ESPN Analysts Routinely Told Execs Not To Worry About Cord Cutting

from the nothing-to-see-here dept

ESPN has long personified the cable and broadcast industry's tone deafness to cord cutting and TV market evolution. The company not only spent years downplaying the trend as something only poor people do, it sued companies that attempted to offer consumers greater flexibility in how video content was consumed. ESPN execs clearly believed cord cutting was little more than a fad that would simply stop once Millennials started procreating, and ignored surveys showing how 56% of consumers would ditch ESPN in a heartbeat if it meant saving the $8 per month subscribers pay for the channel.

As the data began to indicate the cord cutting trend was very real, insiders say ESPN was caught flat footed by the trend. Instead of adapting for the streaming era, the company spent years doubling down on bloated sports licensing deals and SportsCenter set redesigns.

These decisions ultimately came back to haunt the "worldwide leader in sports," resulting in ESPN losing 16 million subscribers over seven years (and an estimated 17,000 defecting viewers per day). As the accountability hammer began to fall, ESPN execs tried to pretend they saw this coming all along. ESPN subsequently decided the only solution was to fire hundreds of longstanding sports journalists and support personnel, but not the executives like John Skipper (since resigned) whose myopia made ESPN's problems that much worse.

This week, the Wall Street Journal offered up a report on the arguably stupid debate over whether ESPN's programming is partisan. In it was buried this little nugget indicating that the analysts ESPN paid to help prepare it for the future routinely told company leadership that cord cutting was a nothingburger that would never become a widespread issue. Even as late as 2014, when the stats were becoming very clear, analysts were telling execs they had nothing to worry about

"ESPN’s research department presented data arguing cord-cutting was unlikely to become widespread, according to attendees.

"They were flat-earthers," said one former ESPN executive.

At the same time, ESPN was spending aggressively. The company agreed to triple the fees it would pay the NBA, which it believes is growing in popularity. On the talent side, Mr. Skipper closely managed negotiations, desiring to beat back rivals like Fox Sports 1 and NBC Sports. Agents, former ESPN executives and hosts said that led him to overpay for several on-air personalities.

You'd hope that ESPN kept its receipts. Amusingly, executives could have simply read Techdirt for free and been better informed.

The irony is that ESPN hasn't fully gotten the message the cord cutting revolution is sending: give your customers what they want. While many don't watch sports at all, those that do and cut the cord simply want a standalone version of ESPN streamed for a monthly fee. And while ESPN recently unveiled a new streaming service it claims finally delivers this, we've noted how that's not actually true. ESPN's still so worried about cannibalizing the traditional cozy cable TV cash cow you still can't get a standalone ESPN streaming service without subscribing to traditional cable.

The thing many cable execs don't want to admit is this: rising programming costs and surging competition and choice means TV isn't going to be as profitable as it used to be. Companies can either cling tightly to outdated models in a misguided attempt to prevent inevitable evolution until it's too late, or they can get out ahead of the phenomenon now. There's still a large number of cable and broadcast executives under the false impression that there's a choice in the matter.

Filed Under: cord cutting, espn, internet, tv
Companies: disney, espn

Some Comcast Customers Won't Get The Latest Broadband Upgrades Without Buying Cable TV

from the utterly-Comcastic dept

As we've often noted, Comcast has been shielded from the cord cutting trend somewhat thanks to its growing monopoly over broadband. As users on slow DSL lines flee telcos that are unwilling to upgrade their damn networks, they're increasingly flocking to cable operators for faster speeds. When they get there, they often bundle TV services; not necessarily because they want it, but because it's intentionally cheaper than buying broadband standalone.

And while Comcast's broadband monopoly has protected it from TV cord cutting somewhat, the rise in streaming competition has slowly eroded that advantage, and Comcast is expected to see see double its usual rate of cord cutting this year according to Wall Street analysts.

Comcast being Comcast, the company has a semi-nefarious plan B. Part of that plan is to abuse its monopoly over broadband to deploy arbitrary and unnecessary usage caps and overage fees. These restrictions are glorified rate hikes applied to non competitive markets, with the added advantage of making streaming video more expensive. It's a punishment for choosing to leave Comcast's walled garden.

