Bazinet

Citigroup media analyst Jason Bazinet is among the first Wall Street investment analysts to call for the mother of all cable mergers – Comcast snapping up control of Time Warner Cable, respectively the nation’s largest and second largest cable operators.  Comcast reported having nearly 23.9 million customers at the end of June; Time Warner Cable said it had about 13 million customers.

In a research note issued today, Bazinet argued that a merger would result in major cost savings for both operators, including $1.6 billion dollars in savings possible from volume discounts for cable network programming to $1.1 billion in savings from employee layoffs, reduced marketing expenses, technical and customer service support, billing, and combining equipment purchases, among other things.  The total net present value of the synergies would come to around $11 billion to $12 billion. That’s not far from Time Warner Cable’s current market value of about $14 billion, according to The New York Times.

A super-sized Comcast would also be able to leverage lower prices when competitively necessary to keep a price advantage over satellite television and telephone company TV, according to Bazinet.

Both Time Warner Cable and Comcast have not publicly indicated any interest in combining forces.  Aside from the regulatory headaches probable from a more skeptical Obama Administration that might aggressively counter such a merger, Comcast Chief Operating Officer Stephen Burke questioned whether the cost savings were anywhere near as high as Bazinet speculated.

Multichannel News quoted Burke:

“We would like to get bigger if the economics were right,” Burke said. “Its pretty hard for me to see how there would be synergies on the programming side or on the hardware side when you go from 24 million subscribers to 27 [million] or 30 [million].”

Time Warner CEO Glenn Britt refused comment.

Still, Wall Street investors were interested.  Time Warner Cable stock shot up 3.5% this afternoon, while Comcast’s rose just a few cents during afternoon trading.

“Comcast isn’t looking to make a $50 billion purchase.”

Stephen Burke, Comcast Chief Operating Officer

Now that Comcast has been freed from that pesky provision of the 1992 Cable Act, authorizing the Federal Communications Commission to set a maximum size for large corporate cable operators, the nation’s largest cable operator is now considering breaking out the checkbook and going on a shopping spree.  That is likely to spark a merger and acquisition frenzy among several players in the industry which could dramatically reduce America’s choices for telecommunications services.

Bloomberg News this evening quotes Stephen Burke, Comcast’s Chief Operating Officer, that it will consider buying other cable operators at a “good price.”

“If there is a way to acquire cable systems for what we consider a good price, ones that are well managed, we would certainly look at whatever is out three,” Burke, 51, said today at a Bank of America Corp. conference in Marina del Rey, California. Still, the company “isn’t waking up every morning” evaluating how it can become bigger, he said.

The Wall Street Journal calls the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, freeing Comcast from its limits, the start of “the coming cable consolidation.”

Martin Peers, writing for the Journal, said that when the dust settles, phone companies might own satellite TV providers and cable companies might end up consolidating into one or two super-sized providers blanketing the entire country with service.

Consumers would be left with a handful of providers for all of their communications needs, from telephone to broadband to television, if the courts open the door with more decisions favorable to the industry and antitrust reviews aren’t aggressively undertaken.

Starting with Comcast, Burke thinks Comcast’s first priority might be to buy up more programmers.  Comcast already has ownership interests in several cable networks, and Burke feels “content channels are good businesses, and we wouldn’t be doing out job if we didn’t try to figure out a way to get bigger in those businesses.”

With Comcast and Cablevision joining forces to sue their way out of the cable network exclusivity ban, owning and controlling those networks, and what competitors get access to their programming, could be an important asset in an ever-consolidating marketplace.  Imagine if U-verse or FiOS was denied access to ESPN, The Weather Channel, CNN, and other popular cable channels.  Would subscribers be compelled to switch providers if they could no longer get the channels they want to watch?

The Journal ponders the coming consolidation frenzy:

Comcast and other cable companies will probably need to consider more consolidation — if not now, in the next couple of years. They are still losing market share to satellite and phone rivals. Comcast lost nearly 700,000 basic subscribers in the year to June. Time Warner Cable has fallen to No. 4 among TV providers, behind satellite firms DirecTV Group and Dish Network.

Cable operators are more than offsetting video losses by selling phone and Internet-access. Eventually, though, those opportunities will peter out. And phone companies’ competitive threat in video could be enhanced by a combination with satellite TV.

