Time Warner Cable’s summer was “horrible,” to quote one analyst, after three percent of customers left over programming disputes and increasing prices for broadband and telephone service, with more likely to follow as price promotions expire and rates increase further.

Cable analysts were shocked Time Warner Cable lost 308,000 customers in the last three months, most leaving over interruptions of CBS and Showtime over a contract dispute. But customers were also ready to leave over increasing modem rental fees, rate increases, and the company’s growing pullback on promotional pricing. Time Warner Cable’s poor results have ironically caused its stock price to increase this morning, but only because investors suspect a shareholder value-boosting merger with Charter Communications could come within months.

“Just horrible,” MoffetNathanson analyst Craig Moffett wrote in a note to investor clients this morning. “The CBS dispute apparently took a much larger toll than anyone would have imagined, and this colored all the results.”

Sources have told Reuters that cable billionaire John Malone has approached Time Warner Cable about a full takeover by Charter Communications, but has been rebuffed by Britt so far. But with Britt exiting and Time Warner Cable’s underperformance, shareholder pressure for a deal with Charter will only increase.

“This enhances Malone’s appeal to Time Warner Cable shareholders that they would be better off with another management team,” Brean Capital analyst Todd Mitchell told Reuters.

When promotional prices end, a growing percentage of TWC customers drop services or take their business elsewhere.

The subscriber losses pushed profits down 34 percent at the cable company, to $532 million. The triple play tragedy saw subscriber losses for all the company’s residential services. At a time when other cable companies cannot process High Speed Internet sign ups fast enough, at least 24,000 Time Warner Cable broadband customers left over rate hikes and equipment fees. Analysts had expected the company to pick up more than 46,000 broadband customers during the last three months, not lose them. The company’s phone service is also in decline. Only rate increases and customers upgrading to higher speed tiers delivered a slight revenue boost.

Outgoing CEO Glenn Britt set the stage for the current forced retreat on its revenue forecast for the year:

• Time Warner Cable executives made the decision at the end of 2012 to stop heavily discounting service and cut back on promotions. Their theory was the company would attract a larger base of stable customers willing to pay non-promotional rates and tolerate rate increases;
• Executives announced as Time Warner’s phone service was brought “in-house,” the company would stop aggressively pricing triple play bundles that included phone service. That turned out to be a bad decision for growth because customers, already prone to landline cord-cutting, downgraded their bundle or left when promotions expired and ditched the phone line;
• A year of broadband price increases and the introduction of a modem rental fee rubbed customers the wrong way. “We have raised prices recently in the form of modem rental fees, but it’s really just broadband price increase,” again admitted Britt this morning. Future rate increases on modem rentals will give broadband customers another push to shop around for a better deal. At least 24,000 did that over the summer and left, mostly for AT&T U-verse in the midwest and Verizon FiOS in the east.

The lengthy dispute between Time Warner and CBS did the most damage and not just to customers directly affected by channel losses. A major increase in call volumes from alienated customers overwhelmed national call centers, creating long hold times for everyone calling in.

Time Warner expects 40 percent of the cable company’s service area will be overlapped by major competitors AT&T U-verse (now 27%) and Verizon FiOS (now 13%). That represents one million more homes than last year.

Bye Bye: Time Warner Cable lost residential customers for all of its services during the third quarter.

Incoming CEO Robert Marcus said he was dissatisfied with subscriber results from current promotions and rates. New Time Warner Cable customers, Marcus noted, are paying higher prices for fewer or less robust services as part of current promotional packages. Although that has driven a “dramatic improvement in recurring revenue” among customers actually signing up, many choose the lower-priced competition instead.

Marcus also noted customers are taking fewer services and are resistant to upgrading to double or triple play packages, reducing the potential average revenue per customer (ARPU).

“To a great extent, these are expected outcomes of our pricing and packaging strategy and the trade-off between ARPU and volume, but I’m confident we can do better on volume without giving up the ARPU benefits we’ve been achieving,” Marcus told analysts on a morning conference call.

Instead of getting more aggressive on pricing, the company plans to trot out free gifts and pitch discounted slow speed Internet to attract price-resistant DSL customers.

“Next week, we’ll launch our holiday offer, which includes a free Samsung tablet loaded with all of our apps, including TWC TV, with the purchase of higher-end packages,” Marcus said. “I think this will generate lots of interest and really highlight TWC TV and the value it adds to our service offerings.”

