Cablevision's top executives head on out. Tom Rutledge (left) and John Bickham (right) left within weeks of each other.

The unexpected and sudden departure of two senior executives at Bethpage, N.Y.-based Cablevision has pushed the rumor mill into overdrive the cable company is about to be sold or taken private.

John Bickham, president of cable communications and chief operating officer Tom Rutledge will both be spending more quality time with their respective families after departing Cablevision.  Last Thursday’s announcement that Rutledge would resign caused Cablevision’s stock price to drop by nearly 14% during trading Friday.

The inevitable conclusion on Wall Street: Cablevision is about to be sold or taken private.

Major shareholders and investment firms have criticized Cablevision over the years for being “too successful” signing customers to fixed price double or triple-play packages that provide a full suite of products and services, but deliver few growth opportunities shareholders demand. With heavy competition from Verizon FiOS in most of their service areas, Cablevision’s ability to simply raise rates is limited, especially when customers bounce between promotional offers from the phone and cable companies.

Rutledge’s departure, in particular, has been seen as a major negative on Wall Street because he was responsible for many of Cablevision’s most innovative products, including streamed video, his advocacy for boosting broadband speeds, and the company’s aggressive move into home security.

Craig Moffett, a Wall Street analyst from Sanford Bernstein, thinks Comcast and Time Warner Cable are set to divide the spoils in a shared buyout — Comcast grabbing northern New Jersey and Connecticut and Time Warner Cable assuming control of Cablevision’s systems in New York.  But other analysts don’t think that scenario is so likely, especially when considering the Dolan family’s long history in the cable business.

ISI Group Inc. analyst Vijay Jayant told Light Reading Cable he believes the more likely scenario would have the Dolan family buying out shareholders and taking the cable company private.

Time Warner Cable has repeatedly informed shareholders the company will not engage in bidding wars or overpay to win new acquisitions, and the Dolan family’s selling price for Cablevision is likely far higher than Time Warner would be willing to pay.  Comcast might have a political problem assuming control of more cable systems after its recent merger with NBC-Universal.  Shareholders may also rebel, as they did in a 2007 effort to take Cablevision private.  Investors felt they were offered too low a price to compensate them for their shares.

Moffett believes Cablevision’s days of high earnings and rapid growth are behind them, because just about everyone who wants cable service already has it, either from Verizon FiOS or Cablevision.

“No, we don’t think [Cablevision] can grow. And, no, we don’t think the rest of cable is doomed to the same fate,” Bernstein’s Moffett wrote in a report in late November. “The cause of [Cablevision’s] growth decline is straightforward: it has been so successful in achieving high product penetrations that growing further is quite challenging.”

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Joyce Says Cablevision May Be a Takeover Target 12-16-11.mp4[/flv]

David Joyce, media analyst at Miller Tabak & Co., talks about Cablevision Systems Corp. Chief Operating Officer Tom Rutledge’s resignation and the outlook for the company.  Bloomberg News.  (5 minutes)

Internet Overcharging schemes bring even more profits to a cable industry that already enjoys a 95% gross margin on broadband service.

At least one major national cable company plans to implement a usage-based billing system in the coming year, predicts Sanford Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett.  Bloomberg News quotes Moffett in a piece that thinly references Time Warner Cable as that operator, whose CEO strongly believes in further monetizing broadband usage.

Moffett is among the chief cheerleaders hoping to see operators charge customers additional fees for their use of the Internet.

“In the end, it will be the best thing that ever happened to the cable industry,” Moffett said.

For customers, DISH Satellite chairman Charlie Ergen predicts it will lead to at least a $20 monthly surcharge for broadband users who watch online video, which could bring already sky-high broadband pricing to an unprecedented $70-80 a month, the same amount most cable operators now charge for standard digital cable-TV service.

The cable industry’s interest in being in the cable television business has waned recently as subscribers increasingly turn away from expensive cable packages.  Now companies that used to consider broadband a mildly-profitable add-0n increasingly see Internet access as the new mainstay (and profit center) of their business.

