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)

Comcast’s discounted Internet service for the poor forces customers to jump through hoops to get the service and considers protecting revenue from existing customers more important than expanding the service to reach those who need it most.

Those are the views of John Randall, program manager at the Roosevelt Institute/Telecommunications Equity Project.

For $9.95 a month, those that can meet some complicated eligibility requirements and prove they are not existing Comcast customers are qualified for 3Mbps broadband service with a 768kbps upload rate. It represents a $30 savings off Comcast’s regular price — a considerable amount of revenue that Comcast is effectively forfeiting for the benefit of poor families who live in Comcast’s footprint.

Except Comcast isn’t actually “out” that much at all, argues Randall.

Of the 2.6 million households eligible for Internet Essentials from Comcast, only 150,000 have taken Comcast up on their offer. That represents only 5.8 percent of those eligible. In Comcast’s hometown — Philadelphia — there are just 3,250 families hooked up, which represents only 3.3 percent of those eligible.

Randall calls the program ineffective and says the onerous requirements to qualify (and re-qualify) are such a hassle, few families bother. What is worse, those families already sacrificing something else in their lives to get broadband service for the benefit of their school-age children are punished for their noble efforts — they are completely ineligible for Internet Essentials regardless of income or need because they are existing customers. Randall argues Comcast carefully constructed the program more as a public (and government) relations exercise than a charitable endeavor. Comcast zealously protects its existing revenues from being cannibalized by customers switching to the discount plan.

Some might argue that Comcast is managing the program with costs in mind, but Randall dismisses that as nonsense.

“Within its footprint (which spans 50 million households in 39 states– 45 percent of the US population), the cost for Comcast to connect additional households is vanishingly low,” says Randall. “With no additional network build needed, Internet Essentials represents almost pure profit for Comcast.”

Randall claims Comcast’s gross profit margin on its broadband service is around 95 percent where the network has already been built. At that rate, Comcast’s cheap Internet still delivers almost $18 million in additional income, and there is a promise of much more as soon as a customer defaults on a bill, misses a qualification deadline, or their children graduate. When any of these occur, Comcast will reset customers to regular rates.

“While most observers might assume that the program is an act of corporate generosity, it was originally conceived in the fall of 2009 as a way to turn a profit by offering slower connections to certain low-income households,” said Randall.

“These plans were temporarily tabled at the direction of Comcast lobbyist David Cohen, who knew that this type of program would be attractive to the FCC and thus useful as a bargaining chip. When the time came for negotiations over Comcast’s $13.75 billion takeover of NBC Universal, Comcast was able to offer something it was planning on doing anyway. In the end, the FCC was able to claim credit for forcing Comcast to implement a program to combat the digital divide, while in reality no arm-twisting was needed,” he added.

One of the biggest challenges of America’s digital divide is making affordable Internet access available. Cable companies in particular are prepared to wring even more money from their Internet customers in the form of higher prices, new and increasing equipment rental fees, and consumption billing schemes that charge more for less service.

But that isn’t the story elected officials receive from Congress.

The potential public relations benefits far outweigh any costs to offer the service. Randall notes Comcast had delivered the Internet Essentials message to over 100 members of Congress and more than 2,000 state and local officials. To broaden its outreach effort, Comcast also engaged leading intergovernmental associations at the state and local level such as the National Governors Association, National Conference of State Legislatures, U.S. Conference of Mayors, and various other organizations of elected officials. On top of that, Comcast says that the impressions generated by media coverage of Internet Essentials launch events earned it “millions of dollars” worth of media.

What message don’t these public officials hear?

America is subjected to local broadband monopolies and duopolies that guarantee the lack of competition for high-speed Internet access.

“It earns Comcast good press while distracting regulators and public officials into thinking that changes in policy aren’t needed and that digital divide problems will somehow work themselves out on their own as a result of corporate generosity. In the long run, Comcast Internet Essentials will do no more than contribute to the delay of much-needed regulation,” concludes Randall.

Comcast Corporation has announced its intention to pay $150 million for part-ownership of Arris Group, Inc., which manufacturers set top boxes and cable modems.

Comcast will own 10.6 million shares of Arris when the deal is complete.

The investment comes at the same time Arris is completing its acquisition of Motorola Home Business, which has been a major supplier of cable equipment for years.

With the investment, Comcast is signaling its intent to remain committed to Arris and Motorola brand equipment, but also more strongly influence its future development.

Cable operators have often griped about proprietary software powering set top boxes and the cost of buying and maintaining equipment. Many operators plan to leverage their broadband networks to develop new, cloud-based software to improve the user experience and reduce the cost of equipment.

“This investment by one of our largest customers is a strong indication of customer support for the Motorola Home acquisition and its potential to accelerate innovation to the benefit of the industry and consumers,” said Bob Stanzione, Arris chairman and CEO.

Roberts

While Comcast customers face New Year rate hikes that could cost some as much as $60 more a year for cable, broadband, and phone service, life is good for Brian Roberts, chairman, CEO and president of Comcast Corporation.

Comcast disclosed Roberts ditched 317,000 shares of stock in the company for nearly $11.6 million, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Roberts sold 105,800 shares of his wife’s stock on Dec. 19, 106,000 shares owned by his trusts on Dec. 20, and another 105,400 shares owned by his wife on Dec. 21.

