Saturday, December 31, 2016

Will today be the day that…

Comcast cuts the cord (feed) of its NBC-U channels to 17+ million Charter Communications customers? 

Emboldened by its scale and negotiating heft after its 2016 purchases of Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks to become the second largest cable/broadband provider, Charter is pushing back on a proposed deal offered by Comcast to continue carrying its valued content, including NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, Bravo, and Telemundo. 


Will one firm blink before the highly anticipated professional football game between the Green Bay Packers and Detroit Lions airs on Sunday night?  Since the largest MVPD, Comcast, does not compete in local markets against the third largest MVPD, Charter, the beneficiary of a badly-timed or prolonged dispute could be AT&T/DirecTV.  At least this time around!

Monday, November 28, 2016

Next Up...DirectTV NOW!

Why do I need my traditional cable service anymore if DirecTV Now gives me what I want (with the exception of CBS) with no cable box?  AT&T says it is going after 20M non-Pay TV households (the cord-nevers), but won’t this appeal to Pay TV households (like me) who may finally consider cutting the cord?  The Verge


The problem is that a part of me (a large part of me) feels like this is a bait-and-switch.  I can feel like I’m getting the same or more of what I want for less, but the day will come when I will be back to where I am now…paying a lot of money for too many programming options.  So, I do nothing (for now).  Exactly what AT&T wants me to do! 

Friday, November 11, 2016

What do we know or suspect a Trump presidency will mean for broadband?

Net Neutrality, solidified by the 2015 classification of wireline and mobile ISPs as utilities, will certainly be weakened, if not overturned.

Money is going to infrastructure and so we can assume (maybe) that some of that will go to broadband infrastructure to ensure (at some point) that 100% of the US population will have high speed broadband access (wireline or mobile).  The urban/rural divide is huge and Trump has to reward those rural voters who supported him in 2016.

Wednesday, November 9, 2016

Back together again?

According to news reports over the past few days, CBS is considering re-merging with Viacom after an eleven-year split.  Why?  In a media landscape that is increasingly becoming (or possibly becoming) more concentrated in both programming and distribution, this is a “have-to” move for the firms.  


In negotiating carriage agreements with distributors, a combined CBS/Viacom will have greater heft in those negotiations with its portfolio of television and film assets.  Will it be enough or is this phase one in an ultimately plan to do what Comcast did and AT&T is trying to do --- be a “player” in both content and distribution.  Time will tell!

Saturday, November 5, 2016

A Prisoner's Dilemma in PayTV

Last week, the DOJ announced that it filed a lawsuit against DirecTV for orchestrating and agreement among its MVPD competitors to not carry the Los Angeles Dodger’s channel distributed exclusively by Time Warner Cable (TWC).  In this one-period, simultaneous move game where each competitor (DirecTV, AT&T, Cox, and Charter) was “separately” negotiating a carriage agreement with TWC, the dominant strategy was to pay the high price (estimated at $4.90/month).  It was in their collective interest (“optimal”), however, to negotiate a lower price for the channel or to not carry the channel at all.


In a game of uncertainty, each firm would play its dominant strategy.  To get to the optimal outcome, information on what competitors were up to and assurance to “stick with the plan” was needed.  Allegedly, DirecTV filled that void.  

Sunday, October 30, 2016

What the AT&T-Time Warner Merger Might Mean

The last two years have been characterized by horizontal mergers in the PayTV/Broadband industry.  And, with the exception, of the Comcast-Time Warner Cable (TWC) deal, regulators have approved them.  Looking forward, this may be the year of the vertical merger, partly out of mutual necessity, partly due to the fact that there are few horizontal pairings left that regulators would approve.       

Video distributors and content owners need each other.  So, when AT&T, one of the largest distributors of content (via PayTV, broadband and wireless) brings content in house, the concern is that competitive content providers (e.g. Viacom, 21st Century Fox) will be disadvantaged, particularly in terms of access to customers.  In recent years, carriage disputes between distributors and content owners have become more commonplace and nastier.  A vertically-integrated distributor with a large national footprint increases its leverage in these negotiations.  (Comcast bargains from a much stronger position than Altice USA (Cablevision).)  Could this merger stem the tide of rising programming costs that are largely to blame for higher cable bills and cord-shaving/cord-cutting?  Doubtful.  What is certain?    Lower prices, more choices, and innovation will come from more competition, not less.  The good news is that consumers are “going outside the box” and getting content from indirect competitors.  The reality, however, is that those competitors still need to get to customers via the pipes controlled by the likes of AT&T and Comcast.  (Note: Google Fiber is slowing its expansion.)


