From this…

What used to be known as CNN Headline News will soon become a network devoted to following popular websites and blogs to cover the latest viral social media stories to attract a younger audience.

HLN is dropping much of its news format, considered too stuffy to attract the under-34 crowd, and will instead focus on the most-Tweeted stories, the ‘coolest viral videos,’ and other trending topics making the rounds around the web.

“Taking a cue from today’s connected and wildly social generation, HLN will curate the news from across all platforms,” trumpets the HLN press release. “Headlines will be ripped from the most ‘plugged-in’ sites and blogs, and HLN will make it its mission to share the trending news, viral events and stories that have viewers most obsessed, plus discover emerging social stars.”

…to more of this.

In a nod to the growing trend of the self-obsessed and the “15-minutes of fame” crowd, new HLN head Albie Hecht told Buzzfeed’s Peter Lauria he was toying with a new tagline for HLN: “We’re not the news, you are.”

The new format is designed to chase off HLN’s older audience in favor of “millennial-minded viewers.” Advertisers consider the 18-34 demographic the sweet spot, and are not particularly interested in reaching anyone 50 or older (unless they are selling mobility products, life insurance, reverse mortgages, and home medical supplies.) That is what Me-TV is for.

The first new show to appear on HLN’s new format is “RightThisMinute,” featuring the stories behind viral Internet videos. Audience members will be encouraged to take part through social media like Twitter and Facebook.

Those annoyed with Nancy Grace and HLN’s other personality-driven programming are out of luck. HLN will retool prime time programs like “Nancy Grace” and “Dr. Drew on Call” to incorporate more social media interaction, but the programming will remain a major part of HLN’s new format.

Hostile Takeover

Charter Communications does not like the resistance it is getting from Time Warner Cable executives over its bid to acquire the company so Charter has nominated 13 new members for TWC’s board of directors in an effort to force executives to reconsider.

Charter calls the baker’s dozen a slate of “independent candidates” that will be willing to evaluate Charter’s offer of $132.50 a share. Time Warner Cable’s current management says it won’t negotiate with Charter unless they offer $160 a share.

“It is clear from our meetings with Time Warner Cable shareholders that there is an overwhelming desire to combine these two companies to increase Time Warner Cable’s competitiveness, grow market share and create shareholder value.  Now is the time for the current Board and management of Time Warner Cable to respond to their shareholders and work with us to complete a merger to the benefit of shareholders while minimizing their execution and market risks,” said Tom Rutledge, Charter’s CEO.  “We are nominating a full slate of highly qualified, independent directors to elect to the Time Warner Cable Board and believe that stockholders will use this opportunity to express their views.  Our purpose in this proxy contest is to enable shareholders of TWC to raise their voice, and to provide a very capable board who will hear them.”

Charter has gotten a lucky break because all 13 current TWC board members are up for re-election at the same time this spring. Many companies avoid that practice to prevent a hostile bidder from taking control of an entire company’s board.

Charter’s roster of nominees includes a number of current or former CEOs, three former Wall Street lawyers and an ex-chief technology officer that used to work for Time Warner Cable. Many were associated with hedge funds, cable operators that sold out to larger players, or companies that either went bust during the Great Recession and were bailed out by U.S. taxpayers.

