Cable television customers have finally reached their limit.  For years, annual rate increases well in excess of inflation have annoyed customers, but beyond complaining, few actually dropped service.  That has begun to change as the economy, consumer debt, job fears, and other expenses have finally provoked customers to begin paring back on their cable package.

According to research from Centris, a consumer research organization, a virtual ceiling of tolerance for cable rate increases appears to have been reached for many subscribers.  Although consumers are not dropping cable en masse, they are not simply accepting a higher bill either.  They are dropping services from their cable package.  In 2008 and 2009, premium movie channels and pay per view suffered most from customer downgrades.  Consumers with multiple premium movie channels started by dropping one or two of them, and their use of pay per view service also dropped.  As the financial impact of the recession wore on, the next round of rate increases caused additional erosion — by late 2009 many consumers discontinued all of their premium services.

The goal?  To reduce or at least maintain a consistent monthly bill.  The average amount consumers are paying for digital cable dropped from $79 a month in the third quarter of 2008 to $70 in the third quarter of 2009.  That decline didn’t come from discounts from the industry — it came from dropping channels and services. In 2010, consumers are still pruning away, now impacting digital basic cable and smaller add-ons like sports and movie tiers.  They are also phoning their provider threatening to cancel service altogether if additional discounts cannot be found.  Cable operators, not surprisingly, have managed to find plenty of savings for consumers who ask and stand their ground, ready to walk away from cable.

The cable industry has sought to promote bundled services as an anti-erosion measure.  It’s much harder to walk away from a provider supplying your television, Internet, and phone service, especially if they lock you into a multi-year service agreement with a cancellation fee.  The savings promoted from bundled services come largely as a result of steeper price increases on standalone products and services, manufacturing “added value” for so-called “triple play” packages.

Some customers have divorced from pay television service altogether, deciding relentless price increases and the 500 channel universe shoveled in their direction just isn’t worth the price.  For many American families, however, such drastic cord cutting would border on traumatic, and they haven’t managed such a drastic step.

Luckily, a growing number of consumers have discovered taking the Luddite approach to television entertainment isn’t a requirement any longer.

Cutting the Cord With Online Viewing

With the growing penetration of fast broadband service in homes across the country, online video has rapidly become one of the most popular online services, particularly when it’s available for free.  The benefits don’t stop at the cost — programming catalogs are becoming increasingly deep and diverse allowing fans to watch entire seasons of shows on-demand, with a limited commercial load.  A consumer looking for something to watch might easily find more entertainment online than wading through hundreds of cable channels of niche and re-purposed programming (and program length commercials).

Cable companies are well aware of the trend towards online video.  First considered part-curiosity, part-piracy, today online video is provided by the major American networks, cable programmers, independent filmmakers, YouTube, and of course, Hulu.  It isn’t just for those torrent sites anymore.  And there is plenty of room for online video to grow.

The industry uses research companies like Centris to carefully track subscriber trends.  They want to be out in front of any sea change in viewing practices that could impact their business model and their revenue, and avoid repeating the mistakes others made in ignoring a potential threat for too long.

Wall Street is well aware of the potential threat as well.

Craig Moffett, a cable industry analyst with Sanford C. Bernstein is among the most prominent trend-watchers for the cable industry.  He sees some warning signs for the future.

“Still no evidence of cord-cutting, but as prices spiral higher, the stresses on the system are unquestionably growing,” Moffett said.

So far, the cable industry has decided the best way to fight potential losses is to get into the game themselves on their terms.  Comcast and Time Warner Cable, the nation’s largest cable operators, are launching their TV Everywhere concepts, which provide their broadband customers with online access to a myriad of cable programming, on demand, and currently for free.  The catch?  You must be a verified, current pay television customer.  If you want to watch a basic cable show, you need a basic cable subscription.  Want to watch Bill Maher online?  You can, assuming you are a verified HBO premium television subscriber.

Comcast’s system is already up and running.  Time Warner Cable is expected to roll out their system sometime this year.

The industry is even selling the public they applaud the online video experience as a win for customers.  Time Warner Cable president and CEO Glenn Britt said, “TV Everywhere is an all-around win for those of us who love television. It will give our customers more control over content and allow them greater access to programs they are already paying for, while enhancing the distributors’ and networks’ robust business model that encourages the creation of great content.”

He didn’t say it also protects Time Warner Cable’s flank from cord-cutting.  Lose the cable subscription and your access to online cable programming goes with it.

But the question remains, is that enough to protect cable television revenue?

The answer might be no.

[flv width=”400″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Invasion of the Cable Killers 9-15-09.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg News reported on ‘The Invasion of the Cable Killers’ — new hardware that lets you bypass cable, back on September 15, 2009.  (2 minutes)

The Coming Online Viewing War: The Players Assemble

Who owns and controls programming ultimately controls the distribution of it.  Time Warner Cable took several shots at Fox a few weeks ago when threatened with the loss of Fox programming over a contract dispute.  Alex Dudley, spokesman for Time Warner Cable, told NY1 viewers much of Fox’s programming is available online for the taking, so even if the network was thrown off the cable company’s lineup, viewers could simply bypass the dispute and watch online… for free.  His message – the dollar value Fox places on its programming is diminished when it gives it away for free online.

