Suddenly Bought

Well-compensated management at Suddenlink are teaming up with private equity firm BC Partners and the Canada Pension Plan’s CPP Investment Board to buy out Suddenlink Communications in a deal for the $6.6 billion company.

The transaction will leave Suddenlink’s founder and current CEO Jerry Kent in charge and part-owner of the company. Some other members of top management are also participating in the buyout deal.

Suddenlink is currently owned by investment bank Goldman Sachs through its private equity arm, Quadrangle Group LLC and Oaktree Capital Management LP.

The buyers will assume $4 billion of Suddenlink’s outstanding debt and BC Partners and CPP Investment Board are taking on $500 million of additional debt to fund the purchase.

Kent

Kent says the deal is designed to infuse additional capital into Suddenlink’s operations, which primarily serve smaller communities in Texas, West Virginia, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arizona, and Arkansas. Suddenlink launched in 2003 with the acquisition of discarded cable systems originally owned by Cox and Charter Communications. Today the company serves 1.4 million residential customers, making it the seventh largest cable operator in the country.

With Kent remaining in charge, few changes are expected. In 2011, Suddenlink adopted an Internet Overcharging scheme including usage caps and overlimit fees that it is gradually rolling out to all of its customers.

Investors see revenue growth opportunities from Suddenlink, particularly as it further monetizes broadband.

“This represents a unique opportunity to acquire a leading cable operator that has consistently generated industry-leading results,” said André Bourbonnais, who heads private investments for CPPIB.

Kent had been reportedly shopping the cable system around to private-equity firms over the past several months, on the condition he got to remain in charge and early investors could cash out.

Lovett – Paid nearly double his 2010 salary for even worse results.

The man hired specifically to improve dismal customer satisfaction ratings for Charter Communications has walked away from the company with more than $20 million in pay in 2011 after just over two years at the helm, even as the company’s ratings grew worse.

Michael Lovett assumed the CEO position at Charter after the company emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy in November, 2009. Lovett was charged with cleaning up the company’s lousy reputation for customer service, service quality, and pricing.

He resigned this past February leaving Charter with an even poorer customer satisfaction rating. Now a filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission discloses he walked away with $1.3 million in salary and $19.24 million in bonuses, golden parachutes, stock awards, and other resignation-related benefits — almost double the pay he received in 2010.

Charter is legendary for billing errors, disinterested customer service representatives, Internet Overcharging schemes that limit broadband consumption, poor quality repair and installation work, and inadequate infrastructure.

In July, 2011 Atlantic magazine named Charter the 5th most-hated company in America, and only received a satisfaction rating of 59/100 in the American Customer Satisfaction Index.

This year, the “don’t care bears” of cable did even worse — achieving the rank of 3rd most-hated company in America, stiffing customers with bait and switch promotions customers never received, even shoddier customer service and dodgy billing practices.

“I’d rather have AT&T, and that should tell you something,” shares Thom, a Charter customer in St. Louis. “You can’t believe how bad a cable company can be until you’ve dealt with Charter. You have a better chance of being dealt with fairly in a mob-run casino.”

“Shareholders must be among the dumbest people in America to watch this company flush more than $30 million down Lovett’s bank account for two years and accomplishing the amazing task of actually making things worse,” Thom writes. “He’s proof that throwing money at a problem does not work, no matter how many press releases Charter puts out.”

Charter is now being run by an ex-executive from Cablevision Industries, who has spent his tenure luring other Cablevision mid and high level executives to join him at Charter. President and CEO Tom Rutledge, chief operating officer John Bickham, and chief marketing officer Jonathan Hargis — former Cablevision executives now show up for work at a New York office Charter opened specifically for them.

“Nothing ever changes at Charter,” says Thom. “Instead of spending money actually improving service, they’re opening new executive suites in expensive New York just so the top brass need not slum it here in St. Louis. It’s good to know they have their priorities straight.”

The Better Business Bureau has processed more than 5,000 customer complaints against Charter in the past three years, most eventually resolved through Charter’s executive escalation office in Simpsonville, S.C.

Charter Communications reported a net loss of $94 million in the first quarter ended March 31.

Stop the Cap! has suddenly started receiving a larger number of complaints about AT&T’s Internet Overcharging scheme in the past two weeks, indicating to us the company has started cracking down more forcefully on usage cap “violators.”