The newspaper speculates about this kind of marketplace in the near future:

Today's pay television marketplace

AT&T DirecTV: The Journal ponders an AT&T buyout of DirecTV resulting in a reduction in AT&T’s investment in U-verse, pushing consumers to its newly-acquired satellite service and redirecting investment into the overburdened AT&T mobile phone network.

VerizonDISH: A Verizon buyout of DISH would allow the phone company to push more rural customers to DISH satellite service, and reduce the expense of wiring all but the nation’s largest cities with fiber optics.

Comcast (formerly Comcast & Time Warner Cable, if not others): A supersized Comcast absorbs Time Warner Cable and becomes an even more dominant cable operator, leveraging its investment in Clearwire to offer a  wireless data option to stay competitive with the mobile phone companies like AT&T and Verizon Wireless.

That would leave most Americans with just three choices for telecommunications services capable of bundling multiple products together.  Wouldn’t such a merger-mania trigger antitrust implications and government review?

The Journal doesn’t think so:

Would such a deal pass antitrust scrutiny, even absent the ownership cap? There is a good chance, say several antitrust lawyers. A major focus of antitrust law is whether a merger reduces competition in a way that could raise prices or otherwise hurt consumers. As cable operators generally don’t compete with one another, merging wouldn’t cut competition.

But what kind of benefits would be found for consumers?  If one resides in a city too small to be judged worthy of fiber optic deployment, consumers could be told to get the satellite television service and live with the copper wiring the phone companies provide today.

Cable operators would be in a fine position to compete, as they traditionally have, against satellite television because of the technical limitations of satellite service, ranging from consumer objections to having a dish on their home, to a limit on the number of sets that can be wired, to the inability to get a clear view of the satellite because of nearby trees or other obstructions.

Who pays for the debt likely incurred from a bidding war during a merger frenzy?  Guess.

Back in the mid-1980s, I first got involved in the fight against the cable television industry’s consumer abuses.  Cable had gotten cocky, and began to use their monopoly position to extract ever-increasing amounts of money from consumers, providing lousy service and engaged in anti-competitive abuse all over the marketplace.  Back then, competition for the overwhelming majority of consumers came from just one place – giant 10-12 foot satellite dishes.  These were the days before Direct Broadcast Satellite providers like Echostar/DISH and DirecTV (and PrimeStar, the cable industry’s own satellite provider that claimed to ‘compete’ with cable) provided competition to cable.

In the mid and late 1980s, your choice was a giant TVRO (TV-Receive-Only) satellite dish in the backyard or you hooked up to cable.  A tiny handful of communities had wireless cable, a service that was supposed to compete with cable but was seriously limited in channel capacity (in many communities, wireless cable ended up providing access to ‘adult’ content that cable wouldn’t carry as their biggest selling point) and quickly faded from view by the mid 1990s.

The abusive practices were all over the place back then:

• Cozy arrangements between cable companies and local governments resulting in outright bans of satellite dishes for aesthetic reasons, using zoning laws either prohibiting their installation or requiring landscaping to hide them from view (to the neighbors and to the satellites they were trying to receive, making them useless), or requiring expensive permit fees;
• A rush to scramble/encode satellite signals and then require consumers to purchase, outright, a costly descrambler from General Instruments called the VideoCipher II for $399 (or have it incorporated within a satellite receiver that typically cost $800-1000 and was available only for purchase), only to be replaced a few years later by the VideoCipher II+ (which consumers were also forced to purchase).
• Cable companies, which had ownership interests in most cable networks (which was nearly a pre-condition for getting your network on cable systems), often had exclusive rights to sell that programming, and frequently provided it “only on cable” or to satellite customers who could not subscribe to cable.  Some networks refused to sell to competitors, including dish owners, at any price.
• Anti competitive pricing was by far the biggest problem.  Prices for programming packages encrypted on satellite were sold to consumer dish owners in small or large bundles at pricing comparable or above what cable subscribers paid, despite the fact all of the costs to provide, install, and service reception equipment were borne by consumers.  No cable TV company overhead, no infrastructure or staffing and support costs, yet satellite dish owners were expected to pay the same high costs that cable subscribers paid, and also purchase their own equipment.  That was quite an investment: a 12 foot dish, satellite reception equipment, decoder, and installation routinely ran well over a thousand dollars, depending on the equipment and installation complexity, and that was before programming costs were factored in.