Time Warner Cable, for example, wasn’t even sure its entry in the broadband business in the late 90s would ever amount to much.  Fast forward a dozen years, and it is an entirely different story:

“We’re basically a broadband provider,” Peter Stern, chief strategy officer for New York-based Time Warner Cable, said Nov. 17 at the Future of Television conference in New York. “As a convenience for our customers, we package and distribute television and provide service around that.”

Bloomberg reports the cable industry profit margin on broadband is nearly 95 percent, a testament to the lack of competitive pressure on Internet pricing.  The industry is going where the money is to make up for increasing challenges to their video business, which currently “only” brings them a 60 percent profit margin.

Suddenlink, already enjoying a 12 percent increase in broadband revenue in the last quarter alone, is implementing its own Internet Overcharging scheme, charging $10 for every 50GB a customer exceeds their arbitrary usage allowance.  That, despite the fact CEO Jerry Kent admits Suddenlink’s broadband margins are double those earned from the cable company’s video business.

Complicit in the parade to Internet Overcharging is Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski, who publicly supported usage-based pricing in public statements made last December.  Cable operators were fearful Genachowski might lump the pricing scheme in with the Net Neutrality debate.  Providers have since used Genachowski’s loophole in an end run around Net Neutrality.  If providers cannot keep high volume video traffic from competitors like Netflix off their networks, they can simply make using those services untenable on the consumer side by increasing broadband pricing, already far more expensive than in other parts of the world.

That is a lesson already learned in Canada, where phone and cable companies routinely limit usage and slap overlimit fees on consumers who cross the usage allowance line.  Canada’s broadband ranking has been deteriorating ever since.

Moffett - The chief cheerleader for Internet Overcharging

Bloomberg says such a pricing regime would discourage investment in online video products that currently are held responsible for some cable cord-cutting:

“It’s the reason why Apple or Google would inevitably be reticent about committing a significant amount of capital to an online video model,” Moffett told Bloomberg. “You can’t simply assume just because you can buy the content more cheaply, you can offer a product that’s cheaper to the end user.”

The only way around this might be video providers like Google getting into the broadband business themselves, something Google is experimenting with in Kansas City.  Google’s “Think Big With a Gig” project is partly designed to prove gigabit broadband delivered over a fiber network is practical and doesn’t have to be unaffordable for consumers.  It will also finally bring competitive pressure on a comfortable broadband duopoly, at least for residents in one city.

So far, video providers who depend on an Internet distribution model are not putting much money in the fight against usage-billing.  Instead, companies like Netflix are releasing occasional press releases that decry the practice.

“[Usage billing] is not in the consumer’s best interest as consumers deserve unfettered access to a robust Internet at reasonable rates,” Steve Swasey, a Netflix spokesman, said previously.

It is clear consumers despise usage pricing.  In every survey conducted, a majority of respondents oppose limits on their broadband usage, especially at today’s prices.  But that may not be enough to get companies like Time Warner Cable to back off.  The company has reportedly been quietly testing usage meters since last summer.  CEO Glenn Britt, with a considerable drumbeat of support from Wall Street analysts like Mr. Bernstein, has never shelved the concept of usage pricing, seeing it more lucrative than hard usage caps.  The company retreated from a 2009 plan to charge up to $150 a month for flat rate access after consumers rebelled over planned trials in Texas, North Carolina, and New York.

But without a solid message of opposition from consumers, and an about-face from an FCC chairman that should know better, they’ll be back looking for more money soon enough.

[Thanks to regular Stop the Cap! reader Ron for sharing the news.]

Phillip 'Not Picking Up What Moffett Puts Down' Dampier

Tech, business, and even a few mainstream media outlets have been booking Sanford Bernstein’s Craig Moffett as an independent observer of all-things-broadband, without revealing he literally has a vested interest in boosting profits for the telecommunications industry.

