Big, Bigger, Biggest… Bigger Still

Comcast has plenty of available bandwidth to indefinitely expand its High Speed Internet services at speeds up to 3Gbps and believes it has won the legal right to grow its cable business as large as it likes.

Comcast executives admitted Wednesday they have more than enough network capacity to meet the demands of customers, both now and well into the future.

“With regard to usage and capacity, we feel the network is flexible and has plenty of opportunity to grow in capacity,” said Neil Smit, president and CEO of Comcast Cable Communications. Smit was responding to a Wall Street analyst asking about future capacity during a quarterly financial results conference call.

Smit noted that some of the biggest bandwidth users served by Comcast are businesses, and the cable operator was well-positioned to service them by extending fiber or deploying its Metro Ethernet product. Residential customers get increased bandwidth through neighborhood node splitting or DOCSIS 3 channel bonding that combines several channels together to increase speed and capacity.

Brian Roberts, CEO of Comcast Corporation, agreed with Smit, adding, “the more the consumer desires speed, the better that is for our company.”

Roberts noted DOCSIS 3.1 — the next generation of cable broadband — was “promising technology.”

“At the cable convention, we demonstrated 3Gbps” over Comcast’s existing cable infrastructure, said Roberts.

Smit

Comcast is easily the country’s largest cable operator, but many believe it is restrained from growing larger through mergers and acquisitions because of antitrust concerns. But thanks to a number of lawsuits initiated by Comcast, the company believes it can now grow as large as it likes.

Roberts admits the question of cable industry consolidation remains a gray area, particularly for Comcast. But he told investors he does not believe there are any remaining legal hurdles preventing Comcast from buying out other cable operators, despite earlier FCC rulemakings limiting the maximum size a cable company can grow through buyouts.

Comcast yesterday announced its last buyout — NBCUniversal — helped fuel a 29% increase in net income in the second quarter, thanks in part to strong results from film and television.

But many of Comcast’s largest gains came from its cable business.

Despite continued losses of video subscribers (159,000 in the second quarter), Comcast’s cable revenue increased 5.8% to $10.47 billion, and operating cash flow grew 5.7% to $4.3 billion. Comcast, which also owns several NBC broadcast affiliates, is playing for both sides of the retransmission consent wars. Its owned and operated television stations have demanded higher fees to be carried on cable systems, many owned by Comcast itself. The increased programming costs fuel subscriber rate increases, which also boost revenue.

Broadband is way up, although the company keeps losing video customers to cord-cutting.

Comcast’s broadband revenue has continued to grow dramatically. Customer additions for High Speed Internet access were up more than 20% in the quarter — the best second-quarter growth in five years — even as subscribers paid more for the service because of rate increases. Customer growth and price hikes delivered 8% growth in broadband revenue. In the last quarter alone, Comcast earned $2.6 billion from its broadband business.

Comcast is not spending a significant percentage of that revenue on enhanced broadband network upgrades. Instead, the company has increased investments to wire office parks and businesses to entice commercial customers, which account for a substantial amount of new customer growth. Comcast is also investing in research and development of new products and services, such as set-top boxes. The company also expects to pay 10% more in programming costs than it did a year earlier.

Year-to-date cable communications capital expenditures have increased 7.1% to $2.3 billion representing 11.3% of cable revenue. Comcast expects that for the full-year of 2013, cable capital expenditures will increase by about 10% over 2012.

Some other highlights from the quarter:

• In the last six months, Comcast completed broadband speed increases for 70 percent of its customers;
• High Speed Internet revenue was again the largest contributor to Comcast’s cable revenue growth;
• At the end of the quarter, 33% of Comcast’s residential high-speed customers take a higher speed tier above its primary service;
• Comcast has pushed Wi-Fi hard, installing more than four million wireless gateways and boosted Wi-Fi coverage to 250,000 hotspots through both cable partnerships and its home hotspot initiative;
• Comcast’s new X1 cloud-based set-top platform has been introduced to more than half of its national service area and will be available everywhere by the end of 2013. By the end of the year, Comcast also expects to push a firmware update to installed boxes to upgrade them to its new X2 platform;
• The average Comcast subscriber now pays the company $160 per month, up 7.4% from last year. Rate hikes, speed upgrades and growing programming packages account for the higher price;
• 77% of Comcast video customers took at least two products and among those, 42% took phone, broadband and television service.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Comcasts Cable and Media Units Grow 7-31-13.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg reports Comcast is still having trouble holding on to its video-only customers, but broadband customer growth continues to explode. Comcast also does well because it owns a number of cable networks and entertainment properties. Expect Comcast to continue evolving its products to bring them closer to the things people do online.  (3 minutes)

