Malone

Dr. John Malone’s Liberty Global has picked up an extra billion dollars it can use towards any plan to combine Time Warner Cable and/or Cablevision under Charter Communications.

Liberty has sold off some of its assets to build an enormous financial war chest it could use to launch a new wave of cable consolidation in the United States, potentially leaving Charter Cable as the country’s second biggest cable operator, just behind Comcast.

AMC Networks announced it will pay $1 billion to buy Liberty-owned ChelloMedia, a major international programmer and content distributor that operates 68 channels and networks available to more than 390 million households in 138 countries. Chellomedia is not well-known in North America but its networks are household names overseas. The deal includes Chello Multicanal, Chello Central Europe, Chello Zone, Chello Latin America and Chello DMC. In addition, Chellomedia’s stakes in its joint ventures with CBS International, A+E Networks, Zon Optimus and certain other partners are also part of the sale.

That $1 billion could be a key part of any blockbuster buyout deal because Malone can leverage that and other money with an even larger infusion from today’s easy access capital market. He has done it before, leveraging countless buyouts of other cable operators that built Malone’s Tele-Communications, Inc. (TCI) into the country’s largest cable operator by the early 1990s.

According to Shahid Khan, a media and cable industry consultant with Mediamorph, by this time next year Charter Communications could be just two million subscribers away from beating Comcast as the nation’s biggest cable operator.

Khan believes Malone laid his consolidation foundation with Liberty’s significant ownership interest in Charter Communications, from which he can build a new cable empire.

The most likely targets for consolidation are Time Warner Cable and Cablevision. According to Leichtman Research, as of this summer Comcast is the nation’s largest operator with 21.7 million subscribers. Regulators are unlikely to approve any deals growing Comcast even larger. But combining Charter, Time Warner Cable, and Cablevision would deliver 19.1 million subscribers under the Charter brand. A handful of smaller deals with minor operators like SuddenLink, Cable ONE, Mediacom, or Bright House Networks would quickly put Charter over the top of Comcast.

Malone’s public argument is that larger cable operators have more leverage to secure better deals and rates for cable programming, equipment vendors, and suppliers. It also delivers “cost savings” mostly through layoffs and cutting back on redundant operations like customer care call centers.

But Malone could also use the combined market power of the supersized cable company to keep competitors non-viable, especially for cable television programming. Frontier Communications learned what it is like to be a small player when its inherited FiOS networks in Washington, Oregon and Indiana lost Verizon’s volume discounts for cable programming. Frontier quickly found the programming rates it could negotiate on its own were so dramatically higher, it tried to convince FiOS TV subscribers to switch to satellite television instead.

Charter could also raise prices for broadband services in areas where its potential partners have not increased them quickly enough.

Ironically, AMC Networks’ one billion dollar buyout of Chellomedia could ultimately become the catalyst for a Malone-driven buyout of AMC’s former owner — Cablevision.

A portion of your cable bill pays for much more than programming, with millions diverted to Koch Brothers-backed astroturf groups, tea party candidates, fat paychecks for former public officials taking a trip through D.C.’s revolving door, and generous allowances for travel  expenses racked up by high-flying industry lobbyists.

The Center for Public Integrity took a trip through the 2012 tax return of America’s top cable trade group: the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA), which collected $60 million last year in membership dues from America’s top cable operators, who in turn were reimbursed by you when paying your monthly cable bill. They needed a shower when the journey was over.

NCTA president and CEO Michael K. Powell, the former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission during President George W. Bush’s first term, was well compensated in his new role representing the same cable industry he used to barely oversee, taking home more than $3 million in pay last year. Eight other employees, including NCTA’s executive vice-president, collectively cleared over a million dollars in salary according to the groups’ Form 990 filed with the Internal Revenue Service.

The revolving door at NCTA headquarters is kept well-greased, with 78 out of 89 federal-level NCTA lobbyists formerly working in government jobs representing the American people. Now they work for the interests of Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and other large operators.