Those who purchased AT&T U-verse in an effort to avoid usage caps from their local cable company are particularly upset, because the phone company still markets its U-verse service as being ‘bandwidth-limit-free.’

AT&T advertises its U-verse service to this day as bandwidth limit free.

“We don’t limit your bandwidth to a particular amount,” promises AT&T in prominent language on its website. The fine print says something very different — AT&T limits the amount of usage customers get before being exposed to overlimit fees — 150GB for DSL, 250GB for U-verse. It is part of what the company calls wired “data plans.”

AT&T U-verse has a 250GB usage cap hidden in the fine print.

“It’s false advertising,” counters AT&T customer Don Brown. “Anyone who reads their promise of ‘no bandwidth limitations’ is going to assume that means no limits, but when I questioned company representatives about the promise, they pull out every trick in the book.”

Brown says one customer service representative told him ‘bandwidth limits’ refer to broadband speed — AT&T does not throttle its customers. Another said the ad claim meant that customers could keep paying AT&T additional money for as much usage as they want or need. But Brown believes AT&T knows better than that.

“When I signed up for service, I asked the salesperson who took my order if there were limits and they said there were none, period,” Brown says. “Not a word was spoken about 250GB limits or overlimit fees. I’m not buying their excuses — what wired ISP throttles customer speeds?”

In fact, AT&T itself defines “bandwidth” much the same way Brown does (underlining ours):

The term bandwidth can take on many meanings. In the case of AT&T U-verse products and services, the term bandwidth is commonly used when referring to computer networking and measuring Internet usage.

The amount of Internet usage is displayed in upload and download amounts. This would commonly be known as the amount of bandwidth the User used during a particular time.

Brown also has no access to any usage monitor or measurement tool, and AT&T told him he “can relax” because the company would send warnings when it noticed his usage was coming perilously close to the limit. But that makes planning around monthly usage limits difficult, because he has no idea what his usage is from day to day.

A week ago, he received his first warning in an e-mail message from AT&T, which was the first indication he was living under a usage cap.

“They are in a real hurry to collect more money from me but they don’t have their ducks in a row on an accurate meter I can depend on,” Brown says. “Would the local power, water, or gas company get away with that? I don’t think so.”

Brown decided AT&T’s “dishonesty,” as he puts it, made him cancel his service. He does not trust the phone company to accurately measure anything.

“At least I know the cable company is a pocket-picking crook so I can be on guard for their next move,” Brown says. “AT&T is more like the thief in the night that robs you blind while you are upstairs, asleep in bed.”

Chris Savage discovered AT&T’s “stealthy” 150GB usage cap on his DSL account when he received an e-mail warning of his own. He gets one more, after which AT&T will “bill shock” him with overlimit fees.

You have exceeded 150GB this billing period.

[…] The next time you exceed 150GB you’ll be notified, but not billed. However if you go over your data plan in any subsequent billing period, we’ll provide you with an additional 50GB of data for $10. You’ll be charged $10 for every incremental 50GB of usage beyond your plan.

AT&T DSL service has a sneaky 150GB usage cap in the fine print.

AT&T really isn’t interested in hearing questions or concerns about their “data plan,” telling customers at the bottom of the message:

Please do not reply to this email. This address is automated, unattended and cannot help with questions or requests.

Savage never knew AT&T implemented an Internet Overcharging scheme:

“This e-mail seemed to say to me, ‘We changed the rules on you without telling you and now you’ve broken them, so we’ll let you off this time, but consider yourself warned!'”

Savage has already cut cable’s cord and watches his television shows online, exactly what big phone and cable companies do not want their customers doing.

The bottom line is that 150GB is not enough for people like me who work at home, rely on Netflix for any kind of TV/Movies (since I don’t have cable or any other TV), have gamers in the house and run a website. What this means for me is that, once again I will have to cancel Netflix because watching just one movie or show per day would mean I would reach my cap about 2/3 of the way into the month. And that is if nobody else in the house watches anything on it, plays any online games or downloads anything.

In the end, it appears AT&T won and Netflix lost. Savage reports after going over AT&T’s limit two months in a row, he canceled his Netflix account — the only television service he had. AT&T DSL cannot even support one movie a night and one or two streamed cooking shows here and there without pushing the family over the limit AT&T imposes.

Lowering the bar on customers by increasing the maximum overlimit fee. It’s another example of Rogers’ Broadband Limbo Dance.

Rogers Communications is quietly notifying its broadband customers it is doubling the overlimit fee for excessive use of its broadband service from $50 to $100, effective Aug. 16, 2012.

