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.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman achieved victory in his effort to keep a lawsuit accusing Charter Communications and its predecessor Time Warner Cable of engaging in false advertising in a state courtroom.

U.S. District Court Judge Colleen McMahon ruled that Charter’s efforts to transfer the case out of New York County Supreme Court to federal court were improper and not warranted. The case will now head back to its original venue as chosen by Schneiderman — Manhattan Supreme Court.

Charter argued the case belonged in federal court because a federal agency — the FCC — had enforcement powers over Charter’s broadband business. The cable company argued that the Communications Act passed by Congress gave federal courts sole jurisdiction over broadband matters. It also argued Net Neutrality imposed a requirement that states were not allowed to inconsistently regulate broadband providers.

Judge McMahon dismissed both arguments, noting the FCC has not ruled it had pre-emptive power over states to regulate broadband and Congress “did not intend for the federal statute to be the exclusive remedy for redressing false advertising and consumer protection claims.”

Schneiderman’s case alleging Time Warner Cable falsely advertised broadband service at speeds it knew it could not deliver will once again be heard by a New York court.

Charter Communications is facing a second lawsuit related to false advertising about its ability to provide fast internet service and allegations the company knowingly supplied customers with deficient equipment.

Hart et al. v. Charter Communications Inc., is seeking certification as a nationwide class action from a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The suit claims that Charter’s subsidiary Time Warner Cable purposely leased out modems and wireless routers it knew were incapable of achieving Time Warner Cable Maxx broadband speeds, consistently oversold its broadband network — resulting in slower internet speeds and performance than the company advertised, and raised customers’ bills without adequate notice.

The California lawsuit closely mirrors one filed in February by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, and focuses on similar claims that Charter is engaged in “false representations and other wrongful business practices.”

The complaint claims:

• The company willfully and intentionally advertised internet service it could not provide, claiming customers would receive internet service that was “fast” with “no buffering,” “no slowdowns,” “no lag,” “without interruptions,” “without downtime,” and “without the wait.”
• Charter leased older generation modems and wireless routers to many of their customers that were incapable of supporting the promised internet speeds. Older technology modems could not provide the full benefit of Time Warner Cable Maxx speeds of 100-300Mbps, and company-provided network gateways delivered Wi-Fi service at speeds considerably lower than advertised.
• Charter regularly failed to manage their network in a manner that would give customers consistent broadband speeds. Instead, “Defendants included too many subscribers in the same service group and provided too few channels for such subscriber, thus causing an internet ‘traffic jam’ (particularly during peak hours) that slowed every subscriber’s connection to speeds substantially below what was promised and paid-for. Indeed, even when consumers resorted to using wired connections, their Internet speeds still fell short of the promised speeds.”
• Defendants also have adopted an unlawful and unfair practice of adding new fees or other charges to consumers’ bills without adequate notice and outside of the terms promised upon sign-up. In 2016, one customer signed up for a promotional “Spectrum Internet with Wi-Fi” plan with a fixed rate of $64.99 and a $10.00 “Promotional Discount,” making her plan cost a total of $54.99 per month. This amount was reflected in her February 2017 bill. However, on her March 2017 bill, the customer was automatically charged $59.99, a $5.00 increase of which she was not given adequate notice and which was improperly charged to her credit card automatically.

The lawyers bringing the case propose to include as class members anyone who purchased internet service from Time Warner Cable/Charter Communications nationwide, those who believed the company’s advertising that claimed speeds were fast and reliable, and customers enrolled in auto-pay who were not properly informed of changes in price or the terms of service. If certified, the potential size of the class action case could involve millions of customers.

Former Time Warner Cable and Bright House customers, listen up. A veteran Charter Communications customer who cut cable’s cord for good a few months ago reports Charter’s hard-line on extending retention deals to customers threatening to leave lasts only until you turn in your equipment and cancel your service.

DSL Reports reader mmainprize from Houghton Lake, Mich. wrote he dumped his $180/mo Charter Gold TV with Phone package for good after realizing just how much Charter was gouging him for service.

“I just went through my bills, and remember when internet was only $49 in mid-2015 before increasing to $52 in late 2015,” he writes. “So at the now current price of $65 you can see just how much it has gone up.”

When he called to tell them he was canceling service, they briefly tried to keep him as a customer by cutting back on his cable package for a lower price.

“Double play, Flex pack, you pick 20 channels, etc. At first the offer was internet and basic cable for $90 a month, then $74 a month for internet and “limited basic” (an unadvertised package of local channels, public access, educational and government channels, plus home shopping). I canceled all but internet.”

Within days the phone calls and letters started coming advertising discounts Charter wouldn’t dream of offering when he was still a TV customer.

“I get a call every day now (it is harassment) offering the same prices or lower than what I was offered when canceling,” he writes.

The first offer is $80 for a double play package of TV and internet service. But if you turn them down, they eventually pitch a triple play offer of $89 a month with TV, phone, and internet with free HD and DVD service (equipment extra).

The enticing offer on their website, promoting $29 a month for internet, $29 for TV, and $29 for phone service is available only to new customers. Existing Charter, Bright House, and Time Warner Cable customers cannot get those prices. You must pay more.

Those canceling service qualify as a new customer after a 30 day timeout period. Or skip that and sign up as a new customer under the name of another household member. If you are married, your spouse’s maiden name will suffice.

One thing is certain. Charter’s takeover of Time Warner Cable and Bright House is very unlikely to save most customers any money. Almost 90% of Time Warner Cable customers received discounts from a bundled service package or a retention deal. When those packages expire, your bill will skyrocket. This is exactly what Stop the Cap! told regulators in our opposition to the merger. Since 2008, we have shared one sage piece of advice with readers:

When a cable company comes calling promising you a great new deal, watch your wallet and run!

“I think that in general, there is probably too much commercial interruption in television,” Disney CEO Bob Iger told investors on the company’s first-quarter earnings call.

As some commercial networks cut “hour-long” TV shows to as little as 39 minutes, viewers have taken notice and are tuning out.

TV advertising loads — how many ad breaks and for how long — have been increasing since the 1950s, leaving viewers with less and less of their favorite shows. Networks have gotten creative over the years finding new spaces for advertising content by compressing opening titles and closing credits, telling producers to plan for shorter shows, using product placement to showcase brands and products inside shows, and editing or compressing older programs that can no longer fit in their allotted time slots.

The idea of reducing advertising is a recent phenomena, but one being taken seriously by networks that have watched ad revenue and ratings slip, as viewers learn to bypass or avoid advertising, or watch something else.

Iger promised an unspecified reduction in advertising on Disney-owned ABC and ESPN. It is uncertain if that will result in a slight decline of a minute per hour or something more dramatic. Time Warner, Inc., began opting for the latter in 2015, cutting ad time on certain shows on its TruTV network by half. Viacom and 21st Century Fox followed with experimental ad reductions of their own that same year.

Reducing advertising does not necessarily mean revenue reduction. Earlier experiments raised ad rates to compensate for the reduced number of commercials. Advertisers were reportedly pleased by the experiments because shorter ad breaks encouraged viewers to avoid channel surfing, giving higher exposure to advertising messages.