Marcus called it inconceivable and unacceptable that at least 4.5 million people are still subscribed to telephone company DSL in Time Warner Cable service areas. The company plans an advertising blitz to steal customers away from companies like AT&T, Verizon, Frontier, CenturyLink, Windstream and FairPoint.

At the center of that effort is the recently announced 2/1Mbps Lite package, which will sell at the everyday price of $14.95 a month. Marcus wants at least 500,000 DSL customers switched to Time Warner over the next 18 months.

“Over time, as these customers’ speed and capacity needs increase, we’ll be well positioned to sell them higher-end product,” Marcus said.

Or they will switch back to the phone company if Time Warner increases the price.

Mediacom, the worst-rated cable operator in the United States, claims it needs usage caps and consumption billing to force heavy users to pay for needed upgrades. But that isn’t what Mediacom’s executives are telling investors and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Thomas Larsen, group vice president of legal and public affairs for Mediacom told The Gazette the consumption-based billing program was intended to pay for the cost of network upgrades incurred by “individuals who are the highest users.”

But Mediacom’s August 10-Q filings (Mediacom LLC and Mediacom Broadband LLC) with the SEC indicate Mediacom’s revenues are increasing faster than the cable operator’s costs to provide service, as customers upgrade to more costly, faster speed Internet tiers.

“Revenues from residential services are expected to grow as a result of [broadband] and phone customer growth, with additional contributions from customers taking higher speed tiers and more customers taking our advanced video services,” Mediacom reports. “Based upon the speeds we offer, we believe our High Speed Data (HSD) product is generally superior to DSL offerings in our service areas. As consumers’ bandwidth requirements have dramatically increased in the past few years, a trend we expect to continue, we believe our ability to offer a HSD product today with speeds of up to 105Mbps gives us a competitive advantage compared to the DSL service offered by the local telephone companies. We expect to continue to grow HSD revenues through residential customer growth and more customers taking higher HSD speed tiers. “

Mediacom’s consumption billing program, already in effect for new customers, will be imposed on all Mediacom broadband customers starting in September. Larsen claims only about three percent of customers will be impacted by the usage allowance, which will include 250GB of usage for customers selecting the company’s most popular speed tier. Larsen also claimed the average Mediacom customer uses only 14GB per month.

That usage profile is below the national average, and leads to questions about why Mediacom needs a usage allowance system when 97 percent of its customers do not present a burden to the cable company.

“Once a customer reaches their monthly allowance,  for $10 they can purchase an additional 50GB a month of capacity,” Larsen explained. “Each time that they reach that next level, they’ll be able to purchase another allotment. We’re never going to stop you from using data, we’re just going to charge you more if you exceed your monthly allowance. Before, we could cap you, there was no mechanism for them to purchase more.”

Mediacom did not frequently enforce its usage caps in the past except in instances where usage levels created problems for other customers. Despite Larsen’s assertion Mediacom would spent the overages collected from heavy users on broadband upgrades, Mediacom’s report to the SEC indicates broadband usage has never been a significant burden for the cable operator:

Our HSD and phone service costs fluctuate depending on the level of investments we make in our cable systems and the resulting operational efficiencies. Our other service costs generally rise as a result of customer growth and inflationary cost increases for personnel, outside vendors and other expenses. Personnel and related support costs may increase as the percentage of expenses that we capitalize declines due to lower levels of new service installations. We anticipate that service costs, with the exception of programming expenses, will remain fairly consistent as a percentage of our revenues.

Although Mediacom reported field operating costs rose 7.6%, much of that increase was a result of greater fiber lease and cable location expenses on its wireless backhaul business for cell towers and greater use of outside contractors. In the company’s latest 10-Q filing, Mediacom reports its revenues increased 2.9 percent in the past year while its costs rose only 1.5 percent. Mediacom’s revenues from its broadband division are even more rosy, rising 9% in the past year alone. In fact, broadband is the company’s highest growth residential business.

Many of Mediacom’s long-standing customers were initially promised they would be exempt from usage caps, with only new customers subject to usage limits. But Mediacom has unilaterally changed their minds, much to the consternation of some customers.

As of this afternoon, Mediacom is still promising customers usage caps only apply to new customers and those making plan changes.