The fact so much of network programming is available online for free is part of the dispute over how much cable operators should pay to carry networks on their cable systems.  When the industry passes along those carriage fees to consumers, will that be the last straw for some who will drop their cable subscription and simply watch everything online?

“They’re the ones who are going to resist these price increases that the programmers are trying to push,” said Dudley. “One need look no further than the music industry for an example of what happens when consumers feel taken advantage of by an entire industry.”

Dudley’s remark is more telling than he realizes.  The cable industry is well aware of what happened when the music and newspaper industry ignored nascent challenges to their business models like piracy or free access to their content.  To cable operators, the music and newspaper industries’ online experiences are lessons to be learned and not repeated.  The music industry waited too long to crack down on piracy and lost pricing power as consumers simply stole what they rationalized was overpriced.  The newspaper industry failed to erect pay walls to control access to their content, and newspaper subscribers dropped print subscriptions to read everything online for free.  Cable industry control of content and distribution is key to protecting their business model for pay television.  More on that in a moment.

Now two other parties want to be heard on this matter — consumer electronics manufacturers and advertisers.

This week, Advertising Age is running a story on the implications of cord-cutting.

The magazine takes note that online viewing doesn’t require a computer any longer.  Samsung, Boxee, Apple TV, and even Microsoft, manufacturer of the XBox, are now selling devices that bypass cable television and grab online video for users, often for free.

Netflix has already managed that for a monthly fee, and is rolling out service on all sorts of devices, from a set top box that streams content from the web to your television to video game consoles, and now even builds-in the service to some televisions and Blu-Ray DVD players.  Microsoft’s XBox Live service could be germinating a cable television service of its own, as it seeks to license content from programmers starting with Disney’s ESPN.

All of these services, along with traditional laptop or home computer viewing, could evolve into formidable challengers for the pay television industry.  Oh, and some new televisions on offer at this year’s Consumer Electronics Show build in support for Skype, a Voice Over IP telephone service, so phone revenue could be at risk as well.

Advertising Age believes this could be one of the entertainment industry’s biggest business battles of the next few years as millions, if not billions of dollars are at stake.

For the moment, the public face of the debate is a combination of downplaying its potential impact while the players quietly position themselves and their assets for the fight certain to come.

Both Dudley and Britt at Time Warner Cable call the potential trend towards online viewing interesting, but not much of a threat at the moment.

“We see some interesting stuff out there, but right now people are watching more TV than ever; cable-cutting is largely on the fringe,” said Dudley.

“A lot of manufacturers have come out and made announcements, but I don’t think they really are in a position to erode the pay-TV subscriptions that the cable industry has today,” said Park Associates research analyst Jayant Dafari.

“For many people, cable works just fine; the quality is great; the DVR functionality is great; the only gripe they have is that they’re paying for it,” Boxee’s founder and CEO Avner Ronen told Advertising Age. But “there is a growing generation out there where the whole definition of entertainment is changing, and their main source of entertainment is the internet.”

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Wii At the Movies 1-13-10.flv[/flv]

CNBC covered last week’s announcement of a partnership between Nintendo and Netflix to provide Netflix on the popular Nintendo Wii, in this exclusive interview with Reed Hastings, chairman and CEO of Netflix and Reggie Fils-Aime, Nintendo of America president & COO (January 13, 2010 – 5 minutes)

‘If It Becomes A Problem, We’ll Just Cut Them Off‘

The cable industry is in a comfortable position to leverage its control over programming and distribution to ultimately limit any competitive threat from online viewing.  In addition to mega-deals like Comcast’s acquisition of content-rich NBC-Universal (a partner in Hulu), the cable industry owns, controls, or can leverage carriage of its cable lineup contingent on programmers not giving away too much for free.  Advertising Age:

One tech exec, who asked not to be named, predicted that the minute cable operators start to feel the disruption, they will clamp down and use their market power to keep TV and films from seeping into next-generation devices. They’re already putting the squeeze on networks; any free distribution is an argument for lower cable distribution fees.

Stop the Cap! is also a player in this struggle, because a key component of the cable industry’s control of programming is the means it is distributed to consumers, and cable modem service representss one half of the duopoly most Americans find when shopping for broadband.  One potential strategy to eliminating the cord-cutting option is to enact Internet Overcharging schemes like usage limits and consumption billing that effectively makes it impractical for a consumer to “switch” to broadband for all of their online viewing.  Switching to the other half of the duopoly may not be an alternative. As online video projects like TV Everywhere will also be available to telco TV partners who wish to participate, there is every incentive to also limit video consumption on Verizon’s FiOS or AT&T’s U-verse systems.

Effective competition against entrenched players in the marketplace is impossible if those players control the content, the means of its distribution, and the ability to cut you off if you watch too much or switch to an independent competitor.

