Dr. John Malone’s Liberty Media will buy a 27.3 percent interest in Charter Communications with a $2.62 billion investment in America’s fourth largest cable operator.

Liberty will buy the stake from investment firms Apollo Management, Crestview Partners, and Oaktree Capital Management.

“We are pleased with Charter’s market position and growth opportunities and believe that the company’s investments in its high-capacity digital network which provides digital HD and on demand television, high-speed data and voice, will benefit its customers and shareholders alike,” Malone said in a statement.

Malone is no stranger to the cable industry, having been at the helm of Tele-Communications, Inc. (TCI), the largest cable operator in the country in the 1980s and 1990s. TCI systems were sold to AT&T in 1999, which eventually spun them off to Comcast and Charter Communications, which still run them today.

Dr. John Malone

Since Malone’s exit at TCI, he has been in charge of Liberty Global, which owns cable systems overseas and controls several U.S. cable programming interests through his Liberty Media operation. The investment in Charter represents Malone’s return to an American cable industry he helped pioneer.

The agreement requires Liberty to acquire no more than 35 percent of Charter until January 2016, at which point Liberty’s maximum allowable controlling interest rises to 39.99 percent. Liberty also wins four seats on Charter’s board of directors. But many industry analysts predict Malone will not be satisfied with anything less than eventual full control.

Malone often takes an initial minority interest in the companies he later intends to acquire outright. Macquarie analyst Amy Yong told Reuters he employed a similar tactic to gain control of SiriusXM, the satellite radio company.

“He’s probably going to have a pretty big say in the company’s future over the next few years. This will accelerate capital returns and take advantage of Charter’s tax assets to consolidate the cable industry some more,” Yong said.

Malone is attracted to investment opportunities in companies with high marketplace leverage opportunities and exploiting potential revenue from captive customers in the rural, less-competitive markets Charter has traditionally favored.

Here today, gone tomorrow: Bresnan Communications that was Optimum is now Charter Cable.

Malone also has a strong philosophy towards marketplace consolidation, something ongoing in the cable industry, particularly among smaller cable operators serving less-populated areas.

Under the leadership of ex-Cablevision executive Thomas Rutledge, Charter Communications recently acquired the interests of Cablevision West — former Bresnan Cable systems in the mountain west. Malone sees considerable opportunities expanding operations in smaller communities that have either received substandard cable service, or none at all.

Malone has recently been stockpiling available cash for investments, spinning off his former cable programming properties Starz, a premium cable channel, Discovery Communications, which runs the Discovery Networks, and Liberty Interactive, which owns the lucrative home shopping channel QVC.

Charter Communications has had a difficult history. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen bought a controlling interest in the cable operator in the late 1990s, primarily because he saw cable broadband as a natural fit for his vision of a future wired America. Allen’s weighty investment was used to jump into a cable industry consolidation frenzy still underway more than a decade ago. Cable operators claimed consolidation was necessary to increase efficiency by building up regional clusters of cable systems. Before consolidation, it was not unusual for two or three different cable operators to serve customers in separate parts of a metropolitan area. Often one operator would serve the city with one or two other cable companies offering service in suburban and exurban communities nearby.

In 1999 alone, under Allen’s leadership, Charter Cable acquired 10 cable companies.

By 2005, Charter Cable had amassed millions of new subscribers, but not as many as company executives claimed when they artificially inflated subscriber numbers to protect the value of the company’s stock. Four executives were indicted that year for criminal accounting fraud. By 2009, with $22 billion in debt, the company declared bankruptcy, eventually wiping out shareholders.

The court’s decision to forgive 40 percent of the company’s debt angered creditors but opened an opportunity for private equity firm Apollo Capital Management to gain control by ending up with the majority of shares in the restructured company.

For years, the company has continued to receive some of the worst customer satisfaction ratings in the industry, usually ranking at or near the bottom. But many Charter customers stay because there is little competition from other players, especially telephone companies. AT&T’s U-verse is the most likely triple-play competitor, but AT&T has avoided introducing U-verse in many of Charter’s service areas because they are deemed too small.

Malone sees Charter’s future revenue potential grow as a broadband provider, considered both a money-maker and must-have service. Analysts say that Charter is well-positioned to poach more customers from phone companies, which typically only offer slow DSL service in much of Charter’s rural footprint.

Gore: Malone is the Darth Vader of cable.

But customers may find with Malone’s involvement, that service may come at a price. Malone was criticized heavily in the 1980s and 1990s for leading the charge for customer rate increases. TCI’s captive customers in Tennessee found their cable bills increased between 71-116 percent in just three years during the 1980s.

