Cablevision's top executives head on out. Tom Rutledge (left) and John Bickham (right) left within weeks of each other.

The unexpected and sudden departure of two senior executives at Bethpage, N.Y.-based Cablevision has pushed the rumor mill into overdrive the cable company is about to be sold or taken private.

John Bickham, president of cable communications and chief operating officer Tom Rutledge will both be spending more quality time with their respective families after departing Cablevision.  Last Thursday’s announcement that Rutledge would resign caused Cablevision’s stock price to drop by nearly 14% during trading Friday.

The inevitable conclusion on Wall Street: Cablevision is about to be sold or taken private.

Major shareholders and investment firms have criticized Cablevision over the years for being “too successful” signing customers to fixed price double or triple-play packages that provide a full suite of products and services, but deliver few growth opportunities shareholders demand. With heavy competition from Verizon FiOS in most of their service areas, Cablevision’s ability to simply raise rates is limited, especially when customers bounce between promotional offers from the phone and cable companies.

Rutledge’s departure, in particular, has been seen as a major negative on Wall Street because he was responsible for many of Cablevision’s most innovative products, including streamed video, his advocacy for boosting broadband speeds, and the company’s aggressive move into home security.

Craig Moffett, a Wall Street analyst from Sanford Bernstein, thinks Comcast and Time Warner Cable are set to divide the spoils in a shared buyout — Comcast grabbing northern New Jersey and Connecticut and Time Warner Cable assuming control of Cablevision’s systems in New York.  But other analysts don’t think that scenario is so likely, especially when considering the Dolan family’s long history in the cable business.

ISI Group Inc. analyst Vijay Jayant told Light Reading Cable he believes the more likely scenario would have the Dolan family buying out shareholders and taking the cable company private.

Time Warner Cable has repeatedly informed shareholders the company will not engage in bidding wars or overpay to win new acquisitions, and the Dolan family’s selling price for Cablevision is likely far higher than Time Warner would be willing to pay.  Comcast might have a political problem assuming control of more cable systems after its recent merger with NBC-Universal.  Shareholders may also rebel, as they did in a 2007 effort to take Cablevision private.  Investors felt they were offered too low a price to compensate them for their shares.

Moffett believes Cablevision’s days of high earnings and rapid growth are behind them, because just about everyone who wants cable service already has it, either from Verizon FiOS or Cablevision.

“No, we don’t think [Cablevision] can grow. And, no, we don’t think the rest of cable is doomed to the same fate,” Bernstein’s Moffett wrote in a report in late November. “The cause of [Cablevision’s] growth decline is straightforward: it has been so successful in achieving high product penetrations that growing further is quite challenging.”

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Joyce Says Cablevision May Be a Takeover Target 12-16-11.mp4[/flv]

David Joyce, media analyst at Miller Tabak & Co., talks about Cablevision Systems Corp. Chief Operating Officer Tom Rutledge’s resignation and the outlook for the company.  Bloomberg News.  (5 minutes)

Verizon Communications has held no talks with Netflix about a possible acquisition, despite frenzied media reports to the contrary.

Deal Reporter, a trade publication, was the source of the original rumor, but Bloomberg News reports the story is premature after talking with two sources who should know.

The rumored takeover did wonders for Netflix stock, which jumped more than six percent on the news.  That’s a boost the streaming and DVD-rental service needed after a year of public relations missteps and subscriber losses.

Verizon’s recent move towards launching its own streaming entertainment service outside of its FiOS fiber-to-the-home service areas made the rumor more credible, but other analysts think Verizon’s interest is on different company that shares Netflix’s love of the color red.

“Verizon’s not interested in Netflix, they see Redbox as a much better fit,” Sam Greenholtz, an analyst with Telecom Pragmatics in Westminster, Maryland, who has consulted for Verizon and was briefed by its employees about its plan, told Bloomberg.

It’s not the ubiquitous network of Redbox kiosks Verizon is after, it is the content distribution deals the company has with Hollywood studios.  Those deals are becoming quite lucrative for production companies — so lucrative in fact Time Warner’s chief entertainment mogul has cut back on his personal bashing of Netflix.  With Amazon, Time Warner’s own HBO Go, and Verizon entering the online video fray, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings declared there is now an “arms race” among the behemoths to dominate online viewing, and jack up licensing fees.

