Verizon Communications has held no talks with Netflix about a possible acquisition, despite frenzied media reports to the contrary.

Deal Reporter, a trade publication, was the source of the original rumor, but Bloomberg News reports the story is premature after talking with two sources who should know.

The rumored takeover did wonders for Netflix stock, which jumped more than six percent on the news.  That’s a boost the streaming and DVD-rental service needed after a year of public relations missteps and subscriber losses.

Verizon’s recent move towards launching its own streaming entertainment service outside of its FiOS fiber-to-the-home service areas made the rumor more credible, but other analysts think Verizon’s interest is on different company that shares Netflix’s love of the color red.

“Verizon’s not interested in Netflix, they see Redbox as a much better fit,” Sam Greenholtz, an analyst with Telecom Pragmatics in Westminster, Maryland, who has consulted for Verizon and was briefed by its employees about its plan, told Bloomberg.

It’s not the ubiquitous network of Redbox kiosks Verizon is after, it is the content distribution deals the company has with Hollywood studios.  Those deals are becoming quite lucrative for production companies — so lucrative in fact Time Warner’s chief entertainment mogul has cut back on his personal bashing of Netflix.  With Amazon, Time Warner’s own HBO Go, and Verizon entering the online video fray, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings declared there is now an “arms race” among the behemoths to dominate online viewing, and jack up licensing fees.

Hastings sees only the deepest-pocketed players as having a chance to make a stand in the online streaming marketplace, because content costs are increasing dramatically.  Hastings says Verizon and Amazon are bit players because they don’t offer a deep catalog of content and their offerings are more difficult to view on the family television set.

“The competitor we fear most is HBO Go,” Hastings said. “HBO is becoming more Netflix-like and we’re becoming more HBO-like. The two of us will compete for a very long time.”

HBO Go is part of the cable industry’s TV Everywhere project, delivering online video services to authenticated cable-TV subscribers.  Although HBO Go is typically included for free with an HBO subscription, the premium movie channel’s price has increased dramatically in the last three years.  In many areas, a monthly subscription for HBO now runs just shy of $15 a month.

CNN Money pondered whether Netflix can ultimately stay independent in a country where vertically and horizontally integrated super-sized entertainment companies control programming, distribution, and the Internet providers consumers use to access the content.  Netflix may still be an acquisition target:

Verizon. On the one hand, Verizon appears to be showing stronger interest in Redbox, which is planning to launch a streaming-video service in May 2012. On the other hand, Redbox is likely to face the same onerous licensing costs that plague Netflix, and Verizon might be better off buying a company experienced in licensing streaming rights. And besides, by hinting of a Redbox deal, Verizon can push down Netflix’ price – making a deal that much cheaper.

But if a Verizon deal makes sense on the face of it, it could become problematic over time. The two companies’ cultures are incompatible. Netflix takes risks that often (but not always) pay off, and builds its products around the customer’s experience. Verizon is risk-averse and builds its strategies on wringing fees from customers. If Netflix members staged a revolt over of the subscription fiasco, imagine how they’d react if Verizon raised fees further or demanded Netflix users sign up with its Internet service.

Microsoft. Netflix could give Microsoft the popular online service it’s never been able to build on its own. The Xbox has gone from gaming console to a well-received smart TV device, and integrating Netflix’ streaming-video service could put it ahead of Apple and Google. Plus, Reed Hastings could bring Microsoft a seasoned executive who instinctively understands where digital content is going.

Google. If the search giant can buy a phone maker, why not a video service? At $42.6 billion Google’s cash stockpile is 116 times the size of Netflix’s. Google already owns the only other digital-video property that has been embraced by the masses: YouTube. Combining the best features of both could lead to the only site you’d need to visit to get your video fix. Google’s recent comments on a controversial anti-piracy bill, however, could strain relations with studios that Netflix must license from.

Apple. As with Google, Apple’s $45 billion in cash will not only buy Netflix but sign many content deals and still leave tens of billions in the coffers. Thanks to iTunes, Apple has longstanding relationships with TV and movie studios, which could secure better terms for Netflix. And like iTunes, Netflix could spur enough sales of Apple devices that Apple doesn’t need to worry about making the profit that Netflix investors expect today.

