Image: Bloomberg News

Elections don’t have consequences if you happen to be a favored board member overseeing Cablevision.

For the third time in four years, the cable company has decided to keep several board members that shareholders voted against.

Vincent Tese will keep his board seat despite the fact 54.8 percent of shareholders wanted to show him the door. Leonard Tow was given a thumbs-down by almost 52 percent of voters and Thomas Reifenheiser squeezed by with a margin of just 0.5 percent.

Tese and Reifenheiser failed to win a majority of shareholder support in 2010, 2012, and again last month, but they will keep their board seats because Cablevision’s other board members said so. The zombie board members may be dead to those who hold shares in Cablevision, but as long as the board can collectively override shareholder wishes, they can stay.

That prompted New York City comptroller John Liu to recommend shareholders vote against all five Class A directors this year, because they are responsible for allowing the losing board members to stay.

“Shareowners delivered a stinging rebuke to the five Cablevision directors we opposed for being ineffective and unaccountable, including majority votes against two of them,” Liu said. “Both Mr. Tese and Dr. Tow, should immediately step down. In Mr. Tese’s case, this is the third majority vote against his directorship in the past four years. Enough is enough.”

“As fiduciaries, we can’t sit by and let the board make a mockery of our fundamental right to elect directors,” Liu added. New York City owns more than 530,000 shares of Cablevision stock, part of the pension fund portfolio Liu oversees. “Share owners need accountable directors who will ensure the company isn’t being run for the benefit of insiders at our expense.”

The New York Times reports shareholders have plenty to grumble about:

Over the last two years, while the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index has rallied to a new high, Cablevision shares have dropped from more than $36 a share to under $15, where they were trading this week. Yet Cablevision’s chief executive, James Dolan, earned $16.9 million last year, and his father, Charles, earned $16.6 million as chairman — an unusually high amount for a chairman who is not serving as chief executive. Both payments were about 50 percent higher than the year before. In addition to their compensation, the two Dolans get a full-time car and driver as well as access to a helicopter and jet for personal use. Institutional Shareholder Services noted there was a “disconnect” at the company between performance and executive pay.

Mr. Tese, Mr. Ryan and Mr. Reifenheiser make up the compensation committee of the board, which approves the Dolans’ compensation.

Mr. Tese, a former chief executive of the New York State Urban Development Corporation and former director of economic development for New York State, was also Bear Stearns’s lead director before its collapse in 2008 and served on its finance and risk committee. “Given the significant lack of oversight provided by Mr. Tese during his tenure at Bear, particularly in the area of risk management, we believe he should not continue to serve on any public company board,” the proxy advisory service Glass, Lewis & Company said last year. Mr. Tese is a member of four boards, including that of Madison Square Garden, which was spun off by Cablevision and is also controlled by the Dolan family.

Mr. Ryan and Mr. Reifenheiser were both members of a special committee that approved an ill-fated proposed buyout of the company by the Dolans in 2007. Independent shareholders blocked the deal on grounds that the Dolans’ offer was self-serving and too low. “Its improvident support by the special committee is among the reasons we have lost confidence in Messrs. Reifenheiser and Ryan,” Mr. Liu wrote in his recent letter to the company.

Last year, Cablevision paid Mr. Tese $233,967, Mr. Ryan $247,508 and Mr. Reifenheiser $220,786 in cash and stock, according to the company’s proxy statement.

Not so fast, says Cablevision spokesman Charles Schueler.

“These directors have served Cablevision shareholders well and we look forward to their continuing contributions. Our shareholders know that Cablevision is a controlled company and they understand the rules by which our directors are elected.”

Time Warner Cable executives got an earful last week from investors concerned about the amount of money the company is spending on lobbying activities, the lack of full disclosure on where that money is going, and the cable operator’s continued corporate support for the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

Among those attending the Time Warner Cable Annual Shareholder Meeting in Saratoga Springs, N.Y., was Tim Smith from Walden Asset Management, which owns 369,000 shares of the company.

Smith, along with 16 co-sponsors, introduced a proposal to force better disclosure of how their shareholder money was being spent on lobbying, noting Time Warner Cable paid close to $28 million on lobbying from 2008 to 2012.