Rural consumers really got the short end of the cable stick, not able to buy cable even if they wanted to, and forced to spend big money, upfront, just to get satellite TV.

That inspired the consumer groundswell of support for legislation to stop the abuses, which overrode a White House veto by President George H.W. Bush.  Among other things, the Cable Act of 1992 put a stop to exclusive programming contracts which denied competitor access to cable networks.

Without that legislation, there would be no DirecTV or DISH today.

Now the cable industry is back, high-fiving over their victory to have the 30% ownership cap dispensed with, and are now taking on the next provision of the 1992 Cable Act they don’t like — the ban on exclusive programming contracts.

That’s right, it’s Back to the Future as Comcast and Cablevision take their legal business to the same friendly DC Court of Appeals that savaged the 30% cap, now seeking an immediate repeal of the exclusivity ban as well.

Oral arguments start September 22nd.

Most amusing of all is the argument made by Comcast and Cablevision, who claim despite the time and attention they are spending on overturning the law, not to mention the legal expense, the practical effect of an end to exclusivity bans would be… absolutely nothing.

“Widespread withholding is now implausible,” said the attorneys in the filing. “[T]here are proportionally fewer services to withhold. The limited withholding that may still occur will not threaten competition: most vertically integrated services have closely similar substitutes, and, when competitive MVPDs [multichannel video programming distributors] have sunk massive investments, withholding can no longer cause market exit.”

That’s right.  Big cable companies throw money away on attorneys who will presumably fight this case and the inevitable appeals for the next few years for no practical change whatsoever in the current competitive landscape.  The believe people will accept that an industry that had to be forced by regulation to compete on a level playing field will continue to respect that playing field once they plow it up.

Just trust us.  We’re your cable company.  You love us.

So it could be “nothing” as they suggest, or it could be a defensive response to challenges of their business plans from telephone company TV and online video competition.  Would you subscribe to a competitor that didn’t offer the networks you wanted to see because they were “exclusively” available only from the cable company?

Be it usage caps, consumption billing, exclusive contracts, “price protection agreements” that hold customers in place for 12-24 months (or longer), the war to keep consumers from choosing when, where, and how they access content is becoming fully engaged.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

Satellite television in the mid-1980s was highlighted by Granada Television

There was quite a buzz this week over a story in The Business Insider reporting that Hulu reaches more viewers than Time Warner Cable (the nation’s second largest cable operator) has subscribers.  They found 38 million Americans watched Hulu and just 34 million Americans are Time Warner customers.

It’s interesting trivia, but really doesn’t mean all that much… yet.  In fact, Comcast, the nation’s largest cable operator has 62 million subscribers, so Hulu has a long way to go to beat Comcast, not to mention websites like Google Video and YouTube, which have more than 120 million combined viewers.

More importantly, Time Warner Cable has no trouble monetizing its business, as any cable subscriber knows when that ever-increasing bill arrives every month.  The same cannot be said for Hulu, which originally depended on an advertising model to sustain itself, at the same time the domestic online advertising marketplace imploded with the near-economic collapse last fall.  If television networks and newspapers can’t sell their ad inventories, the online advertising market, still a novelty for many advertisers, is in even worse shape.

Time Warner Cable is not losing any sleep over Hulu at the moment, and if they do become a nuisance, that consumption billing concept (or hard usage cap) is always an option to deter people from watching too much.

Broadband providers who pass along video content to their customers, without any ownership interest in those videos, are stuck in the position of owning “dumb pipes.”  In the month of July alone, comScore estimated that more than 21.4 billion videos were viewed on American-owned video websites.  Those videos ranged from the five minute karaoke performance from the guy in Des Moines who posted his performance to YouTube, to hour long dramas watched on a network TV website.

What people didn’t watch were all of the most popular shows from cable networks.  Dedicated viewers who needed to watch the entire second season of A&E’s Crime 360 show had to head to Usenet newsgroups or Bit Torrent websites to ferret out someone’s personal recording collection uploaded to share.  A&E only streams one episode from the second season at a time.

That explains why the cable industry is in a hurry to test their TV Everywhere project.  Cable and other pay-television customers will discover a lot more videos hosted on cable network websites suddenly “authenticating” their subscription status, and locking out those who don’t have a subscription (or offering teaser videos or a much more limited menu of viewing choices).

