Patrick Drahi

“If he can succeed with a corporate-friendly Trump Administration and his lackey Republican legislators and regulators, Patrick Drahi’s Altice could seek to own or control up to 30% of the American telecoms market,” said A.W. Dewalle, a researcher studying Altice’s unprecedented acquisition-frenzy across the world’s telecommunications marketplace. “His IPO in the land of Uncle Sam is just the first shot and it will make a lot of executives very rich and consolidate America’s cable industry.”

Wall Street banks are clamoring for a piece of Altice’s initial public offering, announced this week. The big winners, who will split substantial fees paid to advise Altice USA, are Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley and Citi. The IPO will allow the Drahi-controlled Altice USA to raise money for further acquisitions in the United States and to potentially restructure its existing debt, run up acquiring Cablevision and Suddenlink.

Reuters reported that Drahi’s biggest U.S. shareholders — BC Partners and the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board will use the IPO as an opportunity to sell some of their combined 30% stake in Altice USA, giving Drahi further assurance he will stay firmly in control of the American operation as he takes on new investors.

Les Echos reports Drahi’s pattern is a familiar one for a man in a hurry to take a much bigger stake in the American telecom market, where profits are high and competition is relatively low. By raising additional funds, Altice USA can show financial strength as it appeals to bankers to loan it the billions in will need to acquire existing cable (and potentially phone) companies. If Altice uses some of the money to repay its existing $20 billion U.S. debt, that could also win the company favorable interest rates on its future loan portfolio.

Drahi is an acquisition specialist, having bought more than 30 companies to add to his Altice portfolio since its start in 2002. Low interest rates, favorable banking terms and corporate deregulation have fueled the shopping spree. With the election of Donald Trump in the U.S., Altice is convinced the sky is the limit when it comes to mergers and acquisitions.

“Everything about his government and the people he has put in place at regulatory agencies says deregulation, ‘laissez-faire,’ and consumers beware,” said Dewalle, a point echoed in part by the Financial Times.

The election of Donald Trump has lifted expectations among chief executives that it will be easier to consolidate companies in the telecoms, media and technology (TMT) sector, as the Republican president has a more laissez-faire approach towards competition. Many media and telecom players are under pressure to boost margins and find new growth avenues, while facing declining sales, according to a senior banker in the industry. “M&A might be the only option for many companies in this sector and Altice will certainly try to play a big role in this,” said [one] banker.

Altice is already laying the public relations groundwork to convince skeptical legislators and regulators that an Altice buyout is not bad news for customers. Altice is spending millions to scrap Cablevision’s existing hybrid coax-fiber network for a 100% fiber to the home replacement. Other upgrades are also ongoing across Suddenlink’s footprint.

Because the American telecom marketplace is not nearly as competitive as the one Altice faces in Europe, Americans are accustomed to paying for broadband and television services at prices that would be scandalous in France. The excess profits earned in America can help Altice finance fiber upgrades in its more competitive European markets. Altice confirmed this week it planned to invest more in 4G wireless upgrades for its SFR division in France and will cover 22 million French homes with fiber to the home service by 2022 and 5.3 million homes in Portugal by 2020.

How big will Mr. Drahi seek to get in the United States? He testified before the Economic Affairs Committee of the French Senate last June, telling legislators he owns or controls about one-third of the French telecom market. In the United States, he controls just 2%, leaving plenty of room to grow.

French business experts predict Drahi will initially seek to sweep up the remaining independent cable operators in the States into the Altice empire before turning attention to a big player like Comcast or Charter Communications, the largest and second-largest American cable operator respectively. Publicly traded companies like Cable ONE would be the first prime targets for an Altice buyout. But Drahi could also repeat his Cablevision acquisition by offering a premium price for privately held operators like Cox Communications, which has a presence in larger cities, and Mediacom — which provides service in 23 states and has a big presence in the midwest.

Most of the rest of America’s independent cable operators are small, regional operations serving smaller communities. Drahi has his choice of these kinds of operators that include Adams Cable, Armstrong, Atlantic Broadband (owned by Canada’s Cogeco), Blue Ridge Communications, Buckeye Broadband, Hargray, Midco, Northland, Service Electric, TruVista, Wave Broadband (exploring a sale), and WOW, among others.

Thus far, Drahi has not shown much interest in acquiring telephone companies, so analysts expect him to confine his acquisitions to the cable business. Even if Drahi acquires a substantial cable portfolio in the United States, he will argue he still faces competition from telephone companies in those same service areas. What Drahi won’t do is compete from the ground up by building a competitive cable system to face off against a firmly entrenched American duopoly.

“That would be bad for business,” said Dewalle.

The FCC has circulated a draft rulemaking that proposes to make it easier for phone companies to end landline and DSL service in areas they are no longer interested in maintaining existing infrastructure.

“We propose eliminating some or all of the changes to the copper retirement process adopted by the Commission in the 2015 Technology Transitions Order,” according to the draft, which would allow phone companies to end service “where alternative voice services are available to consumers in the affected service area.”