Former Sen. Al Gore, Jr., at the time called Malone the head of a “Cable Cosa Nostra” and the Darth Vader of big cable. The cable executive was a frequent target of lawmakers flooded with constituent complaints about poor cable service and accelerating prices.

In 1999, The Guardian noted Malone was an admirer of telecom oligopolies:

He is scathing about regulatory attempts to prevent monopolies and mergers. Governments, he says, are “antediluvian” in their approach to the emerging new world economic order. Instead of trying to prevent mergers and collusion between media and communications companies, Malone says governments should actually promote the creation of “super-corporations” (such as his own) with enough capital to exploit the potential of new technology.

That attitude may soon be back in play with the cable industry’s increasing focus on expanding broadband service as their new primary revenue generator.

Bright House Networks first boosted Internet speeds in January and is now back with a price boost.

The cable provider’s Turbo High Speed Internet increased earlier this year from 20 to 30Mbps for downloads. Its Lightning tier went up even more — from 40 to 60Mbps. Even Business Class customers saw speed increases to 70Mbps. But now prices are up as well — as much as $5 a month more for “upgraded broadband services,” a higher cable modem rental fee, and $3 more for television packages:

• Standard Cable TV service is up $3, from $65 to $68 a month
• Late fees are increasing by an extra $0.50;
• The cable modem rental fee that used to be $2 a month has increased an additional $1.50 — now $3.50 per month.

Price increases will not affect customers on promotional offers or certain bundled service packages combining multiple services.

The fee that bugs many customers the most is the company’s modem rental fee, which applies regardless of the age of your equipment.

“I told the customer service rep that I’ve had this modem for a couple of years and it’s not like altered or improved,” Pete Dooley of Satellite Beach, Fla. told Florida Today. “She said ‘You know the economy is today. They just needed more money.’ I guess you’re just supposed to casually accept it.”

The rest of the rate increases were attributed to the cost of cable television programming.

Jeff Kagan, a cable industry analyst told the online news service cable television rates have roughly doubled over the last decade.

Pulling the wool over your eyes.

As the Federal Communications Commission continues to consider AT&T’s proposal to abandon its wired infrastructure in rural service areas, hundreds of comments are arriving at the federal agency both for and against the idea. Between the submissions from large telecom companies and state regulators, a curious mix of professionally prepared comments favoring AT&T’s proposal have also arrived, many from organizations that simply do not have a direct interest in the outcome.

These Friends of AT&T include a range of non-profit, minority, and civil rights groups that have little interest in rural telecommunications policy but every interest in pleasing a company that lends executives to serve on advisory boards or writes big checks.

Even worse, some of the constituencies these groups purport to represent are among the most vulnerable. The rural poor, elderly, and economically disadvantaged are precisely those that cannot afford to lose budget-friendly phone and broadband service in favor of the expensive wireless solutions AT&T proposes as replacements.

Not all groups favoring AT&T are simply trolling for corporate contributions. Some seem to have been hoodwinked by the AT&T’s lobbyists, believing that abandoning rural wired infrastructure is an evolutionary step towards better service. They do not understand AT&T will offer exceptionally expensive broadband and voice calling over a wireless network notorious for dropped calls, poor rural reception, and stingy data caps in its place.

Stop the Cap! is here to help. Over the coming weeks, we will be running a special series calling out a range of groups that either take AT&T money and advocate for their cause or seem misinformed about the future rural reality AT&T has in store for rural America. We encourage readers to contact these groups and let them know they are hurting themselves — and you — spending precious resources advocating for a multibillion dollar telecommunications company that honestly does not need their help and does not have their interests at heart.

Ask these groups to carefully consider the comments from organizations that live and breathe rural broadband, consumer protection, and oversight:

A million-five can buy a lot of advocacy.

RURAL BROADBAND POLICY GROUP: “[We are] alarmed at the request AT&T has presented before the Commission, and believes that approving this petition will inflict negative consequences on rural communities and consumers including loss of affordable and reliable basic telephone service, which is the only form of communication many remote communities can access; eliminate consumer protections that have made it possible for rural people to access telecommunications services; reverse our commitment to Universal Service; endanger our national public safety; and fuel a divest-from-Rural-trend that will disadvantage our national economy and global competency. We simply cannot allow that to happen.”