But this is history repeating itself.  Many of the same players and interests followed the same protectionist path against another competitor – satellite television.  It took strong regulatory policy from Washington to force a fair and level playing ground for an industry that didn’t want to sell content to its competitors, overcharged for access, and kept effective competition at bay for years, all while happily increasing rates for beleaguered consumers.

Here we go again.

Broadband Reports noticed Comcast’s usage meter has broken out of its limited trial in Portland, Oregon and customers are receiving notices across the Pacific Northwest noting the company’s usage meter is now available for their ‘convenience.’  But remarkably, Comcast has told 99 percent of their customers they “do not need to check the usage meter” because they won’t be close to the company’s 250GB limit:

We are pleased to announce the pilot launch of the Comcast Usage Meter in your area. This new feature is available to Comcast High-Speed Internet customers and provides an easy way to check total monthly household high-speed Internet data usage at any time. Monthly data usage is the amount of data, such as images, movies, photos, videos, and other files that customers send, receive, download or upload each month.

Comcast measures total data usage and does not monitor specific customer activities to determine data usage. The current data usage allowance for the Comcast High-Speed Internet service is 250GB per month. This means that the vast majority of our customers – around 99% currently – will not come close to using 250GB of data in a month, and do not need to check the usage meter.

That leads to two questions: Why would a company make an effort to produce a meter that is irrelevant to the vast majority of customers, and why institute a usage cap at all if only one percent of customers come close to exceeding it?

The answer, of course, is that most customers won’t need to worry about the limit today, but tomorrow is another matter.

As more broadband users begin watching video over Comcast’s broadband service, they will come perilously closer to the fixed limit Comcast offers — a limit that protects Comcast’s cable television package from customers switching to broadband-based viewing.

Once Internet Overcharging schemes get their foot in your door, it’s usually only a matter of time before they force their way in and start looking for your checkbook.

Would Comcast seek to eventually lower today’s 250GB limit?  Perhaps, but there is no evidence of anything imminent.  It has been done before in Canada and sold as a “money-saver,” offered with an “insurance policy” Bell had the chutzpah to suggest “protected” customers from overlimit fees.  Monetizing broadband use is a hot topic for providers seeking enhanced revenue from their broadband divisions.  Time Warner Cable tried to convince customers it would tie revenue earned from its own Internet Overcharging experiment into expansion of their local broadband networks.  That was proven blatantly false when upgrades commenced in areas never part of “the experiment,” while those that were have been bypassed for DOCSIS 3 upgrades.

Some might believe such limits protect providers from dreaded hordes of malicious “bandwidth abusers,” a broadband urban legend comparable to the Cadillac-driving welfare queens we heard about in the 1980s.  In truth, the handful of so-called “abusers” have quietly been dealt with under the terms of existing Acceptable Use Policies for years without inconveniencing the vast majority of customers with arbitrary usage limits.  But the industry-sponsored narrative persists, usually in the form of some neighborhood hacking teenager sucking your bandwidth dry and costing you money.

What constitutes “excessive” or “fair” use ludicrously ranges from Frontier’s infamous 5GB usage allowance to Comcast’s 250GB limit.  Every company insists their limit is the fairest and that 99 percent of customers won’t exceed it, no matter what it is.

Are there consumers moving a lot of data across Comcast’s network?  Yes.  One Broadband Reports reader in Spokane posted a usage report showing a whopping 897GB of consumption in November.  Was he running a torrent client swapping an illicit copy of Avatar with people all over the world?  Was he downloading lots of illegally obtained music and movies?  Was he running a commercial business on a residential connection?  No.  It turns out he was retrieving a backup to restore data from a failed hard drive.  In fact, Comcast recommends customers use online backup services, and even provides customers with a free, limited version of Mozy, which includes an easy path to upgrade to much larger storage plans.

Even Comcast doesn’t believe in the usage-limits-solve-congestion meme. In response to a query from IP Democracy back in February, 2008:

“Most [ISPs] recognize that a metered approach doesn’t solve peak-hour usage pressures.”

But it will do wonders for a provider’s bottom line.

Hawaii’s landline telephone company, Hawaiian Telcom (HawTel), is awaiting approval from the state’s Public Utility Commission for its $460 million, stand-alone reorganization plan. The company, launched in 2005 from assets acquired from Verizon Hawaii, Inc., by the politically connected global private equity investment firm The Carlyle Group, lasted less than four years before declaring bankruptcy.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KITV Honolulu Hawaiian Telcom Takes Over Verizon 5-3-05.flv[/flv]

KITV-TV in Honolulu introduced Hawaii to Hawaiian Telcom in this report from May 3, 2005 (1 minute)

The downfall of Hawaii’s dominant landline provider, despite decades of stable service from its progenitors — GTE/Hawaiian Telephone Company and Mutual Telephone came as no surprise to telecommunications analysts and consumer advocates who saw trouble right from the start.  The Carlyle Group and Verizon structured a deal that loaded $1.2 billion in debt onto Hawaiian Telcom’s balance sheet.  Critics of the deal weren’t impressed by the fact Carlyle had no experience running a telephone company either, and was likely to dump the company after “dressing up the pig” to inflate the company’s value and walk away with big profits from the sale, as one analyst predicted.