But Comcast appears to have discovered another handy trick that involves using its broadband monopoly to hamstring cord cutters. Reports emerged this week that the company is upgrading the speeds of customers in Houston and parts of the Pacific Northwest, but only if they continue to subscribe to traditional cable television. The company's press release casually floats over the fact that only Comcast video customers will see these upgrades for now:

"Speed increases will vary based on the Xfinity Internet customers' current speed subscriptions. Those receiving the speed boost will benefit from an increase of 30 to 40 percent in their download speeds. Existing Xfinity Internet and X1 video customers subscribing to certain packages can expect to experience enhanced speeds this month."

As is usually the case, Comcast simply acted as if this was all just routine promotional experimentation (an argument that only works if you're unfamiliar with Comcast's other efforts to constrain emerging video competition):

"We asked Comcast a few questions, including whether it will make speed increases in other cities contingent on TV subscribership. A Comcast spokesperson didn't answer, but noted, "we test and introduce new bundles all the time." The spokesperson also said that the speed increase for Houston is the second in 2018, after one in January. The Oregon/SW Washington speed increase is apparently the first one this year."

In a healthy market with healthy regulatory oversight, either competition or adult regulatory supervision would prevent Comcast from using its broadband monopoly to constrain consumer video choices. But if you hadn't noticed, the telecom and TV sector and the current crop of regulators overseeing it aren't particularly healthy, and with the looming death of net neutrality you're going to see a whole lot more behavior like this designed to erect artificial barriers to genuine consumer choice and competition.

Filed Under: broadband, bundles, cable tv, competition, speeds, tv, upgrades, xfinity
Companies: comcast

There Are Several Good Reasons To End Entertainment Industry Subsidies, But Blasphemy Isn't One Of Them

from the free-speech-doesn't-work-that-way dept

There are a lot of arguments to be made against subsidizing movie/TV studios. The best argument is this: the payouts to visiting studios rarely pay off for local taxpayers. Politicians love the side benefits -- rubbing elbows with producers, actors, and other studio personnel -- but there's nothing to be gained financially by paying a studio to film in your town. In one case, a city was promised 3,600 additional jobs. In reality, only 200 jobs materialized, all but 14 of those temporary construction work.

Then there's the argument against using public funding to prop up an out-of-town industry. If there are extra tax dollars around, they're better spent locally, where they'll do the most good. Subsidizing businesses is always problematic. It skews incentives and allows governments to play favorites using the public's money.

But the worst argument someone can make against subsidies is this one: subsidies should be content-based. Two members of the clergy and a state politician are bent out of shape because a subsidized TV series shoot resulted in the depiction of a historical figure in compromising positions.

The AMC series "Preacher" has portrayed Christ in a graphic sex scene that combines blasphemy with pornography.

The August 21 episode titled, "Dirty Little Secret," showed an actor playing the role of Jesus having sex with a married woman in an extended, graphic scene with explicit vocals. The director used shadows and silhouettes to soften the two figures as they engaged in various sexual positions, but these cinematic techniques did not disguise the pornography.

We have laws governing porn which are mostly hands-off, provided producers follow several regulations. We certainly don't have blasphemy laws, thanks to a separation of church and state. But never mind the legal details. This small collective of pearl-clutchers wants legislators to pull funding solely because the imagery in this episode may have offended some members of one religion.

We respectfully request that the Administration, and the Office of Louisiana Economic Development, reject all efforts by AMC to obtain tax credits for the series "Preacher" and the episode which blasphemed Christ. We call upon the Administration and the Louisiana Office of Economic Development to flatly reject this request for a $16.2 million tax refund check.

The op-ed notes the state of Louisiana has a law prohibiting the use of public money to fund pornography. That's all well and good, but just because the writers call the images that offended them porn doesn't make them porn. To buttress this argument with talk of blasphemy only adds to the problem, ensuring that any state legislators attempting to follow through on this dubious suggestion will engage in multiple constitutional violations.

That's not all. The authors of the op-ed -- which include state senator John Milkovich -- claim their views are universal, something that's more factually-incorrect than everything leading up to it.

Thus, the larger truth is that there is never a good time to reward production companies that trash our Louisiana values, mock our beliefs– and dishonor Christ.