The proposed new policy would depart significantly from the one put in place during the Obama Administration because it would end assurances that competing providers would have reasonable and affordable access to wholesale broadband and voice services after phone companies mothball their copper wire networks in favor of wireless or fiber alternatives. If the FCC proposal passes, incumbent phone companies like Verizon and AT&T could end rural landline and DSL service and not make provisions for competitors to have access to the technology alternatives the phone companies would offer affected customers.

Verizon immediately praised the FCC proposal, saying it was “encouraged the FCC has set as a priority creating a regulatory environment that encourages investment in next-generation networks and clears away outdated and unnecessary regulations,” wrote Will Johnson, senior vice-president of federal regulatory and legal affairs at Verizon. “This action is forward-looking, productive and will lead to tangible consumer benefits.”

Previous attempts by Verizon to discontinue landline and DSL service did not lead to “tangible consumer benefits” as Verizon might have hoped. Instead, it led to a consumer backlash, particularly in areas affected by Superstorm Sandy in 2012. Verizon elected not to rebuild its copper wire infrastructure in affected coastal communities in New York and New Jersey. Instead, it introduced a wireless landline replacement called Voice Link that proved unpopular and caused a revolt among residents on Fire Island. The wireless replacement did not support data, health monitoring, credit card transaction processing, faxing, and was criticized for being unreliable. Verizon eventually relented and opted to expand its FiOS fiber to the home network on the island instead.

Verizon also attempted to market Voice Link to New York residents in certain urban and rural service areas affected by extended service outages in lieu of repairing its existing infrastructure. Under the proposed changes, the FCC would ease the rules governing the transition away from copper-based services, which include traditional landline service and DSL, in favor of wireless technology replacements and fiber optics.

Because telephone companies like AT&T and Verizon have made mothballing rural wireline infrastructure a priority, the FCC strengthened its rules in 2015 by doubling the notification window from 90 to 180 days, giving more time for affected customers to make other service arrangements or complain to regulators that there were no suitable alternatives. The FCC wants to roll back that provision to its earlier 90-day notification window in response to telephone company complaints that maintaining copper wire infrastructure is expensive and diverted investment away from next-generation networks.

AT&T has been lobbying for several years to win permission from state legislatures to abandon copper wireline infrastructure, mostly in rural areas, where the company has chosen not to upgrade to fiber optic networks. AT&T claims only about 10% of their original landline customer base still have that service.

Both Verizon and AT&T have shown an interest in moving rural consumers to more proprietary wireless networks, preferably their own, where consumers would get voice and data services. But consumer advocates complain customers could lose access to competitive alternatives, may not have a guarantee of reliable service because of variable wireless coverage, could pay substantially more for wireless alternatives, and may be forced to use technology that either does not support or works less reliably with home security systems, medical monitoring, faxing, and data-related transactions like credit card processing.

Other consumer groups like AARP and Public Knowledge have complained that shortening the window for a transition away from basic landline and DSL service to alternative technology could disproportionately affect the customers most likely to still depend on traditional wireline service — the elderly, poor, and those in rural areas.

Every week brings the threat of yet another programming blackout because cable programmers want to be paid more and cable operators want to pay the same or less. This time, Fox Networks Group has sent a final warning to Charter Communications that their customers will lose several cable networks as soon as Wednesday if the two companies cannot reach a renewal agreement.

“Fox and Charter have an agreement to carry the Fox networks that Charter has chosen to ignore,” Fox said in a statement that was updated today. “We’re disappointed that despite our best efforts to reach a resolution, Charter Spectrum subscribers could lose access to multiple Fox sports and entertainment networks on April 12.”

The latest dispute surrounds the lucrative volume discounts that Time Warner Cable formerly negotiated for some of Fox’s non-news-related cable networks. Charter Communications acquired both Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks to secure those kinds of volume discounts for itself. In general, the larger a cable system is, the lower the wholesale rate charged for cable programming. Charter hoped it could continue paying the lower rates Time Warner Cable managed to secure after acquiring the much larger cable system. But cable programmers are not buying Charter’s approach and in one case sued.

In March, Univision blocked Charter from carrying its Spanish-language networks Univision, Unimás, Galavisión, Univision Deportes and El Rey in a similar dispute. A temporary restraining order brought the networks back to the lineup a day later, at least temporarily. Univision sued Charter Communications in 2016 over the programming fee dispute.

A significant amount of money is at stake depending on which side ultimately wins in court.

In the case of Univision, Charter’s own contract with the Spanish language programmer expired on June 30, 2016. That would normally require Charter to negotiate a contract renewal that it knew would be more costly than what it paid under the old contract. Charter learned Time Warner Cable had negotiated a contract with Univision that delivered better volume discounts and was not set to expire until June 2022.

To allow Charter Communications to argue that Time Warner Cable’s contract should continue to apply after the merger, it structured its acquisition (on paper at least) to allow Charter to claim Time Warner Cable would continue to manage all of its cable systems. Charter’s lawyers argued that because “Time Warner Cable” is in charge, the wholesale rates Time Warner Cable negotiated should now apply to all Charter systems.

