Bresnan Communications, the nation’s 13th largest cable operator with 308,000 customers in Colorado, Montana, Wyoming, and Utah, has been sold to Cablevision for $1.36 billion dollars — $4,300 a subscriber — well above the asking price of one billion dollars, including the company’s debt obligations.

Providence Equity Partners Inc. of Providence, Rhode Island, majority owner of Bresnan unloaded the cable company to help boost its earnings for clients.  Private equity firms like Providence have been suffering in the current economic climate, turning in their worst returns since 2000.  Many are selling off holdings to pay investors.

Bresnan spokesman Shawn Beqaj said the sale had nothing to do with founder William Bresnan’s death last November at age 75.

Bresnan, 30 percent owned by Comcast, today specializes in providing service in the sparsely populated mountain west states that have been ignored by larger companies.  At least 44 percent of Bresnan’s business is in Montana, where 688 of the company’s 1,300 employees work.  But the company’s founder, William Bresnan didn’t start out providing service in any of the states where the company operates today.

The acquisition by Cablevision, known mostly for its suburban New York City-area cable systems, would bring Bresnan’s current owners a considerable bonus over the asking price, and Cablevision (and the debt-financing banks) will pay in cash.

Other bidders included Suddenlink and a company controlled by former cable czar Dr. John Malone.

Cablevision managed to leverage the deal with less than $400 million of its own equity, financing the remaining $1 billion dollars between Citigroup and Bank of America Merrill Lynch in non-recourse debt.  That means if Cablevision’s buyout of Bresnan falters, the banks can only recoup their losses by seizing and selling the acquired Bresnan systems.  They can’t go after Cablevision’s other cable systems or sports ventures to make up the difference.

Considering Bresnan subscribers in the Northern Rockies face little prospect of robust competition, and Bresnan cable broadband can easily exceed broadband speeds offered by telephone rival Qwest, most analysts expect few problems from the deal.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Bresnan Acquired by Cablevision 6-14-10.flv[/flv]

CNBC explains the Bresnan-Cablevision Deal.  (3 minutes)

Bresnan Founder’s Story Is Echoed Across the Entire Cable Industry

The late William Bresnan -- Founder, Bresnan Communications

Bresnan’s journey through the cable industry over several decades tells the story of the often-ruthless deal-making, horse-trading, and customer-financed  mergers and acquisitions starting after cable deregulation in 1984.  Rates spiked to pay ever-increasing sums to buy and sell cable properties.  To own a cable system, it was said in the late 1980s, was a license to print money.

Bresnan’s involvement in the cable industry began with a job in the engineering department of a midwestern cable company and moved into management at a number of companies, most now long-gone after waves of consolidation.  Those with cable television dating back to the 1970s may even recall some of the names:

H&B American Cablevision: Operator of rural cable systems, most with around 12 channels, offering residents clear reception of over-the-air television signals.  They had a loyal customer base, stable earnings, but little potential for growth.

TelePrompTer: The nation’s largest urban and suburban cable operator through much of the 1970s, but a 1972 bribery scandal for a cable franchise agreement in Trenton, N.J., lead to bribery and perjury charges for TelePrompTer’s principal owner, Irving Berlin Kahn.  The famous songwriter’s nephew ordered the company to spend nearly everything to help mount his defense.  The TelePrompTer scandal would ultimately force the company to sell itself to…

Group W Cable: Westinghouse acquired the financially-troubled TelePrompTer in 1981.  Group W itself would exit the business by 1986 with an acquisition feeding frenzy among four other cable operators — American Television and Communications Corp.; Tele-Communications Inc.; Comcast Corp. and Daniels & Associates Inc.  Ironically, only Comcast would survive merger-mania intact.  ATC systems eventually became a part of Time Warner Cable.  TCI systems were acquired by Comcast.  Daniels was itself a buyer and seller of cable systems.

Bresnan Communications was founded in 1984, not in the mountain west, but in the upper peninsula of Michigan where Bresnan acquired and ran several small cable systems thanks to the help of cable czar Dr. John Malone, CEO of Tele-Communications, Inc., (TCI).  Millions of Americans are familiar with TCI’s own journey through consolidation, first becoming AT&T Broadband and then later as a part of Comcast.

