New York City officials are questioning the promised benefits of allowing Patrick Drahi’s Altice to acquire Cablevision in an all-cash deal that would combine ownership of Suddenlink and Cablevision under the European-based cable conglomerate.

Mayor Bill de Blasio’s chief legal counsel told the Wall Street Journal she is skeptical about Altice’s proposed $900 million in cost cutting at Cablevision leading to better service.

“Altice is talking about $900 million in synergies. Well, what’s getting cut? How’s that going to impact the economy of New York and quality of services?” asked Maya Wiley. “We certainly are not afraid to disapprove a transaction.”

Altice’s Public Interest Statement, outlining the public benefits of the acquisition, was perceived as long on rhetoric but woefully short on specifics. Altice officials made vague promises to expand fiber optics across Cablevision’s footprint in return for approval of the transaction, but stopped short of committing to offer fiber to the home service.

Stop the Cap!’s Special Report, reviewing the proposed acquisition of Cablevision, attracted the interest of investors on Wall Street as well as several New York City public officials we spoke with about the proposed buyout.

City Hall of New York (Photo: Will Steacy)

On our recommendation, New York officials reviewed French press coverage of Altice and its colorful CEO Patrick Drahi. Dozens of articles have covered Drahi’s controversial business practices over the years, including efforts to stall payments for suppliers, initiating salary and job cuts, and a reduction in spending on meaningful service upgrades. His French operation SFR-Numericable lost one million customers in just one year. Earlier this year, he promised increased investment to turn those subscriber numbers around.

Wall Street is also increasingly skeptical about Drahi’s American business plans.

Cablevision’s stock price has dropped well below Altice’s all-cash offer of $34.90 a share, telegraphing concern the deal will not escape regulator scrutiny and ultimately will not close.

“The spread has widened in large part because people have become increasingly concerned that neither the city nor the state will find that the transaction is in the public interest, or alternatively, they’ll demand so much in terms of givebacks that ultimately the deal won’t be palatable to Altice,” Craig Moffett, analyst at MoffettNathanson LLC, told the Journal. “Altice dramatically overpaid, and their attempts to cut costs are both overly ambitious and are potentially injurious to what we already expected to be very weak operating results.”

If Drahi wins approval to take over Cablevision, Altice is likely to curtail promotional spending at the cable company. The cable operator competes head-to-head with Verizon FiOS across much of its downstate New York, New Jersey and Connecticut service areas. That will likely lead to higher prices and fewer deals for consumers as price competition cools down.

The deal remains under review by the New York Public Service Commission and the FCC. Decisions from both are not expected until next spring.

On Monday, Altice closed its acquisition deal for Suddenlink, a cable operator serving states with more forgiving and business-friendly regulators.

As expected, Altice immediately named an executive team that will oversee significant cost cutting and reorganization at the cable operator that serves mostly rural and small city customers.

Two Suddenlink employees reached out to Stop the Cap! on Tuesday to tell us morale was dropping among middle managers at the cable operator.

“Most of our employees have little idea who Patrick Drahi or Altice is and they are not aware of the business reviews we’ve been told are coming after the holidays,” said one West Virginia based middle manager. “Some of my colleagues in customer care are updating their resumes this week and I’ve also heard concerns from technicians and IT workers. Some want to jump out early to secure new jobs before expected job cuts cause a small flood of resumes all over the state.”

“It’s a worrisome Christmas because we are not sure how many will be let go,” writes a Suddenlink mid-level IT manager working in Texas. “Salaries at Suddenlink have never been high but a lot of us prefer to work in our hometown and not move to Dallas or Houston to work for companies like Time Warner Cable or AT&T. It’s also a more relaxed work environment, but now there is a lot of concern what the new management will be doing.”

Goei

Chairman and CEO Jerry Kent announced he will be leaving Suddenlink in those roles but has agreed to chair a new advisory council at Altice USA, the subsidiary established to manage Altice’s American cable assets.

