Hawaiian non-profit customers of Time Warner Cable are receiving letters warning the cable company is terminating its discount program for charitable and community groups that could result in rates more than doubling for some customers.

Oceanic Time Warner Cable had provided free or heavily discounted cable or Internet service to qualifying organizations. Those discounts are ending, explains a letter obtained by Pacific Business News.

Time Warner Cable has adopted new policies regarding discounted or free service in light of IRS regulations that require 1099 forms to formalize the value of discounts or forgiven cable bills. The cable company is using the occasion to review its discount programs – ending some while tightening requirements for others.

“If we do not receive a reply from you within 30 days of this notice to update your account, it will be necessary for us to disconnect your existing services,” the letter explained.

Becky Dunning, managing director for the non-profit Honolulu Theatre for Youth called Time Warner to learn what “update your account” meant.

“The biggest thing is that when I called the number I was told that they aren’t offering discounted rates to nonprofits anymore, and that we’d have to pay their existing business rates; for our organization that means we would go from paying $106 a month to $227, which is a big difference — more than double,” Dunning said. “We can’t exist without Internet service.”

Dunning said the group would probably stay with Time Warner and attempt to make up the difference from somewhere in the organization’s budget.

Malone

So far Dr. John Malone isn’t getting very far with his ambitious plan to merge Charter Communications and Time Warner Cable into a single cable company, but that has not stopped him from trying.

GDP Insider reports Malone is quietly keeping the pressure on Time Warner Cable management to do a deal with Charter. Malone controls a substantial interest in Charter Communications.

Liberty Media, a holding company controlled by Malone, is spearheading the courtship under the direction of Greg Maffei, Liberty’s CEO. It’s a tall task, considering Time Warner Cable is a larger company than Charter.

Both men are betting they will get a friendlier reception after current CEO Glenn Britt retires at the end of the year.

TWC’s new chief financial officer, Artie Minson, isn’t exactly rebuffing Malone and Maffei.  Minson said that in the event of an acquisition or merger deal, the company will consider taking on more debt to help finance the transaction.

Many Charter shareholders are unconvinced such a deal is worth the amount of debt likely required to finance it, especially as cable television subscriber numbers continue to erode and the rate of new broadband sign ups has peaked.

Malone has argued a combined Charter-Time Warner Cable could realize savings in cable and broadcast retransmission fees through volume discounts.

When you bought a home or moved into an apartment, were you offered a special discount deal to sign up with Time Warner Cable? Or is cable television already provided as part of your lease?

While everyone enjoys saving on cable television, telephone and broadband service, chances are your landlord or the person who lets the cable installer into the building is getting a better deal than you ever will.

Cable companies often (quietly) offer realtors, builders, condo association leaders, landlords, superintendents and even their assistants free or deeply discounted cable service for a variety of reasons:

• Building owners and builders are given special consideration to help encourage contract agreements that offer bulk cable service to every resident in the complex. More Barndominium information about builders on this website. The cable operator usually also gets exclusive use of inside wiring, discouraging the competition;
• Realtors and property developers are often paid in cash for new subscriber leads, usually resulting from “welcome to your new home” move-in kits, “concierge” services offered by your realtor, or special flyers left at your door that pay rewards every time a customer signs up;
• Superintendents, landlords, and maintenance staff get free service in return for making life easier for Time Warner Cable technicians trying to get into a large multiple dwelling building on service calls. Free cable, including complimentary HBO and Showtime is almost always an effective incentive for those that can otherwise make life very difficult for service providers.

Time Warner Cable has provided free or deeply discounted “courtesy accounts” for more than a decade. For much of that time, the informal agreement required the recipient to provide little more than convenient building access for Time Warner Cable technicians. Participants in the program were also asked to pass along any service issues or complaints.

Sometimes, even customers act as informal salespeople for cable service. Time Warner’s “Shared Savings” Bulk Discount program is available in buildings where 40 residents or 50% of the building, whichever is greater, can be convinced to commit to a service contract with Time Warner Cable lasting up to three years. In return, customers are promised free standard installation, bulk-rate Digital TV service, discounted broadband and phone service, and flexible billing options that can either bill residents directly or dispatch a single monthly invoice to building management where service is bundled with a renter’s lease agreement.

This week, the New York Times reported Time Warner Cable was reviewing its courtesy accounts program and asking participants to recommit themselves (and include their Social Security number on an included IRS tax form).