Amazon. For as long as Netflix has been around, someone has been suggesting a merger with Amazon. Consumers have been buying DVDs from Amazon for years, and with IMDB, the best single film database on the planet, finding and researching movies to watch would be a cinch. The catch has been that owning Netflix’s mailing facilities would open it up to taxes in many states. But that may change now that Netflix seems ready to sell off its shrinking DVD-rental business.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Bibb on Verizons Possible Bid for Netflix 12-12-11.flv[/flv]

Porter Bibb, managing partner at Mediatech Capital Partners LLC, talks about Verizon Communications Inc.’s possible offer for Neflix Inc. and the outlook for the streaming video industry. He was widely cited as one of the primary sources of the Verizon acquisition rumor.  He speaks with Jon Erlichman on Bloomberg Television’s “Bloomberg West.”  (5 minutes)

Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Bright House Networks sold AWS spectrum in areas shown here to Verizon Wireless, virtually guaranteeing the cable industry will not compete in the wireless phone business.

Two years ago, Cox Communications was hungry to get into the wireless phone business.  It announced it was launching “unbelievably fair” wireless — an oasis in a wireless desert of tricks and traps on offer from competing wireless companies.  No more expiring minutes, the option of affordable flat rate service, and no hidden fees or surcharges were all supposed to be part of the deal.

“Our research found that value and transparency are very important to consumers when choosing a wireless service plan, but they are not finding these qualities in the wireless plans offered today,” Stephen Bye, vice president of wireless said back in 2010, introducing the service. “Total loss of unused minutes as well as unforeseen overage charges on bills are just two examples of what our customers have told us is just unfair.”

Those same issues still exist for wireless customers today, but Cox won’t be a part of the solution.  The company announced this past May it was exiting the competitive arena of wireless and would simply resell Sprint service instead.  Last month, it announced it wouldn’t even bother with that, and will transition its remaining wireless customers directly to Sprint.

What changed Cox’s mind?  The cost of building and operating a wireless network to compete with much larger national companies.  It simply no longer made sense to build a small regional wireless carrier and rent the rest of your national coverage area from other providers, who set wholesale prices at a level high enough to protect them from would-be competitors.

The lesson Cox learned first has now been taught to America’s largest cable operators Comcast and Time Warner Cable (and its sidekick Bright House Networks).

All three cable operators have effectively signed a non-aggression treaty with Verizon Wireless, agreeing to sell their unused wireless spectrum acquired by auction in 2006 at a 50% markup to Big Red.  In return, Verizon will market cable service to wireless customers.  It’s the ultimate non-compete clause so wide-reaching, Verizon stores will soon be selling Time Warner Cable right next to Verizon FiOS, something unheard of in the telecommunications marketplace.

It’s a win for Verizon Wireless, which accumulates additional wireless spectrum and peace of mind knowing the cable industry will not enter the wireless communications business.  Cable companies get to profit from their purchase of the public airwaves and see the potential of a dramatic reduction in customer poaching, as cable and phone companies stop fighting each other for customers.  Ultimately, it means customers could eventually pay the cable or phone company for all of their telecommunications services from television and broadband to wired and wireless phone service.  What consumers enjoy in one-bill-convenience may eventually come with higher rates made possible from reduced competition.

Verizon Wireless' currently unused AWS spectrum favor the east coast, but not for long.

Verizon will pay $3.6 billion to Comcast, Time Warner and Bright House Networks for the spectrum.  The deal has stockholders cheering because that payment represents a tidy profit for cable operators who did absolutely nothing with the spectrum they purchased five years ago.  It also makes AT&T even more intent on completing its own spectrum merger with T-Mobile USA.

The agreement has concerned consumer advocates because it seems to signal Verizon is content making money primarily from its wireless business, and will repay the favor from the cable industry by pitching phone customers on cable service.  That could ultimately spell big trouble for Verizon’s stalled FiOS fiber-to-the-home network.  Verizon may find it easier and cheaper to end its aggressive entry into Big Cable’s territory by simply reselling traditional cable television products.  It can still market wireless products and services to cable subscribers and not endanger the new atmosphere of goodwill.  Rural broadband, where cable never competes, could be served through wireless spectrum, for example.

For now, Verizon says it intends to continue competing with its FiOS network, but the company stopped deploying the service in new areas nearly two years ago.

The deal will go before regulators at the Justice Department and the Federal Communications Commission for review.  What will likely concern them the most is the appearance of collusion between the cable companies and Verizon.

“A flag is raised when two rival networks move to start selling each other’s services,” a person familiar with the concerns of federal antitrust officials told the Washington Post. “They lose their desire, impetus, to compete. That is a big antitrust flag.”

Mark Cooper, the director of research for the Consumer Federation of America, expressed serious concern as well.