He has plenty of shares left. Roberts owns 100% of Comcast’s Class B common stock, which entitles him to one-third of Comcast shareholders’ voting power.

A surprise announcement from the U.S. Supreme Court that it will hear an appeal brought by Comcast Corporation in a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of Philadelphia consumers, despite a pending settlement, may mean the Supreme Court is on the verge of issuing another business-friendly ruling that will make class action cases more difficult to file.

Comcast had reached a tentative settlement in June with lawyers who brought a $875 million class-action lawsuit on behalf of Philadelphia area cable subscribers. The antitrust case, originally filed in 2003, accused Comcast of strategically swapping or acquiring cable systems owned by Marcus Cable, Greater Philadelphia Cablevision, Inc., Lenfest Communications, Inc., AT&T, Adelphia Communications Corp., Time Warner, and Patriot Media in and around Philadelphia for the purpose of creating a super-sized Comcast cable system that could deter competitors from entering the market and allow Comcast to charge higher prices for service.

RCN Telecom Services originally intended to compete for cable customers in the Philadelphia region, but found it could not break into the market because Comcast allegedly hired as many available technicians it could find and tied them down with exclusive contracts. RCN also claimed Comcast targeted potential customers with special, allegedly below-cost deals to retain their business. RCN later filed for bankruptcy.

“Stated bluntly, Comcast and other large cable operators have demonstrated both the inclination and the wherewithal to use their market power to crush broadband competition in their local markets whenever it has the audacity to appear,” RCN alleged.

In 2002, RCN went public with a series of allegations:

Comcast intimidates independent construction and installation contractors. Comcast prevented or tried to prevent about 15 Philadelphia-area contractors from doing business with RCN through “non-compete” clauses, RCN alleged. The company provided specific names of contractors and Comcast personnel in sealed documents.

Those practices dated at least to the late 1990s, when Comcast acquired Suburban Cable, RCN said. Both Suburban and Comcast went “to extraordinary lengths to document ‘violations’ and intimidate contractors who were thought to be in contact with, or working for, RCN,” RCN said.

RCN cited instances of Suburban Cable employees, many of whom later worked for Comcast, allegedly following contractors in their trucks and taking photographs to document contractors seen at an RCN office or work site. These photographs then became “evidence,” RCN said, to support contractors’ termination.

As for predatory pricing, RCN claimed that before its entry into Folcroft in 2000, Comcast allegedly established a sales “swat team” instructed to sign up customers for 18-month contracts in exchange for cheaper cable services.

The plaintiffs’ attorneys want subscribers to receive refunds representing the savings they would have enjoyed had a competitor successfully forced prices down.

Comcast and the plaintiffs’ counsel reached a tentative settlement in June after both sides learned the lawsuit would proceed to trial this September. But in a surprise announcement, the U.S. Supreme Court suddenly decided to step in and hear an appeal filed by Comcast. Comcast immediately declared the settlement incomplete and has now declined to proceed with it, believing it has a more favorable outcome waiting at the Supreme Court.

Kenneth A. Jacobson, a professor at Temple University’s law school, told the Philadelphia Inquirer the Supreme Court does not typically decide to hear a case “during the settlement negotiation and approval process.”

Other Supreme Court watchers suspect the Court’s sudden involvement in the case means it is likely to issue a precedent-setting decision, more likely than not in Comcast’s favor, that will be talked about in law journals for the next decade.

Comcast Center in downtown Philadelphia

The specific point of Comcast’s appeal that interests the Supreme Court has to do with how a class action case certifies damages to the court hearing the case. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case based on, “whether a district court may certify a class action without resolving whether the plaintiff class has introduced admissible evidence, including expert testimony, to show that the case is susceptible to awarding damages on a class-wide basis.

Currently, courts insist that the burden of proof for damages lies with the plaintiff, but they are not necessarily required to demonstrate the actual individual damages suffered by each member of a proposed class action. Many judges accept the concept of fixed group damages based on a composite of an average proposed class member. That amount gets multiplied by the number of members in the certified class action to arrive at the total requested damages. Typically, both sides negotiate a final settlement, deduct attorney fees and costs, and then class members typically get a change in a company’s policies, coupons good for a future purchase or an actual refund in the mail.

The Supreme Court may find that concept inadequate, and insist on a detailed analysis of actual harm done to each proposed class member — a high and potentially expensive hurdle to cross for many class action cases. Legal analysts suggest the intended effect of such a decision would be to further deter class action lawsuits against companies, because the costs and complexities involved would increasingly not be justified.

In the Comcast case, the cable company wanted the court to dismiss the case, and for some very novel reasons:

1. Since Comcast effectively kept competing “overbuilding” cable systems out of Philadelphia, there is no evidence of any theoretical competition benefits such as reduced prices;
2. Since no competitor actually got their service up and running in Philadelphia, Comcast argues there was no competition to eliminate;
3. RCN, in Comcast’s view, was never actually going to start service in Philadelphia because of their own financial woes;
4. Without actual competition in Philadelphia, there is no basis for any expert witness hired by the plaintiff to credibly estimate damages;
5. Even if Comcast was engaged in anti-competitive behavior in Delaware County, that cannot be used by plaintiffs to serve as evidence of class-wide impact for the entire multi-county Philadelphia Comcast cluster.

Over the past few years, the Court has ruled in favor of corporations trying to compel less-costly legal avenues — like mandatory arbitration — for consumers who feel harmed by a company’s actions.