The company characterizes the new maximum fee as “protecting you from unexpected high charges,” but of course does nothing of the sort. Rogers’ charges eastern Canada some of the continent’s most expensive prices around for usage-limited broadband. Its Internet Overcharging scheme has relied on all of the classic tricks of the trade to get consumers to pay higher and higher prices for broadband service, while assuring investors the company can rake in additional profits at will just by adjusting your allowance and overlimit fee.

Companies that introduce usage caps and consumption billing are monetizing broadband usage. By adjusting prices upwards and reducing usage allowances, customers can find themselves paying confiscatory overlimit fees. But until recently companies in Canada capped the maximum overlimit penalties. Over the last three years, those maximum fees have increased dramatically, and some companies like Cogeco have removed the maximum limit altogether.

While Rogers’ cost to deliver service continues to decline, these kinds of policy changes can cause broadband bills to soar, especially when customers are in overlimit territory.

Rogers (with thanks to Broadband Reports readers who shared the text):

“To protect you from unexpected high charges, we currently cap the maximum monthly amount you can be charged for additional internet usage at $50 in addition to your Hi-Speed Internet plan’s monthly service fee, modem rental fee (if applicable) and taxes. Effective August 16, 2012 this monthly limit will be increased to $100 in addition to your plan’s monthly service fee, modem rental fee (if applicable) and taxes. If you exceed the monthly usage allowance included in your Hi-Speed Internet plan you will begin to see charges up to the new limit beginning on your first invoice on or after September 16, 2012. All other aspects of your Rogers service(s) will remain the same. Remember, you can track your internet usage online by signing into My Rogers at rogers.com/myinternetusage. For more information or questions please contact us in any of the ways listed on page 2 of this invoice. Thank you.”

Customers can use the occasion of Rogers’ contract changes to potentially switch providers without paying early cancellation fees. This process is more straightforward in Quebec, according to the company’s terms and conditions.

Quebec Residents Only

Unless otherwise specified in the Service Agreement, we may change, at any time, but upon no less than 30 days’ prior written notice to you:

• a) with respect to a  plan or Service not subscribed to for a Commitment Period (as defined below), any charges, features, content, functionality, structure or any other aspects of the plan or Service, as well as any term or provision of the Service Agreement, and
• b) with respect to a plan or Service subscribed to for a Commitment Period, any aspect of the plan or Service, as well as any term or provision of the Service Agreement, other than essential elements of the plan, Service or Service Agreement.

If the change entails an increase in your obligations or a decrease in our obligations and if you do not accept such a change, you may terminate your Services without an ECF (as defined below) by sending us a notice to that effect no later than 30 days after the amendment takes effect.

Rogers’ Customers Elsewhere in Canada

Unless otherwise specified in the Service Agreement, we may change, at any time, any charges, features, content, functionality, structure or any other aspects of the Services, as well as any term or provision of the Service Agreement, upon notice to you. If you do not accept a change to the affected Services, your sole remedy is to terminate the affected Services provided under the Service Agreement, within 30 days of your receipt of our notice of change to the Services (unless we specify a different notice period), by providing us with advance notice of termination pursuant to Section 34. If you do not accept a change to these Terms, your sole remedy is to retain these Terms unchanged for the duration of the Commitment Period (as defined below), upon notice to us within 30 days of your receipt of our notice of change to these Terms.

While Quebec residents have a clear path to avoid Rogers’ ECF, customers elsewhere may be subject to an early cancellation fee because of Section 9 of Rogers’ agreement:

Unless otherwise set out in the Materials, if you agree to subscribe to one of our plans or Services for a committed period of time (the “Commitment Period”), you may be subject to an early cancellation fee (“ECF”) for each Service. Any decrease in your Commitment Period may be subject to a fee. If your Service is terminated prior to the end of the Commitment Period, you will pay us an ECF as specified in the Service Agreement, plus taxes.

Customers outside of Quebec may want to check with Rogers directly to determine if an early cancellation fee will apply when canceling service because of the change in maximum overlimit fees.

Customers leaving Rogers can find better deals for broadband services from independent ISPs like TekSavvy or Start.

Phillip “They Want to Save You Money By Charging You More” Dampier

The pro-Internet Overcharging forces’ meme of “pay for what you use” sounds good in theory, but no broadband provider in the country would dare switch to a true consumption-based billing system for broadband, because it would destroy predictable profits for a service large cable and phone companies hope you cannot live without.