Another risk is in the other link of the supply chain.  It could be argued that competitive distributors (e.g. Charter, Verizon) could be withheld access to the vertically integrated media giant’s content at reasonable prices.  For regulators, this was one of the major concerns with the Comcast-TWC merger.  AT&T’s strategy of increasing its breadth with its DirecTV acquisition before its vertical stretch into content may have been in consideration of what went wrong for Comcast, a vertically-integrated firm (with valuable NBC Universal content) trying to expand its subscriber base.  

Saturday, October 22, 2016

A Big Week for AT&T

Early in the week, AT&T announced plans to introduce, by the end of the year, an internet-video service called DirecTV Now that will stream 100+ live channels to TVs and mobile devices.

On Friday, it was reported that the media-telecom giant with over 25 million pay-tv and 129 million wireless subscribers is in advanced merger talks with Time Warner, owner of TV networks such as HBO and CNN.  The motivation for the merger is to get the one thing it doesn’t have and its major pay-TV/broadband competitor in many geographical markets, Comcast, does have – CONTENT.   As a video distributor and content owner, AT&T would leverage its position in the supply chain.  Certainly, regulators in their review of a proposed merger, will weigh the efficiency gains with the anti-competitive concerns of foreclosure.  No guarantee [at all] the merger would pass that regulatory review.


And then there is the question of how competitors like Charter. Verizon, and Dish will respond.

Thursday, October 13, 2016

Up and Up!

Yesterday, the FCC released its annual report on average rates that cable operators charge for delivery of basic service, programming, and equipment.  In spite of cable cutting and shaving, and increased competition from alternative video delivery devices, cable rates are UP.  The main culprits, once again, are significantly higher programming costs and retransmission fees for broadcast stations.
Here’s a snapshot:
Price comparison of basic service and the most popular tier of cable programming in 2014.

Price comparison of basic service and the most popular tier of cable programming in 2014.

Monthly Price
Change from 2013
Price/channel
All systems
$69.03
2.7% increase
$0.456
Systems with Effective Competition*
$70.31
2.0% increase
$0.412
Systems without Effective Competition
$67.85
3.3% increase
$0.497
*2/3rd of all findings of effective competition include DBS (characterized by larger systems with more channels)

Between 2013 and 2014, the Consumer Price Index declined by 0.1%, yet the average annual amount paid for retransmission by a cable system increased by more than 63% ($7.8M to $12.7M).

In 2004, we paid, on average, $43.04 for 70.5 channels.  Ten years later, we had access to 2.5 times more channels (70.5 to 181+).  Over that same period, the compound average annual rate of change in the price of expanded cable was 4.8% (compared to 2% for the overall CPI).  


Wednesday, August 10, 2016

State rights are upheld

Today, the U.S. Court of  Appeals (6th Circuit) ruled that the FCC does not  have the preemptive authority, under the 1996 Telecom Act, to block state statutory  provisions that restrict or prohibit the expansion of municipal broadband into underserved nearby communities.

While the Court acknowledged the public benefits of expanding high-speed broadband, it reversed the FCC's order concluding that the federal regulatory body does not have the authority to reallocate decision-making on this issue from the state to its municipalities.

http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0189p-06.pdf

Sunday, August 7, 2016

The yin and yang of giving consumers what they want

All in one week!

On Wednesday (8/3), Dish Network announced that it had reached a multi-year retransmission agreement with the NFL that ended its 6-week blackout of the NFL Network and the NFL RedZone to its subscribers. 

On Friday (85), it launched a skinny bundle (Flex Pack) that is marketed to subscribers as “Don’t Watch, Don’t Pay.”  The core package includes 50-channels like AMC, TNT, USA, and CNN.  The add-on channel packs, ranging in price from $6 to $10 per month, cover niche interests like variety, kids, action, and news.  The NFL channels are not included in any of the current channel packs.