The latest of Moffett’s heavily-slanted ideas appeared over the weekend on ZDNet, where Larry Dignan’s Between the Lines column used one of Bernstein’s “research notes” to provoke readers into a discussion about Internet Overcharging:

Metered broadband access is inevitable and may even be good for adoption of speedy Internet access.

That’s the argument from Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett in a research note. Moffett sets the scene:

• The FCC’s open Internet push allows for metered broadband.
• AT&T has introduced usage caps across its wireline business. DSL customers are limited to 150 GB of monthly consumption. U-Verse subscribers get 250 GB, or the same as Comcast. Users will be charged an extra $10 a month if they exceed the cap and it’s $10 per 50 GB after that.
• AT&T has already introduced tiered wireless plans.
• Time Warner Cable has a few usage based pricing pilots underway.

Moffett

Nowhere in Dignan’s column does he disclose Moffett is a paid Wall Street analyst working for the interests of investor clients of Sanford Bernstein who want to maximize the value of their telecommunications stocks.  Moffett’s long history of statements about industry pricing reflect those interests, which are often very different from those of most consumers.  Moffett’s world view: anything that brings in more revenue is good for shareholders (rate hikes, metered billing), anything that drives down shareholder value is not (infrastructure upgrades, pricing cuts, customer defections).

On that basis, Moffett has been called a “cable stock fluffer” by our friends at Broadband Reports for his relentlessly pro-cable industry commentary, even while ridiculing transformational projects like Verizon’s FiOS fiber to the home network for being “too expensive” and not delivering enough return on shareholder investment.  Consumer Reports delivers the opposite view: high marks for Verizon FiOS, mediocre to lousy marks for most of the nation’s cable operators.

While there is nothing inherently wrong with Moffett doing his job on behalf of his paying clients, using his views outside of that context — particularly when those interests go undisclosed — is journalistic malpractice.

Oh, and Time Warner Cable abandoned their usage-based pricing pilots in 2009 after customers declared war on the cable company.  Those darn customers, ruining the industry’s plans!

The rest of Moffett’s research note doesn’t get much better in the “true facts”-department:

The goal of moving to usage based pricing is not to undermine competition from Netflix (or anyone else… although it certainly wouldn’t be good news for Internet video). And it is most decidedly not to simply “raise prices for broadband” as Public Knowledge or New America would have it (although it might well do precisely that, too). Instead, it is nothing less than to re-align the entire business model of today’s infrastructure providers with the next generation of communications… so that broadband providers might stop fighting against the tide and embrace it instead.

With usage based pricing, broadband providers, and Cable operators in particular, can create an “iso-profit” curve, where the amount they make from a physical connection is about the same whether someone uses that connection for linear video or, alternatively, web video. The goal is not to stifle competition, but instead to create indifference not just to the end state of video by-pass, but indeed for all points along the way. The adoption of usage based pricing would be transformational to the debate for Cable operators, inasmuch as it would essentially indemnify them against all potential outcomes.

Moffett represents his interests, not yours.

Yet some of Moffett’s earlier statements would seem to argue with himself.

For instance, back in March Moffett was making plenty of noise about AT&T’s caps precisely targeting video providers like Netflix:

Moffett believes usage caps have everything to do with stopping the torrent of online video.  He notes AT&T’s caps are set high enough to target AT&T customers who use their connections to watch a considerable amount of video programming online.

“Only video can drive that kind of usage,” Moffett writes.

Moffett has repeatedly predicted any challenge to pay television models from online video will be met with pricing plans that eliminate or reduce the threat:

“[I]f consumption patterns change such that web video begins to substitute for linear video, then the terrestrial broadband operators will simply adopt pricing plans that preserve the economics of their physical infrastructure,” Moffett said. “Of course, any move to preserve their own economics has far-ranging implications. Any move towards usage-based pricing doesn’t just affect the returns of the operators, it also affects the demand of end users (the ‘feedback loop’).”