The upsides for TV Everywhere include pleasing existing pay television subscribers with more online videos.  They also get to sell advertising to accompany these on demand videos.  Those cable network websites may also have ads on them and can also promote their other programming.  Perhaps even more importantly, the industry will have a new tool in their subscriber retention arsenal — the ability to delicately remind subscribers wavering over whether to continue their cable TV package that they can forget about replacing it with watching shows online for free. Owning or controlling the content (and the distribution network) is always better than simply being used to transport someone else’s content.  You can’t giveth and taketh away content you don’t own — you can just make it prohibitively expensive to watch with Internet Overcharging schemes.

The downside, at least in their eyes, is the amount of bandwidth these videos will occupy on their existing distribution platforms.  In 2008, the “big threat” that demanded usage caps and/or consumption billing came from Bit Torrent.  In 2009, it’s online video.

Of course, two of the nation’s largest providers that have “appreciated” consumption billing and usage caps — Comcast and Time Warner Cable — are also enthusiastic founding partners of TV Everywhere.  That presents a problem.  A video platform like TV Everywhere, which may one day usurp Google’s dominance in online videos, is being run by the same people trying to convince Americans of broadband capacity problems and the need to cap usage or switch to consumption billing schemes.  TV Everywhere effectively takes the wind out of that argument because, as any consumer will ask, if your platform is too congested to handle online video, why in the world would you seek to make the “problem” much worse?

That’s a rhetorical problem astroturf groups are being hired to explain away.  They apparently couldn’t sell it to consumers during focus group testing, so now they’ll try the sock puppets instead.

Verizon today announced the 100th franchise agreement in the state of Massachusetts for FiOS TV. The Easton Board of Selectmen on Monday granted a cable franchise to Verizon to begin wiring the town of 23,000 with fiber optic service. Residents will receive visits from Verizon employees to explain and market the service, which will compete directly with incumbent cable provider Comcast.

Verizon’s growth in the state has already put them in second place behind Comcast as the largest provider of wired television and broadband service.  That position was formerly held by RCN, a cable overbuilder providing service in the Boston area.

Verizon celebrated the 100th franchise agreement by donating $1,000 to the Easton Area Public Library to purchase 100 new books.

“As a result of this new franchise, consumers in Easton will be able to choose their cable provider as easily as they choose their phone company,” said Cupelo. “Competition drives innovation, value and service quality, and it puts the consumer in control.”

Easton (in dark red), part of Bristol County, Massachusetts

Verizon research indicates 87 percent of Massachusetts residents favor more competition and choice for video services.  Independent studies suggest competition in the video market can bring reduced prices, better packages and improved service, although experiences in many communities indicate providers are more apt to compete on services and packaging, and not as much on price.

Verizon’s license agreement with the city of Easton is for 10 years.  The agreement contains provisions for the network’s future growth; financial support and capacity for educational and government access channels; cable service to government buildings; and other important benefits to the city, including insurance, indemnification and enforcement protections.

“Verizon will compete aggressively for subscribers in Easton with our FiOS services, which are fueled by our lightning-fast fiber-optic network,” Cupelo said. Verizon soon will begin its door-to-door sales campaign in Easton, explaining the many advantages of FiOS TV to local consumers.

For some local residents, the competition can’t arrive soon enough.

Comcast has alienated many Easton residents by not carrying all of the HD signals from Boston area television stations.  Easton, although essentially halfway between Boston and Providence, Rhode Island, has been defined by the Federal Communications Commission as being in the “Providence DMA” (an area of significant influence.)  That’s because parts of Bristol County have towns that are considered suburbs of Providence.  Easton’s allegiance, in the minds of many who live there, is to Boston, and residents are upset that the majority of HD broadcast stations on Comcast Cable are from Providence.

The town is actually part of a regional effort to redefine their part of Bristol County to be in the “Boston DMA” so they can petition the FCC to make a change.

The Easton Cable Commission has gotten an earful from annoyed residents, who have faced an intransigent Comcast.  They have even prepared an FAQ for residents on the matter:

Why can’t I get some Boston based HD channels on Comcast?
This is an important issue to many Easton cable subscribers. We want to take some time to explain the relevant issues just so you understand why most believe Easton residents are not getting the channels they want and the channels that they believe serve them best.