“It is my belief a man’s word is gold and when Mediacom customers have been told for ages they were grandfathered in with no usage data charges unless they changed plans, that is how it is supposed to be,” said D. Gronceski. “I have explicitly turned down service increases in the past to stay on the unlimited usage plan originally offered by Mediacom […] so I get screwed twice, once for bandwidth caps and again because I’m not getting the services I would be getting if I had not refused the automatic increases.”

Other customers incensed about the new usage limits have called to cancel service only to be threatened with steep early termination fees.

“Why do I have to pay an early termination fee?” asked AustinPowersISU. “The way of billing for the service is changing and I do not agree to this method of billing. I should be allowed to terminate my service without paying a fee.”

A Mediacom social media team representative offered one suggestion for customers finding themselves quickly over their usage limits: upgrade to faster speed tiers at a higher price. As for complaints about the unilateral introduction of usage caps with overlimit fees, it’s tough luck for customers, on contract or off:

All Internet users will be held to the new terms of service and usage based billing as of Sept. 7, 2013.  There is no agreement to sign, no acknowledgement needed.  Continuing to utilize Internet services is acceptance of these changes. If for any reason you do not feel that your current service level meets your needs, let us know and we can have a representative contact you with further options.

[…] Per the posted terms of service and acceptable use policy, there has always been an established data consumption threshold (data allowance) to be enforced at Mediacom’s discretion.  With this change, we have clarified these methods of enforcement and have expanded the allowance to offer different levels of users different options.  We have notified the proper departments of possible additions, but these statements are and have been posted.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KCRG Cedar Rapids Mediacom Going Usage Billing 8-21-13.mp4[/flv].

KCRG in Cedar Rapids reports Mediacom is switching to consumption billing for broadband service in September.  (2 minutes)

Esteves

Time Warner Cable is spending less to maintain and improve services for residential customers even as broadband usage grew 40-50 percent, redirecting spending on its business services division instead.

Irene Esteves, chief financial officer of Time Warner Cable, told attendees at Morgan Stanley’s Technology, Media & Telecom Conference that the growth in the company’s capital spending is associated with serving business, not residential customers.

Esteves reported that spending on residential services was actually down slightly in the last year. The business services division used its increased capital to wire 100,000 office buildings and provisioned 1,900 cell towers with backhaul service last year.

But despite decreasing costs, Time Warner Cable expects to continue increasing broadband prices, primarily because it can.

“What we have found is […] as customers use it more, value it more, we can then price it more,” said Esteves. “And we think that’s a terrific dynamic for the market for quite a bit of time.”

Powering usage growth more than anything else is online video.

“If we look at peak volume, which is really what drives our capacity planning, 66% of that increase comes from streaming video,” notes Esteves. “Again, the more they use it, the more they love it, the more important we become to them as a service provider. So we’re continuing to watch that usage pattern and cheering them on.”

For traditional television viewing, Time Warner’s march to digital will also carry on, but it will happen slowly.

Time Warner Cable has chosen a gradual transition to IP video for cable television service. Subscribers can expect about a dozen channels per year to be removed from analog service until the cable system offers a completely digital television package. In Maine and New York City, that digital transition is already complete.

“We’re taking a more measured approach over a 5-year time period,” said Esteves. “We’re taking [away] analog channels in the 10 to 12 per year kind of measure, which is less disruptive to our customers and less capital-intensive.”

That kind of transition, coupled with annual rate increases, could potentially alienate customers, but Time Warner has retrained its retention specialists to assuage customers headed for the door.

“With the increasing promotional activity in the marketplace, we have more and more of our customers on promotion and it’s imperative that when the [promotion expires], we’re being very thoughtful about who rolls off to what, when,” said Esteves. “We’re training specialists to talk to customers, listen to them, find out the reasons for potentially leaving and recapturing those.”

But the industry is also under pressure from Wall Street to cut promotional activity and stop discounting service excessively, because it gets customers used to a lower price.

“If you think about the promotional prices in the marketplace, that really drives people to price shop and that just increases the transactions and the turmoil in the industry, which increases everyone’s cost and reduces everyone’s profitability,” Esteves said. “So the real conundrum for the entire industry is how do we each build on our retention rather than build on the promotional side in order to keep our customers and become more profitable.”

Time Warner Cable’s Business Class division has introduced new high-speed broadband packages designed for at-home teleworkers and telecommuters. But unless you need the advanced security, prioritized repair, and assurances that your Business Class online traffic will take precedence over residential traffic on Time Warner’s broadband network, you may be better off with residential service.

