Time Warner Cable’s ruminations about charging usage-based pricing in 2012 has Wall Street all excited about the fatter profits made possible by nickle-and-diming broadband customers for their Internet use.  Forbes magazine tells investors the easy money earned from Internet Overcharging could boost the company’s profits and stock price:

We estimate that Time Warner Cable’s broadband business is single-most important business for the company, constituting about 42% to its value. The company’s management’s words essentially echo our estimates.

The company sees itself primarily as a broadband provider, bundling some extra services such as pay-TV for customer convenience. That said, any change to the pricing is likely to have notable impact on the company’s value, and therefore to its stock. Assuming that a tiered pricing is implemented and brings in more revenue per broadband subscriber, the company’s results could improve.

We believe that our fee per broadband subscriber forecast incorporate increasing penetration of high speed packages, but it could change if the company was to charge higher or implement a tiered pricing for high usage.

These kinds of earning estimates are what makes raising prices for Internet service so popular among the Wall Street crowd.  It fattens their portfolios, even if it increases cable bills which already routinely rise well beyond the national inflation rate.  The only caveat?  Customers could leave for other providers or eventually find the service too expensive to make it worthwhile.  Trefis, a business analysis firm, created an analysis tool (seen above) that allows readers to raise and lower the current estimates for Time Warner’s broadband pricing, add and remove competitors, and check out the impact on the company’s predicted stock price.  The results couldn’t be clearer.  The more you gouge consumers for expensive broadband, the bigger the Money Party, particularly if you live in an area with anemic DSL competition.

Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Bright House Networks sold AWS spectrum in areas shown here to Verizon Wireless, virtually guaranteeing the cable industry will not compete in the wireless phone business.

Two years ago, Cox Communications was hungry to get into the wireless phone business.  It announced it was launching “unbelievably fair” wireless — an oasis in a wireless desert of tricks and traps on offer from competing wireless companies.  No more expiring minutes, the option of affordable flat rate service, and no hidden fees or surcharges were all supposed to be part of the deal.

“Our research found that value and transparency are very important to consumers when choosing a wireless service plan, but they are not finding these qualities in the wireless plans offered today,” Stephen Bye, vice president of wireless said back in 2010, introducing the service. “Total loss of unused minutes as well as unforeseen overage charges on bills are just two examples of what our customers have told us is just unfair.”

Those same issues still exist for wireless customers today, but Cox won’t be a part of the solution.  The company announced this past May it was exiting the competitive arena of wireless and would simply resell Sprint service instead.  Last month, it announced it wouldn’t even bother with that, and will transition its remaining wireless customers directly to Sprint.

What changed Cox’s mind?  The cost of building and operating a wireless network to compete with much larger national companies.  It simply no longer made sense to build a small regional wireless carrier and rent the rest of your national coverage area from other providers, who set wholesale prices at a level high enough to protect them from would-be competitors.

The lesson Cox learned first has now been taught to America’s largest cable operators Comcast and Time Warner Cable (and its sidekick Bright House Networks).

All three cable operators have effectively signed a non-aggression treaty with Verizon Wireless, agreeing to sell their unused wireless spectrum acquired by auction in 2006 at a 50% markup to Big Red.  In return, Verizon will market cable service to wireless customers.  It’s the ultimate non-compete clause so wide-reaching, Verizon stores will soon be selling Time Warner Cable right next to Verizon FiOS, something unheard of in the telecommunications marketplace.

It’s a win for Verizon Wireless, which accumulates additional wireless spectrum and peace of mind knowing the cable industry will not enter the wireless communications business.  Cable companies get to profit from their purchase of the public airwaves and see the potential of a dramatic reduction in customer poaching, as cable and phone companies stop fighting each other for customers.  Ultimately, it means customers could eventually pay the cable or phone company for all of their telecommunications services from television and broadband to wired and wireless phone service.  What consumers enjoy in one-bill-convenience may eventually come with higher rates made possible from reduced competition.

Verizon Wireless' currently unused AWS spectrum favor the east coast, but not for long.

Verizon will pay $3.6 billion to Comcast, Time Warner and Bright House Networks for the spectrum.  The deal has stockholders cheering because that payment represents a tidy profit for cable operators who did absolutely nothing with the spectrum they purchased five years ago.  It also makes AT&T even more intent on completing its own spectrum merger with T-Mobile USA.

The agreement has concerned consumer advocates because it seems to signal Verizon is content making money primarily from its wireless business, and will repay the favor from the cable industry by pitching phone customers on cable service.  That could ultimately spell big trouble for Verizon’s stalled FiOS fiber-to-the-home network.  Verizon may find it easier and cheaper to end its aggressive entry into Big Cable’s territory by simply reselling traditional cable television products.  It can still market wireless products and services to cable subscribers and not endanger the new atmosphere of goodwill.  Rural broadband, where cable never competes, could be served through wireless spectrum, for example.