The starting point is the DMA that Easton is in.  What is a DMA?  Well, that is our problem.  DMA is short for Neilsen Media Research Designated Television Market Area. DMA’s are generally split up according to county.  Easton is in Bristol County.  A good part of Bristol County is actually considered part of suburban Providence.  Therefore, Easton, although not a suburb of Providence, is in the Providence DMA.  All cable providers must carry the primary channels that serve a DMA.   At present, Comcast must carry Providence DMA stations.  There is an effort underway to move towns inside of Route 495 into the Boston DMA.  We will petition the FCC for this change.

Oakes Ames Memorial Hall and Ames Free Library (North Easton, MA)

But the greater issue here is whether Comcast chose to eliminate Boston channels in High Definition or whether they had no choice.  For the most part, this is a Comcast choice.  The Town of Easton and our Cable Committee, unfortunately, cannot force Comcast to provide Boston channels in High Definition.  Along with the concept of DMA, there is also the concept of “Significantly Viewed” channels in an area.  This is another FCC concept which relates to stations not in the local DMA which may be referred to as “distant signals”.  A “distant signal” is one that originates outside of a satellite (or cable) subscriber’s local television market, the DMA. In addition to stations in their DMA, satellite (cable) subscribers who receive local-into-local service may, under certain circumstances, receive individual stations from markets outside their DMA that are deemed “significantly viewed” in their community. It is up to the satellite carrier whether or not to offer significantly viewed stations and a subscriber must be subscribing to local-into-local service in his or her DMA to be eligible to receive significantly viewed stations. The determination of whether or not a station is significantly viewed in a community depends on several statutory factors.  The FCC has posted the list of stations that are eligible for carriage as significantly viewed signals and the communities in which they are significantly viewed.
The following is the list for Bristol County:

Bristol
WLNE-TV, 6, Providence, RI (formerly WTEV)
WJAR, 10, Providence, RI
WPRI-TV, 12, Providence, RI
+WNAC-TV, 64, Providence, RI
WBZ-TV, 4, Boston, MA
WCVB-TV, 5, Boston, MA (formerly WHDH)
WHDH-TV, 7, Boston, MA (formerly WNAC)
WSBK-TV, 38, Boston, MA
WLVI-TV, 56, Cambridge, MA (formerly WKBG)

So, Comcast has every right to provide the above channels (which include 4,5, and 7) in High Definition.  It is their choice not to do so.  You may ask why Channel 25 is not on the above list and that is a great question.  But the answer is that the determinations for this list were made a long time ago when Channel 25 was owned by religious broadcasters.  That is how outdated all of these rules are.  It is also the reason that Comcast is forced to black out FOX 25 network programming.

There may be an alternative to Comcast in Easton by the end of the year.  We are going through a licensing process with Verizon.  They want to offer Fios tv, internet, and phone in Easton by December.  It is all of our hopes that Verizon will provide the channels that you are looking for and that competition will benefit all cable tv subscribers in Easton.

For further information please contact the Comcast Customer Care line at 1-800-COMCAST (1-800-266-2278).

In Massachusetts, FiOS TV is available in Abington, Acton, Andover, Arlington, Ashland, Bedford, Bellingham, Belmont, Boxborough, Boxford, Braintree, Burlington, Canton, Danvers, Dedham, Dover, Dunstable, Framingham, Franklin, Georgetown, Grafton, Groton, Hamilton, Hanover, Hingham, Holliston, Hopkinton, Hudson, Hull, Ipswich, Kingston, Lakeville, Lawrence, Leominster, Lexington, Lincoln, Littleton, Lynn, Lynnfield, Malden, Mansfield, Marion, Marlborough, Marblehead, Marshfield, Mattapoisett, Maynard, Medfield, Medway, Melrose, Mendon, Methuen, Middleborough, Middleton, Millbury, Nahant, Natick, Needham, Newton, Norfolk, North Andover, North Reading, Northborough, Norwood, Norwell, Plymouth, Reading, Rochester, Rockland, Rowley, Sherborn, Southborough, Stoneham, Stoughton, Stow, Sudbury, Sutton, Swampscott, Taunton, Tewksbury, Topsfield, Tyngsborough, Wakefield, Walpole, Waltham, Wareham, Wayland, Wellesley, Wenham, West Newbury, Westborough, Weston, Westwood,  Wilmington, Winchester, Wrentham and Woburn, and will soon be available in Chelmsford, Easton and North Attleborough.