Wall Street Is Starting To Get Very Nervous About Cable TV Cord Cutting

from the from-denial-to-hyperventilation dept

Wall Street is finally starting to realize there's a storm brewing on the horizon for the nation's biggest cable companies. Cable stocks took a notable dip this week after MoffettNathanson analyst Craig Moffett downgraded the entire cable sector because of worries surrounding cord cutting and streaming video competition. Moffett, who not that long ago used to mock cord cutters for being irrelevant basement dwellers, has seen the light -- more recently noting that 2016's 1.7% decline in traditional cable TV viewers was the biggest cord cutting acceleration on record.

And in a lengthy research note to investors this week, the analyst warned that the cable industry's approach to cord cutting (raising rates and offering horrible customer service while hoping it all works out) simply isn't going to cut it given the competitive threats to come:

"Broadband growth will inevitably slow, and it will likely do so at precisely the same time that video growth rates also come under pressure from OTT substitution," Moffett said in his Tuesday-morning note. "And while cable operators have the pricing power to offset these headwinds via their broadband business, we believe it is likely that investors will (appropriately) apply a somewhat lower terminal growth rate assumption to a business that is achieving its growth through pricing rather than unit growth."

Wall Street and the cable sector's optimism in the face of a massive sector (r)evolution is running out of oxygen, Moffett insists:

"The cable stocks have climbed a wall of worry to get here," Moffett wrote to clients. “But as any mountain climber knows, the higher you go, the thinner the air."

It's an interesting position for Moffett to take, given the fact that for years the analyst breathlessly supported broadband usage caps and overage fees as a fail-safe solution to this problem, once going so far as to declare usage caps "the next generation of communications." Arbitrary and utterly unnecessary usage caps are one trick Comcast has been using to hamstring streaming competitors, while raising prices on broadband to counter any potential TV revenue loss.

For the moment, Comcast has been cushioned from the cord cutting threat by its growing monopoly over fixed-line broadband service. Companies like AT&T and Verizon have shifted their attentions to media and advertising, and other major telcos like Windstream, Frontier, and CenturyLink lack the courage, money or incentive to upgrade their aging DSL lines at any real scale. So in many markets, customers looking for next-gen broadband speeds only have one option: cable. And when they show up, they're forced to sign up for TV services they may not want.

You'd think that a growing broadband monopoly, usage caps, and the government's decision to gut most meaningful oversight of one of the least-competitive sectors in America would have Wall Street stock jocks pretty damn excited. The fact that many of them are still very worried about the cord cutting threat to come -- despite Comcast's immense position of power -- tells you precisely what kind of threat we're looking at.

Filed Under: cable tv, cord cutting, craig moffett, tv

Comcast Loses Just $5.50 Per Month When You Cut The Cord Thanks To Its Growing Broadband Monopoly

from the insulated-from-competitive-harm dept

We've noted several times that the cable industry is somewhat shielded from the rise of cord cutting because of its growing monopoly over broadband. You see, as AT&T and Verizon give up on unwanted DSL customers they don't want to upgrade (as part of a pivot into content and ads), there are now huge swaths of the country where users really only have one option for broadband above 25 Mbps: cable. Users fleeing neglected DSL lines sign up for cable, and because TV bundled with broadband is cheaper than broadband alone, users sign up for TV service they may not even want.

As this cable monopoly grows, these cable companies have less incentive than ever to compete on price across more than half of their footprint. And with ISPs literally writing state laws preventing public/private or community broadband, no market forces exist to prevent them from expanding the application of entirely unnecessary usage caps and overage fees. Most analyses overlook this, instead focusing on the scattered rise of Google Fiber and other gigabit deployments in highly-select areas.

One Wall Street analyst this week highlighted just how cushioned a company like Comcast really is when it comes to cord cutting. MoffettNathanson analyst Craig Moffett crunched the numbers and found that once you account for the higher costs you'll have to pay for buying broadband standalone, Comcast only really loses about $5.50 per month when a user cuts the TV cord:

"When a Comcast customer drops video, the MSO loses about $38 in contribution margin, Moffett estimates. But that customer ends up paying an extra $25 a month more for broadband when their bundling discount goes away. "Now, further suppose that half of those customers opt to upgrade to a higher speed tier at an average premium of $15 per month (implying a probability-weighted $7.50 benefit per cord-cutter)." The difference comes to $5.50.