Head chopper Michel Combes, the new chief operating officer of Altice NV, is expected to coordinate U.S. operations. Combes brings his reputation for ruthless cost-cutting from his last job — CEO of Alcatel-Lucent. In an effort to boost profitability and cut costs, Combes presided over 10,000 job cuts and a salary freeze (except for himself and select others) at the company better known as the former Bell Labs. Two years after wielding the hatchet, Combes engineered a sale of the company to Nokia and secured a large golden parachute package for himself. The optics of Combes’ overseeing salary freezes and job cuts while later lobbying for a retirement package focusing on his own personal enrichment caused a political furor in France.

The new management of Suddenlink has limited experience in cable but plenty of experience working at Wall Street banks.

The chairman of Altice USA is Dexter Goei, who joined Altice in 2009 after a career in investment banking at JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley that spanned 15 years. Charles F. Stuart, also a former investment banker at Morgan Stanley, will become co-president and chief financial officer. Abdelhakim Boubazine, former CEO of Altice’s operations in the Dominican Republic, will also serve as co-president and chief operating officer. His LinkedIn profile mentions his involvement in telecommunications began in 2013. His educational background strongly emphasizes fossil fuel engineering.

Licensed to print money

In 2008, Stop the Cap! was launched because the telephone company that serves our hometown of Rochester, N.Y., decided on a whim that it was appropriate to introduce a usage allowance of 5GB per month for their DSL customers. Frontier Communications CEO-at-the-time Maggie Wilderotter defended the idea with the usual claim that the included allowance was more than enough for the majority of Frontier customers. DSL customers already have to endure a lot of issues with Internet service and data caps should certainly not be one of them.

Stop the Cap! drew media attention and focus on the issue of data capping, organized customers for a coordinated pushback, and sufficiently hassled Frontier enough to get them to make the right decision for their customers by quietly rescinding the “allowances.”

As it would turn out, Frontier’s correct decision to suspend usage caps would prove an asset to them less than one year later when Time Warner Cable made it known it would trial its own usage caps in Austin and San Antonio, Tex., Greensboro, N.C., and yes… Rochester, N.Y. starting in the summer of 2009.

Time Warner Cable was slightly more generous with its arbitrary allowance — 40GB of usage for $55 a month. Customers already paying a lot for Internet access would now also have an arbitrary usage allowance and overlimit penalty fees with no service improvements in sight. Frontier’s decision the year before to rescind data caps played to their advantage and the company quickly launched advertising in Rochester attacking Time Warner Cable for its data caps, inviting customers to switch to cap-free Internet with Frontier.

Data caps are here!

Time Warner Cable’s experiment lasted less than two weeks and was permanently shelved, never to return. Four years later, Comcast began its own usage cap trial that not only continues to this day, but has expanded to cover more than 1,000 zip codes. Capped service areas typically live with a 300GB usage allowance with an overlimit fee of $10 per 50GB.

Yesterday at the investor-oriented UBS Global Media and Communications Brokers Conference, Comcast chief financial officer Mike Cavanagh assured Wall Street and shareholders Comcast’s desire to boost revenue from monetizing broadband usage remained an “important contributor” to the company’ goal of “demonstrat[ing] value and derive value from that pricing.”

Cavanagh said the company is using the line ‘heavy users should pay more’ to justify its caps.

“It’s been an experiment that we are using that the key data point behind it is kind of intuitive – ‘10% of our client base uses 50% of capacity.'”

While not ready to announce Comcast’s cap plan would be introduced nationwide, Cavanagh assured investors the experiments will continue as Comcast makes sure that over time it is “compensated for the investments that today’s marketplace requires us to make.”

The difference that makes it possible for Comcast to carry its usage cap experiments forward while Time Warner Cable had to quickly end theirs comes down to one thing: organized customer pushback. Time Warner Cable got heat from relentless, organized opposition in the four cities where caps mattered the most to consumers. Comcast, for the most part, is getting about as much heat as it usually does from customers. It’s time to turn the heat up.

In fighting this battle for the last seven years, I can share with readers what works to force change and what doesn’t:

In 2009, Time Warner Cable faced protesters opposed to usage limits at this rally in front of the company’s headquarters in Rochester, N.Y.

