Cable companies, including Time Warner Cable, are offering a mix of threats and financial incentives to keep popular cable programming away from online video competitors.

Bloomberg News today reported the private discussions primarily target upstart streaming video services from companies like Intel, Apple, and Google, which are all proposing multichannel streaming video services that could one day replace the local cable company.

All three would-be competitors have been stymied, some for years, from signing contracts with popular cable networks like HBO, USA, ESPN and Comedy Central. If a viewer wants to watch those networks, they usually have to authenticate themselves as existing cable, satellite, or telco-TV customers to get access to live and recorded programming. The cable industry prefers it that way as a customer retention tool.

Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt admitted to Wall Street analysts attending this week’s Cable Show his company probably insists on contract language that bars programmers from providing content to online video services.

“We may well have ones that have that prohibition,” Britt said at the conference in Washington. “This is not a cookie-cutter kind of business.”

Some cable company contracts are more benign, only requiring programmers to license content on the same terms offered to their online competitors. Britt said some of Time Warner Cable’s contracts fall into this category.

Britt

Britt has repeatedly emphasized Time Warner wants to license content more broadly to allow the company to include it in its TV Everywhere platform, which streams video content to wireless devices. The cable operator adopted a policy in 2009 that sought to deliver content to customers on any device they wish. Restrictive contracts have kept that policy from being fully implemented.

AT&T U-verse says it won’t pay full price for cable programming sold to its online competitors.

“If they’re going to go over-the-top, then that’s a very different conversation and a very different value for our customers,” Jeff Weber, president of content, said last month at an investor conference. “Exclusive versus non-exclusive has materially different value for our customers. And I think we would want that reflected.”

Restrictive contracts are all about protecting the existing pay television ecosystem, according to Charter’s chief financial officer, Chris Winfrey.

“It’s in everybody’s mutual interest that we are protecting the ecosystem in a way that continues to keep the value of that programming that we have and the way it’s delivered to our subscribers today,” Winfrey said added.

Consumer groups say restrictive contracts are the epitome of anticompetitive industry behavior that should be examined by the Justice Department.

“Is it anticompetitive generally? Of course it is, they are keeping programming from their competitors,” said Gigi Sohn from Public Knowledge.

Satellite companies were originally in this same position, unable to carry popular cable networks on reasonable terms at fair prices until the 1992 Cable Act mandated reforms that required non-discriminatory access to cable programming. Online video providers have not yet been able to demand the same terms for their competing services.

One of America’s lowest-rated cable companies and an industry legend labeled by consumer advocates as the “Darth Vader of cable” may be joining forces to buy Time Warner Cable, according to Bloomberg News.

The blockbuster buyout would leap Charter Cable from fourth largest cable operator to second place, although still behind Comcast in terms of revenue and number of subscribers.

The spectacular return of Malone to the top echelon of the American cable industry was the talk of the industry’s Cable Show, ongoing this week in Washington, D.C. Those attending are reportedly buzzing Malone’s imminent return is likely to spark a massive consolidation of the U.S. cable industry to as few as three major cable operators serving more than 95 percent of the American cable marketplace.

Malone

Driving momentum to merge, in Malone’s view, is increasing cable video programming costs, which are cutting into profits. Having a fewer number of cable operators could hand the industry more leverage over broadcasters and unaffiliated cable programmers, but could also cut costs through marketplace efficiencies and volume discounts.

“If you’re John Malone, you’re thinking: we’ve got to get bigger,” Jim Boyle, managing director of SQAD and formerly a cable equity analyst for more than 19 years, said in a telephone interview with Bloomberg News. “The bigger Charter can get, the more economies of scale discounts it can get,” he said. “If everyone else is playing checkers, Malone is playing three-dimensional chess.”

For many on Wall Street, the only thing left to do is plan the funeral for the country’s second largest cable company.