FREE PRESS: “For the typical consumer, the grant of AT&T’s wishes would mean no protections from price gouging, no accountability for service outages, no consumer protections from cramming and slamming, and no reliable access to emergency services. For millions of consumers and businesses, it would mean no access at all, as AT&T would be free to stop providing service. And because there would no longer be any obligation for interconnection, Americans should expect to see rolling localized Internet blackouts as intercarrier disputes pop up, which will be “resolved” by higher prices paid to dominant carriers like AT&T.”

MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION: “The MPSC recognizes that the transition to an IP-based network is already underway. The MPSC supports the transition from TDM to IP-based or other next generation networks and services, and the deployment of affordable, open, and high-capacity broadband by all broadband providers. However, it is imperative to recognize that great care must be taken to ensure the continuation of the competitive marketplace, universal service, and consumer protections. AT&T’s Petition proposes sweeping deregulation of the incumbent providers, which would allow them to withdraw service unilaterally. There cannot be a reduction in competition, thus leaving customers subject to prices and/or rates that are not just, reasonable, and affordable, with little or no competitive recourse.”

Coming Up: The National Farmers Union: Hoodwinked by AT&T’s Lobbyists

Dampier

One of the most frustrating things about covering the public policy issues surrounding broadband is an-often lazy mainstream media that cannot tell the difference between an industry sock puppet and a consumer broadband advocate. One expects that the New York Times will do better than most.

It certainly did not this morning in a sloppy front page piece on Google’s privacy invasion concession.

New York Times reporter David Streitfeld seemed utterly out of his league from the lede paragraph in the story, where he suggested Google “casually scooped up passwords, e-mail and other personal information from unsuspecting computer users.”

That is a bit histrionic considering any “data theft” would have only occurred for the 5-15 seconds Google’s Street View vehicle was in range of an entirely unprotected home Wi-Fi network, and that you were actively using it at the time of Google’s “drive-by.” If you enabled any wireless network security, Google would have captured nothing beyond the name of your Wi-Fi network (assuming you had not hidden it with another setting) — something anyone could capture with a Wi-Fi sniffer.

Even more concerning was the sudden appearance in the piece of paid Google critic Scott Cleland, who runs a suburban Washington, D.C. corporate public strategy lobbying firm called Precursor LLC that has as its chief mission:

Help companies anticipate change to better exploit emerging opportunities and guard against emerging risks.

Attacking Google and broadband advocacy groups is Cleland’s bread and butter.

The New York Times called him a “consumer watchdog.”

At this point I coughed up my peppermint patty.

Cleland, whose rhetoric about Google ranges from alarmist to lugubrious — America must worry about being on the cusp of a Google-run online dystopia — is well-known to those of us who encounter his various paid-for campaigns. Cleland is best known for his anti-Google rhetoric and his reflexive defense of all-things-Big Telecom, hardly surprising considering his client list.

What is disturbing is that I know this and the reporters at the New York Times apparently do not:

“Google puts innovation ahead of everything and resists asking permission,” said Scott Cleland, a consultant for Google’s competitors and a consumer watchdog whose blog maintains a close watch on Google’s privacy issues. “But the states are throwing down a marker that they are watching and there is a line the company shouldn’t cross.”

At least the Times casually disclosed he was a “consultant for Google’s competitors.” But consumer watchdog? That is a line the Times shouldn’t cross because it is reality only in a world where Goldman Sachs is considered a model for altruistic investment banking.

Rogers Communications, Canada’s largest cable operator, told investors at an investment bank conference it intends to accelerate plans to monetize wireless and broadband data usage this year.

Anthony Staffieri, chief financial officer of Rogers Communications told attendees at Morgan Stanley’s Technology, Media & Telecom Conference that Rogers’ future revenue outlook was going to be data-centric.

“We think data, monetizing data, is going to be a key aspect of that, both on the wireless side, as well as on the cable side of things,” Staffieri said.

Staffieri

Key to Rogers is the development of data plans that maximize revenue potential by exploiting the customer’s discomfort with overlimit fees. Staffieri admits the company has plans that can cost the company revenue if customers downgrade to a usage bucket that brings them very close to their usage limit.

But most customers do not choose those “exact fit” data plans. They typically select more expensive, larger-bucket plans so they can rest easy knowing they will not get slapped with a overlimit fee.

“And so they’re coming into data plans that are probably more than they need,” Staffieri said. “But for most users, what they’re looking for is comfort in usage. And so what we found is there’s a preponderance to buy more than what you need. So there’s no surprise at the end of the month in terms of billing. And so it’s all about that comfort in usage that we’re focused on in the price plans.”