Charter Communications’ ‘Rescue Team’ for Time Warner Cable

1. James Chiddix: A cable industry veteran who formally retired in 2007, Chiddix worked for Time Warner Cable from the mid-80s until 2001. He now serves as a director at Arris Group, a manufacturer of cable equipment. Chiddix served on the board of Virgin Media, acquired last year by Liberty Global — which also has an ownership interest in Charter Communications;
2. Bruno Claude: Known primarily as a “turnaround” expert, Claude has a record of restructuring troubled telecom operators by cutting jobs and negotiating with the large investment banks that generously loaned the money that fueled overvalued takeovers to write down that debt when banks realize they have no hope of being repaid in full;
3. Isaac Corre: Currently a lecturer at Harvard Law School, where he teaches a seminar on executive compensation and corporate governance, Corre spent a decade at Eton Park Capital Management, L.P., a global hedge fund. Corre specialized in “event-oriented” investments and “distressed corporate debt”;
4. Marwan Fawaz: Spent a year in a leadership role at Motorola Mobility/Motorola Home Division. He has the distinction of serving as an executive at two bankrupt cable operators: Charter Communications and Adelphia. Charter eventually emerged from bankruptcy, Adelphia did not and two members of its founding family are spending 15 years in the Allenwood federal prison, convicted of wire and securities fraud. Charter’s press release says Fawaz would be a valued addition to the board because he has “a deep understanding of the cable television industry”;
5. Lisa Gersh: Lasted less than a year as CEO of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia. Under her leadership, the company capped a year of turmoil that included layoffs, titles closing and the failure of Martha’s underwhelming Hallmark Channel show, according to Adweek. She was also a co-founder of Oxygen Media, which was sold to NBC;
6. Dexter G. Goei: An investment banker at Morgan Stanley back when it was hip deep in sub-prime mortgages and a taxpayer bailout, Goei was gone by 2009 and became CEO of Altice, S.A., a multinational cable company growing through acquisitions and takeovers. Goei is raising more capital through a stock IPO managed by Goldman Sachs and… Morgan Stanley;
7. Franklin (Fritz) W. Hobbs: In addition to serving as an adviser to private equity firms and director of Molson Coors Brewing Co., Hobbs has served as board chairman at Ally Financial, formerly GMAC, as GM declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy and was bailed out by U.S. taxpayers;
8. Neil B. Morganbesser: An investment banker, Morganbesser worked on mergers and acquisitions at Bear Stearns & Co., until the company’s sub-prime hedge funds sank like the Titanic. The investment firm was seeking taxpayer assistance, but ended up being acquired by J.P. Morgan in a hastily arranged deal instead. Charter claims Morganbesser has 20 years of experience providing financial and strategic advice to a full range of clients, including entrepreneurs, large corporations, governments, etc., but evidently wasn’t much help to his employer during the global financial crisis.
9. Eamonn O’Hare: Served as the chief financial officer of Virgin Media Inc., the UK’s leading cable television business, from 2009 until 2013. Unfortunately for him, most U.K. residents prefer satellite TV. But that didn’t hurt his bottom line. After Liberty Global acquired the operation in 2013, O’Hare got to share over $367 million in cash bonuses with certain other Virgin executives coming from a company that also has a vested interest in Charter Communications;
10. David A. Peacock: Another beer guy, Peacock most recently served as the president of Anheuser-Busch;
11. Michael E. Salvati: Another mergers and acquisitions guy, Salvati has been president at Oakridge Consulting, Inc., which provides interim management, management consulting and corporate advisory services to companies ranging in size from start-ups to multinational corporations, since February 2000. In short, he tries to promote financial growth at companies recently merged or acquired;
12. Irwin Simon: Founder of the Hain Celestial Group, a leading “natural and organic products company.” Brands including Arrowhead Mills, Bearitos, Rosetto and Rice Dream are well-known in organic food sections of local supermarkets, although few customers probably realize they belong to a giant conglomerate. Other divisions, specializing in “woo-woo personal care” offer dubious “calming body washes” costing $13 or more that feature extract of marigold. Charter says Simon would bring “his unique perspective on all aspects of advertising and marketing services” to a newly merged Charter-Time Warner Cable;
13. John E. (Jack) Welsh III: president of Avalon Capital Partners LLC — another private equity investment firm.

“If Time Warner Cable management refuses to negotiate on reasonable terms, we believe Charter will likely secure the votes required to win a proxy fight,” said Jonathan Chaplin, a research analyst with New Street Telco.

“It is clear that Charter is nominating a slate of directors for the sole purpose of pressuring our Board into accepting the same lowball offer that it previously considered and unanimously rejected,” said Time Warner Cable CEO Rob Marcus. “Our Board remains focused on maximizing shareholder value. We are confident in our strategic plan, which was detailed publicly on January 30, and we are not going to let Charter steal the company.”

Marcus may have one last card to play should Charter’s nominees end up on Time Warner Cable’s board of directors. All board members must serve the best interests of the company they oversee, not the company that helped get them elected. An independent evaluation of Charter’s offer must not be influenced by outsiders, or the board members may face lawsuits from angry shareholders. The Wall Street Journal notes this requirement has tripped up hostile bidders before. Air Products & Chemicals Inc. won three board seats at Airgas Inc. which Air Products had tried to buy back in 2010. Once on the board, the new board members recommended against the deal.

Phillip “Follow the Money” Dampier

“In the 1990s, U.S. policymakers faced critical choices about who should build the Internet, how it should be governed, and to what extent it should be regulated and taxed. For the most part, they chose wisely to open a regulated telecommunications market to competition, stimulate private investment in broadband and digital technologies, and democratize access.” — Will Marshall, guest columnist

Is competition in Internet access robust enough for you? Has your provider been sufficiently stimulated to invest in the latest broadband technologies to keep America at the top of broadband speed and availability rankings? Is Net Neutrality the law of the land or the latest victim of a Verizon lawsuit to overturn the concept of democratizing access to online content?