Several million Time Warner Cable and Bright House customers in New York, California, Texas and Florida will lose CBS programming this Wednesday at 5pm if the three companies do not iron out their differences in contract renewal negotiations.

CBS and Time Warner Cable have taken their fight public over retransmission consent talks that have left the two sides far apart. The cable operators say CBS has gotten greedy asking for as much as 600 percent more than what the cable companies paid under the old agreement that expired in June. CBS says the fact its stations have never been thrown off cable systems before is proof that their terms are reasonable.

Cable analysts say CBS’ old agreement cost the two cable operators between 75 cents and one dollar a month per subscriber. Most believe CBS is now asking for between $1-2 a month per subscriber to renew the agreement.

CBS wants to be paid at levels comparable to the most popular cable networks and believes the fact the network is now number one in the ratings delivers negotiating power. CBS has not made its aggressive position on carriage fees a secret. Executives have told investors it plans to quadruple cable and satellite fees over the next four years with a goal to raise an extra $1 billion. Wall Street analysts have recommended the stock to investors and its value has risen at least 65% in the past year.

But Time Warner Cable spokeswoman Maureen Huff believes CBS is asking for too much.

“Broadcasters have already hit customers with 84 broadcaster blackouts in the past 18 months,” Huff said in a statement. “Les Moonves, president and CEO of CBS, has always been outspoken about the programming fees he believes he deserves. He has said ‘the sky is the limit’ when talking about the price he thinks he deserves for his CBS stations, and he clearly means it. He doesn’t seem to care about our customers’ budgets or the going rates for CBS programming.”

But critics contend Time Warner Cable does not come to the table with clean hands on the issue of expensive carriage fees. Time Warner Cable seemed less concerned about the skyrocketing costs of cable programming when it set high asking prices for TWC-owned regional sports networks SportsNet and TWC Deportes.

CBS says it deserves at least as much as what Time Warner Cable pays Time Warner Entertainment’s TNT, which reportedly charges at least $1 a subscriber.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBS Time Warner Cable Customers about to lose CBS 7-20-13.mp4[/flv]

CBS is now running this ad in New York City warning Time Warner Cable customers they are about to lose WCBS-TV, the local CBS affiliate.  (1 minute)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Time Warner Cable CBS Outrageous Fees 7-20-13.mp4[/flv]

Not so fast, says Time Warner Cable. CBS wants 600% more for WCBS, driving up the price customers pay for cable television. (1 minute)

If no agreement is reached, CBS expects customers will lose access to its network-0wned affiliates starting at 5pm Wednesday afternoon. Although most media reports are focused on the fact CBS stations in New York, Los Angeles, and Dallas are affected, not all are CBS affiliates. In fact, customers in a few other cities will also find their CBS-owned stations dropped:

• New York: WCBS (TWC)
• Los Angeles: KCBS, KCAL (TWC)
• Dallas-Ft. Worth: KTVT, KTXA (TWC)
• St. Petersburg-Tampa: WTOG (Bright House)
• Riverhead (Long Island): WLNY (TWC)

Some Bright House customers are also affected by dispute.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Time Warner Cable and Bright House would also drop Showtime from lineups across the country in a retaliatory move, but this was not confirmed by either cable company.

Station owners are seeking higher retransmission consent payments from cable and satellite operators to establish additional sources of revenue. Pay television customers ultimately foot the bill with higher priced cable television service. As prices rise, pay television operators increasingly worry customers will either defect to a competitor or cut the cable television cord for good. Some operators are adopting a tougher stance, willing to drop stations from the lineup.

