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).