“It’s interesting to note that Time Warner Cable’s spending on lobbying was almost five times the average of its peers,” Smith told the board of directors.

Smith noted that Time Warner Cable’s current quarterly disclosures were opaque and hard for the average person to understand and that the company provided almost no information on state lobbying, which he called a “big, big gap.”

Smith

“You [also] do not disclose details of the amount of dues to trade associations that engage in lobbying nor the portion used for lobbying,” Smith complained. “So for example, if a company is a member of the Business Roundtable or the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, over 40% of those dues are spent on lobbying. So we think that is important to be a disclosed and in the public record.”

Smith noted that Time Warner Cable abandoned its financial support of The Heartland Institute, a Koch Brothers’ backed group that has argued for deregulation of the telecommunications industry, fought against Net Neutrality, and supports consumption billing and usage caps. A number of corporations stopped supporting the group after its corporate contribution list was leaked to the media in early 2012. Time Warner Cable told Walden Capital Management it dropped support of the group later that same year.

But Smith remained unhappy Time Warner Cable continues to support ALEC.

“Time Warner Cable’s continuing support for the American Legislative Exchange Council, which is called ALEC, is highly controversial and really we think it’s harmful to our brand,” Smith argued. “Right now, the American Legislative Exchange Council is working with The Heartland Institute, where we withdrew, working on a campaign around this country to try to stop renewable energy legislation and regulation. That’s our money at work, and we’re not dissenting. We’re not standing up and saying, ‘This is not Time Warner Cable.'”

CEO Glenn Britt claimed the lobbying expenses were important because Time Warner Cable is “a highly regulated company in a highly regulated industry” and that the company exercises “a value judgment” when it chooses to support third-party groups and lobbyists.

Britt also acknowledged ALEC’s extensive database of model, pre-written legislation suitable for introduction on the state level has proved very useful to Time Warner Cable in the past.

“[ALEC] is very helpful in creating a model legislation for all the states we do business in,” Britt said. “They’re particularly focused on telecom matters, which are highly complicated.”

As for other activities ALEC is involved with, such as opposing renewal energy initiatives for large fossil fuel energy companies, Britt said he does make Time Warner Cable’s views known on those issues.

“Quite honestly, if we thought the objectionable part of that outweighed the benefit, then we would consider leaving,” Britt said. “But it’s a constant balancing of that.”

“Although we fully understand the motivation […] the board recommends a vote against this proposal,” Britt concluded.

Time Warner Cable chose the prestigious Gideon Putnam Resort in Saratoga Springs for its annual shareholder meeting, where rooms run $400-800 a night.

Jim Voye from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), a union that owns about 575,000 shares of Time Warner Cable, also rose to introduce a proposal to limit a potential cash cow for executives in the event of a change in control at the company.

CEO Glenn Britt is widely expected to retire at the end of this year. When he does, he will be awarded more than $50 million in Time Warner Cable stock-based awards. That is on top of his targeted annual salary of $16 million.

Time Warner Cable’s CEO spent $400,000 of the company’s money traveling on the corporate executive jet.

In the event of such a change, many Time Warner Cable executives will qualify for accelerating vesting of their own equity awards, which the IBEW argues is an incentive to favor short-term improvements in company performance at the cost of long-term growth.

“The vital connection between pay and long-term performance can be severed when awards are paid out at an accelerated schedule,” Voye argued. “A change in control event should not provide an immediate or automatic economic windfall to planned participants, especially one that could incentivize executives to pursue transactions that are not in the best long-term interest of shareholders.”

Britt recommended a vote against that proposal as well.

During a question and answer section, Smith noted Britt spent $400,000 of the company’s money on corporate jet travel expenses.

Britt also acknowledged the cable industry’s business model has been largely the same across the country, and there is little to differentiate the financial results of one cable company over others.

“We, the cable companies all tend to look the same and I don’t think it’s going to be any different in this case,” Britt said.

Phillip “I Shop Online” Dampier

Last week, JCPenney launched their nationwide redemption tour, apologizing to millions of ex-customers that fled the former retail giant, begging them to come back.