For now, Verizon says it intends to continue competing with its FiOS network, but the company stopped deploying the service in new areas nearly two years ago.

The deal will go before regulators at the Justice Department and the Federal Communications Commission for review.  What will likely concern them the most is the appearance of collusion between the cable companies and Verizon.

“A flag is raised when two rival networks move to start selling each other’s services,” a person familiar with the concerns of federal antitrust officials told the Washington Post. “They lose their desire, impetus, to compete. That is a big antitrust flag.”

Mark Cooper, the director of research for the Consumer Federation of America, expressed serious concern as well.

“Verizon was supposed to be the great competitor for Comcast in the video space, while Comcast has been looking for a wireless play to match the Verizon bundle,” he said. “The deal signals bad news for consumers, who can expect higher prices for video, fewer choices and higher prices for wireless.”

Who owns what

Four years into the deal, consumers may not know what company they are dealing with, as cable operators will be able to market Verizon Wireless service under their own respective cable brand names.

The deal is also trouble for lagging Clearwire, which had been providing wireless broadband service to both Comcast and Time Warner Cable.  Under the agreement, both cable companies will end their relationship with Clearwire, which is particularly bad news for the wireless company because of its ongoing financial distress.  Sprint, which has heavily invested in Clearwire, may ultimately find itself with an investment gone sour, troubling news for the third largest wireless company manning the barricades against a nearly-complete duopoly in wireless service between AT&T and Verizon Wireless.

Cable stock cheerleader Craig Moffett from Sanford Bernstein seems thrilled with the prospect.  In a research note to his Wall Street clients, Moffett says AT&T could benefit from the Verizon pact with Big Cable by ending up in a “more duopolistic industry structure without paying for it.” If the FCC approves the non-aggression pact, the deal “would amount to an unmistakable step towards the duopolization of the U.S. wireless market, inasmuch it would leave T-Mobile, once again, stranded without a 4G strategy.”

Cable investors, he adds, are likely to be excited the cable industry won’t spend billions of dollars in capital building a wireless venture, and instead has agreed to work with competitors to cross-sell products and services.  With little competitive pressure, prices won’t be falling anytime soon.

That’s great news for investors, even if it is “unbelievably unfair” for consumers.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Verizon to Buy Wireless Spectrum for 3-6 Billion 12-2-11.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg News explains the deal and its implications in the wireless industry spectrum battle.  (2 minutes)

Esteves

Time Warner Cable wants to introduce usage-based broadband pricing for its residential customers, according to the company’s chief financial officer.

Irene Esteves told investors attending a UBS media investor conference the cable company sees broadband usage as a “complement to our TV offering,” but reassured Wall Street Time Warner has a “wonderful hedge” against the cord-cutting customer: usage-based pricing.

Esteves believes usage-based pricing for Time Warner Cable broadband will become a reality sooner or later.  Charging “heavy users” more would already be familiar to consumers used to paying higher prices for heavy use of other services, and she claimed light users would have the option of paying less.

But despite favorable reception to the idea of usage pricing by Wall Street, Esteves acknowledged the company’s past experiments in usage pricing didn’t go as planned, and she suggested the company will introduce usage pricing “the right way rather than quickly.”

Esteves’ view of broadband pricing echoes that of Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt, who in 2009 approved an experimental pricing scheme that raised the price for flat-rate broadband to a whopping $150 a month.  The plan was shelved by Britt less than two weeks after it was announced because of consumer backlash and political pressure.

Time Warner Cable was the loudest proponent of usage pricing at the investor event.  Comcast CFO Michael Angelakis told the same conference while the company wasn’t opposed to the concept of charging customers for usage, he saw no immediate need to “nickel and dime customers” for broadband service.

Critics of usage pricing point to the enormous profits cable companies earn from existing flat-rate broadband service.  One Wall Street analyst says cable operators already collect a 95% profit margin on unlimited service, and Comcast pays costs of around $8 a month for broadband it sells for $40-50.

Esteves’ comments come the closest yet to admitting what Internet Overcharging critics have claimed all along — usage-limiting pricing schemes are about protecting revenue from cable television packages, and boosting profits that have waned on the television side of the business.  In the 2009 experiment, light users would have faced usage limits as little as 1GB per month, with a steep overlimit penalty, so critics doubt light users would realize any significant savings, and “heavy users” would face overlimit penalties that represent almost pure profit for the cable operator.

Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski personally called AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson a few days before Thanksgiving giving him advance notice he was moving to oppose AT&T’s merger with Deutsche Telekom’s T-Mobile USA.

Genachowski told Stephenson he was handing AT&T’s merger application over to an administrative judge — extremely bad news for the merger’s prospects.  The personal phone call was revealed Friday by AT&T, which disclosed it in an ex-parte communication filed with the FCC.