Long time Stop the Cap! readers know how this works only too well.  Anyone who followed the exhaustive coverage of the downfall of FairPoint Communications this past year will see plenty of familiar warning signs — piling enormous debt on the buyer, lots of promises made and broken, and plenty of billing and customer service problems that cause customers to flee to other providers.  By 2008, 21 percent of the company’s 700,000 customers did just that.  Remarkably, the only people who suffered from the failing business plan Hawaiian Telcom subjected on the islands were customers, lower-level employees, and company vendors.  The top management that made all of the bad decisions were insulated from the impact with fat bonuses, even as other employees were terminated.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KITV Honolulu 9,000 Hawaiian Telcom Customers Overbilled 6-9-06.flv[/flv]

Here come the all-too-familiar billing problems.  KITV reported 9,000 HawTel customers were overbilled in this report from June 9, 2006 (2 minutes)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KITV Honolulu Hawaiian Telcom Problems Continue 3-21-07.flv[/flv]

A year later, still more billing problems from HawTel, this time impacting more than 10,000 customers who can never sure what their monthly bill will look like.  (March 21, 2007 – 2 minutes)

It’s all a word to the wise as Frontier Communications journeys down the same road FairPoint and Hawaiian Telcom have already paved.

On the business side, Hawaiian Telcom’s future foreshadowed its post-mortem if only based on the players who far too often have been rewarded for failure:

The Carlyle Group: Attacked by incumbent competitors in Hawaii when it sought to purchase Verizon’s assets in the state.  Both Time Warner Telecom and Pacific LightNet warned Carlyle had little, if any experience running a telecommunications business, was going to mine the company for profits for its investors from rate increases, slash costs by reducing investment in their network and firing employees, and then try and resell the business at a profit just a few years later.

BearingPoint: Hired by Hawaiian Telcom to manage billing post-Verizon, the troubled firm managed to botch thousands of customer bills, double-charging them, crediting their accounts only to rebill them months later, and other irregularities.  In the end, BearingPoint had to pay $52 million to Hawaiian Telcom and drop an additional $30 million in outstanding invoices.  Like birds of a feather, BearingPoint itself collapsed in bankruptcy in 2009.

Michael Ruley: Hawaiian Telcom’s CEO from October 2004 through February 2008, Ruley oversaw HawTel operations during the post-transition customer service nightmares.  During his last quarter at the company, HawTel lost $29.5 million, and his prescription was a massive cost-cutting program that accelerated company layoffs that began in 2007, resulting in the dismissal of more than 100 employees, 50 of which were cut during his last full month at the company.

Stephen F. Cooper: A so-called “turnaround expert,” Cooper was hired as a ” permanent interim” CEO on February 4, 2008.  His previous “success stories” included succeeding Kenneth Lay at the infamous Enron, and a stint as CEO of Krispy Kreme, which then promptly collapsed as a success story, with store closings and bankruptcies among its franchisees.  His “permanent interim” position as CEO of HawTel ended after three months. “In my view, Hawaiian Telcom is financially stable and has ample liquidity available,” Cooper said less than a year before the company went bankrupt.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KITV Honolulu Hawaiian Telcom Filing for Bankruptcy 12-01-08.flv[/flv]

KITV has three reports telling viewers HawTel has filed for bankruptcy, the first time in Hawaii’s history a major utility has sought bankruptcy protection.  (12/1 – 12/3 – 2008 – 7 minutes)

Bankruptcy As a Business Tool

The sale of Verizon Hawaii’s assets to Carlyle and its creature HawTel likely doomed the company from the start.  Saddled with massive debt from the $1.6 billion dollar sale in May 2005, HawTel had to manage its 700,000 customers, protect its flank from increasing wireless competition from Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile, and constant customer poaching by Oceanic Cable.  The cable operator offered “digital phone” service at prices lower than HawTel charged and broadband service far faster than the “up to 7Mbps” DSL service the phone company provided.

As customers continues to leave, the company’s bond values lost 65 percent of their value by the start of 2008.

The Wall Street Journal itself began to notice (subscription required) these telecommunications deals had enormous implications for consumers, particularly for those who depend on landline service:

Because major phone companies are reducing their exposure to the shrinking landline phone business, phone services in a growing number of U.S. states are being taken over by private-equity firms like Carlyle or by tiny telecom companies.

Verizon, for instance, has agreed to spin off its landline business in Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire to a small phone company, FairPoint Communications Inc. Alltel Corp., which services the Midwest, was recently taken private by private-equity firms TPG Capital and Goldman Sachs Capital Partners.

Many of these deals are raising concern among local regulators and consumer advocates, who are worried about the telecom savvy of the new buyers. “Why would a company one-10th the size and not nearly as deep of pockets as Verizon be able to make a success where Verizon hasn’t,” asks Rand Wilson, a spokesman for Verizon’s unionized workers, speaking of the Verizon-FairPoint deal, which is expected to close next week. A FairPoint spokeswoman says the company has plenty of experience taking over landlines in less dense regions of the U.S. and plans to offer new technologies and services to New England customers.