Hastings sees only the deepest-pocketed players as having a chance to make a stand in the online streaming marketplace, because content costs are increasing dramatically.  Hastings says Verizon and Amazon are bit players because they don’t offer a deep catalog of content and their offerings are more difficult to view on the family television set.

“The competitor we fear most is HBO Go,” Hastings said. “HBO is becoming more Netflix-like and we’re becoming more HBO-like. The two of us will compete for a very long time.”

HBO Go is part of the cable industry’s TV Everywhere project, delivering online video services to authenticated cable-TV subscribers.  Although HBO Go is typically included for free with an HBO subscription, the premium movie channel’s price has increased dramatically in the last three years.  In many areas, a monthly subscription for HBO now runs just shy of $15 a month.

CNN Money pondered whether Netflix can ultimately stay independent in a country where vertically and horizontally integrated super-sized entertainment companies control programming, distribution, and the Internet providers consumers use to access the content.  Netflix may still be an acquisition target:

Verizon. On the one hand, Verizon appears to be showing stronger interest in Redbox, which is planning to launch a streaming-video service in May 2012. On the other hand, Redbox is likely to face the same onerous licensing costs that plague Netflix, and Verizon might be better off buying a company experienced in licensing streaming rights. And besides, by hinting of a Redbox deal, Verizon can push down Netflix’ price – making a deal that much cheaper.

But if a Verizon deal makes sense on the face of it, it could become problematic over time. The two companies’ cultures are incompatible. Netflix takes risks that often (but not always) pay off, and builds its products around the customer’s experience. Verizon is risk-averse and builds its strategies on wringing fees from customers. If Netflix members staged a revolt over of the subscription fiasco, imagine how they’d react if Verizon raised fees further or demanded Netflix users sign up with its Internet service.

Microsoft. Netflix could give Microsoft the popular online service it’s never been able to build on its own. The Xbox has gone from gaming console to a well-received smart TV device, and integrating Netflix’ streaming-video service could put it ahead of Apple and Google. Plus, Reed Hastings could bring Microsoft a seasoned executive who instinctively understands where digital content is going.

Google. If the search giant can buy a phone maker, why not a video service? At $42.6 billion Google’s cash stockpile is 116 times the size of Netflix’s. Google already owns the only other digital-video property that has been embraced by the masses: YouTube. Combining the best features of both could lead to the only site you’d need to visit to get your video fix. Google’s recent comments on a controversial anti-piracy bill, however, could strain relations with studios that Netflix must license from.

Apple. As with Google, Apple’s $45 billion in cash will not only buy Netflix but sign many content deals and still leave tens of billions in the coffers. Thanks to iTunes, Apple has longstanding relationships with TV and movie studios, which could secure better terms for Netflix. And like iTunes, Netflix could spur enough sales of Apple devices that Apple doesn’t need to worry about making the profit that Netflix investors expect today.

Amazon. For as long as Netflix has been around, someone has been suggesting a merger with Amazon. Consumers have been buying DVDs from Amazon for years, and with IMDB, the best single film database on the planet, finding and researching movies to watch would be a cinch. The catch has been that owning Netflix’s mailing facilities would open it up to taxes in many states. But that may change now that Netflix seems ready to sell off its shrinking DVD-rental business.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Bibb on Verizons Possible Bid for Netflix 12-12-11.flv[/flv]

Porter Bibb, managing partner at Mediatech Capital Partners LLC, talks about Verizon Communications Inc.’s possible offer for Neflix Inc. and the outlook for the streaming video industry. He was widely cited as one of the primary sources of the Verizon acquisition rumor.  He speaks with Jon Erlichman on Bloomberg Television’s “Bloomberg West.”  (5 minutes)

Verizon Wireless customers in New Jersey were startled Monday when the company sent out text messages labeled “Extreme Alert,” telling people a civil emergency was underway and they should seek immediate shelter.