The only thing usage-based pricing indemnifies is the industry’s confrontation with revenue-eroding cable-TV cord-cutting.  And Moffett knows this, although he would probably give rave reviews to bringing similar usage-based-billing to cable television packages, which would charge you for every show you watched on top of your monthly bill.

These pricing models, already firmly rooted in Canada, have done nothing to bring the “next generation of communications” to our neighbors to the north.  Indeed, Canada’s ranking in broadband continues its decline as large cable and phone companies pocket the profits instead of committing to wholesale upgrades of their networks to deliver the kind of service increasingly common in Europe and Asia.

But the real laugh out loud moment comes last: Moffett’s prediction that AT&T’s usage pricing will increase broadband adoption.  Perhaps that’s true if you prefer telecommunications companies abuse you, but as we’ve documented over the past three years, these pricing schemes never save anyone money — they just increase the price of your service while decreasing the value of it.

Click to enlarge

Your cable company has a problem.  Collectively, the cable industry has lost more than 2 million video customers over the past year, and the problem may be getting worse.  Some of the largest cable companies in the United States are making excuses for the historic losses:

• The bad economy
• Housing and foreclosure crisis
• High unemployment
• Family budget-cutting

But cable companies should be rethinking their excuses, according to a new report from Strategy Analytics.

“Throughout the past seven consecutive quarters of subscriber losses, the inclination of cable has been to point the finger at various external factors,” said Ben Piper, Director of the Strategy Analytics Multiplay Market Dynamics service. “Our analysis shows that neither the economy nor the housing market is to blame for these subscriber defections. The problem is one of value perception.”

Value perception.  That’s a measurement of whether or not one feels they are getting good value for the money they pay for a product or service.  Value comes in several different forms, starting with emotional — do I feel good, safe, secure, or nostalgic using the service?  Can I imagine life without it?  What about my friends and family — will I stand out if I am not buying this product?  It’s also practical — Can I afford this?  Can I find a cheaper or better alternative?  Do I really need this service anymore?

Tied into value perception is customer goodwill.  If you have an excellent experience with a company, letting go of their products comes much harder.  If you feel forced to deal with a company that has delivered poor and expensive service for years, pent up frustration will make it much easier (and satisfying) to cut them loose at the first opportunity.

Embarq used to be Sprint's pathway to prosperity in the local landline business, until cord cutting put landlines into a death spiral.

In the telecommunications industry, value perception is a proven fact of life.  It began with phone companies.  Formerly a monopoly, landline providers have been forced to try and reinvent themselves and become more customer-friendly.  First long distance companies like Sprint and MCI moved in to deliver cheaper (and often better quality) long distance service.  Sprint even got into the landline business themselves, forming EMBARQ, which at its peak was the largest independent phone company in the United States.  When Voice Over IP providers like Vonage and the cable industry’s “digital phone” products arrived, they promised phone bills cut in half, and introduced the concept of unlimited long distance calling.

The value perception among consumers became clear as they began disconnecting their landlines.  The alternative providers offered cheaper, unlimited calling services, often bundled with phone features the local phone company charged considerably more to receive.  Even though VOIP is technically inferior in call quality in many instances, the value the services provided made the decision to cut the phone cord easier.

But local phone company landline losses would only accelerate with the ubiquity of the cell phone, but for different reasons.  What began with high per-minute charges for wireless calls evolved into larger packages of calling allowances, with plenty of free minutes during nights and weekends, and often free calling to those called the most.  Most Americans end the month with unused calling minutes.  As smartphones gradually take a larger share of the cell phone market, the accompanying higher bills have forced a value perception of a different kind — ‘I can’t afford to keep my landline –and– my cell phone, so I’ll disconnect the landline.’

The cable industry has traditionally faced fewer competitive threats and regularly alienates a considerable number of customers, but still keep their business despite annual rate increases and unwanted channels shoveled into ever-growing packages few people want.

