As expected for months, Charter Communications, Inc. today formally offered Time Warner Cable shareholders $132.50 per share to assume ownership of the nation’s second largest cable operator in a deal worth more than $61 billion, including debt.

Bloomberg News this afternoon reported Charter Cable has offered $83 in cash for each outstanding share of TWC stock, as well as about $49.50 in Charter stock. That makes the attempted takeover the third largest merger deal worldwide since 2009.

Rutledge

Charter CEO Thomas Rutledge, a former executive at TWC and Cablevision would lead the combined enterprise under the Charter Cable name, likely pushing out TWC’s new CEO Robert Marcus. Rutledge argues that combining Charter and TWC would bring about considerable cost savings, particularly for spiraling programming costs. Analysts say the deal would also mean a reduction in Time Warner Cable’s workforce, especially in middle management, as operations are consolidated around Charter’s leadership.

Rutledge today said he privately approached Time Warner Cable executives with an offer in late December.

“We haven’t received a serious response,” Rutledge said today in a Bloomberg News telephone interview. “Our objective was to talk to management and try to get them engaged. They have not, so we’re going to make our case to shareholders about why this deal is good for them and hope they ask management and the board to watch out for the interests of shareholders.”

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Marangi on TWC Deal 1-13-14.mp4[/flv]

Chris Marangi from Gamco tells CNBC Charter Communications’ proposal to buy Time Warner Cable for $61.3 billion is probably too low, but the cable industry is “ripe for consolidation” and further mergers are likely. (1:39)

Time Warner Cable’s chief financial officer Artie Minson reportedly requested Charter make a higher bid that included more cash, but Charter refused.

Malone

The man pulling the levers behind Charter’s curtain is Dr. John Malone, former CEO of Tele-Communications, Inc., which was America’s largest cable operator in the late 1980s and 1990s. Malone’s Liberty Media is Charter Communications’ largest single investor. Malone has long argued for consolidation and cooperation in the cable industry to boost profits and control programming costs that drive up cable television bills.

Malone specializes in structured mergers and acquisitions that result in tax-free buyouts. Charter’s offer relies heavily on debt financing and would allow Charter to shield its ongoing net operating losses from taxes.

Malone indicated he is willing to play hardball to force a merger.

Malone told investors he expected Time Warner Cable to resist a takeover by Charter — America’s fourth largest cable company — so he is prepared to nominate Charter-friendly directors for Time Warner Cable’s board before nominations close Feb. 15. Time Warner Cable shareholders could force the merger by voting for Malone’s handpicked directors, who would promptly approve Charter’s takeover offer. But Time Warner executives will likely argue Charter’s offer is disadvantageous for TWC shareholders.

“Since we made our first proposal, Time Warner Cable has lost another half million video customers,” Rutledge said. “Their customer service continues to decline in every measure. We can improve it. We have a demonstrated track record of improving customer service. It’s a question of credibility.”

Consumer Reports reports otherwise. Charter Communications has perennially been ranked America’s second worst Internet Service Provider cable operator in annual reader surveys. Only Mediacom is ranked lower among cable operators.

Now that Charter’s offer has gone public, investors suspect other cable operators may soon consider bidding for Time Warner Cable as well. Comcast is a likely bidder with an interest is taking control of Time Warner Cable’s systems in New York City and certain midwestern markets. Comcast would also like TWC’s regional sports channels serving southern California.

Customers will have no say in the matter, except through appeals to federal regulators which must approve any sale.

Unlike TWC, Charter Cable has usage limits on their broadband service.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC CNBC David Faber on TWC Deal 1-13-14.mp4[/flv]

CNBC’s David Faber reports today’s offer from Charter Communications is not technically a “bid” for Time Warner Cable. Instead, it’s a public offer to hopefully force TWC executives to take Charter’s offer more seriously. (3:25)

Robocallers pitching extended auto warranties, home alarm systems, lowered interest rates on credit cards, and more are back in business, despite the “Do Not Call Registry” from the Federal Trade Commission designed to stop the junk phone calls.

Rogue telemarketing has gotten so out of hand, the very federal agency responsible to help stop the torrent of unwanted sales calls had to post a warning about telemarketers misrepresenting themselves as FTC agents on its own website.

The FTC acknowledges it has an uphill battle.

“Our law enforcement actions have already halted billions of robocalls, but with today’s technology, tens of millions can be blasted each day — at a per-minute calling cost of less than 1 cent,” said Federal Trade Commission official Lois Greisman, who oversees the National Do Not Call Registry.