Generally Useless

• Complaining about usage caps in the comment sections of websites;
• Signing online petitions;

Impotent But Potentially Useful in Large Numbers

• Calling the provider to complain about usage caps;
• Complaining about usage caps to a provider’s social media team (Facebook, Twitter, etc.);
• Writing complaints on a company’s open support forum;

Useful, But Unlikely to Bring Immediate Results

• Writing a letter or making a call complaining to elected officials about usage caps;
• Advocating for more competition, especially from public/municipal broadband;
• Filing formal complaints with the FCC and Better Business Bureau;
• Complaining to state telecom regulators and your state Attorney General (they have no direct authority but can attract political attention);
• Canceling or downgrading service, blaming usage caps for your decision.

Gasoline on a Lit Fire

• Organizing a protest in front of the local cable office, with local media given at least a day’s notice and invited to attend;
• Contacting local newsrooms and asking them to write or air stories about usage caps, offering yourself as an interview subject;
• Sending local press clippings or links to media coverage to your member of Congress and two senators. Suggest another media-friendly event and invite the elected official to attend and speak, which in turn generates even more media interest.

In 2009, Time Warner Cable planned to implement mandatory usage pricing starting in Rochester, N.Y., Greensboro, N.C., and San Antonio and Austin, Tex.

In the battle with Time Warner Cable, we did all the above, but especially the latter, which quickly spun the story out of control of company officials sent to distribute propaganda about usage cap “fairness” and “generous” allowances. We were so relentless, we managed to get under the skin of at least one company spokesperson caught on camera being testy in an on-air interview, which backfired on the company and angered customers even more.

In the case of Comcast, very few of these techniques have been used in the fight against their endless data cap experiment. Customers seem satisfied writing angry comments and signing online petitions. Some have filed complaints with the FCC which are useful measures of hot button issues on which the FCC may act in the last year of the Obama Administration. But there is no detectable organized opposition on the ground to Comcast’s data caps. That may explain why Comcast’s CEO has repeatedly told investors your reactions to Comcast’s caps have been “neutral to slightly positive.” Many Wall Street analysts obviously believe that, because some are advocating the time is right to raise broadband prices even higher. After all, if your reaction to data caps was muted, raising the price another $5 a month probably won’t cost you as a customer either.

It would be very different if these analysts saw regular news reports of small groups of angry customers protesting in front of Comcast offices in different areas of the country. That would likely trigger questions about whether broadband pricing has gotten out of hand. Coverage like that often attracts politicians, who cannot lose opposing a cable company. Once Congress gets interested, the fear regulation might be coming next is usually enough to get companies to pull back and reconsider.

If you are living with a Comcast data cap and want to see it gone, you can do something about it. Consider organizing your own local movement by tapping fellow angry customers and recruiting local activist groups to the cause. In Rochester, there was no shortage of angry college students and groups ready to protest. Google local progressive political groups, technology clubs, and technology-dependent organizations in your immediate area. Some are likely to be a good resource for building effective public protests, sign-making, and other TV-friendly protest techniques. Contact town governments, the mayor’s office of your city, technology-oriented newspaper columnists, radio talk show/computer support show hosts, etc., to build a mailing list for coordinated announcements about your efforts. Many local officials also oppose data caps.

If a local news reporter has covered tech or consumer issues in the past, many station websites now offer direct e-mail options to reach that reporter. If you give them a good TV-friendly story to cover, they will be back for more coverage as your local protest grows. We helped coordinate and share news about efforts against Time Warner in the cities that were subject to experiments, which also gave us advance notice of their talking points and an ability to offer a consistent response. Several stations carried multiple stories about the cap issue, supported by calls to TV newsrooms to thank them for their coverage and to encourage more.

We realize Comcast’s responsiveness to customers is so atrocious it approaches criminal, but Comcast does respond to Wall Street and shareholders who do not want the company under threat of fact-finding hearings, FCC regulatory action, or Congressional attention. They also don’t want any talk of municipal broadband alternatives. Sidewalk protests in front of the local cable office on the 6 o’clock news is a nightmare.

In the end, Time Warner Cable didn’t want the hassle and got the message — customers despise data caps and want nothing to do with them. Time Warner hasn’t tried compulsory usage caps again. If you want Comcast to get the same message, those living inside Comcast service areas (especially customers) need to lead the charge in their respective communities. We remain willing to help.