COMPETITION IS GOOD, BUT THERE IS THE LAW

The FCC’s goal of promoting competition and choice in the set-top box market hit a roadblock in the past few days.  While the “unlock the box” proposal has been criticized for months by cable operators whose vested interest is to maintain the monthly rental fees collected from cable subscribers, the US Copyright Office, in a letter to members of Congress, raised concerns about the potential for copyright law and policy violations if the Proposed Rule was implemented as described in the NPRM.*  Specifically, the Copyright Office said that the Proposed Rule "could interfere with copyright owners' rights to license their works as provided by copyright law, and restrict their ability to impose reasonable conditions on the use of those works through private negations."  



Let’s see how regulators, consumer groups, and industry participants respond.

Monday, July 25, 2016

A look back and forward

20-years after the Telecom Act of 1996, cable and wireline telecom providers seem to be retreating from their enthusiastic entries into each other’s markets.  Verizon’s FiOS is available in highly-populated areas in just 9-states.  AT&T U-Verse is in 21 states, but with its 2015 purchase of the satellite-provider, DirecTV, it seems to be pivoting away from a commitment to wireline technology. (See #s below).  Meanwhile, cable providers’ ability to sign-up telecommunications subscribers (even in bundles) lags behind its other offerings. 

But, by providing consumers with a choice of alternative access technologies, wireline vs. mobile, cable and telecom firms may compete more effectively in broadband in significantly more markets than they ever did before. 


Pay-TV
1Q2014
1Q2015
1Q2016
2015-2014
2015-2016
Cable
         50,418,063
         49,220,333
         49,113,576
  (1,197,730)
    (106,757)
Satellite
         34,362,000
         34,256,000
         33,986,000
      (106,000)
    (270,000)
Verizon FiOS
           5,319,000
           5,739,000
           5,863,000
        420,000
      124,000
AT&T U-verse
           5,661,000
           5,993,000
           5,260,000
        332,000
    (733,000)
TOTAL
         95,760,063
         95,208,333
         94,222,576
      (551,730)
    (985,757)
Broadband
1Q2014
1Q2015
1Q2016
2015-2014
2015-2016
Cable
         50,310,968
         52,963,179
         56,334,724
    2,652,211
   3,371,545
Verizon FiOS
           9,031,000
           9,246,000
           9,218,000
        215,000
      (28,000)
AT&T U-verse
         16,503,000
         16,097,000
         15,764,000
      (406,000)
    (333,000)
Other Telco
           9,701,938
         10,199,978
         10,220,323
        498,040
         20,345
TOTAL
         85,546,906
         88,506,157
         91,537,047
    2,959,251
   3,030,890
Source: Leichtman Research Group

Sunday, July 24, 2016

The Game of Negotiating Retransmission Agreements

It’s been nearly 6-weeks since DISH blacked-out Tribune Broadcasting’s WGN America network and its 42 owned or operated stations to its 5-million subscribers in 33 markets because of the inability of the two parties to agree to new pricing terms for retransmission. 

First move was by Tribune which launched a media blitz (with website) “informing” subscribers of the impasse and suggesting they take action, such as switching to another satellite/cable provider.  

DISH countered in two ways.  On June 16th, it requested that Tribune agree to binding baseball-style arbitration to resolve the dispute.  A few days later, on June 20th, it filed a lawsuit against Tribune in the U.S. District Court in Colorado seeking monetary damages associated with increased expenditures, drop in revenue, and loss in goodwill and reputation. https://consumermediallc.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/1-main.pdf

Tribune moved next by offering to extend the terms of the old contract to August 31st while requesting the FCC to monitor “good faith” negotiations.  It moved again, this time on July 20th, with an offer to extend the termination date to September 15th, with no true-up or retroactive payments required as long as access was restored immediately.


On an investor call on July 22nd, however, Charles Ergen, DISH CEO, stated that the satellite provider was “prepared to live without Tribune and WGN America”.   What about its dispute with the NFL Network too?  With 281,000 (2%) lost subscribers in the second quarter and football season fast approaching, what makes a strategic negotiating bluff turn into a huge mistake for the firm?  

Friday, July 22, 2016

What can be said for high-speed broadband availability in Pennsylvania?