Identifying violators has become increasingly difficult as scammers learn to fake (or ‘spoof’) call origination data that shows up on your Caller ID display.

“Dozens and dozens of spoofed numbers can be used per robocall campaign, and telemarketing scripts are shared as well,” says Greisman, explaining why you may get the same rip-off recording from different incoming numbers.

The most recent trick is to spoof a Caller ID number that appears local, increasing the odds you will pick up the phone. Instead of a family friend on the other end, it is a recorded pitch offering to refinance your mortgage.

A desperate FTC concluded it might be in over its head and launched a contest offering $50,000 and a trip to Washington, D.C. for anyone offering a better solution.

The winner: Nomorobo

Nomorobo is the idea of Steve Foss and it tied first place in the FTC Robocall Challenge.

The free service works with most Voice over IP phone lines (think Vonage or a phone line supplied by your cable operator), but has gotten a mixed reception from wireless carriers and landline giants Verizon and AT&T.

It works with a phone feature called “Simultaneous Ring,” which means when a person calls your number, Nomorobo’s “phone” is also ringing just long enough to collect Caller ID information to compare against its master-telemarketer list. If the number is a known phone spammer, Nomorobo intercepts the call and hangs up on the caller after the first ring. Your legitimate calls still arrive with no interference.

Some phone companies known to support Nomorobo, but not necessarily the only ones:

• AT&T U-verse
• Cablevision Optimum
• SureWest
• Time Warner Cable
• Verizon FiOS
• Vonage

Phone companies like AT&T and Verizon have so far refused to support the service for its landline and wireless customers.

After registering, Nomorobo will guide new users through the simple set up process step-by-step.

The system does not track your incoming calls nor does it monitor them. If an unwanted telemarketer does get through, a report option on the website will help get the unwanted caller’s number into the database.

Stop the Cap! has tested the service and found it effective in blocking about 75% of the unwanted calls that arrive in our office. Our phone rings just once — long enough for caller ID information to be passed — and when the system identifies a known phone spammer, it disconnects them. But the system is not perfect. Telemarketers can theoretically change their spoofed Caller ID number(s) to get around the call block, and we found Nomorobo’s database only as good as the crowdsourced data allows.

Nomorobo also won’t stop political or non-profit groups from calling, at least for now. Our second biggest problem — calls from collection agencies hounding the last owner of our phone number, also remain unaffected.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KNXV Phoenix Block robocalls for free with new website 10-15-13.mp4[/flv]

KNXV in Phoenix explains Nomorobo to its viewers. The service works mostly with Voice over IP providers, which leaves a lot of AT&T and Verizon customers unprotected. (2:04)

Some Rogers Cable customers are being notified the cable company is slimming down their analog television lineup, requiring customers to get a digital adapter to continue watching networks in their new digital format.

We’re enhancing our cable TV network to deliver on our commitment to provide you with quality in television viewing, programming and entertainment content. The Rogers Cable Network Enhancement initiative involves upgrading current analog channels to digital channels in order to provide a superior TV experience on our Rogers cable TV network.

To maintain your cable service, you may need to install a digital adapter.

Rogers says the change is designed to improve the video and sound quality of cable channels, but in reality most cable operators are shifting away from analog television to free up bandwidth that can be repurposed for more HD television channels or faster broadband service.

“The Digital Adapter is being provided to you free of charge, you will not be charged for the digital adapter or incur any service fees associated with the hardware,” says Rogers. “The Digital Adapter is being provided to you to use while you subscribe to Rogers cable television services and remains our property. The Digital Adapter must be returned to us upon termination of your Rogers cable television service.”

However, do-it-yourself types who spliced Rogers’ cable wiring themselves to add additional cable TV outlets in the home will discover “a catch.” These extra, informal cable outlets are allowed by Rogers, but the cable company will not supply digital adapters for televisions attached to them unless the subscriber formally signs up for Rogers’ “extra outlets” add-on. That does not come cheap. Rogers charges $6.99 per month for up to four extra televisions. If customers don’t sign up, those televisions without digital adapters will lose more than a dozen analog TV channels during the first wave of digital conversion. If a customer has more than four televisions hooked up to Rogers Cable, there may be more fees.

The channels Rogers is converting to digital were not selected to minimize viewer disruptions.