By December 2008, it was time to get HawTel’s lawyers in Delaware to walk into Bankruptcy Court.  At the time of the filing, the company said it had about $1 billion in debt, which includes $574.6 million in bank loans as well as about $500 million in bonds.

The company sought bankruptcy to reduce the debt load, and in a remarkable concession, HawTel president and CEO Eric Yeaman spoke prophetic words not heard when the original deal was on the table:

“Our lenders all recognize that this business can’t support its debt load,” Yeaman said. “But they’re still figuring out what the magic number is. Whatever it is, it will affect different parties, especially investors who won’t get their initial investment back. That’s why it’s important that we increase in value going forward.”

In the nine months ending in September 2008, Hawaiian Telcom paid $68.2 million in interest to lenders, on top of a $35.7 million operating loss. The company has lost $425 million since it began operations in 2005.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KHON Honolulu Hawaiian Telcom Bankruptcy Hearing Begins 11-9-09.flv[/flv]

KHON-TV Honolulu covers the bankruptcy proceedings in this report from November 9, 2009. (1 minute)

BonusGate

Adding insult to injury, Hawaiian Telcom may have been bankrupt, but senior management were assured of being kept whole.  KITV-TV in Honolulu reported that three days before the company filed for bankruptcy, Hawaiian Telcom’s board of directors approved a financial incentive plan for 20 of its top executives for up to $2.3 million in retention bonuses and other benefits.  The executives were eligible for amounts ranging from $57,000 to $2.3 million, if the company met certain earning and revenue targets.

Regular employees were eligible to use a secluded back door to exit the company after being notified they were being laid off to “reduce costs.”

Just three months after declaring bankruptcy, HawTel officials were back asking for approval for even bigger bonuses.

In a filing with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Hawaiian Telcom said it was seeking authorization to pay 1,418 employees a total of $6 million, a reduction of 24 percent from their original proposal to pay $7.9 million. Understanding how bad it would look for a president and CEO overseeing a company into financial failure, Yeaman gave up his $609,000 bonus and elected not to participate in the special compensation program.  Six of the company’s senior vice presidents were less generous, agreeing only to defer half of their scheduled bonuses.

Hawaii’s governor was outraged.

“The decision by Hawaiian Telcom to ask the bankruptcy court to approve $6 million in bonuses for its employees is unconscionable, and we will oppose it in court,” Gov. Linda Lingle said on March 19th. “Hawaiian Telcom is the critical communications backbone for our state, and its action to pay millions in bonuses puts the company in a precarious position that jeopardizes its long-term viability, as well as threatens Hawaii’s economic recovery.”

Bankruptcy can be a profitable business for more than just bonus recipients.

Fees billed by companies working on the bankruptcy reorganization also angered creditors and the U.S. trustee appointed to oversee the company’s restructuring:

• Lazard Freres & Co. was being paid $2,527.38 per hour for its work in Hawaiian Telcom Communications Inc.’s bankruptcy case.  The company billed for 237.4 hours of work between April 1 and June 30 totaling an astonishing $600,000, an amount Acting U.S. Trustee Tiffany Carroll said was way out of line.  “Simply put, the amount of time Lazard is devoting to this case is not commensurate with its interim compensation,” she wrote in papers filed with the Honolulu bankruptcy court.
• The Carlyle Group, despite its losses from piling on debt from the Verizon sale did manage a legislative win when it lobbied for and got passage of a nice deregulation package in the form of SB603, a state bill providing a deregulatory advantage to Hawaiian Telcom, now able to charge higher prices for competitors that connect with HawTel’s network to complete calls to customers.  Better yet, SB603 provides for no oversight or justification for the rates HawTel chooses to charge.  Hawaii’s legislature bowed to the lobbyists to deregulate a company that lost more than $1 billion dollars in bankruptcy.
• Ernst & Young, LLP, a financial advisor hired by Hawaiian Telcom to advise on tax matters, would receive payment for services without as much scrutiny from the bankruptcy court, owing to HawTel’s lawyers seeking to have E&Y’s fees be subject to review only under the “improvident” standard, which would make it much harder to protest unreasonable fees.

The more money paid out to consultants, lawyers, secured creditors, and other advisors, the less money remains available to pay unsecured creditors — mostly suppliers and smaller companies hired as subcontractors to do the work HawTel farmed out.

What The Future Holds for HawTel & Customers

As the company works its way towards an exit to bankruptcy, it’s betting the company’s survival on Next Generation Television (NGTV), an “IPTV” service that delivers Internet, television, and phone service over a broadband network.  HawTel seeks to construct a faster broadband network using a fiber-optic based backbone network and integrate it with the ordinary phone lines that string through neighborhoods across the islands.  Similar to AT&T’s U-verse system, by reducing the length of copper wiring, HawTel can boost broadband speeds to at least 25Mbps, the bare minimum required to deliver a “triple play” package of phone, Internet, and cable-TV service to Hawaiians.  Relying on less than that can seriously degrade parts of the package if customers try to use them all at once (try making a phone call, download a file, and watch two different channels at the same time on a network with reduced bandwidth.)