No, Jersey Shore’s Snooki was not in the building.  It turned out to be a bungled test of the cell phone company’s emergency alert system, designed to text important information to cell phone customers located in specific geographic areas.

The fact Verizon forgot to mention “this is only a test” alarmed those receiving the warnings, as well as area 911 call centers that were subsequently flooded with calls.

Verizon admitted it sent the messages by mistake to customers in Middlesex, Monmouth and Ocean counties.

Emergency officials in all three counties began receiving calls from worried residents and the state homeland security office and emergency management center eventually posted messages on Twitter declaring the messages a false alarm.

At least Verizon didn’t charge customers for the text messages.  They, like other company-initiated communications, come free of charge.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WABC New York EAS Alert 12-12-11.mp4[/flv]

WABC’s New Jersey reporter talked with recipients of Verizon’s scary text message, and emergency officials who had to deal with the onslaught of phone calls from worried residents.  (2 minutes)

If they build it, will Verizon, Time Warner Cable, or Comcast come?

The Massachusetts Broadband Institute (MBI) has just received a major shipment of cable it will use to construct part of its 1,300-mile fiber optic network, designed to provide better-than-dialup service to over 120 communities in western and north central Massachusetts.  That is, if providers show any interest in selling access to it.

The news that the broadband blockade in the western half of the state may finally come to an end is being trumpeted by local newspapers and TV newscasts from Springfield.  WSHM used the occasion to celebrate with current AOL dial-up user Ryan Newhouser, of Worthington:

A high-speed informational highway will be set up with thousands of miles of high-speed fiber optic cables. Those fibers will now be installed on utility polls across Western Mass.

Now residents sitting at their computers in frustration can finally look forward to high-speed internet access.

Perhaps.

As Stop the Cap! first explored earlier this year, the new fiber network is good news for western Massachusetts.  But it alone will not deliver service to the masses who desperately want faster Internet access.

The incumbent phone and cable companies have certainly not shown much interest.  Verizon treats western Massachusetts much the same way it served its landline customers in the rest of northern New England (Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont.)  The company’s landline network was allowed to deteriorate along with Verizon’s interest in providing service in the largely rural states.  Eventually, it sold its operations north of Massachusetts to FairPoint Communications.  Comcast and Time Warner Cable are missing in action in many parts of the region as well.  As big phone and cable companies concentrate investments in more urban areas like Boston, many residents in places like Worthington can’t buy broadband service at any price.

MBI optimistically hopes the presence of its new fiber backbone and middle-mile network will change all that.  But outside of AT&T’s apparent interest it to provide service to its cell towers, there has been no publicly-expressed enthusiasm by Verizon or cable operators to begin serious investment in broadband expansion across the region.

The Last Mile Network Challenge

So what is holding western Massachusetts back?  The same thing that keeps broadband out of rural areas everywhere — the “last-mile” problem.  Traditionally, operators target urban and suburban areas for their investments because the construction costs — wiring up your street/home/business — can be recouped more easily when divided between a pool of potential customers.  Every provider has their own “return on investment” formula — how long it will take for a project to pay for itself and begin to return profit.  If your street has 100 homes on it, the chances of recouping costs are much higher than in places where your nearest neighbor needs binoculars to see your house.  Pass the ROI challenge and providers will invest capital to wire your street.  Fail it and you go without (or pay $10,000 or more to subsidize construction costs yourself.)

That is why eastern Massachusetts has plentiful broadband and the comparatively rural western half often does not.

MassBroadband 123 is the state’s solution to the pervasive lack of access across the western half of The Bay State.  It will consist of a fiber backbone and “middle mile” network, solving two parts of a three-part broadband problem.  The project’s commitment to deliver open access to institutions and commercial ISPs across the region is partly thanks to the availability of broadband grant money, particularly from the federal government.

Projects similar to MBI’s MassBroadband 123 typically include the hoped-for-outcome that private companies will step up and invest to ultimately make service available to end users.  Unfortunately, large incumbent providers often remain uncommitted to wiring the last-mile, and communities promised ubiquitous broadband end up with an expensive institutional network that only serves local government, public safety, schools, libraries, and health care facilities.