Most station owners believe the larger number of stations they own or control, the less likely a cable operator will actually throw a station off the lineup. This month, Wisconsin-based Journal Broadcast Group is threatened with the loss of nearly half of its 15 television stations on Time Warner Cable systems in Wisconsin, Nebraska, and California:

• WTMJ Milwaukee
• KMTV Omaha
• WGBA Green Bay/Appleton, Wisc.
• WACY Green Bay/Appleton, Wisc.
• KMIR Palm Springs, Calif.
• KPSE Palm Springs, Calif.

Bigger is better

Some stations have been off the lineup since July 10 in some markets, with digital sub-channels first removed by Time Warner Cable in a warning shot in others.

Larger station owners like Sinclair Broadcast Group have felt less threatened. The more stations under negotiation, the more leverage station owners have in contract renewal talks.

Sinclair is further boosting its position in the local TV station business, spending almost $2 billion in the last 18 months buying 81 more television stations.

Sinclair owns and operates, programs or provides advertising sales services to 140 television stations in 72 markets nationwide. They are a force to be reckoned with. Despite angry words over the station owner’s asking price, both Dish Networks and DirecTV renewed their carriage agreements with Sinclair without disrupting viewing.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSJ Retransmission Dispute TWC CBS 7-20-13.flv[/flv]

The Wall Street Journal’s “Moneybeat” looks into the retransmission dispute between CBS and Time Warner Cable and what impact it may have on viewers. (5 minutes)

Time Warner Cable won’t engage in an expensive bidding war for ownership of Hulu so it is trying to convince the online video venture’s current owners not to sell.

Sources tell Bloomberg News the cable company has offered to buy a minority stake in the online video streaming service alongside its current owners, which include Comcast-NBC, Fox Broadcasting, and Walt Disney-ABC.

If Hulu accepted the offer, the other bidders’ offers may not even be entertained.

Among those filing binding bids/proposals with Hulu as of the July 5 deadline:

• DirecTV, which reportedly wants to convert Hulu into an online companion to its satellite dish service for the benefit of its satellite subscribers;
• AT&T and investment firm Chernin Group, which submitted a  joint bid, presumably to beef up online video options for U-verse customers.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Plot Thickens in Bidding War for Hulu 7-9-13.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg News discusses how the various bidders for Hulu would adapt the service for their own purposes. It’s all about bulking up online video offerings.  (4 minutes)

Hulu’s new owners could continue to offer the service much the same way it is provided today, with a free and pay version. But most expect the new owners will throw up a programming “pay wall,” requiring users to authenticate themselves as a pay television customer before they can watch Hulu programming. If Time Warner Cable acquired a minority interest and the current owners stayed in place, Time Warner Cable TV customers could benefit from free access to certain premium Hulu content, now sold to others for $8 a month. That premium content would presumably be available to U-verse customers if AT&T emerges the top bidder, or DirecTV could offer Hulu to satellite subscribers to better compete with cable companies’ on-demand offerings.

Hulu’s influence will be shifted away from broadcast networks and more towards pay television platforms regardless of who wins the bidding. That could end up harming the major television networks that provide Hulu’s most popular content. Many of Hulu’s viewers are cord-cutters who do not subscribe to cable or satellite television. Placing Hulu’s programming off-limits to non-paying customers could force a return to pirating shows from peer-to-peer networks or third-party, unauthorized website viewing.

Online video rights are so important to cable operators and upstarts like Intel, which wants to launch its own online cable-TV like service, providers are willing to pay a premium for streaming rights.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Why Hulu Is Attracting Billion Dollar Bids 7-8-13.flv[/flv]

Richard Greenfield, analyst at BTIG, and Scott Galloway, chairman and founder of Firebrand Partners, discuss Hulu and the ability to stream on multiple platforms. They speak on Bloomberg Television’s “Bloomberg Surveillance.” (4 minutes)

The Los Angeles Times reports that pay TV distributors are in a rush to make deals, not only to offer more viewing options for customers, but to potentially get rid of expensive and cumbersome set-top boxes.

Interlopers like Intel, Apple, and Google who want to break into the business have not had an easy time dealing with programmers afraid of alienating their biggest customers. Even DirecTV, which has done business with some of the largest cable networks in the country for well over a decade still meets some resistance.