Details about Time Warner’s Apartment Managers’ Program are hard to find. No cable company wants to openly advertise that select customers are getting cable service for free while others watch their bills continue to grow and grow. The Times outlines the new agreement the cable company is requiring New York City program participants to sign.

Real estate workers are now asked to send employment verification along with a signed, formal contract that includes commitments to act as a goodwill ambassador for Time Warner Cable, help the company sell products, and snoop on tenants suspected of stealing cable.

“It is the intention of Time Warner Cable to provide the Promotional Services contemplated in this Agreement to further solidify and enhance the mutually beneficial business relationship between your property and Time Warner Cable,” one California Time Warner Cable contract states. “In keeping with the spirit of this relationship, we expect the Recipient to be our goodwill ambassador to all employees and residents by positively promoting our products and services. […] Time Warner Cable employees will be allowed access to the property to install, maintain and market services door to door between the hours of 8AM and 9PM.”

The Times reports few real estate professionals have any ethical problems making sure the cable company has a reliable point of contact in the building to let workers in without delay and there isn’t much controversy over requests to report service problems either.

But there are concerns about language that informally appoints building workers as deputy ambassadors and marketers of Time Warner Cable products. One offer rewards a free month of Internet to a program participant for every three leads that turn into sales.

“We would consider that a borderline kickback,” Michael Jay Wolfe, president of Midboro Management, a large building management company told the newspaper. “I mean, what are they going to be selling next, Tupperware? They work for the building. They’re not an agent for anybody else.”

Others object to a clause requiring them to “identify, discourage and report” signal theft or equipment tampering, effectively spying on tenants.

Another reason some are balking is Time Warner’s insistence on a signed W-9 tax form, which includes the recipients’ Social Security number. In return, to comply with federal law, the cable company must issue an IRS Form 1099-MISC to all individuals that receive courtesy services worth $600 or more in a calendar year. In other words, the IRS is going to know the identities of those getting compensated with free cable service, which may have tax implications, making the service no longer free in the eyes of the tax man.

Ziggy Chau, a spokeswoman for Time Warner Cable defended the program saying it was intended to help customers.

“If there are service issues, customers want those issues fixed yesterday,” said Chau. “The people in these programs, they’re not going to do it for free. We’re building a good relationship.”

Some real estate workers are refusing to sign the new agreements and losing free cable as a result.

Since 2005, five cable and telephone companies and their respective lobbying trade associations have donated nearly $12 million to New York politicians, making Big Telecom companies among the biggest political donors in the state. Now a government reform group wants an investigation by the state’s anti-corruption commission.

By exploiting giant loopholes in New York’s campaign finance laws, telecom companies that used to live with annual campaign finance limits of $5,000 are now donating millions to powerful political leaders in Albany – the majority conferences in the legislature, the state party committees, and the governor. Some are using secretive “housekeeping” accounts controlled by political parties. Others hide behind shadowy contributions from “limited liability corporations” (LLCs) established by some of the state’s biggest cable and phone companies and treated under current law as living, breathing people.

“Big Telecom exemplifies the pay-to-play culture which has come to define Albany, giving generously to the leadership in exchange for veto power over bills which favor the public interest,” said Common Cause-New York executive director Susan Lerner.

The Optimum donor to state “housekeeping” accounts among telecom providers is Cablevision.

No telecom company donates more in New York than Cablevision, which has given more than $5.3 million in contributions to state politicians since 2005 as it fights its way through union problems, fierce competition from Verizon, and complaints from subscribers about rising cable prices and questionable service. The cable company doesn’t just donate in name-only. Common Cause-NY discovered Cablevision using eight different LLCs to evade contribution limits, handing over $1.5 million to candidates and committees. Gov. Andrew Cuomo received $130,000 from four different Cablevision-controlled LLCs between July and October 2010. On April 29 of this year, former Nassau County executive Tom Suozzi’s campaign received $190,000 from three Cablevision-controlled LLCs on that single day.

Verizon (82%) and Time Warner Cable (70%) prefer to quietly give the largest percentage of their political donations to the parties’ secretive, soft money “housekeeping” accounts. The Republican and Democratic recipients are not using the money to buy Endust, mops or spare light bulbs, although the average voter might assume as much.

Corporations with an agenda just love New York’s hush-hush “housekeeping” accounts because they come without dollar limits or complete disclosure about how the money was ultimately spent.