Thankfully, it does not appear MBI is depending on Verizon, which has shown no interest in spending significant capital on its legacy landline network or cable operators that are unlikely to break ground in new areas.

Communities are increasingly learning if they don’t have service today, the only real guarantee they will get it is by providing it themselves.  That is where WiredWest comes in.  It is a community-powered partnership — a co-op for broadband — pooling resources from 22 independent towns (with 18 more expected to join) to build out that challenging last mile, and deliver future-proof fiber to the home service.  No last generation DSL, slow and expensive fixed wireless, or limited capacity coaxial cable networks are involved.

WiredWest Members

Founding member towns span four counties, including Berkshire County towns of Egremont, Great Barrington, Monterey, New Marlborough, Otis, Peru, Sandisfield, Washington and West Stockbridge; Franklin County towns of Ashfield, Charlemont, Conway, Heath, New Salem, Rowe, Shutesbury, Warwick and Wendell; Hampshire County towns of Cummington, Heath, Middlefield and Plainfield; and the Hampden County town of Chester.

Most of the construction costs for the new network will likely come from municipal bonds, because government grants typically exclude last mile network funding.  Commercial providers often lobby against municipal-funded networks as “unfair competition,” a laughable concept in long-ignored western Massachusetts, where Verizon pitches slow speed DSL, if anything at all.

WiredWest compares rural broadband with rural electrification.  Community-owned co-ops provide service where few private companies bothered to show interest:

Think back to the rural electrification of America. Then, as now, it wasn’t profitable enough for private companies to build out electrical service to rural communities. Imagine where those communities would be today if the government hadn’t stepped in to help fund this essential service – which over time has sustained itself and become a profitable enterprise.

Rural fiber-to-the-home is affordable when you use an appropriate financing and business model that isn’t subject to the same short-term measures of profitability as a private company. A municipal model for example, allows capital investment that can be written off over a longer period of time.

This type of business model isn’t limited to community-owned broadband.  Other countries that treat broadband as an essential utility have, in some cases, boosted broadband beyond a simple cost/benefit “ROI” analysis.

Constructing a broadband network for western Massachusetts still presents some formidable challenges, however:

1. There is a serious imbalance in government grant programs.  A largesse of government funding for institutional broadband has delivered scandalously underused Cadillac-priced networks communities, libraries and schools cannot afford to operate themselves once the grant money ends.  Meanwhile, funding to cushion the cost of wiring individual homes and businesses is extremely scarce.  Isn’t it time to divert some of that money towards the most difficult problem to overcome — wiring the last mile?
2. Government impediments to community broadband must be eliminated.  Repeal laws that restrict public broadband development.  Early experiments in municipal telecom networks have taught valuable lessons on how to operate networks efficiently and effectively.  But the broadband industry engages in scare tactics that highlight failures of older public projects like community Wi-Fi in an effort to keep superior publicly-owned fiber-to-the-home networks out of their markets.
3. The public is not always engaged on the broadband issue and accepts media reports that misunderstand institutional broadband as a solution for those stuck using dial-up.  No matter how good a network is, if the “last mile” problem remains unsolved, the closest consumers like Mr. Newhouser will get to fiber service is looking at the wiring on a nearby telephone pole.  In many communities, fiber broadband paid for by public tax dollars is only accessible at the local public library.  Taxpayers must demand more access to networks they ultimately paid for out of their own pockets, and should support existing public broadband initiatives wherever practical.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSHM Springfield Broadband internet coming to western Mass 12-8-11.mp4[/flv]

WSHM in Springfield says if you don’t have broadband in western Massachusetts now, it should be coming to your area soon.  But will it?  (3 minutes)

Haven't we been here before?

History is best ignored when a Wall Street Journal columnist frames an argument in favor of strengthening the hegemony of Ma Bell, and darn ‘ole past precedent gets in the way of the writer’s “facts.”

Gordon Crovitz is a media and information industry adviser and executive, including former publisher of The Wall Street Journal, executive vice president of Dow Jones and president of its Consumer Media Group.  But today he’s unofficially, unabashedly AT&T.