Four Teleworkers Solutions broadband bundles are now available in New York, New England and the Carolinas:

There is a setup fee for $75-150, a $23 fee for a static IP (free with Basic Plus or Premium Plus service), and rates are guaranteed for 1-3 years depending on the final contract. Businesses with 20+ telecommuter accounts will receive a volume discount.

In contrast, the best available residential promotional price for broadband-only 50/5Mbps service in the northeast outside of New York City is $78.94 a month, which includes the modem rental fee, does not include a Wi-Fi router, and is good for 12 months before the prices increases.

Despite industry propaganda touting an “unlimited broadband future” (possibilities, that is, not an end to usage caps) and good sounding headlines about robust competition in the broadband market, the reality on the ground isn’t as rosy.

Americans looking for a better deal for broadband are largely stuck negotiating with the local cable company or putting up with less speed from the phone company to get a cheaper rate.

That is hardly the “success story” being pushed by the Mother of All Broadband Astroturf Front Groups, Broadband for America. BfA, backed by money from some of America’s largest telecom companies calls today’s marketplace “dynamic” and “rapidly changing.” For them, competition is not the problem, the way we define competition is.

Tell that to San Jose Mercury News columnist Troy Wolverton, whose dynamic and rapidly changing Comcast cable bill has now reached $144 a month, and threatens to go higher still when his two-year contract expires.

Wolverton is a case study of what an average American consumer goes through shopping around for broadband service. Despite assertions of a vibrant, competitive Internet access paradise from groups like Broadband for America, Wolverton found very little real competition on the menu, despite being in the high tech heart of Silicon Valley.

Valley residents can typically choose between AT&T and Comcast, if they have any choice at all. Neither company offers a great deal for consumers.

Comcast offers faster speeds at considerably higher prices that can be reduced somewhat by signing up for a costly triple-play service. AT&T’s prices are lower, but its service is slower and is based on a technology that in my experience is less reliable.

So it goes for millions of Americans who face the same dilemma: take a higher-priced package from the cable company or settle for less from the phone company. With the exception of Verizon FiOS, most large telephone companies still rely on basic DSL service to deliver broadband. AT&T’s U-verse and CenturyLink’s Prism are both fiber to the neighborhood services that deliver somewhat faster speeds than traditional DSL, but also have to share bandwidth with television and traditional phone service, leaving them topped out at around 25Mbps.

Wolverton could not believe his only choices were Comcast and AT&T, so he visited the California Broadband Availability Map, one of the state projects earnestly trying to identify the available choices consumers have for broadband access. Despite California’s vast size, it quickly became apparent that even companies like AT&T and Comcast largely don’t deliver broadband outside of cities and suburbs. Several smaller, lesser-known providers emerged from the map that were open to Wolverton, which he explored with less-than-satisfying results:

In addition to Comcast and AT&T, it listed Etheric Networks, which offers a wireless Internet service directed at home users that’s based on Wi-Fi technology, and MegaPath, which offers Internet access through a variety of wired technologies, including DSL.

After further research I found that neither of those companies was a legitimate option. MegaPath can’t deliver residential service to my house that’s faster than 1.5 megabits per second. Etheric, which focuses on business customers, offers a service level with speeds of up to 22 megabits per second, but it costs a cool $400 a month.

Other non-options for Wolverton included the highly-rated Sonic.net, which in his neighborhood is entirely dependent on AT&T’s landlines for its DSL service. That was a no-go, after Wolverton discovered he would be stuck with 3-6Mbps service. Clearwire also offers service in greater San Jose, but not at his home in Willow Glen.

That left him back with AT&T and Comcast.

But that is not really a problem in the eyes of industry defenders like Jeffrey Eisenach, managing director and principal at Navigant Economics and an adjunct professor at George Mason University Law School. Navigant is a “research group” that counts AT&T as one of its most important clients. The firm provides economic and financial analysis of legal and business issues cover for clients trying to sell their agenda. Navigant’s “experts have provided testimony in proceedings before District Courts, the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and numerous state Public Utilities Commissions.”