Over the next 14 years, Bresnan expanded operations with Malone’s help.  At one point Bresnan jointly operated cable systems with TCI in northern Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska, Georgia and Mississippi serving approximately 660,000 customers. The company even bought cable systems in post-Communist Poland and in Chile, the latter eventually sold outright to TCI.

Bresnan Customers Benefit from Founder’s Technical Background

What set Bresnan Communications apart from the rest of the smaller players in the industry was the founder’s in-depth understanding of cable technology.  Bresnan understood where the industry was going, and had an insatiable appetite for new technology that would also leverage additional growth in the business.

Bresnan spent heavily to upgrade his cable systems, deploying the hybrid fiber-coaxial cable architecture (HFC) in 1997 which is still in use at most cable systems today.  HFC would set the stage for Bresnan to compete with satellite television’s multi-hundred channels, and would let him sell telephone and broadband service to his customers.

That was unprecedented for smaller cable operators.  In the 1990s, it was still common to find small cable systems running only a few dozen channels.  If these legacy cable systems didn’t upgrade, DISH and DirecTV could eat them for lunch.  For those that would raise the necessary money, upgrades were performed.  For those that couldn’t, many would exit the business, selling their cable systems to larger, better-equipped enterprises.

Buy Low, Sell High

Beyond anything else, Bresnan was a businessman.  He had a track record of acquiring cable systems at fire sale prices and selling them for a tidy profit.  So during the height of the dot.com boom, he could hardly ignore a 1999 call from Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen.  Flush with cash to spend, Allen saw cable systems as a key component of his dream for a “wired world.”  Cable companies owned dozens of networks brimming with content that he believed could help drive people to broadband.  Owning both the content and the pipeline to deliver it could drive up the value of both, and Allen could control both.  He had already established himself as owner of Charter Communications, itself a medium-sized cable operator.

Allen’s cable acquisition shopping spree inflated values of cable systems to all-time highs, finally reaching nearly $5,000 per subscriber in crazed bidding wars.  Allen offered $3.1 billion dollars for Bresnan’s small cable empire.  Bresnan sold.

Bresnan Communications Recreated

By 2003, the dot.com boom was well over and done with, and those high-spending online tycoons saw the value of their acquisitions and enterprises erode away.  For Allen, his much-treasured vision had become a cash-sucking albatross.  Charter Communications’ stock by then had lost 95 percent of its original value.  Consumer protection regulation had also arrived in 2003, putting a stop to subscriber rate increase-fueled bidding wars.  Cable rates had risen 61 percent from the time the industry was deregulated in 1984 until legislative relief took effect in early 2003.  When the Money Party ended, stock prices for cable operators crashed.

Bresnan saw the deflation in the industry as an opportunity to buy his way back in, and started shopping.  That year AT&T Broadband, formerly TCI, found itself considering an acquisition offer from rival Comcast.  AT&T owned cable systems large and small, several of which were in the Northern Rockies, hardly cable’s fast lane.  While Comcast had big plans for AT&T cable systems in larger areas, it would be willing to part with smaller systems acquired as part of the deal.

By the time Bresnan arrived with an offer in hand, cable system values dropped further, and his bid for the roughly 300,000 subscribers that comprise today’s Bresnan Communications would be accepted at the fire sale price of $2,100 per subscriber.

Since the acquisition, Bresnan upgraded its systems, offering speeds up to 15/1 Mbps in its rural service area and maintains a reputation in the industry for running well-managed cable operations.

Jackson

A Tennessee state senator has introduced a bill that would fine the state’s cable companies for running racy television advertising on its cable channels.

Dubbed the “Girls Gone Wild Bill,” the legislation would hopefully curb cable operators’ willingness to run suggestive advertising, according to the bill’s author Sen. Doug Jackson (D-Dickson).

This isn’t the first go around for Jackson’s bill, having failed to pass during the last two legislative sessions.  But Jackson believes the third time is a charm, passing a vote in the Senate Commerce Committee 8-0, with one member abstaining.