“Verizon was supposed to be the great competitor for Comcast in the video space, while Comcast has been looking for a wireless play to match the Verizon bundle,” he said. “The deal signals bad news for consumers, who can expect higher prices for video, fewer choices and higher prices for wireless.”

Who owns what

Four years into the deal, consumers may not know what company they are dealing with, as cable operators will be able to market Verizon Wireless service under their own respective cable brand names.

The deal is also trouble for lagging Clearwire, which had been providing wireless broadband service to both Comcast and Time Warner Cable.  Under the agreement, both cable companies will end their relationship with Clearwire, which is particularly bad news for the wireless company because of its ongoing financial distress.  Sprint, which has heavily invested in Clearwire, may ultimately find itself with an investment gone sour, troubling news for the third largest wireless company manning the barricades against a nearly-complete duopoly in wireless service between AT&T and Verizon Wireless.

Cable stock cheerleader Craig Moffett from Sanford Bernstein seems thrilled with the prospect.  In a research note to his Wall Street clients, Moffett says AT&T could benefit from the Verizon pact with Big Cable by ending up in a “more duopolistic industry structure without paying for it.” If the FCC approves the non-aggression pact, the deal “would amount to an unmistakable step towards the duopolization of the U.S. wireless market, inasmuch it would leave T-Mobile, once again, stranded without a 4G strategy.”

Cable investors, he adds, are likely to be excited the cable industry won’t spend billions of dollars in capital building a wireless venture, and instead has agreed to work with competitors to cross-sell products and services.  With little competitive pressure, prices won’t be falling anytime soon.

That’s great news for investors, even if it is “unbelievably unfair” for consumers.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Verizon to Buy Wireless Spectrum for 3-6 Billion 12-2-11.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg News explains the deal and its implications in the wireless industry spectrum battle.  (2 minutes)

Comcast’s decision to spend $300,000 attempting to defeat one community’s public broadband initiative illustrates how America’s largest cable company invested a portion of your monthly cable bill.  It turned out to be a bad investment — Longmont voters saw right through the dollar-a-holler vote buying operation run by a Denver-based “public strategies” firm.  Every vote in favor of the cable company cost Big Cable $35.17 — a bit less than many pay for a month of broadband service.

The pro-fiber forces spent a collective $5,000, some of which came from individuals who want more competition in Colorado.  The Institute for Local Self-Reliance notes the cable industry couldn’t even find a local spokesperson to cheerlead their campaign.

It is proof positive citizen activism can still beat back corporate-financed propaganda campaigns and make all the difference.

Internet Overcharging schemes bring even more profits to a cable industry that already enjoys a 95% gross margin on broadband service.

At least one major national cable company plans to implement a usage-based billing system in the coming year, predicts Sanford Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett.  Bloomberg News quotes Moffett in a piece that thinly references Time Warner Cable as that operator, whose CEO strongly believes in further monetizing broadband usage.

Moffett is among the chief cheerleaders hoping to see operators charge customers additional fees for their use of the Internet.

“In the end, it will be the best thing that ever happened to the cable industry,” Moffett said.

For customers, DISH Satellite chairman Charlie Ergen predicts it will lead to at least a $20 monthly surcharge for broadband users who watch online video, which could bring already sky-high broadband pricing to an unprecedented $70-80 a month, the same amount most cable operators now charge for standard digital cable-TV service.

The cable industry’s interest in being in the cable television business has waned recently as subscribers increasingly turn away from expensive cable packages.  Now companies that used to consider broadband a mildly-profitable add-0n increasingly see Internet access as the new mainstay (and profit center) of their business.

Time Warner Cable, for example, wasn’t even sure its entry in the broadband business in the late 90s would ever amount to much.  Fast forward a dozen years, and it is an entirely different story:

“We’re basically a broadband provider,” Peter Stern, chief strategy officer for New York-based Time Warner Cable, said Nov. 17 at the Future of Television conference in New York. “As a convenience for our customers, we package and distribute television and provide service around that.”

Bloomberg reports the cable industry profit margin on broadband is nearly 95 percent, a testament to the lack of competitive pressure on Internet pricing.  The industry is going where the money is to make up for increasing challenges to their video business, which currently “only” brings them a 60 percent profit margin.

Suddenlink, already enjoying a 12 percent increase in broadband revenue in the last quarter alone, is implementing its own Internet Overcharging scheme, charging $10 for every 50GB a customer exceeds their arbitrary usage allowance.  That, despite the fact CEO Jerry Kent admits Suddenlink’s broadband margins are double those earned from the cable company’s video business.