The state should definitely reject the request for a $16.2 million subsidy by AMC. If AMC is so keen on shooting scenes in Louisiana (or any other state), it should pay its own way. But it shouldn't do it for any of the reasons suggested here. It should end the subsidy program completely, rather than risk looking like it's making content-based decisions about what type of speech it's willing to fund.

Filed Under: blasphemy, first amendment, louisiana, movies, preacher, subsidies, tv
Companies: amc

Cable Companies Warn In Court That AT&T Time Warner Merger Will Be Absolutely Terrible For Competition And Consumers

from the Synergies,-yo dept

AT&T and the Department of Justice are ramping up their legal arguments in court as the DOJ tries to block the company's $86 billion acquisition of Time Warner. While some question the DOJ's real motives in the case (Trump ally Rupert Murdoch has been lobbying against the deal for competitive reasons for a year), consumer advocates agree that the deal will be horrible for consumers and competitors alike. AT&T already has a long, epic history of anti-consumer behavior, and critics charge the greater leverage will only let AT&T jack up licensing costs for competitors trying to compete with AT&T's own streaming services.

To glean support for its unpopular merger, AT&T offered a special deal to 1,000 of its competitors. According to AT&T's proposal, if competitors agreed to support the merger, the company promised send any price disputes with other cable companies to an outside arbitration process. Most competitors were pretty clearly not impressed:

"But thus far, only 2 percent of AT&T's rivals have expressed support for that plan, according to lawyers for both sides. The revelation came as AT&T and the Department of Justice faced off in court Tuesday, the second day of a trial whose consequences will reverberate across the economy. Of the 1,000 letters sent by AT&T to competing TV providers in November notifying them of the proposal, just 20 received a positive response, according to company and government lawyers."

Many of those same competitors have been called to testify against the merger on behalf of the DOJ, and their comments this week were not what you'd call positive. Dish and its subsidiary Sling TV, for example, were quick to argue that AT&T simply has no incentive to offer reasonable licensing terms to streaming competitors like Sling once the deal's done:

If the merger goes through, Time Warner’s incentives change, according to Schlichting. It could demand higher rates or onerous terms, such as requiring Sling to buy more channels, and would be less likely to compromise, he said. Either Dish’s costs would go up, or if there’s no agreement and Turner channels “go dark,” the company would lose subscribers who would likely switch to DirecTV or its DirecTV Now online service, Schlichting argued. Gaining subscribers would be more lucrative for AT&T than programming fees, he said.

“I just don’t see them having any motivation to move” to get to a deal, he said of Time Warner.

Cable competitor Cox Communications had similar words of warning, noting that AT&T's promise for outside arbitration was a "little bit of gamesmanship," and that losing access to needed content soon to be owned by AT&T could "significantly impact the viability of our business model." DOJ lawyers have warned that if the AT&T Time Warner deal is allowed to proceed, consumer bills could skyrocket to the tune of $436 million annually. Tim Wu, the Columbia law professor who coined the term net neutrality, put things rather succinctly in a New York Times piece this week:

"The (DOJ $436 estimate underestimates) the full costs of this merger to the American public. What we really have here is a brazen effort to prolong the life of a dying business model — “full-service” pay TV — by making “cord-cutting” more expensive, and thereby strangling a revolution in internet television that remains in its toddlerhood. Even worse, greenlighting the deal could set off a domino effect."

While some of these potential pitfalls can be stymied by conditions, meaningful conditions haven't been a strong suit for either party of U.S. governance. More often than not, the companies merging volunteer their own conditions routinely made up of "goals" they would have accomplished anyway. While politicians pretend to be holding these companies' feet to the fire for political brownie points, enforcement is routinely non-existent. As a result, merged companies (especially in the traditionally regulatory capture protected cable and broadband industries) still somehow fail to adhere to them.

Years go by, everybody forgets, the harms of such vertical integration are either ignored or downplayed; rinse wash and repeat. Of course given that AT&T is on the cusp of successfully killing net neutrality, the end result of this merger could prove extra problematic. AT&T has been given the green light for an ocean of "creative" anti-competitive behaviors that could make life particularly difficult for streaming competitors, whether that comes in the form of zero rating AT&T's own content (while still counting competitor's traffic against AT&T caps), or by simply prioritizing the content of AT&T or its deepest-pocketed allies.