The Tennessean talked with Jackson to learn why the bill was necessary:

Jackson has said he got the idea for the proposal after seeing partially censored commercials for “Girls Gone Wild” videos that show young women disrobing and acting out other sexual situations.

“They’re provocative and shocking to a lot of families trying to raise children,” Jackson said.

The bill would make any television advertisements considered “obscene” to be illegal. Obscenity, Jackson said, is not protected by the First Amendment. Under common law, it is established by community standards, and in Tennessee, each judicial district can establish for themselves what is considered obscene.

“A jury in Dickson County could determine the videos being sold are obscene, which makes it an illegal product,” he said.

The legislation has gotten Jackson plenty of attention across the state, as Tennessee media covered the unusual legislation.  But some fear Tennessee could become a laughing stock over bills like these.

Columnist Gail Kerr, also writing for the Tennessean, called the mad rush of oddball legislation a bunch of  “crazy crap”:

You can sure tell the Tennessee General Assembly doesn’t have any money to spend this year.

After a slam dunk, fast special session on education, our esteemed lawmakers have returned to their usual bad habits.

They have filed legislation that would kill Nashville’s honky tonks, debated whether to outlaw putting electronic chips in people and whether to amend the state constitution to assure you the right to catch a catfish.

Sen. Doug Jackson wants a constitutional amendment to assure every Tennessean has the right to hunt and fish. No one is trying to stop you from hunting and fishing. Jackson also is bringing back his “Girls Gone Wild” legislation, aimed at stopping the late night television commercials promoting the raunchy videos. He was inspired by watching the commercials.

One thing’s for sure, state law prevents these folks from taking campaign donations while in session. With two of them running for governor, one running for Congress and a slew up for re-election, they’ll start getting eager to adjourn pretty quick. It cannot happen too soon.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WKRN Nashville Girls Gone Wild Bill 02-09-2010.flv[/flv]

WKRN-TV in Nashville reports Sen. Doug Jackson’s bill would allow communities to define certain ads on cable television obscene and have them pulled off the air.  (1 minute)

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSMV Nashville Senator-Companies Liable For Obscene Ads 2-9-2010.flv[/flv]

Some members of the Tennessee Legislature believe the state’s cable companies should not be taking money from companies peddling smut, as WSMV-TV Nashville reports. (2 minutes)

Protesting adult programming on cable and satellite television is a long-standing tradition in Tennessee.  Some elected officials even dislike the prospect of MTV running on state cable systems.  But most agree lawmakers have the biggest problem with cable’s dirty little secret — extremely explicit adult programming aired on pay per view channels.  Most cable systems don’t go out of their way to promote this type of programming, but viewers learn it is there when skimming electronic program guides.  Most adult movies have titles that leave little doubt what they offer viewers willing to purchase it, and plenty do — it’s very profitable for most cable operators.

[flv width=”480″ height=”292″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WDEF Chattanooga Fowler Objects To EPB Content 11-02-09.flv[/flv]

David Fowler, a former state senator from Signal Mountain, last November denounced EPB, Chattanooga’s city-owned fiber television and broadband provider, for allowing adult programming on the lineup in the first place. (WDEF-TV Chattanooga) (11/2/2009 – 1 minute)

Suddenlink broadband customers in Lubbock and Midland, Texas will soon have a new option to boost their broadband speed to 36Mbps.  Dubbed MAX36, the new tier leaps over the cable company’s former top broadband speed of 20Mbps.  Upload speeds get a boost as well — to 2Mbps.

Multichannel News reports pricing for the new tier depends on how many other Suddenlink services you have.  Standalone pricing is $75 per month.  Bundle it with television or telephone service and the price drops to $65.  Take all three services and MAX36 costs $60 a month.

