Phillip “Ouch!” Dampier

Spending the day watching cable business news channels gush approval of last night’s surprise announcement that Comcast would acquire Time Warner Cable is just one excellent reason this deal should never be approved.

CNBC, owned by Comcast, particularly fell all over itself praising the transaction. Some of the reporters — many Time Warner Cable customers — actually believed Comcast would be a significant improvement over TWC. It is, if you want higher modem rental fees, higher cable TV bills, and faster broadband speeds you can’t use because of the company’s looming reintroduction of usage caps. CNBC didn’t bother to mention any of that, and why should they? CNBC reporter David Faber was the first to break the story of the merger last evening and among the first this morning to score an extended, friendly interview with the CEOs of both Comcast and Time Warner Cable, pitching softball questions to the two of them for nearly 15 minutes.

That’s a problem. How often do you hear news reports that include the fact the parent company of the channel has an ownership interest in one of the players. Do you think you are getting the full story when a Comcast employee asks Comcast’s CEO about a multi-billion dollar deal on a network owned and operated by Comcast. Incorporating Time Warner Cable and its news operations into Comcast only makes the problem worse.

As far as cable business news networks and the parade of Wall Street analysts are concerned, this is a fine deal for shareholders, consumers, and the cable business. Ironically, several on-air reporters and commentators defended the merger claiming it isn’t an antitrust issue because Comcast and Time Warner Cable never compete with each other. They never asked why that is so.

They’re here!

Comcast is hoping the government will give its merger a pass with few conditions for the same reason, without bothering to note the cable industry has existed as a cartel in the United States for decades, each company with a territory they informally agree not to cross. With this deal, Comcast’s fiefdom will now cover about half of all cable subscribers in the U.S., covering 43 of the 50 largest metropolitan markets, and have about a 30% total market share among all competing providers — by far the largest. An 800 pound gorilla is born.

Three million current Time Warner Cable subscribers will not be coming along for the ride and will likely be auctioned off to Charter or another cable operator in a token gesture to keep Comcast’s total market share at the 30% mark the FCC formerly insisted on as an absolute ownership limit — before Comcast successfully sued to have that limit overturned.

The rest of us can say goodbye to our unlimited broadband plans and get ready to pay substantially more for cable and broadband service. Despite claims from remarkably shallow media reports, an analysis of Comcast and Time Warner Cable’s rates clearly show TWC charges lower prices with fewer “gotcha” fees.

Reviewing some recent promotional offers for new customers, Comcast customers pay nearly $35 more for a triple play package than Time Warner customers pay:

Time Warner Cable’s Rob Marcus gets a $56.5 million golden parachute after 43 days on the job as CEO.

The Comcast Starter plan costs $99 per month for the first 12 months with a 2-year agreement that includes a nasty divorce penalty. After 12 months, your price increases to $119.99 for the remaining year. The $99 plan accidentally doesn’t bother to mention that customers renting a Comcast cable modem/gateway will pay an extra $8 a month, which raises the price. Since many cable subscribers also want HD DVR service, that only comes free for the first six months, after which Comcast slaps on a charge ranging from $16-27 a month for the next 18 months. Assuming you are happy with the limited channel lineup of the Starter package (and many are not), you will pay up to $154 a month. Oh, we forgot to mention the Broadcast TV surcharge just introduced that increases the bill another $1.50 a month.

Time Warner Cable’s new customer promotions typically cost around $96 a month, including their annoying modem rental fee. DVR service can range from free to $23 a month depending on the promotion, making your monthly rate around $119 a month for 12 months, with no contract and no penalty if you decide to cancel.

“It is pro-consumer, pro-competitive, and strongly in the public interest,” said Comcast CEO Brian Roberts, defending the deal.

Actually, it is in Comcast’s interest. If approved, the biggest investment Comcast will make is spending $10 billion — not to upgrade Time Warner Cable systems — but to launch a major stock buyback program that will directly benefit shareholders.

“On a personal level, it’s never easy to cede control of a company,” said Rob Marcus, Time Warner Cable’s chief executive. “However in this case, it just makes too much sense.”

Before reaching for a Kleenex to wipe any tears away, consider the fact Marcus will do just fine giving up his leadership of TWC just over a month after taking over. His generous goodbye package is worth $56.5 million, not bad for 43 days of work. Time Warner Cable employees won’t share that bounty. In fact, with $1.5 billion in promised savings from the deal’s “synergies” — code language for layoffs, among other things — a substantial number of Time Warner Cable employees can expect to be fired during the first year of the combined company.