Collectively, the NCTA spent $19 million on lobbying activities last year, much of it bankrolling “dark money” groups that refuse to disclose their donors and consider it their life mission to defeat President Barack Obama and blockade Democrats in Congress — the ones still most likely to demand more oversight and regulation of the free-spending cable industry. Among the groups receiving cable’s cash:

Americans for Prosperity, which received $50,000, spent $33.5 million opposing Obama during the 2012 election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks campaign spending. Americans for Prosperity often supports Tea Party causes and candidates and is the main political arm of billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch. As the Center reported Thursday, the group spent a staggering $122 million overall in 2012. Americans for Prosperity is also actively involved in blocking community-owned broadband projects and advocates passing laws forbidding communities getting into the broadband business if a cable company got there first. Now you know why.

Phil Kerpen with Glenn Beck

Americans for Tax Reform, which received $50,000, spent $15.8 million on the 2012 federal election, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The group’s president and founder, Grover Norquist, is famous for his Taxpayer Protection Pledge, by which legislators and candidates promise to oppose all tax increases. The cable industry is also an advocate of tax forgiveness policies that would let cable operators repatriate the cash they stashed overseas, avoiding the same taxman they snuck around opening overseas bank accounts.

American Commitment, which received $10,000, spent $1.9 million on the 2012 federal election to advocate for and against political candidates — mostly to help U.S. Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) defeat Democrat Richard Carmona. American Commitment also spent some of its money to oppose Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Obama. American Commitment Founder and President Phil Kerpen is the former policy and legislative strategist at Americans for Prosperity and previously worked at Club for Growth, another group that doesn’t disclose its donors. Kerpen joined Glenn Beck on his program in 2009 to nod agreement when Beck hopped aboard the crazy train suggesting the Obama Administration’s support for Net Neutrality represented a Marxist-Maoist takeover of the Internet. Silly Beck, doesn’t he realize AT&T already called dibs?

The Center for Individual Freedom, which received $20,000, has been actively fighting against proposals for increased disclosure of donors to politically active nonprofits. It spent $1.8 million during the 2012 election cycle mostly opposing Democratic congressmen Steven Horsford, Bill Owens and Dan Maffei, all from New York.

‘Your money is always good here, whether it comes from AT&T or the cable industry.’ — LULAC

The cable industry also bankrolls a number of our “favorite” sock puppet groups that reflexively support cable’s cause even when straying far beyond their alleged core missions and constituencies the groups claim to represent. Among those on cable’s payroll, sharing $5.8 million in “grant” funding, are some very familiar names to any regular Stop the Cap! reader:

• The Congressional Black Caucus Foundation
• The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
• LULAC
• The National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce
• The National Urban League

The largest grant – $2 million, went to the industry mouthpiece Broadband for America, the largest telecom industry astroturf group in the United States, featuring honorary Democratic co-chairman Harold Ford, Jr., who now spends most of his life in MSNBC green rooms after being bounced from office in a failed Senate bid in 2006.

Ford landed on his feet after losing the election, fleeing Tennessee for big money New York, peddling his inside the beltway influence to Merrill Lynch, winning him the position of vice chairman and senior policy adviser, until Merrill Lynch nearly collapsed in the Great Recession and was bailed out by U.S. taxpayers. Ford kept his $2 million annual salary and bonuses, but it wasn’t enough.

He quickly upgraded to a senior managing director at Wall Street firm Morgan Stanley, supplying him with enough cash to buy a $3 million co-op in a tony Manhattan neighborhood.

Broadband for America, brought to you by America’s Big Telecom companies.

From his perch in New York City, Ford pretends to know what is best for the little people across America suffering from no broadband, rationed access, or overpriced service.

His answer: buy it, if you can, from your cable company.

Ford’s co-chair at BfA is former Republican Sen. John Sununu who, by the way, also happens to sit on the board of Time Warner Cable. Need we say more?

There is no reason NCTA lobbyists shouldn’t travel in style when performing their advocacy efforts either. In 2012, they ran up nearly $800,000 in travel expenses.

Unsurprisingly, nobody involved was willing to comment.

As Dr. John Malone positions his pieces on the cable industry’s chess board to win back the title of King of Big Cable, it is important to consider history.