In short, the deal is likely to jack up the costs for competitors (which get passed on to you) at the same time we remove valuable safeguards protecting the health of the internet and the ability to compete on a semi-level playing field. All so a company with a long, long history of behaving badly can have more power over multiple markets. What could possibly go wrong?

Filed Under: antitrust, cable, competition, merger, tv
Companies: at&t, cox, dish, time warner

The Standalone Streaming Service HBO Didn't Want To Offer Now Has 5 Million Users

from the innovation-trumps-math dept

You might recall that just a few years ago, HBO had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern era. For years the company refused to offer a standalone streaming TV service, worried that it would jeopardize the company's cozy promotional relationship with existing cable providers (who often all but give away the channel in promotions). As recently as 2013 Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes was claiming that such an offering would make "no economic sense."

Why? Bewkes was worried that offering a standalone option would upset cable partners. At the time, those partners were already offering an HBO streaming app named HBO Go, but only if you signed up for traditional TV. This was art of the industry's walled garden "TV Everywhere" initiative, a misguided attempt at stopping cord cutters by only giving them innovative streaming services -- if they signed up for bloated, traditional television bundles. Bewkes was clearly worried at the time that being too damn innovative would upset industry executives and skew the company's balance sheets:

"And we would do it if we thought it was in our economic best interest. At this point we don’t think it makes sense. We don’t think the target market is sufficiently large to be attractive at this point. So what we’re doing, and we think this is working pretty well — we’re working with the [pay TV operators] to increase the penetration of HBO Go in a mutually beneficial way."

At the time we noted how HBO was letting fear trump innovation. The company was focusing so much on avoiding upsetting cable operators and worrying over the initial impact on the traditional cable TV cash cow, that it forgot that innovation often trumps the math. In reality, the math Bewkes was concerned about were performance and metrics built on a different, changing market that was on the way out. This kind of hesitation was initially great news for Netflix, whose CEO saw all of this coming long before HBO executives did:

"The goal," says Hastings, "is to become HBO faster than HBO can become us."

All the while, HBO and Time Warner's timidity and failure to listen to consumers resulted in many of its shows breaking piracy records. And while HBO couldn't be bothered to offer a legitimate standalone streaming alternative to piracy, it did spend a lot of time and money trying to derail these efforts, including "poisoning" seeded copies of HBO programs on BitTorrent and sending out oodles of nastygrams to ISPs. Other HBO executives, meanwhile, seemed to share the cable industry mindset that this whole cord cutting thing was just a temporary phenomenon that would blow over.

HBO finally did buckle to offering a standalone streaming service (dubbed HBO Now) in 2014. Just a few years later and the service has just breached 5 million subscribers. And oh, the numbers HBO was so worried about are looking solid too, with HBO Now generating $19 million in revenues for the two months it aired of Game of Thrones Season 7. In this case it all worked out well for HBO, but the company could have enjoyed a much healthier head start if it company executives hadn't let fear trump natural evolution.

Filed Under: a la carte, cable, hbo, ott, streaming, streaming tv, tv
Companies: hbo

Those Annoying Cable Channel Blackouts Are Only Going To Get Worse In 2018

from the more-money-for-the-same-substandard-service dept

The last few years, cable TV customers have faced a growing number of obnoxious carriage fee blackouts, which occur when broadcasters and cable operators can't agree on new programming contracts. Such feuds usually go something like this: a broadcaster will demand a fairly obnoxious price hike for the same content, to which the cable provider (already awash in complaints about higher rates) will balk. Instead of negotiating their differences like adults, this content is subsequently blacked out for paying customers to force a settlement. Customers never see refunds for the inconvenience of being used as props.

For weeks, consumers are bombarded with PR missives, new websites and on-screen tickers all trying to amplify public outrage and drive greater pressure for one side or the other to buckle. After a while, the two sides strike a new confidential deal, and the higher rates are then quickly passed on to consumers. In a letter to lawmakers last year, Dish Network argued that consumers have faced 750 such broadcaster blackouts since 2010, with the retransmission consent fees that broadcasters demand growing a whopping 27,400% between 2005 and 2016.