In wireless, Rogers is also counting on the explosive growth of usage that comes after introducing 4G LTE coverage.

“Simply on 3G to LTE, you see an immediate growth in data usage,” Staffieri said. “Same users, but if you were to look at the data set, it’s just within a defined period of time, they can just access more. And so for whatever reason, whatever they’re doing with it, it’s just driving more usage, more efficiency and they’re using it in the business context.”

Staffieri says Rogers is experiencing 30-50% increases in data usage year over year. Rogers introduced new wireless plans in the fall of 2012 that refocus customers on their anticipated data usage, with gradually more expensive wireless plans to match.

“That really gets the customer focused on choosing something that continues to drive data growth,” Staffieri noted.

Rogers Cable broadband customers have also faced data caps and consumption-oriented billing for years. Although Rogers competitively responded to a Bell offer introduced in January that includes unlimited use service for customers who want it, that option comes at an added cost — one that can be priced up or down according to marketplace conditions.

Rogers primary focus is on encouraging its cable broadband customers to move towards higher-speed, more expensive data plans.

MONETIZED: Rogers sells a 25/2Mbps broadband plan for $52 a month that includes only an 80GB monthly usage allowance. A $2/GB overlimit fee applies, up to a maximum of $100 per month. Taxes, a modem rental fee or purchase, a one-time activation fee of $14.95 and up to a $99.99 installation fee also apply.

“On the cable side, making sure we have the best Internet experience was the other piece of it,” Staffieri said. “We ended the year with 90% of our footprint able to get 150Mbps data speed ($122.99/mo with 250GB usage allowance). And so to the extent that we continue to lead on Internet, we think that’s going to be important ingredient for the top line [revenue] growth.”

On the wireless side, Rogers is following the lead of big providers in the United States and gradually shifting the cost of new smartphones away from itself and onto its customers by adjusting its subsidy program.

“As we see data [usage] pulling [revenue] growth, overall, that bodes well for a continuation of the subsidization,” Staffieri said. “For us, it’s really been about making sure that we give the customer choice. And so when we combine that with the introduction of the Flex Plan, which we did in 2012, what we’re seeing is more and more customers opting into new handsets. But more and more, it’s on the customer’s nickel as opposed to our nickel on the Flex Plan programs.”

Rogers Wireless’ Individual plans. Rogers’ customers have to pay extra for long distance calling — most plans only cover local calls. Data plans are stingier and more expensive than what most Americans pay, and steep overlimit fees up to $0.02 per megabyte ($20/GB) apply. Like in the United States, Rogers is moving to bundle unlimited calling and texting into more of their plans. What differentiates more plans today is how much data usage is included.

Staffieri admitted Bell is giving Rogers the most competitive headaches in Ontario because of their aggressively priced promotions.

“Certainly, [Bell’s Fibe IPTV] has been competitive for us. In the short-term, we continue to deal with what I would consider to be aggressive pricing in terms of acquisition and retention offers by our IPTV competitor,” said Staffieri. “We’ve always been competing with their satellite product and so that competition has always been there. But I would describe it as certainly having picked up and continuing to pick up. And it’s largely been through pricing offers as opposed to product.”

Staffieri says Rogers is competing with improved set-top equipment like the NextBox 2.0 — a whole-home DVR with an improved user interface. It also offers customers Anyplace TV, a TV Everywhere service that allows customers to watch the Rogers’ TV lineup on tablets inside the home.

The Toronto Maple Leafs, the National Hockey League’s most valuable sports franchise, is today 75% co-owned by Bell Canada Enterprises (BCE) and Rogers Communications.

As is the case in the United States, Canadian cable companies are also facing dramatically increasing programming costs, particularly for sports programming.

But to a greater degree than in the U.S., Canadian media conglomerates own and control a larger share of cable and broadcast networks, programming producers, would-be competitors like satellite television, and even sports teams and the networks that show their games.

That positions them to negotiate with themselves over content costs, because they own or control the sports franchise, the cable or broadcast network that televises their games, and the cable, satellite, or telephone provider through which most Canadians watch.

“We’ve tried to be disciplined on the extent that content price increases are there because consumers want it, then we want to make sure we’re disciplined in passing on that cost to the customer,” Staffieri said. “And so we strive to make sure that in the TV and video business our gross margins are consistent.”

“So if you were to look at how that’s played out over the last several quarters and several years, it’s been fairly consistent. And so that’s what we strive to do is to make sure that those programming costs ultimately are passed on to the consumer, which is ultimately driving up the cost through their demand.”