Malone’s growing interest in a combined Charter-Time Warner Cable, under his effective control, is the first step towards re-envisioning Tele-Communications, Inc. (TCI) — America’s largest cable operator in the 1980s and early 1990s. Although most of the original TCI Cable systems are now owned by Comcast, Malone’s notorious way of doing business may soon affect millions of Charter and Time Warner Cable subscribers in the not-too-distant future.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Senate Hearings Alan Garner Jeff City MO 3-90.flv[/flv]

How bad was life with TCI as your local cable company? Listen to Alan Garner, then-City Attorney for Jefferson City, Mo., who testified before Congress in March, 1990 about the uniquely abusive, allegedly criminal behavior of out of control TCI executives. (5:04)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Senate Hearings Danforth Alan Garner Jeff City MO 3-90.flv[/flv]

Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) was so stunned by the events in Jefferson City, he first asked if TCI’s threats were documented and on learning they were the basis of $35 million in court-ordered damages, the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee remarked, “you got thugs around there.” Under detailed questioning by Sen. John Danforth (R-Mo.) Garner talks about the “B-Movie” threats from TCI executives who warned city officials “we know where you live,” constant rate hikes, take-what-we-give-you service, and the fact TCI was willing to rip down cable lines and leave the city without cable service if they were denied a franchise renewal. (14:12)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Senate Hearings Burns Alan Garner Jeff City MO 3-90.flv[/flv]

A befuddled Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) asked Garner why the city would still want to stay involved in the cable franchise process after the city’s horror story. Garner explained cable operators use public property to wire service to customers. Without local oversight, Garner believed TCI would still be scattering cable lines across neighbors’ backyards, across sidewalks, and draped over fences. TCI had a unique way of managing local service complaints, according to Garner. It threw service orders into a random cardboard box and let cable repair crews fish them out one by one. The ones furthest back in the box were the oldest, and the least likely to ever be chosen. TCI only listened to city officials when they had some oversight and enforcement powers. (3:13)

Moffett

Wall Street is worried the cable industry will not be able to report major subscriber gains going forward because just about every middle/upper-income customer that wants broadband within cable’s footprint already has the service from either the phone or cable company.

Cable analyst Craig Moffett from MoffettNathanson Research predicts singing up the last 20% of Americans who don’t subscribe to broadband service will be challenging. As of today, 73% have the service, up 2.5% from last year. An increasingly anemic growth rate is a sign the marketplace is getting saturated, with only low-income Americans underrepresented, primarily because they can’t afford the asking price. Most of the rest don’t own or want computers or Internet access or live in a rural area where the service is unavailable.

Under these circumstances, it is no surprise broadband providers are reporting lower new customer gains. Time Warner Cable and Cablevision actually lost broadband customers in the third quarter, mostly to Verizon FiOS. For the last five years, the cable industry has picked up most of its broadband customers from phone companies offering only DSL service.

“To be sure cable is still taking share [from telco DSL] but it is doing so at a much more modest pace,” Moffett said.

The industry’s best chance for new subscriber growth appears to be bundling computers or tablets with an entry-level broadband offering targeting the poor.

Although cable companies are not supplying free PCs just yet, many are introducing relatively slow, budget-priced broadband tiers to attract lower-income subscribers.

Time Warner Cable introduced a $14.95 2/1Mbps broadband tier this month the company hopes will attract price-sensitive customers, especially those now subscribed to low-speed DSL.

Comcast has Internet Essentials, a $10 slow speed broadband service for families with children enrolled in the federal student lunch program. It is also rolling out a “prepaid Internet service” directly targeting low-income customers. Prepaid customers pay $69.95 for an activation kit containing a DOCSIS 3 modem and a month of broadband service. Renewals are priced at $15 for a week or $45 for a month for 3Mbps service with a 768kbps upload rate.

Most other cable providers offer entry-level broadband speeds, but usually only as a retention tool. Even if the industry custom-targets low-speed tiers to low-income homes, many customers may never make it past the cable industry’s credit check procedure. Comcast’s prepaid offering avoids that problem.

Phillip “Reality Check” Dampier

The city of Los Angeles believes if they ask for it, they will get it – gigabit fiber broadband, that is. It is too bad we have to run a reality check.

In December, the city plans to issue an ambitious Request for Proposals (RFP) inviting at least one private company to run fiber service to all 3.5 million residents (and businesses and public buildings) within the city limits. The idea, which won unanimous support from the City Council, does not exactly come with many risks for the city. The Council acknowledges the project is likely to cost up to $5 billion (we suspect more), and the city has made it clear it won’t be contributing a penny.