Eisenach goes all out for the broadband industry in his paper, “Theories of Broadband Competition,” which throws in everything but the kitchen sink to defend the status quo:

• The cost of broadband service is declining;
• The duopoly of cable and phone companies are still competing for customers and introducing new services;
• Competition can take the form of provider innovation (ie. providers compete by offering a better services, not lower prices);
• Wireless competition is accelerating, citing LightSquared and Clearwire as two conclusive examples of competition at work;
• The cost of service on a per-megabit basis has declined.
• Competition in today’s broadband market delivers ancillary benefits not immediately evident when only considering the customer’s point of view;

Eisenach’s pricing proof stopped in 2009, just as cable providers like Time Warner Cable began raising broadband prices. TWC’s Landel Hobbs to investors: “We have the ability to increase pricing around high-speed data.” (February, 2010)

Eisenach has appeared at various industry-sponsored evidence touting his views of broadband economics and competition that later turns up as headline news on Broadband for America’s website. But just as Wolverton’s initial optimism finding other choices for broadband faded with reality, so do Eisenach’s conclusions:

1. Eisenach’s evidence of broadband price declines stops in 2009, coincidentally just prior to the recent phenomena of cable broadband rate increases, which have accelerated in the past three years;
2. Competition still exists in urban and suburban markets, as long as phone companies attempt to stem the tide of landline losses, but it’s largely absent in rural markets and in decline in others where companies “reset” prices to match their cable competition. AT&T’s U-verse and Verizon’s FiOS both effectively ended their expansion, leaving large swaths of the country with “good enough for you” service. Cable operators have even teamed up with Verizon Wireless to cross-market their products — hardly evidence of a robustly competitive marketplace;
3. Innovation can take the form of services customers don’t actually want but are compelled to take because of bundled pricing or, worse, the decline in a-la-carte add-ons in favor of “one price for everything” models. Verizon Wireless set the stage for providers of all kinds to consider mandatory bundling for any product or service that can no longer deliver a suitable return on its own. For customers already taking every possible service or fastest speed, this pricing  may deliver lower prices at the outset, but for budget-focused consumers, compulsory packages or high prices on a-la-carte services assures them of a higher bill;
4. Eisenach’s examples of competition are a real mess. LightSquared is bankrupt and Clearwire has shown it cannot deliver an equivalent broadband experience for customers and throttles the speeds of those perceived to be using the service too much. Other wireless providers typically limit customer usage or cannot deliver speeds comparable to wired broadband;
5. While the cost per megabit may have declined in the past, cable providers are still raising prices, and as Google and community-owned providers have illustrated, delivering fast speeds should not cost customers nearly as much as providers continue to charge, with no incentive to cut prices in the absence of equally fast, competitive networks;
6. While broadband may open the door for additional economic benefits not immediately apparent, competitive broadband would further drive innovation and reduce pricing, delivering an even bigger bang for the buck.

Wolverton recognized taking a promotional offer from AT&T will temporarily deliver savings over what Comcast charges, but he would have to set his expectations lower if he switched:

I’m reluctant to switch to AT&T. [U-verse] Max Plus is the fastest level of service it offers at our house, but with a top speed of 18 megabits a second, it’s significantly slower than Comcast’s Blast. Speed matters to us, because my wife and I often share our Internet connection, and we frequently use it to transfer large files such as apps, videos, photos or songs to or from the Net.

[…] What’s more, as the FCC outlined in another recent report, Comcast does a better job of delivering the speeds it advertises than does AT&T.

What’s worse in my book is that AT&T’s U-verse’s Internet service is a version of DSL. It’s faster than regular DSL, because the copper wires in your house and neighborhood are connected to nearby high-speed fiber-optic cables. Even with that speed boost, though, I’m hesitant to go back to any kind of DSL service, because my wife and I suffered through years of unreliable DSL service from AT&T predecessor PacBell and then EarthLink, which piggybacked on AT&T’s lines.

Wolverton also objected to Comcast’s bundled pricing scheme, which delivers the best value to customers who sign up for broadband, television and phone service. Wolverton does not need a landline from AT&T or Comcast, and would like to drop the service. He’s not especially impressed with Comcast’s TV lineup (or pricing) either. But he noted if he switched to broadband-only service, Comcast would effectively penalize him with a broadband-only rate of $72 a month, exactly half the current cost of Comcast’s triple-play package.

In a later blog post, Wolverton confessed he liked Comcast’s broadband service and speeds, and with the carefully-crafted pricing the cable and phone companies have developed, he expected to remain a Comcast customer given his choices and pricing options, which are simply not enough.