The State Board of Elections says “housekeeping” money is supposed to go toward maintaining a party’s headquarters and staff or “ordinary activities that are not for the express purpose of promoting the candidacy of specific candidates.” Unfortunately, nobody bothered to require detailed accounting, allowing funds to disappear down a political rabbit hole, to be distributed at each party’s discretion.

Comcast (59%) and AT&T (53%) are considerably smaller players, in part because neither company serves many wired cable/broadband customers in New York.

Verizon’s corporate PAC also likes to raise relatively large numbers of small contributions given in the name of company executives or employees, not necessarily mentioning the company itself. Campaign finance disclosures may list only the individuals’ contribution(s), not the company that signed their paycheck.

Where does all the money go?

Common Cause-NY says most of the money is channeled to the most influential politicians in the state, with minority parties and unelected candidates typically getting much less.

To gain influence on the state level, Big Telecom companies contribute to the governor, attorney general, and the majority parties controlling the state Assembly and Senate, with Republicans getting the lion’s share (over $3.5 million) in the Senate and Democrats (over $1.6 million) in the Assembly.

For local issues of interest to the state’s local cable and phone companies, contributions are funneled to influential county-level political machines, perhaps helpful in making life difficult for a competing Wi-Fi project, a municipal fiber network, or helping to cut red tape to place a cell tower in a controversial location.

The top six recipients of Big Telecom’s political cash in the legislature:

• Key Party Leaders: Dean Skelos ($117,700), Tom Libous ($57,150), Jeff Klein ($49,450), and Sheldon Silver ($32,749.61)
• Current and former Chairs of the Senate Energy and Telecom Committee: George Maziarz ($79,718.02) and Kevin Parker ($34,444.00).

Common Cause-NY notes the corporations involved don’t give money without expecting something in return. After generous contribution checks were deposited, a number of telecom consumer protection bills mysteriously died in committee or never made it to the floor. The same fate did not meet bills offering special tax breaks for cable and Internet Service Providers that have cost New York taxpayers nearly $500 million and counting.

“Multi-million dollar campaign contributions clearly help Big Telecom maintain the status quo of corporate control, high prices, and lax regulation,” Common Cause-NY concludes.

The legislature is rife with examples of bills that would have likely passed with popular support but suddenly or “mysteriously” didn’t:

• A 7635-A / S5630-A: Establishes a moratorium on telephone corporations on the replacement of landline telephone service with a wireless system.
  • The “VoiceLink” moratorium bill, passed the Assembly, had broad bi-partisan support in the Senate but never came to a vote.
• S542: Relates to enacting the “Save New York Call Center Jobs Act of 2013,” which requires prior notice of relocation of call center jobs from New York to a foreign country; directs the Commissioner of Labor to maintain a list of employers who move call center jobs; prohibits loans or grants.
  • The “Call Center Jobs Act” would take away tax breaks and state grants if companies move a call center to another country. The bill passed the Assembly in 2012 (A9809) and had bipartisan support in Senate but was blocked. The 2013 bill died in Senate committee.
• A6003/S5577 — Directs the Department of Public Service to study and report on the current status of cable television systems providing services over fiber optic cables.
  • Bipartisan support in Assembly for further oversight of broadband but gets little support in Senate, the same bill was also blocked in 2012.
• A5234/S1075 — Enacts the “Roadway Excavation Quality Assurance Act” demanding utility companies or their contractors shall use competent workers and shall pay the prevailing wage on projects where a permit to use or open a street is required to be issued.
  • Bipartisan support in the Senate and Assembly but no passage in either 2012 and 2013.
• A6239/S4550 — Creates the State Office of the Utility Consumer Advocate to represent interests of residential utility customers.
  • Bipartisan support in Assembly, dies in Senate.
• A6757/S4449 — Requires providers of electric, gas, steam, telephone and cable television services to issue standardized bills to residential customers; provides the standards for such bills shall be established by the Public Service Commission.
  • Bipartisan support, passes Assembly, dies in Senate.

Just weeks after Time Warner Cable and CBS settled a dispute over retransmission fees, other broadcasters and networks are preparing to make new demands for increased compensation from their cable, satellite, and telco IPTV partners at prices likely to provoke more blackouts.