It's an idiotic cycle of dysfunction that's unsustainable and only acts to drive consumers to alternative video options (like piracy). The fact that these costs are only driving users away from the traditional pay TV ecosystem is irrelevant to many cable and broadcast executives, who seem inclined to believe that they'll be able to nurse this dying cash cow in perpetuity.

The annoying phenomenon shows no sign of slowing down in 2018. Frontier customers in Seattle this week lost access to CBS after the company says it was told it needed to pay 80% more money for the same exact content:

"Cox’s bullying and heavy-handed blackout tactics hurt consumers,” said Steve Ward, Frontier Senior Vice President Video Technology and Content. "Their demands for an outrageous price increase would have to be passed on to customers in the form of higher monthly service rates. It’s time for Cox to agree to a fair and reasonable solution."

Meanwhile, Suddenlink and Optimum (formerly Cablevision) customers woke up to the new year with the news that they'd no longer be able to access Starz after their cable provider and the broadcaster failed to strike a new deal. For now, customers of those cable providers are being told that if they want access to Starz content, they'll need to pay extra to access it via Starz online streaming platform:

"Given that Starz is available to all consumers directly through Starz' own over-the-top streaming service, we don't believe it makes sense to charge all of our customers for Starz programming, particularly when their viewership is declining and the majority of our customers don't watch Starz," Altice said in its statement. "We believe it is in the best interest of all our customers to replace Starz and StarzEncore programming with alternative entertainment channels that will provide a robust content experience at a great value."

Of course with regulatory capture and the death of net neutrality, it's likely that this is one of several problems in the telecom and cable world that will only get worse before it gets better. Regulators from both parties were already inclined to dismiss this problem as just "boys being boys," wary of getting involved in what they believe are simple business disputes. And while there have been occasional talks about banning these blackouts as an act of bad-faith negotiations, nothing much ever appears to come of them. The hope was that the threat of regulatory intervention would be enough.

And while it's certainly true that this behavior will only drive customers to new streaming alternatives, broadcasters still dictate licensing for (or outright own) those services as well, meaning it's only a matter of time before this problem expands to hamper access to online content. There have been several different times where broadcasters blocked user access to their online services as well (usually by ISP IP range); behavior that only ceased due to companies being worried that they might run afoul of net neutrality (since many ISPs are broadcasters, like Comcast) or adult regulatory supervision.

With both of those concepts on the chopping block, expect carriage fee bickering (and the subsequent blackouts) to get both worse and more sophisticated in the new year.

Filed Under: blackouts, broadcasters, cable, competition, tv

T-Mobile's Getting Into Cable TV, Where Its Opposition To Net Neutrality May Come Back To Bite It

from the goes-around-comes-around dept

After regulators blocked AT&T's attempted acquisition of T-Mobile, T-Mobile found a new lease on life and began delivering some much-needed competition to the wireless sector. That added competition brought numerous benefits to consumers, from forcing AT&T and Verizon to bring back unlimited data plans, to the elimination of long-term contracts. And while these companies still try to avoid competing too intently on price, T-Mobile's disruption has been hugely beneficial all the same.

That said, T-Mobile's consumer-friendly brand identity (driven by trash-talking CEO John Legere) often only goes so far. The company has consistently opposed net neutrality rules, at one point insisting this opposition would put the company on the "right side of history." When people questioned T-Mobile's positions (and a lot of the outright bullshit it used to justify its own zero rating and throttling), Legere doubled down by attacking the EFF.

So it's interesting to see the company's announcement this week that it would be jumping into the television business and challenging traditional cable operators. According to T-Mobile, they've also acquired a streaming video operator by the name of Layer3TV, whose technology will be used to fuel the new service scheduled to arrive sometime in 2018. While details and pricing are non-existent, Legere quite justly took the opportunity to make fun of the cable industry's high prices and horrible customer service reputation:

"People love their TV, but they hate their TV providers. And worse, they have no real choice but to simply take it – the crappy customer service, clunky technology and outrageous bills loaded with fees! That’s where we come in. We’re gonna fix the pain points and bring real choice to consumers across the country,” said John Legere, president and CEO of T-Mobile. “It only makes sense for the Un-carrier to do to TV what we’re doing to wireless: change it for good! Personally, I can’t wait to start fighting for consumers here!”