The biggest impact of this deal is a further cementing of the duopoly of cable and phone companies into their cozy positions. Instead of encouraging competition, Comcast’s new size-up will guarantee fewer competitors thanks to the concept of volume discounts. The largest providers get the best prices from cable programmers, while smaller ones pay considerably more for access to CNN, ESPN, and other popular channels. Comcast will benefit from reduced pricing for cable programming, which we suspect will never reach customers through price reductions. But any potential startup will have to think twice before selling television programming at all because the prices they will pay make it impossible to compete with Comcast.

Another satisfied customer

Frontier discovered this problem after acquiring FiOS systems from Verizon in Indiana and the Pacific Northwest. When Verizon’s volume discount prices expired, Frontier’s much smaller customer base meant much higher programming costs on renewal. They were so high, in fact, Frontier literally marketed FiOS customers asking them to give up fiber optic television in favor of satellite.

Unless you have pockets as deep as Google, offering cable TV programming may be too expensive for Comcast’s competitors to offer.

Broadband is already immensely profitable for both Time Warner Cable and Comcast, but now it can be even more profitable as Comcast persuades customers to adopt their wireless gateway/modems (for a price) and imposes a usage cap of around 300GB per month. Yes, Comcast will deliver speed increases Time Warner Cable couldn’t be bothered to offer, but with a pervasive usage cap, the value of more Internet speed may prove limited. It’s a case of moving away from Time Warner’s argument that you don’t need faster Internet speed to Comcast’s offer of faster speed that you can’t use.

Customers hoping for a better customer service experience may have been cheered by this misleading passage in today’s New York Times:

Nonetheless, about 8 million current Time Warner Cable customers will become Comcast customers. That may be a good thing for those customers, as Comcast is seen as an industry leader in terms of providing high-quality television and Internet services, while Time Warner Cable has a reputation for poor customer service.

It may be seen as an industry leader by Comcast itself, but consumers despise Comcast just as much as they hate Time Warner Cable. In fact, the American Consumer Satisfaction Index found Comcast was hardly a prize:

• ACSI’s lowest rated ISP
• Second-lowest ranked TV service
• Third-lowest ranked phone service

Comcast consistently scores as one of the lowest rated companies across all the segments it participates in. It has the dubious description of being the lowest rated company in the lowest rated industry.

Higher prices, usage caps, surcharges, and fewer channels for more money. What’s not to love about that?

Just about a week ago, Rob Marcus unveiled his vision of an upgraded Time Warner Cable that looked good to us, and retained unlimited use broadband service. Apparently this is all a case of “never mind.”

The fact is, a merger of Comcast and Time Warner Cable will only benefit the companies, executives, and shareholders involved, while doing nothing to improve customer service, expand broadband, increase speeds, cut prices, and give customers the service they want. It is anti-consumer, further entrenches Comcast’s enormous market power (it also owns NBC and Universal Studios), and gives one company far too much control over content and distribution, particularly for customers who don’t have AT&T U-verse or Verizon FiOS or a community-owned provider as an alternative.

This deal needs to be rejected. When T-Mobile found itself out of a deal with AT&T, it survived on its own even better than expected. So can Time Warner Cable, with the right management team.

Comcast will announce later this morning it has reached an agreement to acquire all of Time Warner Cable in an all-stock deal worth $44 billion.

If approved by regulators, Comcast will dramatically increase its size as the nation’s largest cable operator with over 33 million subscribers — vastly outnumbering every other cable company in the country. It also likely means Time Warner Cable broadband subscribers will eventually be subject to Comcast’s usage caps and overlimit fees, now being market tested around the country.

The offer of $159 a share for Time Warner Cable stock – $1 less than what TWC CEO Rob Marcus demanded for a buyout – is far higher than the $133 a share in cash and stock offered earlier by Charter Communications.

Tonight’s revelation that Time Warner Cable and Comcast reached a deal, first reported by CNBC, likely caught Charter by surprise. Charter had tried to acquire Time Warner Cable for months, going as far as nominating candidates for TWC’s board of directors that could have influenced a sale of the company. At the same time, Charter thought it was negotiating a friendly deal with Comcast to divide Time Warner Cable territories between the two companies.

Time Warner Cable management offered no clues they were negotiating with Comcast and delivered a presentation to shareholders last week promising major upgrades for Time Warner customers and future success as a standalone cable operator. All of those plans are now in doubt.

Comcast and Time Warner Cable reportedly believe the deal will quickly pass any antitrust review before the end of the year because neither company competes in the same markets, but Comcast will offer to divest a token three million subscribers from the combined company, according to sources.

The FCC formerly limited cable companies from owning or controlling more than 30% of the cable industry, but Comcast successfully sued to have that ownership cap overturned. A belief the deal would present looming antitrust problems could be grounds for the U.S. Department of Justice to oppose the deal, likely terminating it.

Consumer groups hope the deal gets derailed as soon as possible.