Twenty years ago, the cable industry could raise rates on television packages with almost no fear consumers would cancel service. When I produced a weekly radio show about the cable and satellite television industry, cable companies candidly told me they expected vocal backlashes from customers every time a rate increase notice was mailed out, but only a handful would actually follow through on threats to cut the cord. Now that competition for your video dollar is at an all-time-high, providers are shocked (and some remain in denial) that customers are actually following through on their threats to cut the cord. Goodbye Comcast, Hello Netflix!

Some Wall Street analysts have begun warning their investor clients that the days of guaranteed revenue growth from video subscribers are over, risking profits as customers start to depart when the bill gets too high. Cable companies have always increased rates faster than the rate of inflation, and investors have grown to expect those reliable profits, so the pressure to make up the difference elsewhere has never been higher.

With broadband, cable and phone companies may have found a new way to bring back the Money Party, and ride the wave of broadband usage to the stratosphere, earning money at rates never thought possible from cable-TV. The ticket to OPEC-like rivers of black gold? Usage-based billing.

Since the early days of broadband, most Americans have enjoyed flat rate access through a cable or phone company at prices that remained remarkably stable for a decade — usually around $40 a month for standard speed service.

In the last five years, as cord-cutting has grown beyond a phenomena limited to Luddites and satellite dish owners, the cable industry has responded. As they learned customers’ love of broadband has now made the service indispensable in most American homes, providers have been jacking up the price.

Time Warner Cable, for example, has increased prices for broadband annually for the last three years, especially for customers who do not subscribe to any other services.

Customers dissatisfaction with rate hikes has not led to broadband cord cutting, and in fact might prove useful on quarterly financial reports -and- for advocating changes in the way broadband service is priced:

1. Enhance revenue and profits, replacing lost ground from departing video customers and the slowing growth of new customers signing up for video and phone services (and keeping average revenue per user ((ARPU)) on the increase);
2. Using higher prices to provoke an argument about changing the way broadband service is sold.

Pouring over quarterly financial reports from most major providers shows remarkable consistency:

• The costs to provide broadband service are declining, even with broadband usage growth;
• Revenue and profits enjoy a healthy growth curve, especially as increased prices on existing customers make up for fewer new customer additions;
• Earnings from broadband are now so important, a cable company like Time Warner Cable now refers to itself as a broadband company. It is not alone.

Still, it is not enough. As usage continues to grow in the current monopoly/duopoly market, providers are drooling with anticipation over the possibility of scrapping the concept of “flat rate” broadband, which limits the endless ARPU growth Wall Street demands. If a company charges a fixed rate for a service, it cannot grow revenue from that service unless it increases the price, sells more expensive tiers of service, or innovates new products and services to sell.

Providers have enjoyed moderate success selling customers more expensive, faster service, also on a flat rate basis. But that still leaves money on the table, according to Wall Street-based “usage billing” advocates like Craig Moffett, who see major ARPU growth charging customers more and more money for service as their usage grows.

Moffett has a few accidental allies in the blogger world who seem to share his belief in “usage-based” billing. Lou Mazzucchelli, reading the recent New York Times piece on Time Warner’s gradual move towards usage pricing, frames his support for consumption billing around the issue of affordability. In his view, usage pricing is better for consumers and the industry:

It costs real money to upgrade networks to keep pace with this demand, and those costs are ultimately borne by the subscriber. So in the US, we have carriers trying to raise their rates to offset increases in capital and operating expenses to the point where consumers are beginning to push back, and the shoving has come to the attention of the Federal Communications Commission, which has raised the possibility of treating Internet network providers as common communications carriers subject to regulation.

I believe that flat-rate pricing is a major source of problems for network carriers and consumers. In the carrier world, the economics are known but ignored because marketers believe that flat rates are the only plans consumers will accept. But in the consumer world, flat rates are rising to incomprehensible levels for indecipherable reasons, with little recourse except disconnection. Consumer dissatisfaction is rising, in part because consumers feel they have no control over the price they have to pay. This is driven by their sense of pricing inequity that is hard to visualize but comes from implicit subsidies in the current environment. The irony is that pay-per-use pricing solves the problem for carriers and consumers.