The Communications Workers of America today filed comments with the Federal Communications Commission opposing the proposed sale of Cablevision to Patrick Drahi’s Altice NV, arguing the claimed public interest benefits are illusory.

The CWA, which represents some of Cablevision’s workers in Brooklyn, took a hard look at Altice’s merger proposal and the $8.6 billion in debt Altice will take on to close the deal and called it dangerous, resulting in “considerable harm with no offsetting concrete, verifiable benefits for consumers, workers, and communities.”

“Altice’s track record in France and Portugal clearly shows the danger this deal poses to Cablevision’s customers and employees,” said Dennis Trainor, vice president of Communications Workers of America District 1. “Altice takes on too much debt, outsources as much work as possible and then downsizes its workforce. Customers get worse service and employees lose their job. Unless Altice makes commitments to protect customer service and Cablevision employees, the FCC should reject this deal.”

The CWA is also concerned about the disparity between what Altice is telling regulators and what the company is saying to Wall Street.

Altice’s Public Interest Statement, which outlines the benefits to the public of the proposed transaction, stands out for its lack of specificity. In fact, the application’s only concrete commitments are vague promises to bring Altice’s “expertise” and access to capital for Cablevision’s use. Altice also promises to upgrade Cablevision’s IT systems, including customer care, service, and billing systems, and alluded it would expand Cablevision’s fiber optics deeper into its network, but comes short of promising a direct fiber to the home connection. In fact, the only promised benefit of pushing fiber further out would be “the removal or reduction from the network of coaxial RF amplifiers, which consume substantial electricity and can be the cause of difficult-to-detect service outages (RF amplifier failures).”

“Deeper fiber deployment would enable Cablevision to reduce its power costs and to further improve network reliability, resulting, in turn, in a greater ability to invest further in the network and improved service delivery to subscribers,” Altice dubiously claimed.

Many of Altice’s claims appeared “disingenuous and misleading” to the CWA. From the CWA’s filing:

To finance its $17.7 billion acquisition of Cablevision, Altice is taking on $8.6 billion in new debt, which when added to Cablevision’s already heavy debt load of $5.9 billion, will leave the new Cablevision with a total net debt of $14.5 billion.  Given the high cost of the new debt financing, the annual interest payments needed to finance the $8.6 billion in new debt amount to $654 million on top of Cablevision’s current interest payments of $559 million for a total of $1.2 billion in annual interest payments at the new Cablevision, representing a full 112 percent increase in Cablevision debt. The new interest payment ($654 million) plus Altice’s announced $ 1.05 billion in cuts means that the new Cablevision will have $1.7 billion less cash available to spend on the network and service.

“Altice’s business model, the one that it has used to fuel its explosive global growth, requires the acquired company – in this instance, Cablevision — to finance its own acquisition and to provide cash to the parent for future acquisitions,” the CWA argues. “Altice chief financial officer Dennis Okhuijsen explained the capital structure of post-transaction Cablevision: ‘[W]e’re not going to lever up the existing business. This is a stand-alone capital structure, so we’re levering up the target for Cablevision….’”

Translation: Cablevision alone is responsible for the debt Altice raised to pay for Cablevision. Or, as Altice explained to investors in its third quarter 2015 earnings report, the parent company operates its various subsidiaries as “distinct credit silos in Europe and the U.S.”

Altice CEO Patrick Drahi’s business formula is always the same. To raise money to help offset the mountain of debt dumped on the acquired company, Altice’s designated managers helicopter in to the acquired company to begin slashing expenses and find money it can send to Altice headquarters to help fill its coffers to acquire even more companies. French telecom giant Numericable-SFR, while on the road to losing one million customers in just one year, was preoccupied borrowing nearly $2 billion, not to improve the company’s service, but rather to pay Altice a special dividend to help pay down the huge amount of debt Altice incurred when it bought the 60 percent stake in the French mobile and cable company it did not already own.

To keep Altice afloat, Drahi’s business strategy requires a steady supply of company acquisitions to deliver the increased cash flows Altice needs to finance its debt. The CWA warned regulators Altice may require Cablevision to spend its cash flow to help Drahi acquire other companies in the future, further reducing the amount of money Cablevision needs to attract and keep subscribers.