Complicit in the parade to Internet Overcharging is Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski, who publicly supported usage-based pricing in public statements made last December.  Cable operators were fearful Genachowski might lump the pricing scheme in with the Net Neutrality debate.  Providers have since used Genachowski’s loophole in an end run around Net Neutrality.  If providers cannot keep high volume video traffic from competitors like Netflix off their networks, they can simply make using those services untenable on the consumer side by increasing broadband pricing, already far more expensive than in other parts of the world.

That is a lesson already learned in Canada, where phone and cable companies routinely limit usage and slap overlimit fees on consumers who cross the usage allowance line.  Canada’s broadband ranking has been deteriorating ever since.

Moffett - The chief cheerleader for Internet Overcharging

Bloomberg says such a pricing regime would discourage investment in online video products that currently are held responsible for some cable cord-cutting:

“It’s the reason why Apple or Google would inevitably be reticent about committing a significant amount of capital to an online video model,” Moffett told Bloomberg. “You can’t simply assume just because you can buy the content more cheaply, you can offer a product that’s cheaper to the end user.”

The only way around this might be video providers like Google getting into the broadband business themselves, something Google is experimenting with in Kansas City.  Google’s “Think Big With a Gig” project is partly designed to prove gigabit broadband delivered over a fiber network is practical and doesn’t have to be unaffordable for consumers.  It will also finally bring competitive pressure on a comfortable broadband duopoly, at least for residents in one city.

So far, video providers who depend on an Internet distribution model are not putting much money in the fight against usage-billing.  Instead, companies like Netflix are releasing occasional press releases that decry the practice.

“[Usage billing] is not in the consumer’s best interest as consumers deserve unfettered access to a robust Internet at reasonable rates,” Steve Swasey, a Netflix spokesman, said previously.

It is clear consumers despise usage pricing.  In every survey conducted, a majority of respondents oppose limits on their broadband usage, especially at today’s prices.  But that may not be enough to get companies like Time Warner Cable to back off.  The company has reportedly been quietly testing usage meters since last summer.  CEO Glenn Britt, with a considerable drumbeat of support from Wall Street analysts like Mr. Bernstein, has never shelved the concept of usage pricing, seeing it more lucrative than hard usage caps.  The company retreated from a 2009 plan to charge up to $150 a month for flat rate access after consumers rebelled over planned trials in Texas, North Carolina, and New York.

But without a solid message of opposition from consumers, and an about-face from an FCC chairman that should know better, they’ll be back looking for more money soon enough.

[Thanks to regular Stop the Cap! reader Ron for sharing the news.]

Cogeco’s disastrous investment in a Portuguese cable company may be the beginning of the end for the Canadian cable operator.  Cogeco, which primarily serves smaller communities in Ontario and Quebec, may eventually find itself the property of Rogers Communications, Inc., particularly if its messy overseas cable operation can be dispensed with soon.

The Financial Post suggests rumors of Cogeco’s increasing efforts to rid itself of Portugal’s Cabovisao could be a prelude to a bigger sale of its Canadian cable operation to Rogers.

Cogeco’s interest in Portugal’s cable industry came after the company determined there were limited opportunities to invest or acquire cable operations in the highly concentrated North American market.  In 2006, it spent $660 million to acquire Cabovisao, two years before Portugal felt some of the worst impacts of a global economic crisis that continues to this day.

Cogeco's financial mess in Portugal.

Portugal’s efforts to stabilize its economy have brought widespread salary reductions and tax increases, making luxuries like full-priced cable service untenable.  Subscribers have been canceling in droves, either because they found a better deal from a competitor, or because they could no longer afford the monthly bill.

Earlier this summer, Cogeco wrote-off its entire investment in Cabovisao and has been rumored to be shopping the cable system for a quick sale.

One analyst told the newspaper if Cabovisao is for sale, Cogeco may be perceived to be “throwing in the towel” on the strategy of investing abroad — and moreover, paving the way for a takeover by Rogers.

Rogers already holds a nearly one-third equity interest in Cogeco.  Being rid of Cabovisao could make Cogeco that much more attractive to Rogers, whose systems largely surround Cogeco’s operations.

The only thing remaining in the way of a wholesale takeover could be the Audet family, which controls the majority of shares in Cogeco.  Earlier this summer, it was clear the Audets had no interest in selling, but that may be changing with the unwinding of its international investment strategy.