HawTel realizes without being able to sell all three services to consumers, they have little hope of surviving in a state where consumers are dropping landline phone service in favor of Oceanic Cable’s own “triple play” service, or relying on one of the cell phone providers serving Hawaii.

Of course, such an undertaking will require millions of dollars of investment, something The Carlyle Group may not exactly be enthusiastic to provide.  Company observers suspect HawTel will instead come hat in hand to Washington looking for broadband stimulus funding so the company need not invest as much of its own money.

Why This Is Important To Millions of Potential New Frontier Communications Customers

Detailing the history of broken promises, bad customer service, billing problems, and the impact of more than a billion dollars of crushing debt, all hallmarks of two previous deals with Verizon — one with HawTel, the other with FairPoint Communications — illustrates just how risky the latest Verizon-Frontier deal could be to customers, suppliers, employees, and other creditors.  HawTel’s debt hampered the company’s potential and kept it from providing the kind of enhanced services it speaks of today.  What was once $1.1 billion in debt has been dramatically reduced by a Bankruptcy Court judge to just $300 million.  The better-looking balance sheet frees the company to invest in the services it will be required to provide to protect it from future obsolescence.

Why state utility commissions are willing to risk rolling the dice on another risky deal, and one that is largely tax-free thanks to loopholes in the law, is a question that must be asked.  Consumers, small businesses, and individual employees pay the price for the wrong decisions others make, all while those handful of executives who run the show have built-in insulation from the impact, earning bonuses and benefits that come regardless of their performance or lack thereof.

Bray Cary, president and CEO of a group of West Virginia television stations enjoying advertising revenue from Frontier Communications, was back on his Decision Makers program to allow an opposing viewpoint to the puff piece interview he held earlier with Frontier’s Ken Arndt, Frontier’s Southeast region chief.  This time, he invited Ron Collins, vice-president of the Communications Workers of America to give the CWA side.  Cary’s Tea-‘N-Cookies Breakfast Club With Ken this was not.  Cary decided to play hardball with Collins, leaving no viewer in doubt where Cary stood on the question of Frontier’s proposed purchase of West Virginia’s phone lines from Verizon.

Unfortunately, Collins was not completely prepared to rebut Cary’s pro-Wall Street, pro-deal propaganda and looked ill at ease at times during the interview.  We’re not, and Cary’s “facts” deserve some investigation.  After all, how hard should it be to rebut a guy who believes Wall Street and the banks have all the right answers for West Virginians’ phone service?

• Video No Longer Available.

Right from the outset, Cary wants to play “devil’s advocate” with Collins, asking why in the world the CWA is opposed to this deal.  That was a major departure from his cheerleading session with Arndt.

“I’ve looked at this […] their stock has been extremely stable.  Wall Street appears to be signaling their financial viability is okay.  Why is the stock market not reacting negatively?  If it’s good for stockholders, how can it be bad for their financial stability.  Stockholders want financial stability,” Cary said in a series of statements about the deal, including mentioning a Moody’s report on the deal.

The Moody’s report Cary talks about is for shareholders who will reap the rewards or suffer the losses based on the success or failure of the deal.  Moody doesn’t rate the deal’s impact on consumers who have to live with the results.  What’s good for Wall Street is not necessarily what’s best for customers.

“What you don’t have is anyone in the financial community suggesting this is a bad financial deal,” Cary said December 13th.

Wrong.  Almost a week earlier, on December 7th, D.A. Davidson, a respected Wall Street analyst said the opposite.  In a story published in Barron’s: “Frontier Communications’ Shares Not Wired for Success,” the analyst firm argued the regional telecom’s acquisition of Verizon’s rural lines will be… wait for it… bad for the stock.

Cary’s claim that Wall Street is concerned with the long term viability of companies belies the growing reality that much of the investment culture in America has a long term obsession with short term results.  Your company is only as good as your last quarter’s financial earnings statement, and several bad ones in a row are usually enough to bring a recommendation to dump shares.  Frontier has kept its stock value stable largely as a result of their steady dividend payment.  Collins claims Frontier has gone beyond reason, paying 125% of earnings in dividends.  That may make the stock a popular choice for income investors, but is also eerily familiar.

FairPoint Communications also enjoyed a healthy stock price because of its high dividend payout.  Wall Street only got concerned when they thought that deal might not go through.  Morgan Stanley issued a report in 2007 suggesting the deal between FairPoint and Verizon to take control of landline customers in Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine, was itself helping to prop up the stock’s value.  We saw how far that got FairPoint when the company declared bankruptcy a few months ago.

Indeed, smaller independent phone companies commonly use high dividends to remain attractive to investors and stay viable in a tough market.  Windstream is another such company and even CNBC’s Jim Cramer gave due diligence to the fact high dividends and stock value by themselves don’t necessarily predict the company’s long term success or failure.