Suddenlink serves portions of these Texas communities

If that is too rich for your blood, Suddenlink next week will be providing existing broadband customers in Lubbock and Midland free speed upgrades:

• 1Mbps service increases to 1.5Mbps
• 8Mbps upgrades to 10Mbps service
• 10Mbps service becomes 15Mbps

The new speeds are possible because of DOCSIS 3 upgrades underway at the nation’s ninth largest cable operator.  Suddenlink has focused on DOCSIS 3 upgrades for many of its Texas systems, including Abilene, Bryan/College Station, Georgetown, Lubbock, Midland, San Angelo and Terrell.  The operator also deployed the technology in Beckley, Charleston and Parkersburg, West Virginia, as well as Jonesboro, Arkansas, Humboldt County, California, and Nixa, Missouri.  The company hopes to upgrade 90 percent of its cable systems within the next two years.  Nationwide, Suddenlink reaches 1.3 million subscribers.

Last summer Suddenlink introduced a usage meter for subscribers in Clovis, New Mexico and included a chart of what constituted average usage for its customers.

Suddenlink's national service area

The company openly admits it limits customer use of its broadband service is several communities where bandwidth upgrades have yet to occur, but at least drops communities from the usage limit list after expansion is complete.  As of February 4th, communities impacted by usage limits include:

• Arkansas: Charleston, Hazen, Mt. Ida, Nashville
• Kansas: Anthony, Fort Scott
• Louisiana: Ville Platte
• Missouri: Jefferson City, Maryville
• Oklahoma: Fort Sill, Healdton, Heavener, Hughes, Idabel
• Texas: Albany, Anson, Brenham, Burkburnett, Caldwell, Canadian, Center, Claredon, Crane, Dimmitt, Eastland, Electra, Hamlin, Henrietta, Junction, Kermit, Monahans, Nocona, Olney, Paducah, Rotan, San Saba, Seymour, Sonora, Trinity, Vernon, Wellington

Suddenlink also admits it engages in “network management” techniques which may spark controversy with the ongoing Net Neutrality debate, despite its declaration it “allows customers to access and use any legal Web content they prefer, thus honoring the principles of network neutrality.”

In addition to “mitigating network congestion, which can interfere with customers’ preferred online activities,” Suddenlink also discloses it “prioritizes certain latency-sensitive traffic such as voice traffic.”

Still, performing system upgrades to put a stop to usage limits and allowances is a move in the right direction, one that other providers seeking to monetize broadband traffic with Internet Overcharging schemes are loathe to take.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Suddenlink Ads.flv[/flv]

Watch some of Suddenlink’s more creative and amusing advertising. (2 minutes)

Cablevision, the nation’s fifth largest cable operator, yanked Food TV and HGTV from suburban New York cable systems early this morning in another fight over programming fees.

The two popular cable channels, owned by Scripps Networks, were “no longer authorized” to be shown to Cablevision customers after the two companies failed to reach an agreement over what the cable operator should pay per month for the two networks.

Perhaps overshadowed by the bigger profile Time Warner Cable-Fox dispute which impacts cable customers across the country, the fight between Cablevision and Scripps has been nasty even by the standards of knockdown, drag-out fights characterizing most of these contract spats.

Cablevision characterized Scripps as “financially troubled” in its own account for the press this morning:

“We are sorry that Scripps’ current financial difficulties are making it impossible for them to continue our relationship on terms that are reasonable for Cablevision and our customers,” the company said in a statement. “We wish Scripps well and have no expectation of carrying their programming again, given the dramatic changes in their approach to working with distributors to reach television viewers.”

That’s about as final as it gets, as the cable operator signals it’s done haggling over prices, at least for now.

Cablevision has a website of its own to explain the decision to drop the two networks

As usual, customers are caught in the middle in an advertising and PR war back and forth.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Cablevision Message on HGTV Food Channels.flv[/flv]

This morning, Cablevision customers found this message running on the channels formerly occupied by HGTV and Food Network.