“The city is going into it and writing the agreement, basically saying, ‘we have no additional funding for this effort.’ We’re requiring the vendors that respond to pay for the city resources needed to expedite any permitting and inspection associated with laying their fiber,” Los Angeles IT Agency general manager Steve Reneker told Ars Technica. “If they’re not willing to do that, our City Council may consider a general fund transfer to reimburse those departments, but we’re going in with the assumption that the vendor is going to absorb those up-front costs to make sure they can do their buildout in a timely fashion.”

That is wishful thinking.

The winning vendor is not just on the hook for the cost of building the network. It also has to comply with a city requirement to give away basic 2-5Mbps broadband service, possibly recouping the lost revenue with advertising. Customers wanting faster access will pay for it. Although not required to offer phone or television service, Reneker anticipates the winning vendor will offer both to earn more revenue to pay off construction costs.

Greater Los Angeles is now served by a mix of AT&T, Time Warner Cable, Verizon, Cox, and Charter. Only Verizon has a history of providing a significant fiber optic broadband service, but it has suspended further expansion of its network. AT&T is the dominant landline provider, but considers its U-verse fiber-to-the-neighborhood design adequate for southern California. It seems unlikely any incumbent provider is likely to seriously contemplate such an expensive fiber project, especially because the city requires the winner to build an open access network that competitors can also use. Cable operators have also stated repeatedly that their existing infrastructure is more than adequate. The question providers are likely to ask is, “why do we need to partner with the City Council to build a fiber network we could build ourselves, on our own terms, that we ultimately own and control?”

The city can offer some incentives to attract an outsider, such as promising a lucrative contract to manage the city government’s telecom needs. It can also ease bureaucratic red tape that often stalls big city infrastructure projects. But Los Angeles is not exactly prime territory for a fiber build. Its notorious sprawling boundaries encompass 469 square miles, with many residents and businesses in free-standing buildings, not cheaper to serve multi-dwelling units.

Google avoided California for its fiber project reportedly because of environmental law and bureaucracy concerns. Even Google cherry-picks neighborhoods where it will deploy its fiber project in Austin, Provo, and Kansas City. The Los Angeles RFP will likely require universal coverage for the fiber network, although it will probably allow a lengthy amount of time for construction.

The City Council’s RFP comes close to promising Gigabit Fiber-to-the-Press Release.

Private providers govern their expansion efforts by an increasingly stiff formula to recover construction costs by measuring potential Return On Investment (ROI), which basically means when a company can expect to earn back the amount initially invested. Spending $5 billion on a fiber network that could actually cut expected Average Revenue Per User (ARPU) with a free broadband offer is going to raise eyebrows. Convincing investors to chip in on a fiber network “open to competitors” will also elicit a lot of frowning faces.

Wall Street analysts rolled their eyes when Verizon rolled out FiOS. It was “too expensive” and provided too few avenues for a quick ROI. ‘Verizon built a Lamborghini Aventador fiber network when a Honda Accord would have done just fine in the absence of fierce competition,’ analysts complained. Why spend all this money on fiber when fat profits were waiting to be harvested from high-ARPU wireless service? Verizon got the message and ceased expansion. AT&T never walked that Wall Street plank in the first place, delivering a less capable Chevrolet Spark network known as U-verse.

The city is likely to be disappointed with the proposals they receive, in much the same way local governments begging for competition from other cable companies get no positive results. The economics and expectations of today’s private broadband market makes it extremely unlikely an incumbent provider is going to rock a boat that has delivered comfortable broadband profits with a minimum of investment.

Breaking the broadband duopoly of high prices for slow service is only likely in the private sector if deep-pocketed revolutionaries like Google can self-finance game-changing projects. Los Angeles will likely have to sweeten its invitation to attract interest from players serious enough to spend $5 billion. It will likely have to invest some money of its own in a public-private partnership. Perhaps an even better idea is to take control of the city’s broadband destiny more directly with a community project administered by a qualified broadband authority with proven experience in the telecom business.

There is no reason private companies cannot be active participants in whatever project is ultimately built, but these companies are not charities and if their financial backers don’t see a pathway to profit running fiber rings around LA today, an RFP to build a fiber network with city strings-attached isn’t likely to garner serious interest tomorrow.