Make no mistake, Frontier has sold this deal to investors based on dividend payouts, claimed cost savings, and a safe bet that any broadband in rural America will earn them increased revenue, especially where consumers have no other place to go for service.

Frontier will take on massive additional debt to finance the deal, but on paper it actually appears to reduce their debt ratio.  That’s because when you add millions of new customers, the debt doesn’t look so big next to the increased revenue those additional customers will bring, assuming they stay with Frontier.  Should Frontier’s performance underwhelm customers, they’ll drop service if they can.  If mobile phone networks do a better job of reaching these rural customers, many will drop landline service anyway.  When wireless broadband service becomes a more realistic option, customers might toss Frontier’s slow speed DSL overboard.

AT&T and Verizon have read the writing on the wall — an ongoing decline in landline service and the eventual death of the kind of service Frontier is providing its customers on its legacy network.  Would you be better off with a company that recognizes the truth about the future of wired basic phone service, or the one that wants to buy up obsolete networks and hang on until the last customer leaves?

Cary’s concern starts and stops with shareholder value, not the individual long term needs of consumers across West Virginia.

“All of the bankers and all of Wall Street are saying financially this is a good deal financially for Frontier,” Cary argued.

“Good for Wall Street, bad for West Virginia,” Collins replied.

“Well, see I disagree… that has been a myth put out there, and the reason we don’t have any jobs in this state is companies don’t want to come here just because of that mentality.  People need to make money.  You look at where companies are flourishing, the workers flourish when they do,” Cary said.

Really.  Then why are several of these telecommunications companies awash in revenue also continuing to reduce their workforce in their relentless effort to obtain “cost savings.”  Someone is making money, just not the average employee.  Every state has pro-business acolytes claiming businesses don’t want to come to their state because of regulation and a hostile business climate, even those with the fewest regulations, lowest taxes, and little protection for employees and consumers.

Cary does make one valid point: Verizon wants out of West Virginia and refuses to invest a dime in the state as it looks for a quick exit.  Instead the company has diverted resources from serving smaller states’ phone service needs into its larger city FiOS fiber to the home system where it believes it can reap more revenue.  Whether that disinvestment should be permitted in the first place is a question that needs to be asked.

Verizon is a regulated utility that is required to meet certain performance standards, and the company’s long history of operations under that framework, under which it profited handsomely, does require consideration.  But the state can also provide additional incentives to make it more attractive for Verizon to commit more resources in the state, ranging from tax credits, public-private investment, rewards for performance and service improvements, etc.  It can also find someone else to provide the service, or let local communities band together into cooperatives to run their own networks, should customers find that could deliver better service.

At the very minimum, Frontier should he held to strict conditions that require a fiscally responsible transaction for ratepayers, not just for shareholders and management.  Verizon’s workforce, already cut to the bone, should not bear the brunt of “cost savings” either, both now and into the future.  If Frontier wants to deliver broadband, they should commit to offering 21st century speed (not the 1-3Mbps service typical for their smaller service areas) without their draconian 5GB usage limit in their Acceptable Use Policy.

Cary doesn’t concern himself with those kinds of details, but consumers and small businesses in his state sure do.

Cary wants more jobs and more earnings for West Virginia.  In the changing digital economy, high speed broadband isn’t an option — it’s a necessity.  Verizon has a proven track record of being able to provide 21st century broadband — Frontier does not (sorry, 1-3Mbps DSL is more 1999, not 2010).

Cary makes an astonishing statement in the third segment of the interview which makes me question his ability to grasp the reality-based community most Americans live in today.

“I have great faith in the banking system in America, in Wall Street, to evaluate these things.”

That stunned Collins, who asked, “even after the 2008 crash?”

Cary seems to think “everything is back to normal.”  Unfortunately, after the bailouts and big lobbying dollars being spent in Washington to preserve the status quo as much as possible, everything is back to normal… for Wall Street and the banks.  The rest of the country, including West Virginia, is another matter.

I’ll put my trust in the wisdom of West Virginians who want good service and reasonable prices.  If Cary wants to read from the Good Book of the “paragons of virtue” like AIG, Bear-Stearns and Goldman Sachs, let him sell his TV stations to help finance the bailouts.  Remember that when we went through this before with Hawaii Telecom and FairPoint Communications, the cheerleading session on Wall Street lasted only as long as the quarterly balance sheets looked good.  At the first sign of trouble, they bailed on the stock and both companies ended up in bankruptcy.

For them, it represented just another roll of the dice in the giant financial casino we call Wall Street.

For the rural residents of states like West Virginia who ultimately have to live with the results, this is their phone and broadband service we are talking about.  Before all bets are placed and the dice are thrown, isn’t it worth considering them?

Public interest groups today began an offensive against the cable industry’s attempts to stave off potential online video competition with an industry dominated and controlled online video platform that guarantees consumers won’t cut cable’s cord.

Free Press, Media Access Project, Public Knowledge and Consumers Union are sending letters to the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission calling for a probe into the industry’s “TV Everywhere” project, designed to weed out non-cable subscribers from accessing online video programming.