It took over a year for JCPenney to get the message that “disciplining” and “re-educating” customers to accept the wisdom of everyday higher prices with few sales and almost no coupons was hardly the door-busting success “miracle worker” CEO Ron Johnson originally had in mind. The ex-Apple executive was rewarded a $52.7 million signing bonus to take over JCPenney’s tired leadership and in return he dragged sales down 28.4% from the year before, with same store sales down 32%. Johnson’s new vision also steamrolled one-third of JCPenney’s online business.

The day those results became known, he confidently showed Wall Street he did not dwell in the reality-based community: “I’m completely convinced that our transformation is on track!” (For Kohl’s benefit anyway.)

Johnson also believed in a “less is more” philosophy in human resources, overseeing layoffs of 13 percent of the company’s workforce last April, with another 350 let go in July.

Despite the fact his all-new, rebooted vision of JCPenney was about as popular as bird flu, he stayed, even as customers and employees didn’t.

It wasn’t that the company didn’t know customers had a problem with all this. Many complained about the radical, unwanted changes at JCPenney, particularly middle-aged professional women representing one of the stores’ most important business segments. Company executives simply didn’t listen.

A year later, some of the same analysts that cheered JCPenney’s crackdown on discounting now wonder if the company will survive 2013. Many fretted about the real possibility the last customer to brave the “new era” of JCP might forget to turn the lights out when they left for good. Others were mostly furious the board let Johnson go.

Despite the tragic consequences, the conventional wisdom on Wall Street remains: Alienating customers with a revamp nobody asked for and “everyday pricing” designed to boost profits every day was not the problem, how Johnson implemented the strategy was. He just didn’t educate customers enough.

We see the same warped thinking in the broadband marketplace, particularly with usage caps, consumption billing, junk fees and the general ever-increasing price of broadband itself.

On providers’ quarterly results conference calls, the regular questions challenging leaders of the industry are not about providers charging too much for too little. The real concern is that your ISP is leaving too much ripe fruit on the tree:

• Where is the revenue-boosting usage caps and consumption billing, Time Warner Cable?
• Comcast: can’t you raise prices further on those recent speed increases to maximize additional revenue?
• Verizon: why are you spending so much on fiber broadband upgrades customers love when that money could have gone back to shareholders?
• AT&T: Is there anything else you can do to exploit your market share and make even more money from costly data plans?

The best ways a consumer can reward a good broadband provider include remaining a loyal customer, paying your bill on time and upgrading to faster speeds as needed. For Wall Street, the growing demand for broadband is a sign there is plenty of wiggle room for at-will rate increases, new fees and surcharges, contract tricks and traps, customer service cuts, and monetizing usage wherever possible. After all, you probably won’t cancel because the other guy in town is doing the same thing.

This is what sets the broadband marketplace of today apart from most retailers: consumers don’t have 10-20 other choices to take their business to if they are fed up.

Comcast or AT&T? Both charge a lot and have usage limits on their broadband service for no good reason. Your other alternatives? A wireless provider charging even more with an even lower usage cap. Or you can always go without.

While providers may tell you there is a healthy, competitive broadband marketplace, Wall Street knows better. When Time Warner Cable recently announced it would dramatically curtail new customer promotions and concentrate on delivering fewer services for more money, nobody bothered asking whether this would result in a stampede to the competition. What competition?

Although Google is delivering much-needed, game-changing competition in a tiny handful of cities, most Americans will not benefit because the best upgrades and lowest prices are only available where Google threatens the status quo. A larger number of municipalities are done putting their broadband (and economic) future in the hands of the phone and cable company and are building their own digital infrastructure for the good of their communities.

For everyone else, we can dream that one day, someday, the cable and phone company most Americans do business with will be forced to run their own JCPenney-like apology tour for years of abusive pricing and mediocre “good enough for you” broadband with unwarranted usage limits. Time Warner Cable went half way, but until competition or oversight forces some dramatic changes, we should not count on providers to actually listen to what customers want. They don’t believe they need to listen to earn or keep your business.

Dr. John Malone’s Liberty Media will buy a 27.3 percent interest in Charter Communications with a $2.62 billion investment in America’s fourth largest cable operator.

Liberty will buy the stake from investment firms Apollo Management, Crestview Partners, and Oaktree Capital Management.