Acquiring Hulu could be an important part of DirecTV’s strategy to develop the types of services satellite TV has yet to manage well. On-demand programming is no easy task for satellite providers. But if DirecTV acquired Hulu, satellite customers could find DirecTV-branded on-demand viewing through the Internet. The Times speculates DirecTV could even build an online subscription service for subscribers who don’t want a satellite dish, receiving the same lineup of programming satellite customers now watch.

Distributors that acquire enough online streaming rights could even launch virtual cable systems in other companies’ territories, potentially pitting Comcast against Time Warner Cable, but few expect cable operators to compete against each other.

Sean Combs’ Revolt TV will be appearing on your Time Warner Cable lineup whether you want it or not.

The network, projected to launch this fall, is one of four African-American independent cable networks that Comcast pledged to carry as a pre-condition for its merger with NBCUniversal. Time Warner Cable is coming along for the ride, agreeing to launch the channel across all of its cable systems nationwide.

Most of Revolt’s programming is expected to be music programming targeting an urban audience.

Between Comcast and TWC, Revolt will launch in 25 million homes, which is an accomplishment for a network nobody heard of and few asked to receive.

“This is a landmark distribution deal that demonstrates Time Warner Cable’s commitment to bringing a platform for music artists and fans to their subscribers,” said Combs, Revolt’s founder and chairman. “It positions Revolt to come out of the gate strong, and we look forward to igniting the passion of initial audiences across the U.S.”

Discussions with other providers are ongoing, so expect the network to eventually also end on other cable, satellite, and telco-TV systems.

Neither cable company disclosed exactly how much the new network will cost each cable subscriber.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Revolt TV Launch Promo 6-13.flv[/flv]

Sean Combs’ appears in this launch promotional video for Revolt, which will target an African-American audience when it launches this fall. (Warning: Profanity) (1 minute)

Cable companies, including Time Warner Cable, are offering a mix of threats and financial incentives to keep popular cable programming away from online video competitors.

Bloomberg News today reported the private discussions primarily target upstart streaming video services from companies like Intel, Apple, and Google, which are all proposing multichannel streaming video services that could one day replace the local cable company.

All three would-be competitors have been stymied, some for years, from signing contracts with popular cable networks like HBO, USA, ESPN and Comedy Central. If a viewer wants to watch those networks, they usually have to authenticate themselves as existing cable, satellite, or telco-TV customers to get access to live and recorded programming. The cable industry prefers it that way as a customer retention tool.

Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt admitted to Wall Street analysts attending this week’s Cable Show his company probably insists on contract language that bars programmers from providing content to online video services.

“We may well have ones that have that prohibition,” Britt said at the conference in Washington. “This is not a cookie-cutter kind of business.”

Some cable company contracts are more benign, only requiring programmers to license content on the same terms offered to their online competitors. Britt said some of Time Warner Cable’s contracts fall into this category.

Britt

Britt has repeatedly emphasized Time Warner wants to license content more broadly to allow the company to include it in its TV Everywhere platform, which streams video content to wireless devices. The cable operator adopted a policy in 2009 that sought to deliver content to customers on any device they wish. Restrictive contracts have kept that policy from being fully implemented.

AT&T U-verse says it won’t pay full price for cable programming sold to its online competitors.

“If they’re going to go over-the-top, then that’s a very different conversation and a very different value for our customers,” Jeff Weber, president of content, said last month at an investor conference. “Exclusive versus non-exclusive has materially different value for our customers. And I think we would want that reflected.”

Restrictive contracts are all about protecting the existing pay television ecosystem, according to Charter’s chief financial officer, Chris Winfrey.

“It’s in everybody’s mutual interest that we are protecting the ecosystem in a way that continues to keep the value of that programming that we have and the way it’s delivered to our subscribers today,” Winfrey said added.

Consumer groups say restrictive contracts are the epitome of anticompetitive industry behavior that should be examined by the Justice Department.

“Is it anticompetitive generally? Of course it is, they are keeping programming from their competitors,” said Gigi Sohn from Public Knowledge.

Satellite companies were originally in this same position, unable to carry popular cable networks on reasonable terms at fair prices until the 1992 Cable Act mandated reforms that required non-discriminatory access to cable programming. Online video providers have not yet been able to demand the same terms for their competing services.