I’m not certain what country Will Marshall lives in, but for most Americans, Internet access is provided by a duopoly of providers that must be dragged kicking and screaming to upgrade their networks without jacking up prices and limiting usage.

Marshall is president and founder of the Progressive Policy Institute, a so-called “third way” group inspired by centrist Democrats led by President Bill Clinton in the 1990s. Unlike traditional liberals suspicious of corporate agendas, these Democrats were friendly to big business and welcomed the largess of corporate cash to keep them competitive in election races. It was under this atmosphere that Clinton signed the bought-and-paid-for 1996 Telecom Act, ghostwritten by lobbyists for big broadcasters, phone and cable companies, and other big media interests. Long on rhetoric about self-governing, free market competition but short on specifics, the ’96 law transformed the media landscape in ways that still impact us today.

Media ownership laws were relaxed, allowing massive buyouts of radio stations under a handful of giant corporations like Clear Channel, which promptly dispensed with large numbers of employees that provided locally produced programming. In their place, we now get cookie-cutter radio that sounds the same from Maine to Oregon. Television stations eagerly began lobbying for a similar framework for relaxing ownership limits in their business. Phone companies won their own freedoms from regulation, including largely toothless broadband regulations that allowed Internet providers to declare victory regardless of how good or bad broadband has gotten in the United States.

Marshall’s views appeared in a guest column this week in The Orlando Sentinel, which is open to publishing opinion pieces from writers hailing from Washington, D.C., without bothering to offer readers with some full disclosure.

Marshall

While Marshall’s opinions may be his own, readers should be aware that PPI would likely not exist without its corporate sponsors — among them AT&T, hardly a disinterested player in the telecommunications policy debate.

Marshall’s column suggests competition is doing a great job at keeping prices low and allows you – the consumer – to decide which technologies and services thrive. There must be another reason my Time Warner Cable bill keeps increasing and my choice for broadband technology — fiber optics — is nowhere in sight. I don’t have a choice of Verizon FiOS, in part because phone and cable companies maintain fiefdoms where other phone and cable companies don’t dare to tread. That leaves me with one other option: Frontier Communications, which is still encouraging me to sign up for their 3.1Mbps DSL.

“The broadband Internet also is a powerful magnet for private investment,” Marshall writes. “In 2013, telecom and tech companies topped PPI’s ranking of the companies investing the most in the U.S. economy. And America is moving at warp speed toward the ‘Internet of Everything,’ which promises to spread the productivity-raising potential of digital technology across the entire economy.”

Nothing about AT&T or the cable companies is about “warp speed.” In reality, AT&T and Verizon plan to pour their enormous profits into corporate set-asides to repurchase their own stock, pay dividends to shareholders, and continue to richly compensate their executives. It’s good to know that PPI offers rankings that place telecom companies on top. Unfortunately, those without a financial connection to AT&T are less optimistic. The U.S. continues its long slide away from broadband leadership as even developing countries in the former Eastern Bloc race ahead of us. Verizon’s biggest single investment of 2013 wasn’t in the U.S. economy — it was to spend $130 billion to buyout U.K.-based Vodafone’s 45% ownership interest in Verizon Wireless. Verizon’s customers get stalled FiOS expansion, Cadillac-priced wireless service, and a plan to ditch rural landlines and push those customers to cell service instead.

AT&T financially supports the Progressive Policy Institute

“A recent federal court decision regarding the FCC’s Open Internet Order has prompted pro-regulatory advocates from the ’90s to demand a rewrite of the legal framework that allowed today’s Internet to flourish,” Marshall writes in a section that also includes insidious NSA wiretapping and Internet censorship in Russia and China.

Marshall’s AT&T public policy agenda is showing.

Net Neutrality proponents don’t advocate an open Internet for no reason. It was AT&T’s former CEO Ed Whitacre that threw down the gauntlet declaring Google and other content providers would not be allowed to use AT&T’s pipes for free. AT&T has since patented technology that will allow it to discriminate in favor of preferred web traffic while artificially slowing down content it doesn’t like on its network.