But T-Mobile's previous disdain for net neutrality rules could easily come back to bite it. T-Mobile did state the service will be offered over both wireless and the fixed-line broadband networks of industry giants like Comcast. And with net neutrality rules set to be destroyed this week, there will soon be nothing stopping Comcast from using any number of tricks to make T-Mobile's entry into the market more difficult.

Without net neutrality rules there's about a million ways Comcast could harm T-Mobile TV, based entirely on things broadband ISPs have already done. Comcast could let its interconnection points congest forcing T-Mobile to pay significantly more money just for packets to reach Comcast customers without delay. If that doesn't work, Comcast could use its arbitrary and unnecessary usage caps to penalize T-Mobile's new offering while letting Comcast's own services through untouched (aka zero rating). T-Mobile's service could also be throttled or deprioritized, while deeper-pocketed competitors pay to get preferential treatment.

And that's all just things Comcast is on record having already done. With no net neutrality rules in place, and the FCC and FTC poised to be little more than rubber stamps for entrenched telecom duopolies, there's really no limit to the "creative" approaches incumbent ISPs will take to protect their turf. Of course since T-Mobile helped enable this with its opposition to net neutrality, it surely won't mind as companies like Comcast do everything in their power to harm T-Mobile's TV efforts while driving up operating costs via a rotating array of unnecessary troll tolls, right?

Filed Under: cable tv, net neutrality, pay tv, tv
Companies: comcast, layer3tv, t-mobile

Shocker: Study Finds Cord Cutting Very Real, TV Execs Still Failing To Adapt

from the can't-stop-(r)evolution dept

You'll perhaps recall that broadcast and cable executives spent years denying that TV cord cutting was even happening. Ultimately that head-in-the-ground thinking "evolved" to the point where sector executives admitted that sure, cord cutters are real, but they're little more than 40-year-old nobodies living in mom's basement -- and not something to actually take seriously. As the data began to indicate that cord cutting was a very real phenomenon that thinking has finally started to subside, though the industry by and large has responded by doubling down on the bad ideas that brought us to this point in the first place.

There's still a sect of broadcast and cable executives and analysts that truly believe this shift from bloated, pricey channel bundles to cheaper, more flexible streaming alternatives is just a fad kooky kids are going through. And there's more than a few sector executives who believe this will all magically end as younger generations procreate and buy new homes. Of course that's not really supported by the facts, with most Millennials and younger generations being "cord nevers" -- who fail to see the point of subscribing to expensive bloated channel bundles in the era of YouTube and Twitch.

A new report by the Diffusion Group highlights again how this isn't just some temporary hiccup in the tastes of fussy viewers. The group predicts that at the current pace of customer defections from cable, the number of US households that subscribe to traditional cable will drop from 81% this year to 60% in 2030:

"Generally, TDG expects that the penetration of live multi-channel pay-TV services will decline from 85% of US households in 2017 to 79% in 2030. While statistically a loss of only 7%, it nonetheless illustrates the ongoing secular decline of a once healthy market space. TDG predicts that, by 2030, roughly 30 million US households will live without an MVPD service of any kind, be it virtual or legacy.

During this time, legacy MVPDs will experience considerable subscriber losses, due not only to long-term industry trends but also growing competition from virtual pay-TV providers. Consequently, legacy pay-TV penetration will fall from 81% of US households in 2017 to 60% in 2030, down 26%. At the same time, virtual pay-TV penetration will grow from roughly 4% of US households to 14%, up 350% but from a very small base.

And while some traditional, legacy TV viewers will flock to "virtual" streaming alternatives like AT&T's DirecTV Now or Dish's Sling TV, those services cost significantly less than traditional cable options (which usually clock in at $110 or more per month). That's why most cable providers have been so busy imposing arbitrary and unnecessary usage caps and overage fees on broadband connections, as it allows them to counter these lost TV revenues (with the added bonus of hamstringing competing services that aren't zero rated, something you'll see a lot more of thanks to the looming death of net neutrality).