While The Shopping Channel secures a safe new analog channel number in St. John’s, N.B., Turner Classic Movies gets hit with a digital switch. Little watched APTN – The Aboriginal People’s Television Network survives on analog, AMC and CNN do not in Moncton. Toronto subscribers will lose 19 channels to digital, including MTV, BNN, and The Comedy Network. Two home shopping networks get to stay in analog, however.

Broadband in the United States costs far more than in other countries — nearly three times as much as in the UK and France, and at least five times more than South Korea, according to BBC News.

The New America Foundation compared hundreds of available packages around the world and found customers in America’s largest cities are getting the biggest bills.

Customers in San Francisco with a discounted low-medium speed bundle including broadband pay $99 a month. A near-equivalent package costs London residents $38. New Yorkers get some savings from Time Warner and Cablevision facing down Verizon FiOS. But it isn’t enough. In the Big Apple, a promotional bundle averages $70 a month. “C’est la vie,” say Parisians. They only pay $35 for about the same. Even Washington, D.C. residents, which include the country’s most powerful politicians, pay Comcast its $68 asking price. In Seoul, South Korea, a comparable offer costs $15 a month.

High asking prices don’t buy better service. According to a report by the OECD issued over the summer, the United States ranks among the worst in terms of broadband-only pricing. With an average price of $90 a month for 45Mbps service, the U.S. ranked 30th out of 33 countries. Add phone and television service and the price spikes to around $200.

The BBC pondered why there is such a disparity in pricing. The answer was easy to spot: the lack of true competition.

“Americans pay so much because they don’t have a choice,” said Susan Crawford, a former special assistant to President Barack Obama on science, technology and innovation policy. “We deregulated high-speed Internet access 10 years ago and since then we’ve seen enormous consolidation and monopolies, so left to their own devices, companies that supply Internet access will charge high prices, because they face neither competition nor oversight.”

Although Americans can name the largest and deep pocketed providers — Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner Cable, Verizon, Cablevision, CenturyLink, Cox, and Frontier — most cannot choose from more than one cable provider and one telephone company. Comcast does not compete against Time Warner and AT&T does not compete against Verizon, except in the wireless world where both companies offer near-identical plans and pricing.

Comcast is quite the gouger in San Francisco.

Bay area customers told the BBC they get bills ranging from $120 a month for television and broadband (not including a $7 modem rental fee) to $200 a month for phone, TV, and Internet access. That same cable company is now testing a 300GB monthly usage cap on broadband in several American cities.

In contrast South Korea offers ubiquitous free Wi-Fi letting customers avoid usage charges. Home broadband is fast and cheap. Most pay $20 a month for 100Mbps.

Digging deeper, the BBC found clues why robust broadband competition delivers savings for consumers in Europe and Asia while Americans pay more.

Rick Karr, who made a PBS documentary in the UK comparing broadband costs at home and abroad, said the critical moment came when the British regulator Ofcom forced British Telecom to open its network and allow other companies to sell broadband over its copper telephone wires. In the United States, regulators never forced cable operators to open their networks, and after a 6-3 Supreme Court decision upheld the cable industry’s insistence it need not share access with competitors, telephone companies quickly called for parity.

A 2005 Supreme Court decision upheld the cable industry’s right to keep competitors off its cable broadband network.

Some argue the ruling promotes more competition by provoking competitors to build their own networks. But current conventional wisdom among the investment community teaches one cable and one phone company is considered good enough. Additional providers would erode the standing of all and force price cutting to compete.

There are exceptions. Although Google’s fiber to the home service has drawn national attention for its inexpensive gigabit fiber broadband network ($70 for broadband-only service), at least 150 cities are served by the public sector — co-op or publicly owned utility companies that offer broadband, often delivered over fiber optic networks.

Those networks often charge considerably less than the incumbent cable operator or phone company, a fact that has driven many privately run operators to seek legislative bans on community broadband.

In response to the report, telecommunications companies avoided the topic of prices and focused instead on value for money and the future.

Lowell McAdam, CEO of Verizon Communications, said Europe was replete with a decade of underinvestment, leaving many with less than 30Mbps service. The National Cable and Telecommunications Association said it was difficult to make international comparisons on price and Scott Cleland, part of the industry-funded NetCompetition website claimed although people may pay higher bills, they can at least choose among phone, cable, wireless or satellite.

“We may be paying more in your eyes today but we are building for tomorrow and the long-term,” said Cleland.