FORTUNE -- Comcast (CMCSA) executives reportedly believe that if their company decides to make a bid for Time Warner Cable (TWC), it's unlikely the deal would face serious regulatory scrutiny since the two cable giants' geographical markets don't overlap much. In this, those executives are alone. Of course there would be scrutiny, and the Federal Communications Commission might well disallow the acquisition. Or at the very least, the agency would likely impose tight restrictions on such a deal. The problem wouldn't be geography: It would be the enormous power Comcast could wield in the market for TV programming.
Comcast's power is already enormous, but it's not to the point where it can dictate the prices it pays to suppliers, as companies such as Wal-Mart (WMT) and Amazon (AMZN) often can. The suppliers in Comcast's case are of course programmers such as Disney (DIS) and Viacom (VIA). The FCC might not be so worried over how an even-more gargantuan Comcast would treat its customers in terms of subscription rates (which can't go much higher without losing subscribers), but over how the company would treat programmers.
The FCC has been generally liberal in allowing cable tie-ups, mainly because acquisitions have little effect on local competition (since there essentially is none among cable providers). But in this case, the FCC might well decide that acquiring Time Warner Cable would give Comcast "de facto control over what content would be available on television," analyst Craig Moffett of MoffettNathanson Research told Bloomberg News last week. "If a TV programmer couldn't cut a deal with Comcast, they wouldn't exist."
As things stand, Comcast, even with its 21 million subscribers, can't dictate terms to programmers, who in fact have come out ahead in many recent, often bruising negotiations with the cable industry over pricing their video content (just witness the shellacking Time Warner Cable took in its standoff with CBS this past summer). But an acquisition would give Comcast 12 million more subscribers and control over nearly three-quarters of the entire U.S. cable industry. Even if you took into account the satellite and telephone companies that offer pay-TV, as well as other broadband Internet providers that distribute content from Netflix (NFLX), Hulu, YouTube (GOOG), and the like, Comcast would still be serving a third of all U.S. video and broadband customers. Meanwhile, Comcast already owns one the of the nation's largest programmers, NBCUniversal.
If Comcast decides to make a play, it will be going up against Charter Communications (CHTR), which itself has been angling for Time Warner Cable. Cable kingpin John Malone, who in May acquired 27% of Charter, has said that the FCC should allow further consolidation of the cable industry because cable operators need more negotiating power and because of the competition they face from the likes of satellite operators DirecTV (DTV) and Dish (DISH), and phone companies such as AT&T (T) and Verizon (VZ). "As big as Comcast is," Malone said last month, "it has a 25% footprint. You can't buy national programming when you have that kind of footprint."
Each suitor is problematic for Time Warner Cable for different reasons. The company would prefer to be acquired by Comcast, but such a deal might face a long, protracted inquiry by the FCC and possibly fail to win approval. A bid from Charter -- which with only 4 million cable subscribers is a fraction of the size of Comcast -- would be much more likely to pass regulatory muster, but it would have to be highly leveraged. (It was also reported last week that Charter was near to reaching a financing deal with a set of banks). Both Charter and Time Warner Cable are already laden with debt. Comcast's enterprise value is about $168 billion. Charter's is about $28 billion. Comcast has about 40 times as much cash ($1.6 billion) as Charter, according to the companies' most recent balance sheets. Time Warner Cable, the nation's No. 2 cable provider, has an enterprise value of about $61 billion. After Friday's 10% runup in Time Warner Cable shares in the wake of the news about the Comcast bid, Time Warner Cable's market capitalization was at $38 billion.
One possible outcome is joint bid by Comcast and Charter for Time Warner Cable, with each company taking different parts of the company. Reports surfaced late Friday that the two would-be acquirers were discussing just such a plan. That would both make FCC approval more likely and limit the amount of leverage Charter would need.
Another concern from industry critics is the effect an acquisition might have on broadband Internet access. Comcast has been aggressive in its dealings with Netflix and other so-called "over the top" video providers, as well as with some of its own subscribers who watch a lot of video or play bandwidth-hogging online video games. Comcast has done everything it can to work around rules governing net neutrality, which restrict Internet providers from favoring some data flows over others. For instance, net neutrality rules would keep Comcast from, if it wanted to, slowing down Netflix's video feeds relative to the feeds from Comcast's own NBC Network, for example (the consent decree allowing Comcast's acquisition of NBCU also restricts it from favoring its own traffic over that of competitors).