Mazzucchelli reposted his blog piece originally written in 2010 for the benefit of Times readers. Two years ago, he measured his usage at 11GB a month. His provider Verizon Communications was charging him $64.99 a month for 25Mbps service, which identifies him as a FiOS fiber to the home customer.  Mazzucchelli argues the effective price he was paying for Internet access was $5.85 for each of the 11GB he consumed, which seemed steep at the time. (Not anymore, if you look at wireless company penalty rates which range from $10-15/GB or more.)

Mazzucchelli theorized that if he paid on a per-packet basis, instead of flat rate service based on Internet speed, he could pay something like $0.0000025 per packet, which would result in a bill of $31.91 for his 11GB instead of $65. For him, that’s money saved with usage billing.

On its face, it might seem to make sense, especially for light users who could pay less under a true usage-based pricing scenario like the one he proposes.

Verizon Communications is earning more average revenue per customer than ever with its fiber to the home network. That’s about the only bright spot Wall Street recognizes from Verizon’s fiber network, which some analysts deride as “too expensive.”

Unfortunately for Mazzucchelli, and others who claim usage-based pricing will prove a money-saver, the broadband industry has some bad news for you. Usage pricing simply cannot be allowed to save you, and other current customers money. Why? Because Wall Street will never tolerate pricing that threatens the all-important ARPU. In the monopoly/duopoly home broadband marketplace most Americans endure, it would be the equivalent of unilaterally disarming in the war for revenue and profits.

That is why broadband providers will never adopt a true usage-based billing system for customers. It would cannibalize earnings for a service that already enjoys massive markups above true cost. In 2009, Comcast was spending under $10 a month to sell broadband service priced above $40.

Mazzucchelli

Instead, providers design “usage-based” billing around rates comparable to today’s flat rate pricing, only they slap arbitrary maximum usage allowances on each tier of service, above which consumers pay an overlimit fee penalty. That would leave Mazzucchelli choosing a lower speed, lower usage allowance plan to maximize his savings, if his use of the Internet didn’t grow much. On a typical light use plan suitable for his usage, he would subscribe to 1-3Mbps service with a 10GB allowance, and pay the overlimit fee for one extra gigabyte if he wanted to maximize his broadband dollar.

But his usage experience would be dramatically different, both because he would be encouraged to use less, fearing he might exceed his usage allowance, and he would be “enjoying” the Internet at vastly slower speeds. If Mazzucchelli went with higher speed service, he would still pay prices comparable for flat rate service, and receive a usage allowance he personally would find unnecessarily large. The result for him would be little to no savings and a usage allowance he did not need.

Mazzucchelli’s usage pattern is probably different today than it was in 2010. Is he still using 11GB a month? If he uses double the amount he did two years ago, under his own pricing formula, the savings he sought would now be virtually wiped out, with a broadband bill for 22GB of consumption running $63.82. By the following year, usage-based pricing would cost even more than Verizon’s unlimited pricing, as average use of the Internet continues to grow.

That helps the broadband industry plenty but does nothing for consumers. Mazzucchelli might be surprised to learn that the “real money to upgrade networks to keep pace with this demand,” is actually more than covered under today’s profit margins for flat-rate broadband. In fact, if he examines financial reports over the last five years and the statements company executives make to shareholders, virtually all of them speak in terms of reducing capital investments and the declining costs to deliver broadband, even as usage grows.

Verizon’s fiber network, while expensive to construct, is already earning the company enormous boosts in ARPU over traditional copper wire phone service. While Wall Street howled about short term capital costs to construct the network, then-CEO Ivan Seidenberg said fiber optics was the vehicle that will drive Verizon earnings for decades selling new products and services that its old network could never deliver.

Still, is Mazzucchelli paying too much for his broadband at both 2010 and 2012 prices? Yes he is. But that is not a function of the cost to deliver broadband service. It is the result of a barely competitive marketplace that has an absence of price-moderating competitors. Usage-based pricing in today’s broadband market assures lower costs for providers by retarding usage. It also brings even higher profits from bigger broadband bills as Internet usage grows, with no real relationship to the actual costs to provide the service. It also protects companies from video package cord-cutting, as customers will find online viewing prohibitively expensive.

One need only look at pricing abroad to see how much Americans are gouged for Internet service. Unlimited high speed Internet is available in a growing number of countries for $20-40 a month.

Usage-based billing is a dead end that might deliver temporary savings now, but considerably higher broadband bills soon after. It is not too late to turn the car around and join us in the fight to keep unlimited broadband, enhance competition, and win the lower prices users like Mazzucchelli crave.