With the exception of the highlighted high density counties which have no or very little rural parts to them, households in rural areas of Pennsylvania are disproportionately underserved by high-speed broadband access.  Could this be holding us back?

“Pennsylvania prohibits municipalities from providing broadband services to the public for a fee unless such services are not provided by the local telephone company and the local telephone company refuses to provide such services within 14 months of a request by the political subdivision. In determining whether the local telephone company is providing, or will provide, broadband service in the community, the only relevant consideration is data speed. That is, if the company is willing to provide the data speed that the community seeks, no other factor can be considered, including price, quality of service, coverage, mobility, etc. (66 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 3014(h)) http://www.ftthcouncil.org/p/cm/ld/fid=151


Density: Persons/ Square Mile
Population  Without Access
% of Total Population in the County w/o Access
% w/o Access Living in Rural Areas of the County
Adams County
199.4
10,551
10%
79%
Allegheny County
1647.6
11,280
1%
4%
Armstrong County
101.2
4,122
6%
76%
Beaver County
382.4
4,342
3%
57%
Bedford County
46.5
12,132
26%
95%
Berks County
496.6
15,376
4%
29%
Blair County
238.7
8,848
7%
41%
Bradford County
53.0
23,982
39%
99%
Bucks County
1062.7
12,115
2%
3%
Butler County
239.1
7,730
4%
65%
Cambria County
199.6
13,860
10%
60%
Cameron County
11.3
313
7%
92%
Carbon County
177.8
2,098
3%
36%
Centre County
144.0
24,551
15%
80%
Chester County
711.6
7,071
1%
35%
Clarion County
63.0
8,909
24%
79%
Clearfield County
67.2
18,679
24%
68%
Clinton County
43.4
3,676
10%
84%
Columbia County
138.1
19,509
29%
60%
Crawford County
85.2
20,772
24%
83%
Cumberland County
449.1
21,116
9%
58%
Dauphin County
516.3
5,011
2%
48%
Delaware County
3096.6
8,189
1%
0%
Elk County
36.8
1,010
3%
99%
Erie County
354.0
28,296
10%
74%
Fayette County
165.2
15,787
12%
52%
Forest County
18.8
2,480
31%
100%
Franklin County
209.1
18,600
12%
82%
Fulton County
34.3
8,948
60%
100%
Greene County
63.4
4,316
12%
54%
Huntingdon County
50.8
11,389
26%
81%
Indiana County
104.8
19,861
23%
93%
Jefferson County
67.0
4,304
10%
98%
Juniata County
62.7
12,862
52%
86%
Lackawanna County
469.7
30,119
14%
34%
Lancaster County
583.4
20,206
4%
65%
Lawrence County
246.4
4,119
5%
61%
Lebanon County
382.2
6,122
4%
45%
Lehigh County
1040.8
278
0%
100%
Luzerne County
360.1
17,578
5%
62%
Lycoming County
90.9
12,575
11%
91%
McKean County
43.2
4,939
12%
94%
Mercer County
168.2
15,798
14%
75%
Mifflin County
113.9
14,441
31%
92%
Monroe County
281.9
1,487
1%
79%
Montgomery County
1694.3
12,139
1%
2%
Montour County
134.0
5,585
32%
83%
Northampton County
834.2
37
0%
11%
Northumberland County
200.2
18,122
20%
57%
Perry County
84.3
12,648
27%
100%
Philadelphia County
11713.2
13,309
1%
0%
Pike County
110.6
625
1%
100%
Potter County
13.8
4,409
30%
100%
Schuylkill County
190.4
26,060
18%
46%
Snyder County
116.5
17,142
45%
85%
Somerset County
69.2
13,474
18%
96%
Sullivan County
12.5
3,855
69%
100%
Susquehanna County
49.9
27,228
66%
88%
Tioga County
35.7
11,692
29%
100%
Union County
143.4
9,503
21%
12%
Venango County
79.0
7,566
14%
95%
Warren County
45.4
15,182
38%
78%
Washington County
244.4
19,554
9%
64%
Wayne County
74.6
24,504
45%
98%
Westmoreland County
352.6
12,673
3%
43%
Wyoming County
70.4
3,400
12%
96%
York County
512.5
25,191
5%
41%

 Source:  2016 FCC Broadband Report