Despite repeated protestations from Time Warner that over-the-air stations and networks deserve lower fees than cable-only networks, once the two parties went behind closed doors, the cable company quickly agreed to pay considerably more for CBS programming. Sources say CBS made a deal that will run up to five years and includes more than $1.50 in fees per subscriber, up from between 50-85 cents per month, depending on the city served, under the old contract. CBS had asked for about $2 a month. Effectively, the company will earn more than that because Time Warner also agreed to renew both the CBS Sports Network and Smithsonian Channel, which cost extra.

“There is a new template here. Two dollars is the new holy grail,” Wunderlich Securities analyst Matthew Harrigan told Reuters.

Fox was the highest paid network before the CBS deal, collecting close to $1.25 per month per subscriber. ABC receives 50-65 cents and NBC less than that.

Harrigan predicts the other networks will race to raise their own prices, with Time Warner Cable (and others) likely forced to raise rates early next year to cover increased costs.

In the war for compensation, programmers hold most of the leverage.

[flv width=”392″ height=”244″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSJ Lessons Learned CBS 9-2-13.flv[/flv]

The Wall Street Journal reports the dispute between Time Warner Cable and CBS set new industry precedents on the value of broadcast stations and networks and how their programming is distributed on digital platforms. (2 minutes)

There have already been local station blackouts in 80 cities so far this year, with the likelihood last year’s record of 91 markets will be broken before Thanksgiving. In almost every instance where a popular network is involved, the pay television provider eventually capitulates because of subscriber complaints or cancellations.

Moonves

Time Warner Cable admits its dispute with CBS cost the company business, both from prospective new customers going elsewhere and customer disconnects. Time Warner also spent money advertising its side of the dispute and paid to distribute free antennas to affected subscribers.

CBS’ Les Moonves had predicted Time Warner would eventually meet most of the network’s compensation demands before football season arrived. He was right.

“CBS is the winner. Content owners always win these negotiations, it’s just a matter of how much they won,” said Craig Moffett of Moffett Research. “They have all the leverage. Consumers don’t get mad and trade in their channel when these fights drag on. They go looking for a different satellite or telephone company.”

Almost 200,000 Time Warner Cable television customers left during the second quarter, and company officials admit that trend continued during the third quarter as the dispute dragged on. Time Warner Cable is likely to end the year with fewer than 11.5 million video subscribers, a loss of several hundred thousand this year.

Sources say one major sticking point that kept CBS off Time Warner Cable systems for nearly a month wasn’t about money. Instead, it was about digital distribution rights.

Time Warner Cable wanted CBS on its TV Everywhere app TWCTV and was also concerned about CBS selling content to online video streaming competitors that could accelerate cord-cutting.

Time Warner Cable did win permission to offer Showtime on its digital streaming platform and on apps for portable devices. But Time Warner will not get to carry local CBS-owned stations on streaming platforms, a significant blow. The cable company will also have to pay more for streamed and on-demand content.

In the end, CBS got almost everything it wanted and Time Warner Cable was handed back its largely unfulfilled wish list and a bigger, retroactive bill subscribers will eventually have to pay.

“We wanted to hold down costs and retain our ability to deliver a great video experience to our customers,” Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt said in defense of the agreement. “While we certainly didn’t get everything we wanted, ultimately we ended up in a much better place than when we started.”

Moonves gloated to various trade publications and investors that CBS went unscathed after the month-long dispute.

“Our national ad dollars did not go down,” Moonves told attendees at the recent Bank of America/Merrill Lynch Media Communications & Entertainment Conference. “There were no such things as make-goods and there was no harm done financially to CBS Corporation.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”380”]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Moonves CBS Got Fair Value for Our Content 9-7-13.flv[/flv]

CBS’ Les Moonves has won his dispute with Time Warner Cable, says Les Moonves in this interview with Bloomberg TV. (10 minutes)

Comcast owns both NBC and the cable companies that carry its local affiliates.

Cable rate increases are not likely to stop with the agreement with CBS. Analysts predict NBC, ABC, and FOX will be seeking similar rates when their contracts come up for renewal. Altogether, every cable, telco IPTV, and satellite subscriber could see rates increase up to $6 a month for the four major American networks.

“Any time one of these larger networks sets the new standard in terms of pricing for their programming, the rest follow,” Justin Nielson, an analyst for SNL Kagan, told Hollywood Reporter. “In most cases it’s been CBS and FOX trailblazing what the rates should be and then ABC and NBC following.”

