Multiply By Zero
As if we couldn’t have fewer cable options, Comcast plans to buy Time-Warner Cable:
Comcast and Time Warner Cable confirmed Thursday that they will enter into a $45.2 billion deal to combine the nation’s two largest cable companies, a mammoth proposal that will trigger close scrutiny from federal regulators.
Swooping in to top a competing bid by Charter Communications, Comcast will pay 2.875 of its shares to TWC shareholders. The companies’ respective board of directors have approved the all-stock agreement, which will see all of TWC’s 284.9 million shares acquired at a value of about $158.82 per share. Current TWC shareholders will own about 23% of Comcast’s common stock.
The Justice Department is expected to take a look, but will ultimately approve it, most likely.
My first thought was, as with the proposed AT&T-TMobile merger, was that the administration would put a stop to it one way or another. But I thought Matt Yglesias made a great point on Twitter:
Worrying that mergers will reduce cable competition seems like multiplying zero by larger numbers.
— Matt Yglesias (@mattyglesias) February 13, 2014
From company-to-consumer, our choices were limited to one before and they will be limited to one if this happens. The only immediate difference from our end is that more people will be limited to Comcast and nobody will be limited to TWC. Customers could actually benefit. When I was in Arapaho, our cable company was bought out twice and each company offered better prices than the last for Internet (more on the cable vs ISP distinction in a minute). One of the real cost-drivers for cable TV are the negotiations with the channels. Since there is competition for cable in the form of satellite, that has always given the networks more leverage than the cable companies. Networks tend to win these battles. CBS recently smacked around TWC. This is probably not good for consumers, especially those that (unlike myself) favor a la carte programming and complain about having to pay for channels they don’t want to watch. One of the things the networks bargain for against the cable companies is the inclusion of more of their channels (and the subscriber fees to match).
If this does give Comcast more leverage than Comcast and TWC had previously, it could be a win for consumers. Further, most of the bigger concerns about Comcast – that they own NBC and were not only carriers of other networks but competition – were at least theoretically dealt with in the previous round of negotiations when Comcast purchased NBC.
What has me concerned, however, is the Internet side of things. Yet Yglesias’s Multiply By Zero also applies there as well. The primary concern I would have is that Comcast is in a better position to set itself up for direct competition than Time-Warner was, but I’m not sure if that holds water. Comcast+TWC still doesn’t have enough market position to easily challenge Netflix and Amazon to the point of throttling them, and they’re legally prohibited from doing so as a condition of the Comcast-NBC merger (despite the recent Net Neutrality reason that would otherwise apply).
To be clear, for a variety of reasons, the Internet in the US tends to be slower than in other countries and Comcast already does particularly poorly when it comes to Netflix. Also, the legal prohibition will run out, at which point it’s unclear in what ways Comcast would be able to use its new market advantage. And yet Comcast customers presently enjoy Net Neutrality rights that TWC customers don’t, as a result of letting a previous merger go through. It seems that more concessions could be called for this time around, benefiting consumers more.
Comcast is not promising to lower prices or slow the rate at which prices increase, though my parsing of the statement means “than it has been in the past” rather than “than if this doesn’t happen.”
My rather strong inclination here is to oppose the merger. Perhaps as a reaction to and rejection of the degree of consolidation we’ve seen thus far. Local cable and ISP’s don’t operate in a free market, which means that we’re not going to see the benefits that sometimes come with consolidation… but also means that – unlike with AT&T and TMobile – the costs aren’t the same, either. So after my initial “Ack!” response, I’m coming up short on reasons why this particular consolidation should seem particularly troublesome. I just hope the feds can negotiate some goodies, if they let it go through.
One potential benefit:
With one mega-cable-distributor, the move from pre-programed content to on-demand content may speed. Or rather the shift from subscription to product selection for viewing.