To make the deal a long term success, Altice-Cablevision will either have to cut its return to shareholders, raise its prices, and/or slash expenses and jobs. Past experience with Altice shows shareholders come first, which means company management will likely preside over a harvest of Cablevision’s assets to meet the expectations of Wall Street banks and investors. Customers will feel the cuts from the reduction in service and slowed investments and upgrades.

At the same time Altice was promising the FCC it would continue Cablevision’s “first in class” level of service, the company was telling Wall Street it was planning cuts to the bone. Among Altice’s already-proposed cuts for Cablevision:

• Capital expense: $150 million cut
• Network and Operations: $ 315 million cut
• Customer operations: $135 million cut
• Sales and marketing: $45 million cut
• Eliminate duplicative functions and “public company” costs: $135 million cut
• Other unspecified cuts: $135 million cuts.

The impact of these cuts shift costs onto others, argues the CWA, including making the acquired firm pay for its own demise, making the workforce pay through job loss and reduced compensation, making customers pay through deteriorating service, and making suppliers become Drahi’s bankers by delaying payments.

The CWA says customers will also pay for the privilege of getting declining service.

“In Israel, the cable provider Hot Telecommunications has raised prices multiple times since it was bought by Altice, including a cable rate increase of 20 percent in 2014 and the attempt to raise prices again this year,” the CWA argues. “The top Israeli cable regulator called the price hike ‘greed for its own sake’ which was not justified based on the company’s profit margins.”

In the United States, nobody oversees cable pricing.

“In summary, the experience in France, Portugal, Israel, and elsewhere provides concrete evidence that the Altice business model – one that it plans to replicate with its Cablevision acquisition – does not serve the public interest,” concludes the CWA. “Making an acquired company pay off massive debt load with service-impacting cost cutting has serious and negative consequences for customers, suppliers, communities, and workers. The lesson from France is clear: cutting to the bone leads to massive customer defection. It is not a business model that will benefit the people of New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey.”

While AT&T is in no hurry to expand and upgrade U-verse broadband to its wireline customers in the United States, the Dallas-based company has spent more than $7 billion trying to attract wireless customers in Mexico that so far don’t show much interest in the U.S. company.

AT&T last month reported it is losing big south of the border. After spending $4.4 billion to acquire two competing wireless companies in Mexico and committing another $3 billion to upgrade their networks to 4G service, customers are continuing to abandon the carrier.

The losses AT&T continues to incur improving wireless service in Tabasco, Veracruz, and Baja California has not bothered AT&T to date — in fact the company plans to dump even more money into the Mexican cellular market, despite achieving a market share of only around 8.5 percent, effectively making it about as relevant as Sprint in the United States. Its largest competitors are the gigantic América Móvil, which has nearly 70 percent of the market and Telefónica, which holds a 22 percent share.

So far, AT&T has been forced to support different websites for its two different carriers – Iusacell and Nextel Mexico. The former also maintains the Unefon brand, which targets low income Mexicans with cheap prepaid service.

Part of AT&T’s problem recouping its investment is the fact Mexicans cannot afford the pricing Americans pay for cell service. While AT&T charges $50+ for a low-end cell plan in Texas, just across the Mexican border AT&T offers a $13 basic plan offering 500 calling minutes and 500MB of data.

AT&T’s decision to spend billions in Mexico while it reduces spending on further expansion of its U-verse network has nothing to do with Net Neutrality or Title II enforcement by the Federal Communications Commission. It is all about finding new customers. Wireless penetration has now topped 100 percent in the U.S. (because some families maintain multiple devices, sometimes with different carriers). In Mexico, less than 50% of the population has a cell phone and even fewer own smartphones. AT&T believes that gives it plenty of room to grow. AT&T believes wireless service brings the best potential for profits both inside and outside of the U.S., and the company thinks it can dramatically improve market share in Mexico and charge prices that will bring it a healthy return.

Their customers apparently disagree. In Mexico, for the first nine months of the year, AT&T lost 689,000 wireless subscribers — a decline of almost 8 percent. Even customers attracted to try AT&T for the first time often decide to leave, giving AT&T Mexico a churn rate exceeding 5% — five times worse than what AT&T experiences in the United States.