“We are pleased with Charter’s market position and growth opportunities and believe that the company’s investments in its high-capacity digital network which provides digital HD and on demand television, high-speed data and voice, will benefit its customers and shareholders alike,” Malone said in a statement.

Malone is no stranger to the cable industry, having been at the helm of Tele-Communications, Inc. (TCI), the largest cable operator in the country in the 1980s and 1990s. TCI systems were sold to AT&T in 1999, which eventually spun them off to Comcast and Charter Communications, which still run them today.

Dr. John Malone

Since Malone’s exit at TCI, he has been in charge of Liberty Global, which owns cable systems overseas and controls several U.S. cable programming interests through his Liberty Media operation. The investment in Charter represents Malone’s return to an American cable industry he helped pioneer.

The agreement requires Liberty to acquire no more than 35 percent of Charter until January 2016, at which point Liberty’s maximum allowable controlling interest rises to 39.99 percent. Liberty also wins four seats on Charter’s board of directors. But many industry analysts predict Malone will not be satisfied with anything less than eventual full control.

Malone often takes an initial minority interest in the companies he later intends to acquire outright. Macquarie analyst Amy Yong told Reuters he employed a similar tactic to gain control of SiriusXM, the satellite radio company.

“He’s probably going to have a pretty big say in the company’s future over the next few years. This will accelerate capital returns and take advantage of Charter’s tax assets to consolidate the cable industry some more,” Yong said.

Malone is attracted to investment opportunities in companies with high marketplace leverage opportunities and exploiting potential revenue from captive customers in the rural, less-competitive markets Charter has traditionally favored.

Here today, gone tomorrow: Bresnan Communications that was Optimum is now Charter Cable.

Malone also has a strong philosophy towards marketplace consolidation, something ongoing in the cable industry, particularly among smaller cable operators serving less-populated areas.

Under the leadership of ex-Cablevision executive Thomas Rutledge, Charter Communications recently acquired the interests of Cablevision West — former Bresnan Cable systems in the mountain west. Malone sees considerable opportunities expanding operations in smaller communities that have either received substandard cable service, or none at all.

Malone has recently been stockpiling available cash for investments, spinning off his former cable programming properties Starz, a premium cable channel, Discovery Communications, which runs the Discovery Networks, and Liberty Interactive, which owns the lucrative home shopping channel QVC.

Charter Communications has had a difficult history. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen bought a controlling interest in the cable operator in the late 1990s, primarily because he saw cable broadband as a natural fit for his vision of a future wired America. Allen’s weighty investment was used to jump into a cable industry consolidation frenzy still underway more than a decade ago. Cable operators claimed consolidation was necessary to increase efficiency by building up regional clusters of cable systems. Before consolidation, it was not unusual for two or three different cable operators to serve customers in separate parts of a metropolitan area. Often one operator would serve the city with one or two other cable companies offering service in suburban and exurban communities nearby.

In 1999 alone, under Allen’s leadership, Charter Cable acquired 10 cable companies.

By 2005, Charter Cable had amassed millions of new subscribers, but not as many as company executives claimed when they artificially inflated subscriber numbers to protect the value of the company’s stock. Four executives were indicted that year for criminal accounting fraud. By 2009, with $22 billion in debt, the company declared bankruptcy, eventually wiping out shareholders.

The court’s decision to forgive 40 percent of the company’s debt angered creditors but opened an opportunity for private equity firm Apollo Capital Management to gain control by ending up with the majority of shares in the restructured company.

For years, the company has continued to receive some of the worst customer satisfaction ratings in the industry, usually ranking at or near the bottom. But many Charter customers stay because there is little competition from other players, especially telephone companies. AT&T’s U-verse is the most likely triple-play competitor, but AT&T has avoided introducing U-verse in many of Charter’s service areas because they are deemed too small.

Malone sees Charter’s future revenue potential grow as a broadband provider, considered both a money-maker and must-have service. Analysts say that Charter is well-positioned to poach more customers from phone companies, which typically only offer slow DSL service in much of Charter’s rural footprint.

Gore: Malone is the Darth Vader of cable.

But customers may find with Malone’s involvement, that service may come at a price. Malone was criticized heavily in the 1980s and 1990s for leading the charge for customer rate increases. TCI’s captive customers in Tennessee found their cable bills increased between 71-116 percent in just three years during the 1980s.

Former Sen. Al Gore, Jr., at the time called Malone the head of a “Cable Cosa Nostra” and the Darth Vader of big cable. The cable executive was a frequent target of lawmakers flooded with constituent complaints about poor cable service and accelerating prices.

In 1999, The Guardian noted Malone was an admirer of telecom oligopolies:

He is scathing about regulatory attempts to prevent monopolies and mergers. Governments, he says, are “antediluvian” in their approach to the emerging new world economic order. Instead of trying to prevent mergers and collusion between media and communications companies, Malone says governments should actually promote the creation of “super-corporations” (such as his own) with enough capital to exploit the potential of new technology.

That attitude may soon be back in play with the cable industry’s increasing focus on expanding broadband service as their new primary revenue generator.

Time Warner Cable objects to publicly-owned broadband networks because they represent “unfair” publicly-funded “competition,” despite the fact TWC is also on the public dole.

The next time a cable operator or phone company claims community-owned broadband providers deliver unfair competition because they are government-funded, remind them that quite often that phone or cable company also happens to be on the public dole.

Take Time Warner Cable, which this week won a $5,266,979 grant courtesy of New York State taxpayers to extend their cable system to 4,114 homes in rural parts of upstate New York just outside of the cable company’s current service areas. That equals $1,280.26 in state tax dollars per household. For that public investment, Time Warner will reap private profits for shareholders from selling broadband, cable-TV, phone, and home security services to its newest customers indefinitely.

Now unlike some of my conservative friends, I am not opposed to the state spending money to wire rural New York. It is obvious cable and phone companies will simply never wire these areas on their own so long as Return on Investment conditions fail in these places. What does annoy me are the endless arguments we hear in opposition to public broadband from these same companies, claiming with a straight face that community-owned networks represent “unfair competition” because they are publicly funded. Time Warner Cable is no stranger to public taxpayer benefits itself, having won millions in tax abatements and credits in North Carolina, Ohio and a cool $5 million courtesy of Mr. and Mrs. N.Y. Taxpayer.

Many of the nation’s private telecommunications companies have plenty of love for federal, state, and local officials who have passed favorable tax laws and policies at their behest:

• AT&T not only did not pay any federal taxes in 2011, it actually secured a $420 million taxpayer-subsidized refund;
• Local governments have granted rights-of-way red tape cutting, tax credits and abatements in return for siting important facilities in select areas and hiring an appropriate number of employees to work in them;
• State laws that have made life easy for telecom companies, including statewide video franchising;
• State laws that make life difficult for their would-be competitors, especially public broadband networks.

So let us end the silly rhetoric about public vs. private broadband being a question of fairness. This is really a question about who controls your broadband future,  your community or big telecom corporations.

In states like Georgia, elected politicians like Rep. Mark Hamilton want those decisions made by Comcast (Pennsylvania), Windstream (Arkansas) and AT&T (Texas). His bill would make it next to impossible for a local community to do anything but beg and plead the phone company to deliver something, anything that resembles broadband service. For a good part of rural Georgia (and elsewhere), the answer has always been a resounding “no,” at least until the federal government steps up and kicks in your money to help defray the costs of extending Windstream or AT&T’s sub par DSL service that slows to a crawl once the kids are out of school.

Windstream waited for the federal government to kick in $7.28 million in taxpayer dollars before it would agree to extend its DSL service to rural customers in its own home state of Arkansas.

You have to wonder about the Republicans in Georgia these days who used to fight for local and state control over almost everything. It should be instinctive for any conservative to want out-of-state pointyheads out of their business, but Rep. Mark Hamilton, himself a business owner, seems content forfeiting those rights to companies headquartered hundreds of miles away. If it was the federal government telling Georgia what kind of broadband service it deserves, do you think Mr. Hamilton would be so amenable? Unfortunately, should Hamilton have his way, for the foreseeable future, residents and business owners in Gray, Sparta, or Eatonton to count just a few will have broadband just the way the state’s phone companies want it — super slow DSL, dial-up or satellite fraudband.