This, of course, may potentially put a ding in the plethora of cable viewing options that few bother to watch.Report
True, though (and this cuts both ways into the argument) Comcast’s and TWC’s combined marketshare is actually considerably less than I would have figured.Report
I am typically very anti-merger since they typically reduce competition, but if Comcast and Time Warner don’t compete in any markets, it’s hard to see how it would.
I think the merger might actually make net neutrality more likely for a couple of reasons:
1. The FTC might make it a requirement for approval of the merger.
2. It’d make Comcast-TimeWarner vulnerable to anti-trust lawsuits if they were to throttle Netflix. Throttling traffic from Netflix would almost certainly be anti-competitive that would wind up in the courts.Report
As mentioned in the OP, Net Neutrality was a requirement of the previous Comcast merger so this would add NN to all current TWC. Until 2018, anyway. A result of this could be to push that date back. So that would sorta be a win.Report
Will, it seems to me there are two sides to this business.
First, is the infrastructure to deliver content to your screen. The second is content; the right to distribute that content over that infrastructure.
In this way, the whole industry strikes me as most akin to electricity. The business model has been one of paying for content through cable subscription to pay for the infrastructure investments. This, to me, seems to be the problem. The equipment is a utility, and I think would be best regulated as a utility, with customers paying for access to the system. That would allow competition amongst content providers, leading to more on-demand, less packaging, etc.Report
Very good point, Zic. I have to admit a bit of skepticism for how it would work out for the customer (similar to my skepticism for a la carte channel requirements) but it’s not like the industry has been doing itself any favors in that regard.Report
Has anyone else wondered why there’s so much demand for a la carte pricing for television, just as that model is dying alone and unloved in the music industry? And I’ve never heard of anyone asking for a la carte Internet access.Report
@brandon-berg
But internet access is a la carte. You only download what you want from the Internet, you don’t draw the whole thing onto your computer. And books and movies have always been a la carte.Report
James:
Internet access doesn’t have a la carte pricing. You pay a single flat fee for access to the vast majority of web sites, regardless of how many you access. There are premium web sites, but there are also premium cable channels.
Movies have traditionally had a la carte pricing, but that’s starting to change with buffet-style streaming video services like Hulu and Netflix. There’s also been talk of buffet-style eBook services. The reason these have traditionally been sold a la carte, I think, is that there has not until recently been a way to distribute them at close to zero marginal cost.Report
@brandon-berg People seem to think that, with the current pricing model for cable, they are paying for many channels they do not watch. The hope is that, with a la carte pricing, they could only pay for the handful of channels they watch. However, it is entirely possible that a la carte pricing would result in the loss of niche channels if they did not have enough subscribers to be profitable, leading to fewer channels to choose from overall.Report
Has anyone else wondered why there’s so much demand for a la carte pricing for television…
Because people think it’s going to be cheaper somehow. I suspect that most OT readers are atypical television viewers. How many simply sit down four evenings a week and channel surf? Cable networks negotiate not only per-sub price, but things like channel positioning, because casual viewership is important in determining how much you’ll be able to charge advertisers. Among other things, a la carte means that there are far fewer casual viewers; decreased ad revenue has to be offset somehow; most likely by charging a la carte viewers more than they charge the cable company; possibly a lot more.
All those damned little ads the cable networks run down in the corner of the widescreen for their own upcoming content? Same deal. Maybe last night you hit FX’s Iron Man 2 showing*, and while Robert Downing Jr. doesn’t do much for you, the blurb down in the corner for Kate Beckinsale in skin-tight vinyl in one of the Underworld movies kept you from changing channels. So they got another half-a-dozen ad views they wouldn’t have gotten if you had surfed on by. More if you stayed on as a casual viewer of Kate.
* I was tired and wanted someone else to do the work to occupy my attention so was flipping through the channel line-up once.Report
What I find funny is that a lot of the same people who are mad that viewers are charged the same regardless of how many channels they watch… also got mad when ISPs talked of charging people based on how much Internet they used.Report