“In an already uncompetitive market with high prices that keep going up and up, a merger of the two biggest cable companies should be unthinkable,” said Free Press president Craig Aaron. “This deal would be a disaster for consumers and must be stopped. No one woke up this morning wishing their cable company was bigger or had more control over what they could watch or download. But that — along with higher bills — is  the reality they’ll face tomorrow unless the Department of Justice and the FCC do their jobs and block this merger. Stopping this kind of deal is exactly why we have antitrust laws.”

Comcast’s new X1 platform (Image courtesy: BWOne)

Comcast is introducing a new upgrade fee ranging from $49.99 to $99.99 for existing customers seeking an upgrade to the company’s X1 cloud-based set-top box.

• “Commencing March 15, 2014, a one-time X1 Platform Upgrade fee of $49.99 may apply to existing XFINITY customers upgrading to the X1 services platform.” — Comcast bill in Pennsylvania
• “Beginning February 3, 2014, a one-time X1 Platform Upgrade fee of $99.99 may apply to existing XFINITY customers upgrading to the X1 services platform.” — Comcast bill in Chicago

Comcast’s website explains what the new fee is all about:

The X1 Platform Upgrade Fee is a one-time fee of up to $99 that is assessed, with limited exceptions that vary by market, when a customer signs up for the X1 Platform. This fee enables us to continue developing and enhancing the features of the X1 Platform, which today include:

• Enhanced search
• Last nine programs viewed
• Voice controls through your mobile device with the X1 Remote app
• Apps on your TV including Weather, Stocks, News, Facebook and Pandora
• Personalized recommendations

Comcast offers the X1 throughout its service area and is distributing Pace and Arris set-top boxes that include a DVR that can record six channels at once. Later on, Comcast will upgrade X1 customers to a cloud-based platform, dubbed internally as “X2.”

When the upgrades are complete, X1 owners will have a cloud-based DVR that stores recordings remotely and allows playback on a variety of portable devices. The platform will also enable customers to use a built-in app to watch live cable TV programming on mobile devices connected to the home network.

New customers are not likely to be charged the upgrade fee, and existing customers may be able to negotiate a waiver in return for a service upgrade. Some customers may also be able to get an X1 by swapping out equipment at a Comcast store. Ask a Comcast representative about your options.

Comcast usually requires a service call to install the X1 to make certain the new platform functions properly.

At least 34 of Comcast’s email servers have been compromised by a well-known hacker group that posted evidence, the exploit, and certain administrative passwords online to embarrass the company and expose its poor security practices.

Using a “Local File Inclusion” vulnerability, the hacker crew accessed the Zimbra LDAP and MySQL passwords and publicly shared their findings earlier today. Use of this type of exploit can potentially allow hackers to execute code remotely on the web server, allow insertion of malware through JavaScript, open the door to a Denial of Service attack which would slow Comcast’s servers to a crawl, and could also allow hackers access to sensitive customer information.

The security breach affecting Comcast’s email servers remains open and available as of early this afternoon, and Comcast has yet to publicly respond to the security threat.

In one tweet, NullCrew thanked Comcast for putting all of their password information in one convenient spot, making the security intrusion easier.

NullCrew considers itself a hacktivist group that exposes poor security practices at corporations, government agencies, and schools. As exploits are publicized, most affected companies immediately take steps to strengthen security.

NullCrew alerted Comcast four hours before publicizing the breach, but Comcast’s social media team appeared to lack an understanding of the nature of the threat.

NullCrew posted complete documentation about executing the hack on pastebin.com (since removed), opening the door to more attacks by other parties. It also included its latest manifesto:

1. Hello there beautiful people of the internet, once again; we here at NullCrew have some fun information for you.

2. This time, our target is Comcast, yet another internet service provider who proclaims to be a secured one; shall we test these claims as well?

3. What is Comcast?

4. Comcast Corporation is the largest mass media and communications company in the world by revenue.

5. It is the largest cable company and home Internet service provider in the United States, and the nation’s third largest home telephone service provider.

6. Comcast provides cable television, broadband Internet, telephone service and in some areas home security (including burglar alarms, surveillance cameras, fire alarm systems and home automation) to both residential and commercial customers in 40 states and the District of Columbia.

7. Okay!

8. So, it’s the LARGEST mass media and communications company in the world? Sweeeeet.

9. Let’s take a look at it, and see if we should be impressed.

10. Below us, we have a list of Comcast mail servers; and each of these mail servers run on something called, “Zimbra.”

11. But each of these mail servers also are vulnerable to LFi, and you know what LFi can lead to, right?

Phillip “Follow the Money” Dampier

“In the 1990s, U.S. policymakers faced critical choices about who should build the Internet, how it should be governed, and to what extent it should be regulated and taxed. For the most part, they chose wisely to open a regulated telecommunications market to competition, stimulate private investment in broadband and digital technologies, and democratize access.” — Will Marshall, guest columnist

Is competition in Internet access robust enough for you? Has your provider been sufficiently stimulated to invest in the latest broadband technologies to keep America at the top of broadband speed and availability rankings? Is Net Neutrality the law of the land or the latest victim of a Verizon lawsuit to overturn the concept of democratizing access to online content?