Univision, among other programmers, balked at Charter’s creative thinking.

“Everyone knows that is simply not true: the longstanding CEO and the senior executive team of Charter, as well as its pre-existing board of directors, now in fact manage and control all such cable systems, and virtually the entire TWC leadership team has departed,” Univision argued in its 2016 lawsuit.

If the programmers win, Charter will have to negotiate new carriage agreements at 2017 prices instead of continuing to pay the lower rates Time Warner Cable won for itself in the past.

A similar dispute is likely behind the current battle between Charter and Fox. Each time a cable company has to negotiate a new contract, programmers tend to ask for a considerably higher wholesale price for their channels and try to get cable systems to also carry their other networks. When a cable operator refuses to pay what it considers to be an unconscionable renewal rate or does not want to carry the programmer’s other networks, a showdown takes place that often leads to channels being temporarily removed from the lineup. Cable companies usually lose these battles after subscribers get hostile, but some smaller cable operators have walked away from programmers like Viacom for good when the renewal price stayed too high.

As is the tradition in these disputes, Fox launched a website and social media blitz to warn Charter customers they are about to lose access to 19 regional sports channels, FX, FXX, FOX Movie Channel, National Geographic TV, Fox Sports and Fox Deportes and asked customers to start calling Charter and complain. The current dispute does not involve the FOX (TV) Network, the Fox News Channel or the Fox Business Channel.

“We’re disappointed that despite our best efforts to reach a resolution, Charter Spectrum subscribers could lose access to multiple Fox sports and entertainment networks on April 12,” FOX wrote on its website. “Charter’s tactics could result in its subscribers missing our popular programming including Fox Sports’ telecasts of the St. Louis Cardinals and Blues, Kansas City Royals, Cleveland Cavaliers, Cincinnati Reds and many other MLB, NBA and NHL teams on Fox Regional Sports Networks, Fox Deportes, National Geographic, and FX’s hit dramas The Americans and Feud as well as much more award winning programming.”

“Fox is trying to gouge our customers using the increasingly common tactic of threats and removal of programming,” Charter responded in a statement. “They are attempting to extort Charter for hundreds of millions of dollars. We will continue to work towards a fair agreement.”

Fox Networks is using this ad to warn Charter Spectrum customers they could lose Fox programming. (0:30)

Cartoon lover? Turner Broadcasting and Warner Bros. have something for you: Boomerang’s Online Video on Demand service launches today, featuring more than 5,000 cartoons from the Looney Tunes, Hanna Barbera, and MGM toon libraries.

Boomerang is now available on Desktop, iPad, iPhone, and most Android devices with more platforms including Apple TV, Fire TV, Roku, and Chromecast coming soon.

Turner, which runs the companion Boomerang cable network, pushed aside its TV-oriented website to push the new on-demand online service instead. Turner officials said they would continue to distribute the linear-TV cable network, but the company could make even more revenue in the future putting the extensive classic animation libraries of three toon powerhouse studios online and on-demand.

Some of the cartoon characters featured on Boomerang Online Video on Demand.

Boomerang says they will add new cartoons every week to keep the service fresh and interesting to subscribers.

The introductory price:

• $4.99 per month with a 7-day free trial;
• $39.99 for 1 year of Boomerang with a 30-day free trial

Payments can be made with a major credit card or through iTunes or Google Play Store.

Comcast’s NBCUniversal is laying plans to introduce a premium online video service highlighting NBC Network content and possibly various programming from the various cable channels owned by Comcast.

After watching rival CBS amass more than 1.5 million subscribers for its “All Access Pass” ($5.99, $9.99/mo for commercial-free option), Comcast’s NBC entertainment division isn’t willing to leave money on the table any longer.

The yet unnamed service is expected to compete with services like Hulu and Netflix, but will most likely be comparable to CBS’ premium subscription offering. In addition to featuring a deep library of NBC content, the service could include a significant catalog of past and present shows from cable networks like Bravo, SyFy and USA. Also to be determined is whether NBC will follow CBS’ lead and offer viewers live streaming of their local NBC station as part of the package.

The new service may not launch in the immediate future because Comcast is still observing restrictions imposed by regulators as a condition of its 2011 acquisition of NBCUniversal. The rules make it difficult for Comcast to develop services comprised entirely of content it owns or controls. Federal regulators added the restriction out of concern Comcast could interfere with Hulu’s access to NBC content. Hulu is popular with cord-cutters, and is seen as a viable alternative to cable television. The last of these restrictions expire in September 2018, about the time Bloomberg News reports Comcast is likely to launch the service.

If all the major American networks decide to develop their own premium streaming services, it could have significant implications for Hulu, which combines content from its partners NBC, ABC, and FOX. If NBC pulls out of the partnership, it will be free to keep all the revenue earned from its own streaming platform, and could inspire ABC and FOX to follow.

Observers suspect this represents more evidence that broadcast networks increasingly expect viewers to pay for access to their programming, at least online.