Needless to say, the report highlights how cable providers still need to get out ahead of this shift, instead of just paying empty lip service to adaptation:

"TDG said early on that the future of TV was an app. Unfortunately, most incumbent MVPDs weren't taking notes," notes Joel Espelien, TDG Senior Analyst. "The question is no longer if the future of TV is an app, but how quickly and economically incumbents can adapt to this truth and transition to an all-broadband app-based live multi-channel system."

Again though, industry executives weren't just "not taking notes," they were actively trying to ignore a massive, wholesale shift in how their business sector operates. Most of the entrenched cable operators could easily nip this entire shift in the bud by simply competing on price and bundle flexibility. But instead, countless cable and broadcast executives continue to just double down on legacy turf protection and rampant rate hikes -- in the false belief that the traditional TV cash cow they've been milking for decades is somehow immortal.

Filed Under: cord cutting, tv

3 Million Dish Customers May Miss Thanksgiving Football In Latest Example Of TV Industry Dysfunction

from the And-you-wonder-why-things-are-going-poorly dept

So for several years now consumers have faced a growing number of obnoxious retransmission blackouts, which occur when broadcasters and cable providers can't agree on new programming contracts. Such feuds usually go something like this: a broadcaster will demand a fairly obnoxious price hike for the same content, to which the cable provider (already awash in complaints about higher rates) will balk. Instead of negotiating their differences like adults, this content is subsequently blacked out for paying customers, who never see refunds for the inconvenience.

Instead, customers are effectively used as public relations pinatas, as each side tries to get the customer angry at the other guy. After a few weeks of blacked out content, annoying on-screen tickers urging users to call in and complain, and public sniping, a new confidential deal is struck, and the higher rates are then passed on to the consumer. It's a habitual dance of dysfunction that has continued despite the fact that the industry is losing more and more customers every year due to unsustainable rate hikes, horrible customer service, and the rise in streaming video competition.

This week, 3 million Dish customers lost access to 28 CBS-owned local stations in 18 markets because Dish Network and CBS executives couldn't agree on a new contract without penalizing paying subscribers. This latest blackout comes just days before CBS is scheduled to air the latest Thanksgiving NFL game between the Los Angeles Chargers and the Dallas Cowboys, something CBS knows full well will help generate the maximum public backlash:

"CBS, in a statement, warned that “Dish subscribers are in jeopardy of being without CBS over the Thanksgiving holiday, which would mean they would miss CBS Sports’ NFL and SEC football coverage."

CBS is set to broadcast the NFL matchup between the Chargers and the Dallas Cowboys on Thanksgiving.

“I am very upset. Why does the customer always have to suffer in these situations?” asked Jerry Horn, a Dish customer in Narrowsburg, N.Y. “We pay the bills. … Keep us connected during contract disputes!"

Dish, for its part, announced that it's offering users a free over the air antenna so customers can watch the game. The company's also offering users the chance to ditch all local broadcast channels in exchange for a $10 reduction in their monthly bills. And while Dish isn't faultless in these feuds, they're correct in noting that CBS seems to think it deserves more and more money despite fewer and fewer users actually tuning in to traditional broadcasts:

"On a recent investor conference call, CBS boasted about the rate increases promised to shareholders, going from $250 million in 2012 to a forecasted $2.5 billion by 2020. Those desired increases come as DISH customers are watching less CBS, with average viewership down 20 percent over the past 3 years."

The FCC has occasionally flirted with the idea of banning cable companies and broadcasters from blacking out content during content disputes, but nothing much comes of it -- as this kind of anti-consumer behavior is generally seen as "boys being boys," and outside the purview of regulatory oversight. And the cable and broadcast industry is perpetually unwilling to change its behavior, only accelerating the slow but steady exodus of subscribers from bloated cable bundles -- to either streaming alternatives like Hulu, Amazon and Netflix -- or piracy. Stellar work all around, boys.

Filed Under: blackouts, contract disputes, football, retransmission, thanksgiving, tv
Companies: cbs, dish

AT&T Spent Hundreds Of Billions On Mergers And All It Got Was A Big Pile Of Cord Cutters

from the synergies,-yo dept

Over the last few years AT&T and Verizon have been desperately trying to pivot from stodgy, protectionist old telcos -- to sexy new Millennial media juggernauts. And while this pivot attempt has been notably expensive, the net result has been somewhat underwhelming. Verizon, for example, spent billions to gobble up AOL and Yahoo, but its lack of savvy in the space has so far culminated in a privacy scandal, a major hacking scandal, a quickly shuttered website where reporters couldn't write about controversial subjects, and a fairly shitty Millennial streaming service even Verizon's own media partners have called a "dud."