I’m not certain what country Will Marshall lives in, but for most Americans, Internet access is provided by a duopoly of providers that must be dragged kicking and screaming to upgrade their networks without jacking up prices and limiting usage.

Marshall is president and founder of the Progressive Policy Institute, a so-called “third way” group inspired by centrist Democrats led by President Bill Clinton in the 1990s. Unlike traditional liberals suspicious of corporate agendas, these Democrats were friendly to big business and welcomed the largess of corporate cash to keep them competitive in election races. It was under this atmosphere that Clinton signed the bought-and-paid-for 1996 Telecom Act, ghostwritten by lobbyists for big broadcasters, phone and cable companies, and other big media interests. Long on rhetoric about self-governing, free market competition but short on specifics, the ’96 law transformed the media landscape in ways that still impact us today.

Media ownership laws were relaxed, allowing massive buyouts of radio stations under a handful of giant corporations like Clear Channel, which promptly dispensed with large numbers of employees that provided locally produced programming. In their place, we now get cookie-cutter radio that sounds the same from Maine to Oregon. Television stations eagerly began lobbying for a similar framework for relaxing ownership limits in their business. Phone companies won their own freedoms from regulation, including largely toothless broadband regulations that allowed Internet providers to declare victory regardless of how good or bad broadband has gotten in the United States.

Marshall’s views appeared in a guest column this week in The Orlando Sentinel, which is open to publishing opinion pieces from writers hailing from Washington, D.C., without bothering to offer readers with some full disclosure.

Marshall

While Marshall’s opinions may be his own, readers should be aware that PPI would likely not exist without its corporate sponsors — among them AT&T, hardly a disinterested player in the telecommunications policy debate.

Marshall’s column suggests competition is doing a great job at keeping prices low and allows you – the consumer – to decide which technologies and services thrive. There must be another reason my Time Warner Cable bill keeps increasing and my choice for broadband technology — fiber optics — is nowhere in sight. I don’t have a choice of Verizon FiOS, in part because phone and cable companies maintain fiefdoms where other phone and cable companies don’t dare to tread. That leaves me with one other option: Frontier Communications, which is still encouraging me to sign up for their 3.1Mbps DSL.

“The broadband Internet also is a powerful magnet for private investment,” Marshall writes. “In 2013, telecom and tech companies topped PPI’s ranking of the companies investing the most in the U.S. economy. And America is moving at warp speed toward the ‘Internet of Everything,’ which promises to spread the productivity-raising potential of digital technology across the entire economy.”

Nothing about AT&T or the cable companies is about “warp speed.” In reality, AT&T and Verizon plan to pour their enormous profits into corporate set-asides to repurchase their own stock, pay dividends to shareholders, and continue to richly compensate their executives. It’s good to know that PPI offers rankings that place telecom companies on top. Unfortunately, those without a financial connection to AT&T are less optimistic. The U.S. continues its long slide away from broadband leadership as even developing countries in the former Eastern Bloc race ahead of us. Verizon’s biggest single investment of 2013 wasn’t in the U.S. economy — it was to spend $130 billion to buyout U.K.-based Vodafone’s 45% ownership interest in Verizon Wireless. Verizon’s customers get stalled FiOS expansion, Cadillac-priced wireless service, and a plan to ditch rural landlines and push those customers to cell service instead.

AT&T financially supports the Progressive Policy Institute

“A recent federal court decision regarding the FCC’s Open Internet Order has prompted pro-regulatory advocates from the ’90s to demand a rewrite of the legal framework that allowed today’s Internet to flourish,” Marshall writes in a section that also includes insidious NSA wiretapping and Internet censorship in Russia and China.

Marshall’s AT&T public policy agenda is showing.

Net Neutrality proponents don’t advocate an open Internet for no reason. It was AT&T’s former CEO Ed Whitacre that threw down the gauntlet declaring Google and other content providers would not be allowed to use AT&T’s pipes for free. AT&T has since patented technology that will allow it to discriminate in favor of preferred web traffic while artificially slowing down content it doesn’t like on its network.

“Pro-regulatory advocates” are not the ones advocating change — it is AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast, among others, that want to monetize Internet usage and web traffic for even higher profits. Net Neutrality as law protects the Internet experience Marshall celebrates. He just can’t see past AT&T’s money to realize that.