Moffett's analysis isn't perfect and Comcast's losses are likely higher. He comes to that $5.50 number by assuming the departing customer upgrades to a faster speed, which really isn't necessary just for streaming Netflix. And it's not clear he's included the revenues Comcast makes on households paying rental fees for numerous cable boxes, or the fees Comcast hides below the line (like the broadcast TV fee). Still, the point remains that Comcast is arguably shielded from cord cutting because of the high prices it charges for broadband -- only made possible by limited broadband competition.

And Moffett doesn't even touch on the fact that Comcast can further recoup any cord cutting losses via usage caps and overage fees, something Moffett and other investors have long embraced given it lets an ISP charge significantly more money for the exact same service. Nor does Moffett highlight how Comcast further benefits by counting all competitor streaming traffic against the cap, while it's own streaming video service remains cap exempt.

All told, cable providers are now adding 99% of the quarterly net additions for new broadband subcribers each quarter, at the same time that the sector is consolidating at an incredible rate. And these companies continue to have almost comical control over state legislatures, often allowing them to literally write wish-list legislation further insulating them from competitive harm. And time and time again the industry, and the policy folks it employs en masse to pollute public discourse, intentionally conflate enabling this protectionist dysfunction as the "deregulation of free markets" (often with no penalty from an unskeptical press).

So yes, if you live in a major, relatively-affluent city or upscale broadband development your broadband options may be improving, if you're lucky. But across more than half of the country, users are actually seeing less broadband competition than ever before. And with Trump listening to telecom advisors that don't believe monopolies exist and are keen on gutting net neutrality and all regulatory oversight of said non-existing monopolies, you're potentially talking about millions of consumers looking at higher prices and worse customer service than ever before.

The solution, again, is fighting for better broadband on the local level. If you want better broadband, you need to get behind the push to eliminate protectionist state laws that restrict towns and cities from making local broadband infrastructure decisions for themselves. These laws, passed in roughly 20 states, not only prohibit towns and cities from building their own networks (even in cases where nobody else will), but they often hinder the kind of public/private partnerships that are becoming necessary to shore up competitive gaps caused by the broadband market failure the industry will tell you doesn't exist.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, cord cutting, craig moffett, monopoly, tv
Companies: comcast

One Slightly Less Shitty Quarter For Cable Fuels Renewed Cord Cutting Denial

from the head-in-sand dept

First the cable and broadcast industry argued that cord cutting didn't exist. It was, to hear execs tell it, simply a reflection of the sagging housing market, and the people who were cutting the TV cord were poor, 40 year old nobodies, living in their mom's basement who didn't matter. Of course data has since shown that cord cutting continued as housing markets recovered, with millions of new home owners not signing up for cable. Similarly, most data shows that cord cutters are young, educated, and just tired as hell of constant rate hikes for mammoth bundles of awful reality TV programming.

After a record-setting second quarter for cord cutting, the cable industry seemed prepared to accept cord cutting (and as a result embrace new, skinny bundles of channels and the reality that it may actually have to someday compete on price). But subscriber TV losses during the third quarter sucked slightly less than normal. That, in turn, fueled a new industry press meme about how Internet video's threat to cable was "overblown," cable has "struck back" and it's time to "change the narrative," because cable, like, has things totally under control now:

"It’s time to change the narrative about cord cutting,” Craig Moffett, an analyst at MoffettNathanson LLC, said Thursday in a note titled “Charter Q3 Earnings: Cable Strikes Back.” “Yes, the pay-TV industry is slowly drip, drip, drip declining,” he said. “That cable was actually holding its own was at best a secondary narrative."...The third-quarter resurgence after a disastrous summer quarter of record subscriber losses was led by Comcast, the nation’s largest broadband Internet service provider."

So what did Comcast do to encourage this suddenly rosy outlook among many stock jocks? Why the country's least liked company lost just 48,000 subscribers last quarter. That's still notably pathetic, but it excited Wall Street because it was Comcast's best subscriber showing in nine years (which again, speaks volumes). Time Warner Cable saw similar "improvement," losing just 7,000 subscribers last quarter. Other third quarter earnings results were all over the board, from AT&T's loss of 92,000 U-Verse subscribers (great job!) to Charter managing to add a whopping 12,000 video subscribers (wow!).