“If you’re going to do a transformational deal, your choices are Time Warner Cable, Time Warner Cable and Time Warner Cable,” Craig Moffett, a veteran industry observer told Bloomberg. “You can roll up all the little guys if you want to, but even if you did, you haven’t built something that’s truly large-scale.”

“Time Warner Cable is gone,” Chris Marangi, a money manager at Gamco Investors Inc., said. “I think Charter will buy them eventually, whether it’s Liberty facilitating that or Charter doing it directly or the two companies doing it in partnership.”

Industry observers predict Malone will signal his dream deal by initially launching smaller mergers and acquisitions before attempting a buyout of a cable company considerably larger than Charter itself.

The first target: perennially bottom rated Mediacom, where any buyer is likely to be hailed as a rescuer by beleaguered subscribers who have regularly dismissed the cable operator as incompetent. Next, the Washington Post’s Cable ONE, which may already be plumping itself up as at attractive takeover target through investment in improving its network infrastructure.

But the most obvious foreshadowing of a big deal with Time Warner would most likely come if Charter first successfully acquires always-rumored-for-sale Cablevision, where the controlling Dolan family is rumored to be holding out for an exceptionally attractive buyout package other cable companies aren’t willing to offer. Time Warner itself has been rumored as a buyer, but current management has repeatedly stressed it will not pay a premium price for acquisition targets.

Malone may not be able to help himself. His long history in the cable industry includes a voracious appetite for merger and acquisition deals. For more than two decades, Malone led Tele-Communications, Inc. (TCI). When he arrived in 1972, TCI was a rural Texas and western states cable operation with 100,000 subscribers. By 1981, through mergers and acquisitions, he built TCI into America’s largest cable operator. In 1998, AT&T bought out TCI Cable. The phone company later exited the cable business and sold most of the operation to present owner Comcast.

The level of consolidation proposed by Malone is unheard of in the United States, but is familiar in Canada where two major cable operators — Rogers and Shaw — control the majority of cable subscriptions. Third largest Vidéotron leads in Québec and Cogeco serves pockets of Ontario and Québec bypassed by Rogers and Vidéotron, respectively.

AT&T has once again followed Verizon Wireless’ lead by ending early upgrades for contract customers, making it impossible to upgrade a handset with a full device subsidy until 24 months have passed.

The changes took effect last Sunday. Customers that bought their current device after March 1, 2012 must now wait four more months before they can get a discounted upgrade. AT&T also will only allow upgrades within the same “device category,” meaning a customer with an expiring smartphone contract cannot use their upgrade discount on a tablet device.

Previously, both Verizon and AT&T offered customers loyalty discounts and early upgrades for customers not minding a two-year contract extension. Device subsidies — discounts extended to customers to cut prices on new smartphones or tablets, are anathema to many Wall Street analysts because they can drag down provider earnings. Cell companies quietly win back the subsidy discount within two years by charging artificially higher rates on service plans. But Wall Street does not like waiting for a two-year payback.

Verizon Wireless and AT&T both charge nearly the same rates and have almost identical policies and discounts. When one carrier raises prices, the other quickly follows. In the past three years, both companies have ended a number of discounts and plan features — notably loyalty upgrade credits and flat rate data plans — in moves to cut costs and increase profitability.

Both Verizon and AT&T have spoken positively about the idea of doing away with phone upgrade subsidies altogether, but neither would say current rates would be lowered in tandem with such a move. Wall Street wants carriers to consider maintaining current pricing and ending phone subsidies, which would dramatically stimulate company earnings. A device subsidy on a top of the line smartphone is worth $150 a year — money that would come from the customer’s pocket, not AT&T or Verizon.

Customers who don’t want to pay AT&T’s contract prices will not find a better deal from its prepaid division. AT&T has also announced it is discontinuing several  affordable data plan options effective June 20.

The most-affected plan is AT&T GoPhone’s $25 monthly plan, which includes unlimited texting and 250 minutes of calling. That plan allowed customers to choose between three data packages:

• 50MB for $5/month;
• 200MB for $15/month;
• 1GB for $25/month.