Comcast-NBC’s Steve Burke is already there. Burke told investors affiliates should be paying 20 to 25 percent more for cable networks such as USA, Bravo, SyFy, CNBC and MSNBC .

“We’re not paid as much as we should be given our rating and positioning by cable and satellite companies,” Burke said. “I see no reason why we won’t sort of draft behind the other broadcast networks and get paid in a similar way.”

Burke predicts NBC will earn between $500 million to $1 billion annually from increased retransmission consent fees comparable to what CBS and FOX receive.

Next week, DISH Networks faces the expiration of their contract with ABC/Disney-owned channels, including the Cadillac-priced ESPN. The outcome of renewal negotiations may serve as an indicator for where rates are headed in the world of retransmission economics.

A growing number of elected officials in Washington are paying attention as they and their constituents live through one programmer blackout after another. At least four pieces of legislation have been introduced to deal with the problem in very different ways, according to Bloomberg News:

The Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act

This law, known as STELA, dates to 2004 and gives satellite companies a license to provide local TV stations, just as cable operators do. The current law is set to expire at the end of 2014, with most observers calling its reauthorization a near certainty. The debate is mainly over how “clean” the STELA reauthorization bill will be as it emerges from the legislative process, with the pay TV companies urging lawmakers to address the issue of retransmission disputes. Broadcasters are working for a “clean” bill, written narrowly to address the satellite companies’ immediate needs. “There’s nothing clean about the current retransmission system,” says Brian Frederick, a spokesman for the American Television Alliance, a coalition of pay-TV companies. Two House committees held hearings on the law this week. A final bill and vote are expected next year.

Video CHOICE (Consumers Have Options in Choosing Entertainment)

Representative Anna Eshoo, a Democrat who represents much of Silicon Valley, introduced this bill Sept. 9 aimed at ending blackouts. “Recurring TV blackouts, including the 91 U.S. markets impacted in 2012, have made it abundantly clear that the FCC needs explicit statutory authority to intervene when retransmission disputes break down,” Eshoo said in a press release. (The FCC gets involved now only if one party accuses the other of negotiating in bad faith.) The bill would unbundle broadcast stations from a cable package and prohibit a broadcaster from requiring a pay TV operator to take affiliated cable channels to obtain more popular channels. That issue is at the heart of why Cablevision sued Viacom in February, following a contentious negotiation.

Eshoo’s bill would also require the FCC to study programming costs for sports networks in the top 20 regional sports markets. The rising fees for sports programming—led by ESPN—is considered one of the major influences behind rising cable bills and the power that content creators such as Disney hold in negotiations. Cable companies have praised Eshoo’s bill, while broadcasters are not fans. Don’t expect to see it get far in a Republican-led House.

Television Consumer Freedom Act of 2013

This bill, introduced in May by Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), would end the long era of the cable television bundle, that phenomenon by which you pay for hundreds of channels and find yourself watching only about two dozen, or fewer. This summer, Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal signed on as a Democratic co-sponsor, but there’s been no similar sponsors on the House side. Blumenthal explained his support of the bill in an August interview with the Hollywood Reporter:

“What I hear from cable consumers overwhelmingly is, ‘give us freedom of choice. Don’t make us pay for something we don’t want and won’t watch. Why am I paying for—you name a channel you don’t like or five or ten or them—just so I can watch the one I do want.’ That’s overwhelmingly the sentiment of people who buy this product. So this bill just gives voice and force to that sentiment.”

Next Generation Television Marketplace Act

This bill from Representative Steve Scalise, a Louisiana Republican, and former South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, also a Republican, dates to December 2011 and would deregulate the entire television market, top to bottom. It would repeal compulsory copyright licenses, the legal mechanism by which content owners are required to let pay TV companies carry their programs, if they are paid a fee for the content. The bill, which would also dismantle the system of retransmission fees, is essentially an exercise in carrying free-market ideology to its logical conclusion. The problem? It would require a countless number of individual deal negotiations—any radio or television station that wanted to carry programming (i.e., all of them)—would need to strike deals with every programmer, yielding an inefficient system that would likely prove unworkable. Lawyers would love the bill, but don’t expect it ever to pass Congress.

In fact, none of these bills are expected to pass through both the gridlocked House and Senate this year.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Les Moonves Says It Would Be Dumb For Lawmakers To Change Retransmission Rules 9-4-13.flv[/flv]

CNBC also talked with CBS’ Les Moonves about CBS’ views towards compensation and distributing content online. (13 minutes)