This pent up frustration with the cable company has led to perennial calls for additional competition.  That originally came from satellite television, which involved hardware customers didn’t necessarily like, and no option for a triple play package of phone and broadband service.  The cable industry offers both, and by effectively repricing their products to discourage defections from bundled packages, customers soon discovered the resulting savings from satellite TV were often less than toughing it out with the cable company.

As a result, satellite television has never achieved a share of more than 1/3rd of the video market.  Many satellite customers are in non-cable areas, signed up because of a deeply discounted price promotion, were annoyed with the cable company, or didn’t care about the availability of broadband or phone service.  When the price promotion ends or technical issues arise, many customers switch back to cable.

More recently, researchers like Strategy Analytics have discovered some potential game-changers in the paid video marketplace:

• The impact of broadband-delivered video content
• The Redbox phenomena
• Competition from Telco TV
• The digital television conversion

Strategy Analytics studied consumer perceptions and found customers braver than ever before about their plans to cut cable’s cord.  According to the consumers surveyed, nobody scores lower in value perception than cable companies.  Citing “low value for money,” over half of the cable subscribers surveyed told the research firm they intended to disconnect their cable TV package in the near future.

While other researchers dismiss those high numbers as bravado, there are clear warnings for the industry.

“Much ink has been spilled on the topic of cord cutting and even skeptics are now admitting that it can’t be ignored,” said Piper.

Indeed, Craig Moffett, an analyst with Sanford Bernstein who almost never says a discouraging word about his beloved cable industry, told Ad Age Mediaworks the issue of cord-cutting was real.

“It’s hard to pretend that cord cutting simply isn’t happening,” Moffett said.

Craig E. Moffett, perennial cable stock booster, even admits cord-cutting is real.

The most dramatic impact on the cable industry has been in the ongoing erosion of the number of premium channel subscribers, those willing to pay up to $14 a month for HBO, Cinemax, Showtime, or Starz!.  The reason?  Low value for money.  As HBO loses subscribers, Netflix and Redbox gain many of them.  Netflix still delivers a considerable number of movies by mail, but has an increasingly large library of instant viewing options over broadband connections.  Strategically placed Redbox kiosks deliver a convenient, and budget-minded alternative.

The loss of real wage growth, the housing collapse, and the down-turned economy do put pricing pressures on the industry, but some cable executives hope the time-honored tradition of customers howling about rate increases without ever actually dropping cable service continues.

But as new platforms emerge, some delivering actual pricing competition to the cable TV package, increasing numbers of customers are willing to take their video business somewhere else.  Some are stopped at the last minute with a heavily discounted customer retention pricing package, but that doesn’t keep them from sampling alternative online video options.  Among those who actually do leave, some are satisfied with the increased number of channels they get for free over-the-air after America’s digital television conversion.

Many others are switching to new offerings from telephone companies.  Both AT&T and Verizon deliver video packages to many of their customers, often at introductory prices dramatically lower than their current cable TV bill.  When considering a bill for $160 for phone, video, and broadband from the cable company or $99 for the same services from the phone company, $60 a month in savings for the first year or two is quite a value perception, and the inevitable disconnect order is placed with the cable company.

Ad Age‘s own survey, more skeptical about cord-cutting, confirmed that many former cable TV customers left for budgetary reasons, but many also kept their triple play packages.  They just bought them from someone else.

Also confirmed: a dramatic upswing in online viewing, sometimes paid but often ad-supported or free.

Strategy Analysts concludes in its report, available for $1,999, that the ongoing erosion of cable TV subscribers isn’t irreversible, but it requires urgency among providers to become more customer-friendly and increase the all-important value perception.

In other words: respecting the needs and wishes of your customers.

Thankfully, the cable industry is dealing with competitors like AT&T, who are willing to assassinate their current lead in value perception by slapping Internet Overcharging pricing schemes on their broadband service.  That will certainly raise the ire of their DSL and U-verse customers, many who are treating the customer unfriendly usage limits as an invitation to leave.  Their former cable companies are waiting to welcome them back.  The real question remains, will cable customers now be treated better?