Effective June 20, the only available data add-on for this plan will be the 50MB option. Customers exceeding this will have to re-subscribe for an extra $5 for each renewal.

AT&T’s $50 monthly plan includes unlimited texting and calling. But customers will no longer be able to add data service. Instead, they will have to upgrade to AT&T’s premiere $65 plan, which includes the same features as the $50 plan but adds up to 1GB of data.

AT&T says it will have new options for consumers in the coming weeks, but until then, data customers will often pay an average of at least $15 more per month as the changes take effect.

Verizon Wireless: You are being watched.

Would it bother you if the advertiser on that big billboard you just drove past could find out if you later visited that business in response? Should a store like Best Buy or Sears be able to know if you are only using their showrooms to see a product you will eventually buy online? Should your phone company be able to store your complete travel history for years and then create new products and services to pitch aggregated travel observations to anyone willing to pay?

Verizon Wireless does not think you will have a problem with any of this, because it has quietly begun selling this information through its Precision Market Insights (PMI) service.

AT&T is likely not too far behind with a similar service of its own, potentially earning millions from a comprehensive data trove tracking customer locations, travel history, and web browsing habits for an undetermined length of time.

The Wall Street Journal reports shareholder demand for higher profits is pushing cell phone companies to find new revenue streams, even at the potential risk of alienating customers and privacy advocates.

PMI clients may find out more about you than you realize, even though phone companies promise they will not sell personally identifiable information about their customers.

The Phoenix Suns are PMI clients, and by tracking game attendees, Verizon Wireless was able to tell the sports team:

• 22% of game attendees are from out-of-town;
• Most spectators had children at home, ranged in age from 25-54 and earned more than $50,000 a year;
• 13% of baseball spring training attendees in the Phoenix area also went to Suns games;
• Area fast food restaurants running Suns promotions saw an 8.4% uptick in business from Verizon Wireless customers.

Such information can let the sports team target advertisers and offer evidence-based statistics that any campaign will increase sales, and by how much. Malls can use PMI to find certain types of customers that have a history of lingering in mall stores. Billboard owners can see if their ad messages resulted in higher in-store visits.

Customers using a phone under a commercial or government account are exempt from the tracking program. All residential customers are automatically opted in to take part, unless they specifically opt out.

Privacy advocates are concerned carriers are storing personal customer usage data for an undetermined amount of time, and in a form that could be personally identifiable, even if the provider decides not to sell data with that granularity to third parties. That could make cell phone companies prime targets for government/law enforcement subpoenas.

Last year, Verizon sent a notice to customers opting them in to the program unless they specifically opted out. Stop the Cap! covered the story back then, helping customers wishing to opt out.

[flv width=”504″ height=”300″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSJ Cell Companies Track Customers 5-22-13.flv[/flv]

The Wall Street Journal reports wireless carriers were at first slow to sell data on their customers’ usage habits, but not anymore. Shareholders want new sources of revenue, and wireless companies are packaging and selling customer information to get it.  (2 minutes)

Wireless Industry: We’re running out of spectrum!
Wireless Industry: We’ve got plenty to room for unlimited ESPN!

America is on the verge of a wireless traffic data jam so bad, it could bring America to its knees.

Or not.

Stop the Cap! notices with some interest that while wireless carriers continue to sound the alarm about a spectrum crisis so serious it necessitates further compressing the UHF television dial and forces other spectrum users to become closer neighbors, the same giant phone companies warning of impending doom are negotiating with online video producers to offer customers “toll-free,” all-you-cat-eat streaming video of major sports events that won’t count against your usage allowance.

ESPN is in talks with at least one major carrier (AT&T or Verizon Wireless) to subsidize some of the costs of its streamed video content so that customers can watch as much as they want without running into a provider’s usage limit. Both Verizon and AT&T have signaled their interest in allowing content producers to pay for subscribers’ data usage. In fact, they don’t seem to care who pays for the enormous bandwidth consumed by streaming video, so long as someone does.