The undertaking, which the industry claims will eventually rival Hulu in size and scope, seeks to provide their broadband customers with on-demand access to as much programming as possible, as long as they subscribe to a corresponding video programming and broadband service package.

Known in the industry as a “pay wall,” the system would assure pay television companies affiliated with the project that they will not lose subscribers from customers cutting the cord to watch programming online for free.  Consumer groups call that collusion, and accuse the industry of secretly meeting to outline the TV Everywhere concept and may be violating anti-trust laws in the process.

“The old media giants are working together to kill off innovative online competitors and carve up the market for themselves,” said Marvin Ammori, a law professor at the University of Nebraska and senior adviser to Free Press. Ammori’s report: TV Competition Nowhere: How the Cable Industry Is Colluding to Kill Online TV, is included in the mailing to the federal agencies.

Ammori says the industry has a long history of controlling behavior.

“Over the past decade, they have locked down and controlled TV set-top boxes to limit competing programming sources; they have considered imposing fees for high-capacity Internet use in ways that would discourage online TV viewing; and they have pressured programmers to keep their best content off the Internet,” Ammori writes.

In addition, these companies, which already dominate the Internet access market, have threatened to discriminate against certain online applications or have already been caught violating Network Neutrality. Indeed, the FCC issued an order in 2008 against Comcast for blocking technologies used to deliver online TV, noting the anti-competitive effect of this blocking. While it may be economically rational for cable, phone and satellite companies to squash online competitors, the use of anti-competitive tactics is bad for American consumers and the future of a competitive media industry.

The latest method of attack aimed at online TV, however, may be the most threatening — and is also likely illegal. Competition laws aim to ensure that incumbent companies fight to prevail by providing better services and changing with the times, not by using their existing dominant position and agreements to prevent new competitors from emerging.

TV Everywhere has a simple business plan, under which TV programmers like TNT, TBS and CBS will not make content available to a user via the Internet unless the user is also a pay TV subscriber through a cable, satellite or phone company. The obvious goal is to ensure that consumers do not cancel their cable TV subscriptions. But this plan also eliminates potential competition among existing distributors. Instead of being offered to all Americans, including those living in Cox, Cablevision and Time Warner Cable regions, Fancast Xfinity is only available in Comcast regions. The other distributors will follow Comcast’s lead, meaning that the incumbent distributors will not compete with one another outside of their “traditional” regions.

In addition, new online-only TV distributors are excluded from TV Everywhere. The “principles” of the plan, which were published by Comcast and Time Warner (a content company distinct from Time Warner Cable), clearly state that TV Everywhere is meant only for cable operators, satellite companies and phone companies. By design, this plan will exclude disruptive new entrants and result in fewer choices and higher prices for consumers.

This business plan, which transposes the existing cable TV model onto the online TV market, can only exist with collusion among competitors. As a result, TV Everywhere appears to violate several serious antitrust laws. Stripped of slick marketing, TV Everywhere consists of agreements among competitors to divide markets, raise prices, exclude new competitors, and tie products. According to published reports and the evident circumstances, TV Everywhere appears to be a textbook example of collusion. Only an immediate investigation by federal antitrust authorities and Congress can prevent incumbents from smothering nascent new competitors while giving consumers sham “benefits” that are a poor substitute for the fruits of real competition.

The benefits of controlling the marketplace of video and online entertainment is a lucrative one, earning players billions in profits each year.  Losing control of the business model risks the industry repeating the mistakes of the music industry, which overpriced its product and alienated consumers with annoying digital rights management technology and lawsuits.  It also risks a repeat of the newspaper industry which many in the cable industry believe made the critical mistake of giving away all of their content for free.

With online video services like Hulu generating enormous online traffic from its free video programming, the cable industry fears they might already be headed down the road newspapers paved.  TV Everywhere is part of a multi-pronged defense plan according to Ammori.

Indeed, what the industry cannot control themselves, Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and “consumption billing” can handily manage.

Ammoni notes:

Cable and phone companies have proposed cap-and-metered pricing for Internet service that appears to target online TV. Unlike the current all-you-can-eat monthly fee-plans, cap-and-metered pricing would charge users based on the capacity used. As a result, downloading or streaming large files will be more expensive than smaller files. In March 2009, Time Warner Cable announced metered pricing trials in four cities that would have made watching online TV cost prohibitive.

AT&T is testing a metering plan on its wireline U-verse service with hopes for national expansion. Even under generous allowances for bandwidth, users could not watch high-definition programming for many hours a day.

In response to trials by Time Warner Cable, a House bill was introduced in Congress, and Time Warner Cable dropped its immediate plans under consumer pressure. The company stated the plans would be reintroduced following a “customer education process.”

“Online TV is this nation’s best shot at breaking up the cable TV industry oligopolies and cartels. Permitting online distributors to compete vigorously on the merits for computer screens and TV screens will result in increased user choice, more rapid innovation, lower prices and a more robust digital democracy,” Ammoni concludes.