And while this narrative of cable "striking back" and cord cutting being a hallucination of a few, mean 'ole bloggers is a great one for firms pushing specific stock positions, news outlets and analysts nervously sucking at the teat of dwindling industry ad money, or executives with their heads buried deeply in the sand, it misses the forest for the trees.

One, many of these companies just finished new gee-whiz set top box GUI upgrades (notably Charter, Time Warner Cable and Comcast). And while some graphical upgrades for the aging cable box may have excited customers temporarily, they're in no way going to be a substitute for the direction the cable industry absolutely needs to head: lower prices and more flexible channel packages. Netflix is now in half of all american homes and the impact on cable ratings has been abundantly obvious. And while several cable companies are finally experimenting with new "skinny" channel bundles, they're still not seriously competing on price. As a result these offerings tend to lack value, features, and, in cable industry fashion, are jam packed with fees and caveats.

A slightly less shitty quarter also doesn't change the fact that the housing market continues to grow without bringing new cable subscribers along for the ride. Nor do these numbers address the arguably bigger threat of "cord shavers," an admittedly idiotic term that includes users who are trimming back on their cable TV and service bundles to counter absurd programming rate hikes. Flat cord cutting numbers are just one metric to look at. Looking at all of the data, including ratings, housing growth, and cord shaving paints a very clear picture that Internet video is a serious threat that's not going away.

To be sure, much cord-cutting analysis and press coverage tends toward the apocalyptic, and over-states both the pace and scale of the problem. It's also true that cable could likely swat cord cutting like a pesky fly were the industry interested in things like actual innovation, competing on price, and disruptive new, open viewing platforms and hardware. But it's pretty abundantly clear looking at consumer bills and customer satisfaction surveys that the industry is interested in none of those things. Claims that one slightly-less-shitty quarter for a single statistic means the tide is turning sends the completely wrong message to an industry that needs to wake up and engage in aggressive adaptation before things get truly ugly.

Filed Under: cable, cord cutting, craig moffett, denial, tv
Companies: charter, comcast, time warner cable

Cord Cutting Denial Is Alive And Well

from the head-buried-firmly-in-the-sand dept

You might recall that former Sanford Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett made a bit of a career by mocking cord cutters as poor, irrelevant basement dwellers, when he wasn't denying their existence entirely. Now at his own firm, Moffett has taken a complete 180 in recent years, unable to deny that cord cutting is a very real phenomenon that's only growing as the pay TV industry refuses to offer more flexible pricing options. And, contrary to Moffett's original analysis, most data shows that cord cutters tend to be young, gainfully employed, and well educated.

No worries though -- someone at Sanford Bernstein appears to have picked up the cord cutting denial mantle. Bernstein research analyst Todd Juenger this week has been making headlines for a research note that not only claims all of the new cord cutting options arriving in 2015 will fail (whether it's Sony's Playstation Vue, SlingTV or looming services from Apple and Verizon), but that cord cutting quite simply isn't happening. To prove it, he cites a non-specific "body of evidence" that he claims proves few people really want these services:

"A strong body of evidence is emerging that suggests to us that none of these services are likely to gain much traction," he said. "Simply put, for existing pay-TV subscribers, the content is too limited (relative to the cost savings); and for cord-nevers, the price is too high (relative to the appeal of the content)."

There's a bit of an ongoing media narrative afoot that new streaming options just aren't any good because users have to subscribe to every one of them just to get the same volume of content they get from traditional cable. But these narratives usually ignore the fact that users want something notably different from traditional cable. They also ignore piracy entirely in their analysis for whatever reason, which seems absurd when you're trying to take a bird's eye view of where the TV market sits.

Still, Juenger proceeds to insist that meaningful cord cutting "isn't likely to happen," and so the cable TV industry should do its very best to protect the "status quo":

"Cord-cutting, in large numbers, isn't likely to happen," Juenger said. "It's one of those ideas that sounds great in the abstract but crumbles when faced with the reality. OTT services seem poised to garner few subscribers, which is more good news than bad. We believe it's better for the pay-TV ecosystem to remain in the status quo than to add millions of OTT subscribers at the cost of blowing the whole system apart."