In a column published this week, Crovitz hosts a whine and cheese festival on behalf of poor and abused AT&T, whose multi-billion dollar takeover of T-Mobile is in tatters. Crovitz places the blame squarely on the government for ruining everything:

How soon we forget the risks of overregulation: Last week, the Federal Communications Commission flexed the same muscle it once used to quash market forces in the phone industry to quash market forces in the wireless industry.

Today’s AT&T, a spinoff from the original, needs more spectrum to catch up with market leader Verizon, also a Ma Bell descendant, to support iPhones, Androids and other devices that feature video and sophisticated apps. It wants to buy T-Mobile, a division of a German company, which doesn’t have the resources to compete in the United States on its own. But the FCC decided to apply antitrust theory from the industrial era and claims to know better than wireless companies how they should operate their businesses.

AT&T’s proposed acquisition is best understood as a private-sector solution to a government-created problem. The FCC has not been able to get Congress to approve auctions to reallocate spectrum to wireless from less valuable uses. AT&T wants T-Mobile’s bandwidth so it can extend the latest fourth-generation network to 97% of the country from 80% and improve its spotty service in congested areas.

Under laws dating to the 1920s, the FCC gets to decide if a merger is in the “public interest,” a vague standard for top-down decision making. Government is the last institution in this era of fast technological innovation to act as if it has the information and power to dictate how change happens.

Crovitz apparently prefers AT&T and its phone pal Verizon Wireless dictate how “change happens,” because the two companies control the vast majority of wireless telecommunications in the United States.  Both also charge near-identical prices for near-identical levels of service.  AT&T & VZW are completely comfortable with that status quo, especially if disruptive competitor T-Mobile is dealt with in the usual industry manner (merger/buyout).

There is nothing vague about the FCC report that condemns the merger of AT&T and T-Mobile for the anti-competitive monstrosity it represents.  In hundreds of pages Crovitz evidently never read, a careful and credible argument against the deal was laid out for all to examine.  That evidence is far more persuasive than AT&T’s heavily-redacted filings the public was not authorized to see (for ‘competitive reasons’), and a multi-million-dollar-a-holler public relations distortion strategy based on hollow promises.

Playing Catch-Up With Verizon Wireless?  Hardly.

AT&T hardly needs to “catch up” with Verizon Wireless.  Both companies own wireless spectrum they have warehoused for “future use.”  As a backdrop to the merger, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has already indicated the agency is hard at work carefully re-allocating spectrum to make more room for wireless services.  The “bandwidth crisis” AT&T talks about is a convenient argument for a merger, until you realize T-Mobile’s mostly-urban wireless network won’t help AT&T achieve its goal of rural wireless expansion.  T-Mobile has never provided service in rural America and never will.

Crovitz attempts to leverage Verizon Wireless’ recent deal with America’s largest cable companies as an argument for the AT&T and T-Mobile merger, suggesting that deal was a game changer.  What goes unsaid is the fact AT&T could have pursued that deal for themselves.  Did they?  No.  Despite AT&T’s public relations spin, the proposed merger with T-Mobile is much more than a spectrum acquisition. As the FCC and the Justice Department have argued, this merger is about ridding AT&T of a competitor willing to offer more services at lower prices.  That forces AT&T to respond in kind to compete, and consumers have benefited greatly from that competition. Verizon Wireless is hardly competition at all considering both companies price services nearly identically.  Beyond that is Sprint, already saddled with the financial albatross Clearwire and questions about its long term viability in a duopolistic wireless market.

Crovitz is wrong on his other “facts” as well:

Deutsche Telekom is hardly short on cash.  The company has plenty of resources and could bolster T-Mobile USA to compete if it saw fit.  It doesn’t, preferring to focus on its more lucrative European markets.  Instead of selling the operation on the open market to other players, which could include foreign providers interested in competing in the high-priced American market, it elected to be courted by AT&T.