At a recent investment bank conference Verizon Wireless chief executive Dan Mead explained the next chapter in monetizing data usage will allow the company to rake in more revenue from third parties instead of customers already struggling with high wireless bills.

“We are actively exploring those opportunities and looking at every way to bring value to our customers,” said Mead.

Content producers are increasingly frustrated with the stingy caps on offer at AT&T and Verizon Wireless because customers stop accessing that content once they near their monthly usage limit. One large provider admitted to ESPN that “significant numbers” of customers are already reaching their cap before the end of their billing cycle, after which their online usage plummets to limit the sting of overlimit charges.

Offering “toll-free” data could dramatically increase the use of high bandwidth applications and increase profits at wireless providers based on new fees they could collect from content producers. Customers would still be subject to usage limits for all non-preferred content, a clear violation of Net Neutrality principles.

The buffet is open.

But in case you forgot, wireless carriers won exemption from Net Neutrality, arguing their networks lack the capacity to sustain a Net Neutral Internet experience. These same companies claim without more frequencies to handle the massive, potentially unsustainable amount of wireless traffic, the wireless data apocalypse could be at hand in just a few years. It was also the most-cited reason AT&T and Verizon discontinued their unlimited use data plans.

But unlimiting ESPN video? No problem.

In January 2010, Verizon Wireless was singing a very different tune to the FCC about the need to control and manage high bandwidth applications like the “toll-free” streaming video service ESPN proposes (underlining ours):

Wireless broadband services face technological and operational constraints arising from the need to manage spectrum sharing by a dynamically varying number of mobile users at any time. Thus, unlike, for example, cable broadband networks, where a known and relatively fixed number of subscribers share capacity in a given area, the capacity demand at any given cell site is much more variable as the number and mix of subscribers constantly change in sometimes highly unpredictable ways.

Are wireless carriers now part of the problem?

For example, as a subscriber using a high-bandwidth application such as streaming video moves from range of one cell site to another, the network must immediately provide the needed capacity for that subscriber, while not disrupting other subscribers using that same cell site. Of course, the problem is magnified many times over as multiple subscribers can be moving in and out of range of a cell site at any given moment. Moreover, the available bandwidth can fluctuate due to variations in radio frequency signal strength and quality, which can be affected by changing factors such as weather, traffic, speed, and the nearby presence of interfering devices (e.g., wireless microphones).

These problems compound those resulting from limited spectrum. As the Commission has repeatedly recognized in proclaiming an upcoming spectrum crisis, “as wireless is increasingly used as a platform for broadband communications services, the demand for spectrum bandwidth will likely continue to increase significantly, and spectrum availability may become critical to ensuring further innovation.”

A wireless carrier cannot readily increase capacity once it has exhausted its spectrum capacity. Thus, wireless broadband providers are left to acquire additional spectrum (to the extent available) or take measures that use their existing spectrum as efficiently as possible, which they do through a combination of investing in additional cell sites and network management practices that optimize network usage and address congestion so as to provide consumers with the quality of service they expect.

Regulators need to ask why wireless companies are telling the FCC there is a bandwidth crisis of epic proportions that requires the Commission to exempt them from important Net Neutrality principles while telling investment banks, shareholders and content producers the more traffic the merrier, as long as someone pays. Customers also might ask why their unlimited use data plans were discontinued while carriers seek deals to allow unlimited viewing with their preferred content partners.

What is the real motivation? The Wall Street Journal suggests one:

“Creating a second revenue stream for mobile broadband is the holy grail for wireless operators but collecting fees from content companies would probably make the FCC take a close look into the policy implications,” said Paul Gallant, managing director at Guggenheim Securities. An FCC spokesman declined to comment.

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSJ ESPN Toll Free Data 5-9-13.flv[/flv]

The Wall Street Journal takes a closer look at a plan to manage an end run around Net Neutrality by allowing preferred content partners to offer streaming video services exempt from your usage cap. (4 minutes)