One, cord cutting is already happening in meaningful volume. Craig Moffett, the guy that used to deny cord cutting like Juenger, recently noted that he believes the pay TV sector lost 1.4 million total subscribers last year, largely thanks to cord cutters or "cord nevers." Two, most of the news outlets reporting on Juenger's comments didn't mention the fact that the "focus group" his statements were based on consisted of a whopping 18 people, nowhere near enough to actually make the kind of pronouncements he's making (he cautions people from making too much of the findings for this reason -- right before he himself apparently makes too much of the findings).

It's not clear why Bernstein analysts always seem intent on being at the forefront of cord cutting denial -- you'd hate to think they're trying to somehow influence stock holdings or performance by intentionally giving bad advice. But cord cutting is very much real, it's very much growing, and there's finally a flood of over-the-top streaming options arriving later this year now that broadcasters have started easing up on licensing restrictions. Advising the industry to hold tight to the "status quo" in the face of Internet video in 2015 is akin to telling residents in the path of a tsunami to stop worrying and have a cocktail.

Filed Under: cable, cord cutting, craig moffett, denial, todd juenger, tv
Companies: sanford bernstein

Telco Analyst Compares Google Fiber To Ebola... Completely Misses The Point

from the making-duopolists-sweat dept

As we've noted more than a few times, the broadband industry was in dire need of a swift kick in the posterior, and Google Fiber has done a wonderful job highlighting this fact on a daily basis. The company's decision to jump into the broadband market and offer symmetrical 1 Gbps connections for $70 a month (with no obnoxious fees) quickly resulted in thousands of cities all over the country falling over themselves to get Google's attention. In the process, Google was able to not only highlight the overall lack of broadband competition, but also other notably less-sexy (and therefore overlooked) issues like state protectionist community broadband bans. The free marketing in every paper nationwide is of course just an added perk for Google.

Of course, not everybody's so easily impressed. Telecom industry analyst Craig Moffett, who has made a name for himself being rather wrong about things (whether that's predicting the collapse of the wireless industry or pretending cord cutters don't exist), this week poured cold water on Google's efforts by highlighting just how few subscribers Google actually has. In a research note, Moffett notes that Google Fiber has just 30,000 subscribers, and this is somehow proof positive that Google Fiber isn't a big deal. Like, you know....Ebola:

"To Cable & Satellite investors, Google Fiber is a bit like ebola: very scary and something to be taken seriously," telecom industry analyst Craig Moffett wrote in a research note to investors this week. "But the numbers are very small, it gets more press attention than it deserves, and it ultimately doesn't pose much of a risk (here in the US at least)."

The unfortunate tasteless use of a bad metaphor aside, Moffett's not really seeing the big picture when it comes to Google Fiber's impact. As we've noted previously, Google Fiber isn't just about deploying faster, cheaper broadband connections (though Google has made it clear it wants a sustainable business). Google Fiber's been largely about highlighting a lack of competition and lighting a fire under all-too-comfortable duopolists. As the project has expanded, Google has made a point of offering cities a checklist (pdf) helping to make deployment easier, whether it's Google or somebody else doing the building.

Moffett looked to the U.S. Copyright Office to get the total subscriber counts (it tracks video subscribers because of compulsory license fee requirements). It's worth noting however that the USCO doesn't track broadband subscriber totals, and most Google Fiber customers are likely to be skipping traditional video and embracing over-the-top video services, so the actual numbers are likely higher. It's also worth noting that Google's on the cusp of a major new expansion into Raleigh/Durham, Charlotte, Atlanta, and Nashville, with potential Portland, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, San Antonio and San Jose launch announcements later this year. It's a slow drum beat, but it's a steady one.

