business in modern history.

“This is a very, very rare thing,” Juenger said. “Companies are not supposed to make that kind of money.”

Most cable networks now expect 40% annual revenue increases and a 30% return on capital, which is what causes runaway programming rate increases to be passed on year after year to consumers. Yet the quality of those networks has not significantly improved in many cases, and consumers are gradually shifting away from watching live television (and the commercials that accompany it).

Viewers, starting with younger generations, are increasingly ditching linear-live television and finding on-demand content to be more appealing. Much of that viewing isn’t taking place on the cable industry’s on-demand or TV Everywhere platform, which has become as littered with advertising as live television. Instead, viewers are drawn to original productions produced by Hulu, Netflix, Amazon, and other content platforms — often commercial-free, and on-demand network shows on platforms like Hulu.

“The whole reason for being for networks is called into question,” Juenger said.

Juenger dismisses the current industry trend of creating virtual online alternatives to cable television bundles — skinny or otherwise — for streaming online. Those efforts, like Sling TV, DirecTV Now, and PlayStation Vue still depend on linear television as their core product, and cord-cutters are showing a growing lack of interest in this model.

Cord-cutters and cord-nevers don’t want smaller, more economical bundles of cable networks delivered online, according to Juenger.

“I don’t think there is anybody who wants these products on an incremental basis,” Juenger said. “If the purpose of these services is to recapture subscribers that were lost, they’re not going to work.”

Viewers want an entirely new model, built around on-demand access to individual shows without viewing restrictions or having to pay for unwanted channels. Many are also willing to pay a little more to avoid commercials altogether.