AT&T's efforts have been notably more expensive, but just as underwhelming. The company first decided to shell out $70 billion for a satellite TV provider (DirecTV) on the eve of the cord cutting revolution. And the company's putting the finishing touches on shelling out another $89 billion for Time Warner in a quest to gain broader media and advertising relevance. That was paired with the launch of a new streaming service, DirecTV Now, which the company hoped would help it beat back the tide of cord cutting.

But things aren't really working out quite like AT&T planned. The company's stock took a beating last week after it acknowledged it would be facing a 390,000 reduction in pay TV subscribers this quarter. AT&T, in an 8K filing with the SEC, tried to partially blame hurricanes for the mass exodus occurring at the company:

"The video net losses were driven by heightened competition in traditional pay TV markets and over-the-top services, hurricanes and our stricter credit standards. The decline of traditional video subscribers negatively impacts our Entertainment Group revenues and margins, resulting in an adjusted consolidated operating income margin that will be essentially flat versus the year-ago third quarter."

Unmentioned is that AT&T also lost 351,000 pay TV subscribers the quarter before, as the company gets hit harder by cord cutting than most pay TV providers. One of the real reasons for these departures? While AT&T was willing to spend hundreds of billions on megamergers, it has spent the better part of the last decade (especially in places where poor people live) neglecting necessary network upgrades. As a result, in countless markets Verizon & AT&T users on last-generation DSL lines are switching to cable providers for faster broadband, and bundling cable TV service that's priced cheaper than broadband alone.

In short AT&T neglected its core business in order to daydream about matching Google or Facebook's ad revenues, but (so far) lacks the core competency to jump the gap from telecom to Silicon Valley-esque Millennial marketing. Both AT&T and Verizon have spent so many years operating as government-pampered protected duopolies, they believed they could pivot on a dime, ignoring that years of regulatory capture left them with only a few key skills: charging too much for too little, lobbying to thwart competition and bullshit.

To its credit, AT&T was at least willing to take a risk and launch DirecTV Now, a streaming alternative. And while the company did manage to add 300,000 streaming customers on the quarter, those users pay a fraction of what traditional cable TV customers do - and AT&T still saw a net loss of 90,000 pay TV users. Still, most other incumbent pay TV providers have responded to the cord cutting threat by raising cable TV rates (ingenious!) or by pretending to keep pace via the launch of streaming alternatives that are intentionally designed to be underwhelming, lest they cannibalize more lucrative legacy customers.

One of the core problems here is that Wall Street isn't satisfied with ISPs simply doing a good job and making a reasonable profit. The relentless, myopic need for quarterly improvements has companies like AT&T and Verizon trying to use megamergers and vertical integration to magically elbow their way into markets it's unclear they lack the competency for. And only after mindlessly cheering these deals do some Wall Street analysts realize some of these arrangements don't even make coherent business sense given the current market climate:

"Though the company partly blamed recent hurricanes for these trends, MoffettNathanson analyst Craig Moffett notes that weather was only the third of four reasons that AT&T listed. “Heightened competition in traditional pay TV markets and over-the-top services” came first. In other words: cord cutting. “It is becoming increasingly clear that the wheels are falling off of satellite TV,” he writes, meaning that Dish Network might announce similar results."

In an ideal world, AT&T would realize its core competencies (building and maintaining wireless and fixed-line networks) should take priority. That $70 billion spent on buying a doomed satellite TV company could have gone a long way in shoring up broadband service that in many regions still doesn't even meet the FCC's base 25 Mbps definition. But in the world we live in that's simply not sexy enough for Wall Street, and the need to grow simply for growth's sake will likely result in AT&T making even more expensive deals of dubious net benefit down the line. Next up: Waffle House?

Filed Under: broadband, cable, competition, cord cutting, dsl, mergers, satellite, tv, video
Companies: at&t, directv