Also, Comcast imposes data caps on its users. Time Warner Cable has so far not done so, but an acquisition by Comcast would likely mean that 12 million more broadband subscribers would have their monthly data allotment limited. A similar issue would likely arise from an acquisition by Charter. The media-focused consumer watchdog group Free Press doesn't want either deal. Combining Comcast and Time Warner Cable would be an "unthinkable deal," the group's research director, S. Derek Turner, told the Los Angeles Times. But also, he said, "Charter and John Malone have stated quite clearly that they think the best way to grow value for their company is by imposing very draconian data caps on their broadband Internet customers."
Rather than improving its service or cutting prices, Comcast has spent big to unseat the mayor of Seattle, who is bringing a city-sponsored high-speed broadband network to his city.
FORTUNE -- When challenged, monopolists, particularly in the communications industry, often tend to work harder to protect their monopolies than they do to improve their services or cut prices (or simply limit price increases). An excellent example of this can be found MOREDan Mitchell, contributor - Nov 1, 2013 4:18 PM ET
Maybe the "D" in AllThingsD should stand for "Deal."
By JP Mangalindan and Dan Primack
FORTUNE -- The future of influential tech website All Things Digital is close to being decided.
Reuters reported in February that AllThingsD co-executive editors Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg had begun discussions with owner Dow Jones, a subsidiary of News Corp. (NWS), about either ending or extending their partnership, which is set to expire on December 31.
Since then, Fortune MOREAug 27, 2013 8:41 AM ET
Why hasn't the future arrived for one of consumers' most used gadgets?Aug 27, 2013 5:00 AM ET
Critics say data caps are aimed squarely at hindering competition from Internet video providers.
FORTUNE -- Cable companies continue to expand their imposition of data caps on Internet customers in some areas. Critics see it as an attempt to thwart competition from Internet video providers like Netflix (NFLX) that offer alternatives to cable TV.
DSLReports' Karl Bode reported this week that two companies, Comcast (CMSCA) and Mediacom, have both expanded caps or MOREDan Mitchell, contributor - Aug 9, 2013 2:24 PM ET
The media companies that are selling Hulu aren't bargaining over price so much as what kind of deals they can get from the new owners.
FORTUNE -- Now that all the bids are in for Hulu, the question is: What will become of the service? And the answer is: Nobody knows for sure, but it's possible that the Hulu as we know it will disappear, or at least be diminished from MOREDan Mitchell, contributor - Jul 10, 2013 6:40 AM ET
Households with broadband Internet access are increasingly piping Internet video to their TV sets, through a variety of devices.
FORTUNE -- We can examine the strategies of Netflix (NFLX) and Comcast (CMCSA) all we like, but the speed at which television moves off of cable and onto the Internet will be determined largely by what people decide to do in their living rooms. Now that they have the hardware and software MOREDan Mitchell, contributor - May 3, 2013 6:36 AM ET
Just what is Hulu supposed to be? Its squabbling, wishy-washy, half-in-half-out owners keep it from making the kinds of bold moves it needs to thrive.
By Kevin Kelleher, contributor
FORTUNE – These days, it's not enough to host digital TV programs. Companies that stream programs like Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu are moving into producing original content to win new subscribers. Lately, Hulu has been doing its rivals one better by living out a MOREApr 22, 2013 5:00 AM ET
The streaming TV service works. Consumers love it. And CEO Jason Kilar is a star. The networks that own it should be trumpeting their success. Instead, Hulu risks stalling.
By Janet Morrissey, contributor
FORTUNE -- Hulu is killing it.
Surprised? You shouldn't be. Since Hulu first helped broadcast programming escape the prison of the TV set five years ago, the Los Angeles-based venture has been on a tear. In fact, it's managed MOREAug 20, 2012 5:00 AM ET
Outfits like NimbleTV and Aereo want to finally fulfill the promise of web TV. But disrupting the massive home-entertainment industry won't be easy.
FORTUNE -- Since the advent of the Internet, web TV has perpetually lingered over the horizon. Years after major cable companies unveiled "TV everywhere" initiatives and giants Apple (AAPL), Google (GOOG), and Microsoft (MSFT) began peddling hardware to beam the Internet to televisions, the merging of the Net MOREJessi Hempel, writer - Jun 8, 2012 5:00 AM ET
|2 million Facebook, Gmail and Twitter passwords stolen in massive hack|
|Ron Paul: Bitcoin could 'destroy the dollar'|
|Pentagon to cut jobs, contracts by $1 billion|
|5 ways identity thieves are targeting you|
|New mortgage rules may mean fewer lenders, less choice|