Scripps has set up websites for consumers to get their take on the matter, and has also taken to running some 30-second ads of its own, along with network personalities giving their testimony about why the channels are going to be missed.  I Love HGTV and I Love Food Network largely mirror each other’s content in a blog format.  Scripps argument for Food Network, which basically also applies to HGTV:

1. Food Network is among the most popular brands on television, consistently ranking among the Top 10 networks in cable and satellite. In fact, Food Network attracted record numbers of viewers in 2009.
2. Cablevision does not pay Food Network comparably to what it pays other Top 10 networks; yet it pays some networks that deliver substantially smaller audiences significantly more for their programming.
3. The rates currently paid to Food Network by Cablevision are among the lowest in the industry. In 2009, Food Network is 75^th of the 79 Nielsen-rated cable and satellite networks in terms of average rates received from distributors per subscriber. (Source: Kagan Research)
4. Cable subscribers on the whole, responding to the 2009 Beta Subscriber Study, said Food Network is worth $1.03 per month, which is considerably more than Cablevision is paying for the network’s programming and more than Food Network is asking in the current contract negotiations.
5. Cablevision customers pay an average subscription rate of $83 per month. The monthly fee Cablevision pays for Food Network is a small fraction of that figure.

[flv width=”640″ height=”451″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Scripps Ad for Cablevision Customers.flv[/flv]

Scripps fires back with its own ad alerting Cablevision subscribers to call and ask for HGTV and Food Network back on their lineup.

Judging from the comments left on both of Scripps’ sites, consumers know they are stuck in the middle and many are not thrilled with either party.  Some of the comments:

Each of you blames the other, but it’s probably a lot of both, and we, the viewers, are the real losers.  Thanks a lot to both Cablevision and Scripps. You’re just like the Republicans and Democrats — neither side seems to understand the meaning of or necessity for compromise to benefit the masses. Have a wonderful New Year.

You guys are schmucks. You waited until the very last minute, on New Years Eve, to tell everyone about this before launching your stupid campaign. You are using your customers to fight your battles, and are ultimately punishing all of them at the end of the day. And that’s pathetic.

YOU guys are the scumbags! You’re so greedy, I hope Cablevision snubs you. If Cablevision picks you back up at your hiked rate, we’ll be the ones paying an even higher bill, you idiots.
Thanks loads and happy new year to you, too. Greedy morons.

Whatever the disagreement is on funding, ultimately, it is us as the consumer who are paying the bill. My wife LIVES for the Food Network and would be willing to pay for it as a Premium channel. If that’s the road both sides want to take, both will lose out. Only a few like myself would be willing to pay extra for it……there will be other subscribers that could care less either way.

I turned on my TV this morning to watch the Rose Parade at 11 am and found an obnoxious rotating statement from Cablevision instead of the channel. I then went online to the web address they provided on screen and read their say -nothing statement that put the entire blame on Scripps networks. Instead of telling the customers there was a problem and asking what we would want to pay for these networks, they just yanked them. They are the most customer-unfriendly company I have seen, and it is not just from this action where I form this opinion.

We have enjoyed the FoodNetwork and HGTV but you deserve to be off Cablevision, there is no way your combined networks are worth almost $2 a month, 25 cents is about right. My cable bill is too high now, 2 bucks for what you have? Forget it, I will have to do it the old fashion way. We lived without you before and will live without you again.

To Cablevision, I have had my rates raised countless times over the past 10 years, and have nothing to show but more CRAP channels. I can’t watch NFL channel, I don’t get my hard to find football games because I am a fan of an out of area team, and now, I can’t watch the ONE CHANNEL that I regularly follow, FOOD Network. The fact that companies like you have spurned the “a-la-carte” system that would allow me to choose and pay for the channels I want (which I would gladly do for Food Network and HGTV) and instead want to keep your profit margin as large as possible is a testament to the corporate GREED that you embrace instead of a value based system. You can talk tough and try to put all of the blame on Scripps, but the truth is, you are both to blame.

Somehow, I don’t think this was the kind of reaction either company expected from customers who have wised up to who will ultimately pay to resolve this in the end.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Vern Yip HGTV Cablevision.flv[/flv]

HGTV’s Vern Yip speaks to Cablevision customers about how to get HGTV back on their cable lineup.  (30 seconds)

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Guy Fieri on Food Network Being Dropped.flv[/flv]

Food Network’s Guy Fieri is “blown away” with Cablevision’s decision to drop Food Network from the lineup. (30 seconds)

Phillip "But I Don't Even Want The Golf Channel" Dampier

Time Warner Cable unveiled a new website this afternoon, RollOverOrGetTough, asking customers whether they want the company to “roll over” and pay the prices cable programmers demand or “get tough” and threaten to drop channels that demand too much.