“Pro-regulatory advocates” are not the ones advocating change — it is AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast, among others, that want to monetize Internet usage and web traffic for even higher profits. Net Neutrality as law protects the Internet experience Marshall celebrates. He just can’t see past AT&T’s money to realize that.

While cable companies continue to point to growing subscriber numbers for premium movie channels as evidence cable cord-cutting is not taking its toll, the owner of the country’s largest pay movie channel has undercut their argument.

Time Warner (Entertainment), owner of HBO, disclosed to investors recently that although the network picked up nearly two million new subscriber in the United States, most of those were watching the network for free through temporary promotional offers.

Free or discounted offers for premium movie networks are not uncommon. Time Warner Cable frequently bundles a one-year subscription to Showtime/The Movie Channel in its promotions. HBO and Cinemax are often offered for 3-6 months at no charge by other pay television providers.

Many viewers drop the network(s) (or negotiate another free viewing promotion) when charges start appearing on their bill. For years, premium movie channels cost around $13 a month, and many cable operators sold extra premium channels at a discounted $7 a month. But prices have risen dramatically over the last five years. Time Warner Cable, for example, now charges $15.95/mo for HBO, Cinemax, Showtime, and/or Starz.

Because of higher prices, HBO’s subscription revenue of $1.3 billion during the fourth quarter was up 8% year over year.

For years, cable operators have denied they have a problem.

But new evidence suggests Americans are cutting back on their cable television habit as prices continue to rise and alternatives become available.

One of the worst affected by cable cord cutters is Time Warner Cable, which has been consistently losing video customers month after month since 2009:

Disputes with programmers and competition from satellite and telephone companies may not be enough to explain away the trend of subscriber losses. It also does not explain why Americans under 35 are increasingly unlikely to sign up for cable television at all.

Cable cord cutting — fact or fiction?

Nonsense, replies Bloomberg opinion columnist Matthew C. Klein:

It is tempting to think that the declining number of subscribers at the U.S.’s biggest cable-television companies is a symptom of the industry’s malaise as it slowly slides into obsolescence. Don’t buy it. The losses are accounted for in the gains by smaller and nimbler rivals.

[…] The customers who have been abandoning Comcast and Time Warner Cable in droves haven’t given up on paid TV content, however. Focusing on the travails of the biggest cable companies obscures the reality that, according to Bloomberg Industries, the total number of pay-TV subscribers is slightly higher now than it was at the end of 2008 and that there were probably more people paying for television subscriptions at the end of 2013 than at the end of 2012.

To the extent that individual company results tell us anything, it could be about where Americans are moving, or the relative quality of service offered by the various companies. In the 12 months ended Dec. 31, AT&T Inc. added 924,000 subscribers to its U-verse TV service, while Verizon Communications Inc. added 536,000 subscribers to its FiOS TV service. Since the end of 2008, the two companies best known for their wireless services have added about 8 million pay-TV subscribers — far more than Time Warner Cable and Comcast have lost.

Klein’s views mirror those of many cable industry executives who blame the economy for deteriorating cable television subscriber numbers. Many suggest multi-generational households are responsible — stay at home kids and older parents are sharing a single cable television subscription. Others claim discretionary income is squeezing some to downgrade, but not cancel, cable television service.

Klein’s accounting does not tell the entire story. Competition from telephone companies, especially AT&T’s U-verse, is not as pervasive against Time Warner Cable and Comcast as Klein suggests. In fact, Charter Communications is among the cable companies facing the biggest onslaught of competition from AT&T. U-verse has picked up many of its newest subscribers not because of a sudden urge to switch, but rather because the service has only just become available in several new markets as a result of AT&T’s expansion effort. Verizon FiOS is still slowly expanding within its current franchise areas as well. Neither Comcast or Time Warner Cable consider either service much of a serious competitive threat.

AT&T U-verse, the larger of the two telephone company services, has a TV penetration rate of just 21 percent of customer locations. FiOS, which serves a smaller customer base, has a 35 percent penetration rate for television. Cable remains dominant for now, even as it loses subscribers and market share.

Another way to measure cord cutting is to look at the subscriber numbers of major basic cable networks that are most likely to be a part of any channel lineup. ESPN, for example, lost around 1.5 million subscribers between September 2011 and September 2013. Most of that loss came from cord cutting or downgrades to tiers like “Broadcast Basic,” consisting mostly of local television stations. ESPN’s numbers include all pay television platforms — satellite, telco TV, and cable.

In spite of the subscriber losses, cable industry profits remain healthy. Revenue growth these days comes from broadband service and rate increases.