Some Wall Street analysts are critical of AT&T throwing good money after bad down south. Michael Hodel of Morningstar doesn’t like what he sees. The incumbent Mexican telecom giant América Móvil has kept the lion’s share of the market for years and has vastly more scale than AT&T. Hodel sees losses for AT&T until 2018.

Others wonder how AT&T Mexico will be able to introduce the premium priced services it will depend on to get a return on its investment. The Mexican economy is unlikely to allow customers to pay substantially more for wireless service.

AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson has told investors if AT&T builds a 4G network, customers will come and pay AT&T’s asking price.

“We are convinced that what we experienced in the U.S., we will experience in Mexico,” Stephenson said at an investor conference in May. “So you are going to see the mobile Internet revolution take off in Mexico. We intend to ride that wave.”

Free trade supporters and those who support the deregulation of the Mexican telecom market are trying to use AT&T’s experience as evidence that free markets and trade works.

“AT&T’s moves are the clearest evidence of success in Mexico’s reforms, and it’s hard to overstate the importance,” said Christopher Wilson, deputy director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington.

For customers, it isn’t a matter of free trade. It’s good coverage at a reasonable price that matters most, and AT&T Mexico has not yet achieved that.

Arturo Diaz, originally an Iusacell customer in Mexico City, recently dropped his AT&T Mexico service.

“Their coverage is not very good outside of large cities and AT&T’s reputation is to raise prices, which they seem to do a lot in the U.S.,” Diaz said. “If you can afford a better phone and plan, you switch to América Móvil. With the stronger American dollar, the peso is devalued again, so more people will likely want a budget prepaid plan which they can get from Telcel. I’m not sure what AT&T is doing in Mexico and their plans from two different companies are a mess. I signed up with América Móvil last month.”

Broadband prices in the United States are far too low and it is long past time to “significantly” boost prices and introduce usage caps/consumption-based billing to put an end to the threat of online video competition once and for all.

Those are the views of Jonathan Chaplin, a research analyst for New Street Research LLP, and he made sure to share them with Robert Marcus, CEO of Time Warner Cable on a morning conference call with investors.

“Our analysis suggests that broadband as a product is underpriced,” Chaplin told Marcus, and it is hardly the first time he has beat the drum for higher Internet pricing.

In June, Chaplin wrote a note to investors that pulled no punches about what usage billing is really all about.

“Our work suggests that cable companies have room to take up broadband pricing significantly and we believe regulators should not oppose the re-pricing (it is good for competition & investment),” Chaplin wrote. “The companies will undoubtedly have to take pay-TV pricing down to help ‘fund’ the price increase for broadband, but this is a good thing for the business. Post re-pricing, [online video] competition would cease to be a threat and the companies would grow revenue and free cash flow at a far faster rate than they would otherwise.”

Chaplin pestered Marcus this morning about why Time Warner Cable has remained steadfast in keeping compulsory usage caps or usage-based pricing away from their broadband customers.

Marcus

“As part of the merger conditions, you made a concession to not moving towards usage-based pricing for a number of years,” Chaplin asked. “I’m wondering if that’s something that you felt the FCC required, or that came up during the course of the Comcast, Time Warner Cable discussions and why you needed to offer that up as a condition.”

Ironically, it was Marcus who schooled Chaplin on the realities of a marketplace where cap-free competitors like Google, Verizon, and AT&T U-verse (their stated cap is not enforced) exist and are more than capable of stealing Time Warner Cable customers if the cable company gets too greedy. Time Warner’s best chance of earning more broadband revenue is to sell faster service, Marcus noted.

“I can’t give you an outlook on where broadband pricing is going, except to say we’re going to continue to deliver more and more utility to customers,” Marcus said. “Generally speaking, where customers get more value out of your products, they’re willing to pay more. But what we actually charge is going to be a function of what the marketplace dictates. It’s a very competitive market out there and we’re going to have to continue to price our products in a way that allows us to acquire and retain them.”

Chaplin’s remarks tying usage pricing to curtailing online video competition are no surprise to consumer advocates, who believe usage-based billing is an obvious weapon cable and phone companies can use to protect their cable-TV revenue. Sling’s CEO considers usage pricing a serious threat to the viability of alternative video providers like Sling TV.