This, of course, is rich coming from the company that loves to raise your rates every year, overcharge you for your broadband service with experimental usage caps and “consumption billing,” and has had a long history of owning and/or controlling many of those ‘greedy cable networks.’  Oh, and they won’t give you the choice of paying for just the channels you want to watch, either.

Want to send a message to the cable network bad-boys that demand too much?  Give your customers the right to opt out.

The cable industry has fought a long-running battle with cable programming networks over the fees they pay on a per-subscriber basis to carry those channels.  The revenue earned by those networks helps them acquire programming that is attractive to potential viewers, and the advertisers that follow.  Back in the 1970s and 1980s, most cable subscribers spent their time watching local broadcasters, “superstations” — imported TV stations from cities like New York, Chicago, Atlanta, and Los Angeles, and premium movie channels.  The basic cable networks back then didn’t run off-network TV shows.  Most ran cheaply produced documentaries, talk shows, imported shows from overseas, limited interest cultural programming, or music videos.  Sports programming rarely involved major teams, or major sporting events for that matter.

By the early 1990s, virtually every basic cable network was either owned outright or in part by one of the major national cable or broadcasting companies.  NBC and ABC dabbled in cable themselves, while CBS steered clear after being burned by a terrible experience with CBS Cable in the early 80s.  Launched as a cultural network devoted to opera, theater, and dance, it shut down a year after launching, having attracted minuscule audiences.

The lesson learned — create or buy programming viewers will actually want to watch.  That takes money, and the fees charged to cable operators for cable networks began rising rapidly.  Suddenly, off-network TV shows viewers used to watch on WPIX, WGN, WWOR, KTLA, or WTBS suddenly started showing up on basic cable instead.  The biggest turning point came when sports networks like ESPN started bidding for, and winning the rights to televise major league sporting events.  Nothing costs more than sports, and broadcast and cable networks have been bidding up prices ever since.

As basic cable networks became popular with viewers, their ability to make demands on cable operators grew exponentially.  Suddenly, certain cable networks demanded they be given low channel numbers, that cable companies had to also carry affiliated spin-off cable networks if they wanted access to their primary service, and that programming must always be carried on basic cable — not on some digital cable tier or other similar extra-cost tier.

For years, cable operators didn’t care too much as they just passed the increases on to customers.  Where could viewers go except to the cable company?  I recall the sticker shock customers had when basic cable first exceeded $20 a month, then $30.  Today it’s headed for $60 a month in many areas.  Cable companies attempted to placate angry customers by adding several new channels to the lineup just prior to the rate hike letter, telling them they were now receiving greater value than ever from their cable company.  The following year, those new channels wanted more money, too.

The “500 channel universe” that sounded promising a decade ago is now a nuisance for many subscribers, irritated they are paying for hundreds of channels they never watch.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WIVB Buffalo Report on TWC Campaign 11-25-09.flv[/flv]

WIVB-TV Buffalo reported on Time Warner Cable’s fight against programming prices, but itself (along with sister station WNLO-TV) was thrown off Time Warner Cable’s cable lineup over a contract dispute for most of October, 2008.  LIN TV Corporation, owner of both stations, had reportedly demanded 25 cents per month per subscriber for permission to carry the stations on cable. (1 minute)

In a difficult economy, justifying a $150-200 cable bill for television, broadband, and phone service is harder than ever.  Consumers want new options.  Satellite television provided limited competition, and a few large phone companies are set to deliver a bit more.  But some subscribers have decided paying this kind of money for television every month is outrageous, and they have finally jumped off the merry-go-round.  Some younger people are never getting on, relying entirely on their broadband service to watch television programs and movies on demand.

Time Warner Cable’s attempt to enlist customers in their sudden war on programming rate increases is likely to be seen by many as a classic pot to kettle cable quandary.  The company that still wants to force Internet Overcharging schemes on their broadband subscribers and is now raising rates in many areas has some chutzpah asking customers to fight for them: