Cable magnate John Malone’s Liberty Interactive today announced it would acquire Alaska’s largest cable operator General Communication, Inc. (GCI) for $1.12 billion in an all-stock transaction.

Malone is the biggest individual shareholder of Charter Communications, Inc., and has decades of experience running cable companies in the lower 48 states and abroad. He also has experience structuring deals to avoid the U.S. tax authorities, and this deal is no different. Malone will pay zero taxes on the transaction by creatively spinning off the cable operator, first rechristening it as QVC Corp (named after his home shopping channel), then combining QVC Corp with Liberty Ventures and splitting off the combined company to existing Liberty Ventures shareholders. When the transaction is complete, Malone will again rename the cable company GCI Liberty and keep all the proceeds for himself and his shareholders.

GCI’s 108,000 customers won’t see any changes at the cable company and wireless venture this year. The deal is not scheduled to close until 2018.

GCI’s oldest customers may recall John Malone used to own the Alaskan cable operator, but under a different name. Until 1986, it was part of Malone’s Tele-Communications, Inc. (TCI) empire.

Expensive and usage-capped.

Malone’s operating philosophy these days is best represented by Charter Communications. GCI customers can eventually expect to see a dramatically simplified menu of choices for broadband, television, and telephone service. Broadband from GCI is expensive and usage-capped. Its $60 entry-level plan offers 50/3Mbps service that is “speed reduced” after 50GB of usage a month. For that reason, many customers prefer GCI’s “Faster” plan of 100/5Mbps service for $84.99 a month, with speeds curtailed after 250GB of usage. A gigabit tier is available in certain locations offering 1,000/50Mbps for $174.99 a month, speed-throttled after 1TB of usage.

An activist group of shareholders led by a hedge fund has successfully pressured executives at FairPoint Communications to sell the company to maximize shareholder value.

The buyer, Illinois-based Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc., said on Monday it would acquire FairPoint in an all-stock deal worth $1.5 billion, debt included.

The buyout will enrich certain shareholders and hedge funds, including Maglan Capital’s David Tawil and Steven Azarbad, who blasted FairPoint CEO Paul Sunu in a letter sent earlier this summer complaining “shareholders have been extremely patient with the company’s operational turnaround and have suffered because the board has not been vigilant in protecting shareholder value.”

Maglan will cash out its investment initially made after FairPoint went bankrupt, when the share price was below $4. As of 4pm this afternoon, FairPoint stock was trading at $18.85 a share, less than the $23 a share and 75% premium Tawil and Azarbad were hoping for back in August. But they will still walk away earners, selling at around $18 a share plus an additional 17.3% premium. Collectively, the two hedge fund managers control 7.6% of FairPoint’s shares.

Consolidated Communications will inherit residential FairPoint phone and broadband customers in 17 states, most notably those in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. But press releases from Consolidated showed little interest in the residential telecommunications business. Instead, Consolidated executives are looking at FairPoint’s business and enterprise customers, and the benefits of owning FairPoint’s 17,000 fiber route mile network.

Critics suggest the deal effectively enriches shareholders while putting FairPoint’s existing debt and buyout on the new owner’s credit card. Consolidated will inherit $887 million of FairPoint’s current debt plus the $1.5 billion cost of the acquisition.

The combined company will keep the Consolidated Communications name and FairPoint Communications as a brand will eventually disappear if regulators approve the transaction sometime in 2017.

Consolidated Communications currently serves residential phone customers in:

• Suburban/Exurban Sacramento, Calif.
• Fargo, N.D.
• Mankato, Minn.
• West Des Moines, Ia.
• Suburban Kansas City, Kan.
• Mattoon, Ill.
• Lufkin, Conroe, and Katy, Tex.
• Suburban Pittsburgh, Pa.

FairPoint workers on strike in the fall of 2014. (Image: Labor Notes)

FairPoint customers and state regulators in New England expressed concern about the transaction. After FairPoint acquired landlines formerly owned by Verizon Communications a decade ago, the transition was described as “disastrous” by regulators, who received scores of complaints about service and billing problems before FairPoint ultimately declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy, mired in debt.

After emerging from bankruptcy, FairPoint has endured union strikes and was assessed multiple fines for failing to meet service quality standards in Maine.

“The last time these assets were sold to FairPoint it was a disastrous outcome for Maine customers,” says Tim Schneider, Maine’s Public Advocate, who represents consumers on utility matters.

Schneider told Maine Public Radio he is planning to scrutinize the deal to prevent further problems, but customers in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont are already expressing concern regulators are just as likely to rubber stamp this sale just like the last one, further saddling them with problematic service.

The owners of Maglan Capital are pleased with themselves, tweeting out this is a “December to Remember.”

One transaction done this month on FairPoint $FRP $CNSL. $GSAT $MVN $MDLNF on the queue next #DecembertoRemember

— Maglan Capital (@MaglanCapital) December 5, 2016

It was a busy weekend for AT&T’s Randall Stephenson and Time Warner (Entertainment)’s Jeff Bewkes, culminating in an announcement from AT&T it was acquiring Time Warner in a deal worth $85.4 billion.

AT&T CEO Stephenson will remain as CEO while Bewkes stays temporarily to help oversee the transition of the merged company.

The deal has sparked confusion among some consumers who associate Time Warner with Time Warner Cable, but in fact the two entities are independent companies. Time Warner, Inc., is the entertainment and content provider that owns HBO, Warner Bros., CNN, TNT, and other networks. Time Warner Cable was spun-off in 2009 as an independent cable operator that was purchased by Charter Communications earlier this year.

AT&T’s interest in Time Warner is entirely about its video content. By owning Time Warner, AT&T can win deals to place its video programming on U-verse, DirecTV, and AT&T wireless smartphones and tablets without running into heated contract renewal negotiations, spiraling prices, and restrictions on how that content is viewed.

AT&T is hoping its acquisition will generate more revenue to make up for stalled wireless revenue growth. AT&T customers already can view DirecTV content on their smartphones without it counting against one’s usage allowance. AT&T could offer a similar usage cap exemption for Time Warner-owned programming, although it would raise the ire of consumer groups fighting for Net Neutrality, which prohibits preferential treatment of internet content.

Stephenson

Stephenson hopes the addition of Time Warner to the AT&T family will strengthen his existing plan to compete nationwide with cable television providers, offering a streamed bundle of cable channels under the DirecTV brand starting as early as this winter.

Stephenson has talked to Bewkes about a merger of the two companies since August, but Time Warner has always proved an elusive seller, having earlier rebuffed a buyout attempt from 21st Century Fox. Stephenson was talking to a man who pushed Time Warner Cable out of its corporate family nest back in 2009, and the reasons for doing so were ironic considering this weekend’s acquisition announcement:

Time Warner’s management believed that the separation was the right step for Time Warner based on the changes in Time Warner Cable’s business over time. […] Time Warner’s management believed that there were a number of potential benefits from the separation transaction:

• Time Warner would become a more streamlined portfolio of businesses focused on creating, packaging and distributing branded content.
• Time Warner and Time Warner Cable would each have greater strategic flexibility and each would have a capital structure that better suits their respective needs.
• The separation would provide investors with greater choice in deciding whether to own shares of Time Warner or Time Warner Cable or both companies based on their separate portfolios of businesses and assets.

What regulators ultimately think about the deal will probably take at least a year to learn, but reaction from Wall Street and both political parties was decidedly negative. AT&T’s decision to pay half the purchase price in cash worries investors more than the remainder of the cost paid in stock. AT&T’s stock price is falling, upsetting investors concerned about AT&T’s dividend, and the market may be signaling concern the merger might be a mistake of epic proportions similar to the disastrous $164 billion AOL-Time Warner merger in 2000.

Bewkes

Tom Eagan, an analyst with Telsey Advisory Group, said owning Time Warner for its content didn’t make much financial sense when it could license it for considerably less, as it does now.

“Why buy the cow when you get the milk for free?” Eagan wrote his clients.

Many analysts are wondering what changed Bewkes’ thinking that led to him spinning off Time Warner Cable in 2009, with his decision to sell in 2016. Time Warner got rid of its video distribution business because consumers were increasingly looking for alternatives to cable television. In 2000, that came primarily from satellite providers. Today it’s cord cutting.

Combining AT&T and Time Warner would create a mega-corporation that would own or control many of the largest cable networks and a major Hollywood studio and allow AT&T to maintain absolute control over how that content was distributed. Shareholders were concerned about the price tag of the deal, driving shares down in both companies. Combining AT&T’s existing debt with Time Warner will leave the combined company saddled with $175 billion in debt — a massive amount of money that may not be financed at near zero percent interest for long, if the Federal Reserve boosts interest rates. Moody’s has put AT&T’s credit ratings up for review for a possible downgrade as a result.

Both Republicans and Democrats reacted with unease about the prospect of creating another Comcast/NBCUniversal-sized entertainment company. Almost all were skeptical about the benefits to consumers. AT&T’s competitors seemed even more chilled, fearing AT&T’s control of both the content and the means to distribute it would give the juggernaut an unfair advantage. For example, AT&T could give itself a discount to carry Time Warner programming on U-verse and DirecTV that would be unavailable to competitors. It might also take a harder line on competing providers at contract renewal time.

Some regulators and politicians believe bigger has not proved better for consumers in the telecom space, particularly after seeing the results of Comcast merging with NBCUniversal. Critics contend Comcast has never taken the deal’s approving consent decree seriously, and have dragged their feet on adhering to the deal’s many conditions. Consumers have gotten almost nothing from the merger except higher cable bills.

Analysts predict AT&T will do everything possible to minimize regulator review of its deal. The first step will be to eliminate the FCC from the deal review process, which is a very real possibility considering Time Warner and AT&T have few deal-related FCC-issued licenses beyond a single independent television station in Georgia owned by Time Warner. That station could be sold or transferred to a separate entity within months. The deal will get a mandatory review by the Justice Department, looking for evidence of antitrust. AT&T plans to claim the merger combines two entirely different companies and won’t have any implications on competition.

Critics of the deal think otherwise, pointing to the potential of favoring AT&T over cable companies with lower programming rates. Net Neutrality proponents are also concerned about AT&T’s practice of zero rating its own content, which gives AT&T a competitive advantage in the wireless space.

After years of financial problems, union problems, and service problems, customers of FairPoint Communications in northern New England report the company has stabilized operations and has been gradually improving service. A hedge fund holding 7.5% of FairPoint agrees, and is now pressuring FairPoint’s board of directors to sell the company, allowing shareholders that bought FairPoint stock when it was nearly worthless to cash out at up to $23 a share.

That almost guarantees shareholders a huge profit while likely saddling whoever buys FairPoint with the same kind of sale-related debt that bankrupted FairPoint in 2009.

Maglan Capital’s David Tawil and Steven Azarbad communicated their displeasure to FairPoint CEO Paul Sunu in a letter earlier this summer that complains “shareholders have been extremely patient with the company’s operational turnaround and have suffered because the board has not been vigilant in protecting shareholder value.”

“Not as patient as FairPoint’s own customers that spent several years of hell dealing with Verizon’s sale of its landlines in Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine,” said FairPoint customer Sally Jackman, who lives in Maine. “It looks like the hedge funds want their pound of profits from another sale, exactly what FairPoint customers don’t need right now.”

Jackman endured three weeks of outages after FairPoint took over Verizon’s deteriorating landline networks in northern New England. The nearest cable company – Time Warner Cable, is almost 50 miles away, leaving Jackman with FairPoint DSL or no broadband service at all.

“Wall Street doesn’t care, they just want the money,” Jackman added. “They probably assume Frontier will pay a premium for FairPoint and then we can go through the kind of problems customers in Texas and Florida dealt with for over a month.”

The hedge fund managers argue that FairPoint “has made enormous strides” and notes “revenue is stabilizing and growth is coming.”

Maglan is well positioned to cash out with an enormous gain, having been an investor in FairPoint since the phone company declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy almost six years ago. The fund held shares when their price dipped below $4. Now, assuming FairPoint will put shareholders first “in ways that other wireline telecom companies do,” investors like Maglan hope to see a sale at a share price of $23, a 75% premium.

“With the company’s labor challenges behind it and with it $700 million of long-term debt removed from FairPoint’s balance-sheet, the time has come for the company to be sold or to be merged into a peer,” the hedge fund managers write.

Tawil (L) and Azarbad (R)

Maglan recommends the company be sold to Communications Sales & Leasing, a tax-sheltered Real Estate Investment Trust spun off from Windstream with no current experience running a residential service provider. CS&L primarily provides commercial fiber services for corporations, institutions, and cell phone towers. Shareholders would benefit and CS&L would benefit from diversification, argues Maglan. But the hedge fund has nothing to say about the sale’s impact on FairPoint customers.

Maglan also demanded that while FairPoint explored a sale of the company, it must turn its investments away from its network and operations and start “generating value for shareholders immediately.” Maglan wants FairPoint to turn spending towards a $40 million share repurchase program (to benefit shareholders with a boost in the stock price) and initiate a recurring shareholder dividend payout. To accomplish this, FairPoint will have to designate much of its $23 million of cash on hand and a hefty part of the $52 million of free cash flow anticipated in 2016 directly to shareholders. The company may even need to tap into its revolving credit line if financial results are worse than expected.

Tawil and Azarbad characterize their plan as “well within the range of comfort.”

“It is high-time that the company and the board turn its attention directly to shareholders and, specifically, unlocking shareholder value,” the hedge fund managers add. “We have been a very patient group.”

But perhaps not as patient as they thought. This week, Maglan demanded that FairPoint remove four of its board members — Dennis Austin, Michael Mahoney, David Treadwell and Wayne Wilson, demanding they “immediately tender their resignations” and warned Maglan would push for a special meeting if no action was taken. The reason? Tawil and Azarbad said they did not think the four were “critical to the board in any way.”

“Wall Street has been about as useful as cancer for those of us trying to communicate with the outside world up here,” Jackman said. “I hope all three states get copies of these temper tantrums, because if FairPoint does sell, maybe this time they won’t approve the deal. After all, even the Titanic only sank once.”

The Communications Workers of America just proved there is strength in numbers. After 39,000 network technicians and customer service representatives employed by Verizon Communications went on strike April 13 after nearly a year without a contract, Wall Street pondered the potential impact of $200 million in lost business for Verizon’s FiOS, phone and television services.

Reports from customers and union observers suggested Verizon’s temporary workforce of strike replacements proved inept and unsafe, putting increasing pressure on Verizon executives to respond to union demands to share a piece of Verizon’s vast and increasing profits.

The CWA and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) have also been some of the strongest advocates of pushing Verizon to continue service upgrades, particularly for its FiOS fiber to the home service. The unions believe the fiber upgrades not only benefit the workers who install and maintain the optical fiber network, but also help Verizon sell more products and services to customers who would love an alternative to their local cable company. Although Verizon FiOS has a substantial presence in major Eastern Seaboard cities, vast areas of Verizon territory are still dependent on its aging copper wire networks that can handle little more than basic landline service and slow speed DSL.

The seven week strike was the largest and longest strike action in the United States since 2011, and attracted the attention of the Obama Administration and the two Democratic candidates for president. It was also one of the most effective, from the union’s point of view.

Verizon workers have been on strike since April 13.

Verizon executives eventually agreed to ‘share the wealth’ with workers, offering to hire 1,400 new permanent employees and pay raises just above 10 percent. It was a long journey for the workers and the unions, which have fought for a new comprehensive agreement with the company for several years. The CWA last struck Verizon for two weeks after negotiations deadlocked in 2011. Their latest contract ended last August, leading the union to begin several months of “informational picketing,” which effectively meant workers visibly protested Verizon’s policies towards its employees but stayed on the job while doing so.

Conservative groups attacked the unions and defended Verizon officials in editorials and columns. Billionaire Steve Forbes called Verizon employees “bamboozled” and greedy. Unless workers capitulated to Verizon executives’ wise and realistic demands, “Big Labor” would reduce Verizon’s tech revolution to something that “looks more like Detroit than Silicon Valley.” Forbes had nothing to say about Verizon’s explosive growth in compensation and bonus packages for the company’s top executives, or its increased debt load from buying out Vodafone, its former wireless partner, or its generous dividend payouts and share buybacks to benefit shareholders.

Did Verizon Capitulate Because it Intends to Sell Off its Wireline Networks?

Is Verizon planning on selling off its wireline networks?

Some on Wall Street were visibly annoyed that Verizon capitulated. Some analysts predicted it was the beginning of the end of Verizon remaining in the wired networks business.

“They needed to end the strike and they bit the bullet,” said Roger Entner of Recon Analytics. He said he thinks the deal “reinforced their commitment to basically exiting [wireline], the least profitable, most problematic part of the business. [The new contract] gives Verizon four years basically to get rid of the unit. Let it be somebody else’s problem.”

That somebody else is likely Frontier Communications. Stop the Cap! has predicted for more than a year our expectation Verizon Communications will continue to gradually sell off its wired service areas, starting with those inland regions not FiOS-enabled, to Frontier as that smaller company’s capacity to borrow money to finance transactions allows. Frontier has a strong interest in staying in the wireline business, and is acknowledged to have stable and friendly relations with its unionized workforce, including former Verizon workers. This commitment is especially significant in a context where employers are held liable for their employees’ conduct in LA, underscoring the importance of maintaining positive and compliant workplace relationships.

Jim Patterson, CEO of Patterson Advisory Group, believes Verizon’s recent investments in fiber optics signals it does intend to stay in the wireline business. But there is a careful line to be drawn between wireline investments in services like FiOS and those made to support its much more profitable wireless unit, Verizon Wireless.

Bruce Kushnick, executive director of New Networks Institute, is increasingly skeptical about Verizon’s FiOS spending priorities.

Shammo

“According to the NY Attorney General, about 75% of Verizon NY’s wireline utility budget has been diverted to fund the construction of fiber optic lines that are used by Verizon Wireless’s cell site facilities and FiOS cable TV,” Kushnick wrote last week in a Huffington Post article that questions Verizon’s announced investments in wiring Boston with fiber optics for FiOS. “On the 1st Quarter 2016 Verizon earnings call, [chief financial officer Fran] Shammo said that the build out is for another Verizon company – Verizon Wireless—and it is going to be paid for by the wireline, state utility— Verizon Massachusetts; i.e., it is diverting the wireline construction budgets to do another company’s build out of fiber, to be used for wireless services.”

If Kushnick is right, Verizon may not care whether the service area(s) it sells are well-fibered or not. The fact Verizon recently sold FiOS-enabled service areas in Texas, Florida, and California to Frontier Communications may bolster Kushnick’s case. Shammo’s statements to Wall Street suggest Verizon is primarily attracted to investing in areas where it needs to improve its wireless service, not its landline, broadband, and television services, delivered over FiOS fiber optics.

“We’ll take one city at a time,” Shammo said on the same conference call. “Obviously we still don’t have Alexandria (Virginia) built out or Baltimore. So if we get to a position where we believe we’re going to need to invest in [wireless network/cell] densification in those cities, then that’s an opportunity for us to take a look at it. But at this time we’re concentrating on Boston.”

Unions Can Make a Big Difference for Workers

Nobody believes individual workers could have negotiated the kind of salary and benefits package the CWA and IBEW won for their organized workforces. The New York Daily News heralded the end of the strike as “score one for the middle class — and for the importance of collective bargaining.”

As wages continue to stagnate for most Americans, union supporters call organized labor the last bulwark against a global wage race to the bottom for the middle class. Challenged by cheap labor overseas, increasing health care costs, and government policies some claim only promote accelerating wealth for about 1% of the population, the CWA’s victory forced Verizon to share some of its profits with the workers that helped make those profits possible.

Share the wealth

“Executives get performance bonuses, stock awards, and retention bonuses for doing a good job, so why shouldn’t we?” argued one picketer outside of a Wall Street event featuring a Verizon executive.

Verizon’s last “final offer” before capitulating was a 6.5% salary hike and little, if any, future job security. Now Verizon will have to hire additional permanent call center workers instead of outsourcing that work to Asian-based call centers. The unions also won other concessions that reduce compulsory relocation to other cities, canceled planned pension and disability insurance cuts, and the CWA got its first contract for Verizon’s previously non-unionized wireless retail force.