“During the call, Chairman (Julius) Genachowski indicated that he would be circulating to his fellow Commissioners a draft order approving the Qualcomm transaction and a draft order designating the T-Mobile transaction for an administrative hearing,” according to the filing. “Chairman Genachowski indicated that the draft designation order would likely be voted in the next several days or weeks but the administrative hearing would be deferred until after resolution of the pending litigation with the Department of Justice.”

It was the second piece of bad news received by AT&T last week, the first being notification the Justice Department had suddenly canceled a meeting it had planned to hold with AT&T about the merger and its antitrust implications.

Earlier today, Bloomberg News reported the FCC wasn’t so sure it would allow AT&T to refile its withdrawn merger application, which immediately brought new threats of legal action by the telecommunication company.

Now AT&T is considering a new strategy to save a merger given a 10 percent chance of succeeding, according to some analysts.  It will likely hold a fire sale of T-Mobile’s assets — up to 40 percent of them to be more exact, in order to satisfy regulators concerned about the merger’s anti-competitive implications.

The prospects make Wall Street bankers salivate with dreams of steep fees earned from structuring and marketing the equivalent of a corporate estate sale.

Among potential buyers might be regional players Leap Wireless, which owns Cricket, and MetroPCS.  The New York Times reports Mexico’s multi-billionaire Carlos Slim Helú, who owns Mexico’s América Móvil, might be interested in buying T-Mobile assets himself to boost the company’s American unit, better known as TracFone.

Sanford Bernstein’s Craig Moffett suggests it would be a mistake to ignore America’s largest cable operators, which own spectrum themselves and could integrate T-Mobile into a new mobile operator owned, controlled, and branded under the names of their respective cable owners.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Davis Says ATT Asset Sale May Be Tricky 11-28-11.flv[/flv]

Michael Nelson, analyst at Mizuho Securities USA Inc., and Jeffrey Davis, chief investment officer at Lee Munder Capital Group, discuss AT&T Inc.’s proposed purchase of T-Mobile USA Inc. AT&T, with its T-Mobile USA takeover facing regulatory opposition, is preparing the biggest remedy proposal yet to the Justice Department to salvage the $39 billion deal, according to a person familiar with the plan: an asset fire sale. From Bloomberg News.  (4 minutes)

Shark-infested waters for AT&T and T-Mobile USA

Months after the U.S. Department of Justice announced its formal opposition to the merger of AT&T and T-Mobile, the Federal Communications Commission yesterday announced it would hold its own unusual “administrative hearing” to review the deal regardless of the outcome of a Justice Department lawsuit.

It has been more than nine years since the FCC last held such a hearing, which derailed the proposed merger of satellite TV providers DISH Network and DirecTV.  It is the clearest indication yet that regulators are deeply uncomfortable with the deal.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski waited for the Justice Department to announce its opposition to the deal before making his own concerns known.  The decision to pursue the special hearing, which won’t begin until 2012 and is likely to take several months, follows the lead of antitrust regulators at the DOJ.

It represents a nightmare scenario for AT&T, which has spent millions lobbying and promoting a merger with Deutsche Telekom’s T-Mobile USA.

An unnamed FCC official told The Wall Street Journal AT&T’s campaign has been playing fast and loose with the facts, particularly relating to claims the merger will create up to 100,000 new jobs. The official, who has seen confidential document filings from AT&T, says the phone company’s secret papers reveal the exact opposite — “massive job losses” if the deal gets approved.

Most companies confronting an FCC administrative hearing think long and hard about the prospects of the deal. Unlike an antitrust legal case, which must prove that a merger will substantially undercut competition, the FCC need only prove a deal is contrary to the “public interest” to reject it, a much lower hurdle.

When DirecTV and DISH failed to win a nod from the FCC for their merger, it fell apart.

Solomon

AT&T was testy after hearing the news.

“It is yet another example of a government agency acting to prevent billions in new investment and the creation of many thousands of new jobs,” AT&T senior vice president of corporate communications Larry Solomon told the Journal. He added, “We are reviewing all options.”

A growing number of Wall Street analysts believe those options are dwindling by the day, and an all-out war by AT&T against regulators could come at a cost when the giant phone company brings other business before them. Genachowski is still willing to go to bat for AT&T, circulating a draft approval among fellow commissioners that would grant the company’s separate proposal to purchase $1.9 billion in additional wireless spectrum from Qualcomm, Inc.

Observers predict AT&T might offer to divest a larger portion of T-Mobile than it was originally comfortable considering.  That may ultimately prove less expensive than the alternative — paying Deutsche Telekom a breakup fee worth $6 billion dollars should the merger fail to succeed.

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSJ FCC Chief to Seek Hearing on ATT Deal 11-22-11.flv[/flv]

The head of the Federal Communications Commission will seek an administrative hearing on AT&T’s proposed $39 billion deal to acquire T-Mobile USA, according to a person close to the matter. Thomas Catan has details on The Wall Street Journal’s ‘News Hub.’  (2 minutes)