In other words, while it's true Google Fiber has probably seen some overhype and most incumbent ISPs don't face an immediate competitive threat, looking at subscriber totals and declaring it a non-starter for the telecom industry is pretty narrow thinking. Google Fiber not only shines a spotlight on the lack of meaningful broadband competition, it has sparked the public's imagination and fueled a national conversation about how we can do broadband better.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, craig moffett, google fiber, impact, wall street
Companies: google

The Short-Sightedness Of Wall Street When It Comes To Broadband Infrastructure Investment

from the short-term-thinking dept

Karl Bode, over at Broadband Reports, absolutely destroys stock analyst Craig Moffett for doing his usual song and dance. If you're unfamiliar with Moffett, Bode has the details:

Like any good short-sighted investor, Moffett has urged companies to not upgrade their networks, insiting that caps and overages are the "next generation of communications." The irony of course is those telcos who listened and didn't upgrade their networks are now having their lunch eaten by cable providers on a massive scale, which, if Moffett's firm and client investment interests lean heavily toward cable operators, is something that's working out rather well for him and them.

Less network investment, less competition, higher prices. Great for investors, not so great for you

Bode's piece focuses on Moffett's silly analysis that the DOJ's interest is in how Comcast and Time Warner are trying to stifle Netflix and Hulu and that will somehow increase prices (huh? what?!?) because they'd take away Moffett's preferred solution of anti-consumer data caps.

However, I wanted to focus in on the larger issue here: the idiocy of short-term Wall Street thinking over long term strategy. Wall Street functions on a quarterly basis mostly -- with an occasional nod to looking out a full year, but rarely anything further than that. This creates stupidly short-sighted incentives that are deathly towards anyone with any long term goals or strategy. It argues that any big strategic investments don't make sense, because they cost lots of money in the short term, but you won't see payback until outside the myopic window of vision of these Wall Street analysts.

Perhaps that's great for day traders, but as Bode notes, it's bad for the public. And here's the thing: it's actually even worse for companies. It's unfortunate how many companies find themselves slaves to Wall Street analysts views in making their strategic planning efforts. Because that holds them back from actually making the important big strategic investments they often need for the future. Every so often you have a more visionary leader who simply ignores the folks like Moffett. You get situations like Ivan Seidenberg at Verizon, who ignored Moffett and invested in fiber -- which is why it's still competitive today. Unfortunately, as Seidenberg got closer and closer to retirement (which happened last year), the company backed away from continuing its build out. Short term thinking over long term thinking.

In some ways, this is the flipside to the Innovator's dilemma. It's an explanation for why big legacy companies fail to respond to disruptive innovation: because they can't. Because they can't put in the effort to be ready for disruption and instead leave themselves wide open to such disruption by not investing in their future, but rather by listening to the Craig Moffetts of the world -- such that the money that could be building a company for the future instead ends up in the hands of Moffett's real clients: the short-term investors.

If we want to build a stronger economy that builds jobs and continues to innovate, we have to figure out a way to diminish the power of Wall Street's short-term focus, and how to incentivize companies to understand what investing for the long run means.

Filed Under: cable, craig moffett, doj, dsl, infrastructure, wall street
Companies: comcast, hulu, netflix, time warner

New Cable Talking Point Against Cord Cutters: They May Be Cutting, But They're Poor Nobodies

from the nice-try dept

We already noted that the cable industry is really trying to stick its head as far in the sand as possible when it comes to the fact that many customers are starting to drop their cable TV subscriptions. First, they pretended it wasn't happening at all, and that they had somehow "beat" the internet (based on a single anecdote of someone who had dropped cable, but gone back to it a year later). Then, when news came out of massive numbers of people dropping their cable TV plans, they said that they weren't really cord cutters, because they were only canceling service due to the down economy. The latest strategy appears to be to insult the cord cutters, saying that while the idea behind cord cutters was that it would be young, technologically savvy folks, it's actually people who the cable companies just don't care about: poor older folks. Seriously. At least that's the argument being made by one of the cable industry's favorite talking heads, who tries to minimize the cord cutters by saying they're "poor" people who "eat a dog's breakfast."

Mr. Moffett said the image of the cord-cutter had been that of a "cutting-edge technologist" who preferred to bypass cable to watch programming on computers and on an ever-proliferating array of devices. "The reality is it's someone who's 40 years old and poor and settling for a dog's breakfast of Netflix and short-form video."

Sounds kind of like the cable industry is moving from the "denial" stage to the "anger" stage of grief...

Filed Under: cable, cord cutters, craig moffett, tv