Overconfident AT&T

Henry De Lamar Clayton, Jr.: Author of the Clayton Act

The merger illustrates AT&T’s unparalleled level of overconfidence it could deal with regulators and consumer groups who would certainly object to the deal.  The company has since spent millions it could have used to improve its network on campaign-contribution-fueled support building on Capitol Hill, a shameless dollar-a-holler astroturf campaign that pays off non-profit groups to sing the deal’s praises, and an expensive ad campaign to sucker Americans into thinking reduced competition will somehow deliver lower prices and better service.

Even former Republican FCC Chairman Kevin Martin would have likely paused over such an obvious monopoly-building operation.  The Obama Administration’s FCC chairman — Julius Genachowski —  while often too timid for our tastes, at least knows when it is time to join the chorus of opposition.

The FCC doesn’t pretend to tell AT&T how to run its business.  It does, however, serve the public interest by providing checks and balances to unfettered corporate power.  While the Wall Street Journal‘s world view of capitalism would have been favored by the most egregious robber barons, history has taught us that when big corporations get a stranglehold on vital industries, the entire economy can suffer.

Crovitz would have us ignore the massive corporate abuses of 100 years ago that eventually provoked Congress into trust-busting legislative reform, breaking up the monopolies and oligopolies that presided over the railways, early telecommunications networks, and industrial raw materials like oil and steel.  Restrained competition brought monopoly prices and blockades against would-be competitors.  What was true then is still true now, only the technology has changed.

In 1911, the economy was powered in part by railroads, which transported goods and raw materials.  Telecommunications networks like the telegraph and early telephone helped conduct business and coordinated the movement of goods.  In 2011’s growing digital economy, telecommunications increasingly represents the railroads, telegraph, and telephone all combined-into-one.  Some of America’s richest tech companies depend on broadband and communications to fuel demand for their products.  Allowing AT&T to control the largest part of that pipeline could be disastrous to everyone but that company and their shareholders.

History Repeats Itself

In 1914, the Clayton Act was passed to put a stop to increasing anti-competitive activity and abusive market tactics.  Amazingly, the problems being solved a century ago are back with a vengeance today, all thanks to the endless drumbeat for deregulation, which has fueled mergers, acquisitions, and increased concentration of market power.  That Act cracked down on:

• Price discrimination: selling products and services at different prices to similarly situated buyers;
• Tying and exclusive-dealing contracts: sales on condition that the buyer sign exclusive contracts that force an end to dealing with the seller’s competitors;
• Corporate mergers: acquisitions of competing companies to reduce competition; and
• Interlocking directorates: Boards of directors of competing companies, packed with common members.

Today’s laissez-faire attitude towards government checks and balances helped provoke the Great Recession, corporate scandals of epic proportions, and a revolving door in Washington where regulators end up working for the companies they used to regulate. Just ask former FCC chairman Michael Powell. Three years ago he worked for us.  Today he works for Big Cable’s largest lobbying group — the National Cable & Telecommunications Association.  FCC Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker went to work for Comcast shortly after green-lighting their super-merger with NBC-Universal.

It’s All About the Money. Always.

The only thing stopping AT&T from providing wireless nirvana to rural America is its own unwillingness to spend money on behalf of customers to upgrade its network.  The company claims it didn’t see the value of spending nearly $4 billion needed to deliver expansive 4G service, but suddenly had no trouble at all finding nearly ten times that amount to purchase T-Mobile USA.

Did AT&T suddenly win PowerBall?

AT&T saw crushing a competitor Job #1.  Central Idaho’s 4G service could wait.

Crovitz later notes AT&T “was unusually blunt” criticizing the FCC report, a classic case of protesting too much.  The company got caught with its rhetorical pants down, with a series of evolving arguments for a deal that never made the first bit of sense once you began to dig deeper into their case.

In the end, Mr. Crovitz wants you to blame Big Government for AT&T’s pervasive dropped-call problem that its competitors don’t seem to have.

It’s not the company that owns and runs the network, it is that Obama and his nasty henchmen at the FCC who are responsible!  Who knew?

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg FCC Says ATT Failed to Show Public Benefit of Merger 11-30-11.mp4[/flv]

Bloomberg News reports the FCC found AT&T failed to demonstrate any real public benefit of its merger with T-Mobile USA.  (2 minutes)