Over the air television in Detroit if the NAB is correct.

The National Association of Broadcasters is warning a Congressional plan proposed on behalf of the wireless industry could force every broadcast station in Detroit off the air, and drive at least one network affiliate in many northern U.S. cities along the Canadian border to “go dark” if the plan is adopted.

The FCC’s National Broadband Plan contains provisions now on Capitol Hill to recapture spectrum currently used by free over-the-air television stations and provide it to wireless providers to bolster mobile broadband and cell phone networks.  Lawmakers expect the wireless industry will pay up to $33 billion for the lucrative spectrum, to be shared with vacating broadcasters and the U.S. Treasury.

But the NAB says the FCC plan goes too far, forcing stations to vacate UHF channels 31-51 to crowd into the remaining channel space of 11 VHF channels (2-13) and 17 UHF channels (14-31).  According to a study conducted by the broadcasting lobby, there is simply not enough remaining channel space to accommodate 1,735 U.S. stations, forcing at least 210 to sign off, permanently.

Because of agreements with the Canadian government to protect American and Canadian stations from mutual interference, the results could be devastating for northern cities along the U.S.-Canadian border.  The worst impact would be in Detroit, Michigan where the NAB predicts every local station would have to leave the airwaves.

The cities of Buffalo, Seattle, Syracuse, Cleveland, Spokane, Rochester and Watertown, NY and Flint, Mich. would likely lose at least one major network affiliated-full power station each.  At least 73 stations in the top-10 largest television markets would be forced off the air, unable to find appropriate channel space in the remaining available spectrum.  Hundreds of stations would be forced to change channels and potentially reduce power and coverage areas to protect stations sharing the same channel number in adjacent cities.

“If the FCC’s National Broadband Plan to recapture 20 more TV channels is implemented, service disruption, confusion and inconvenience for local television viewers will make the 2009 DTV transition seem like child’s play,” said NAB President Gordon Smith. “NAB endorses truly voluntary spectrum auctions. Our concern is that the FCC plan will morph into involuntary, because it is impossible for the FCC to meet spectrum reclamation goals without this becoming a government mandate.”

Broadcasters are feeling a bit peeved at the federal government for repeatedly returning to sell off a dwindling number of channels for other uses.  The original UHF dial included channels 14-83, but over the years the highest channel number has dropped to 51, mostly for the benefit of the cell phone industry.  Now they’re back for more, seeking channels 31-51 for wireless broadband and mobile telephony.

The cell phone industry wants broadcasters to “voluntarily” give up their channel space and reduce transmitter power so more stations can share the same dial position in nearby cities.  But that could leave fringe reception areas in rural communities between cities without over-the-air television reception, and make free television more difficult to watch without a rooftop antenna.

The NAB called on the FCC to immediately make public its analyses of the broadband plan’s potential negative impact on viewers of free and local television.

“We’ve waited patiently for over a year for FCC data on how the Broadband Plan impacts broadcasters, and more importantly, the tens of millions of viewers who rely every day on local TV for news, entertainment, sports and lifeline emergency weather information,” said the NAB’s Smith. “Even Congress can’t get information from the FCC. All we are seeking is more transparency. We have but one chance to get this right if we are to preserve future innovation for broadcasters and our viewers.”

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/NAB Free TV Spot.f4v[/flv]

The National Association of Broadcasters is distributing this ad to local broadcasters to air on their stations to inform viewers about the spectrum controversy.  (1 minute)

The consumer wireless handset lobby does not deny the plan will leave Americans with fewer channel choices, but they believe that will come from corporate station owners voluntarily shutting down stations for profit.

“The study presumes an unrealistic scenario in which every single existing TV station continues to operate over-the-air. However in the event of incentive spectrum auctions, it is highly likely numerous stations will capitalize on their spectrum assets by exiting the business or sharing resources,” said Consumer Electronics Association senior vice president for government affairs Michael Petricone.

Petricone believes the number of Americans spending time with broadcast television is dwindling, and less important than the wireless industry’s spectrum woes.

“Our nation faces a crisis as demand for wireless spectrum will soon outstrip supply,” said Petricone. “Meanwhile, the number of Americans relying purely on over-the-air TV is less than 10 percent, according to both CEA and Nielsen market research. Incentive auctions would be a financial windfall for broadcasters, free up the spectrum necessary for the next generation of American innovation to move forward and bring in $33 billion to the U.S. Treasury.”

The cellular industry’s top lobbying group CTIA was more plain: it’s survival of the fittest.

“Since spectrum is a finite resource, it is vital that the U.S. government ensures the highest and best use of it,” said CTIA vice president Chris Guttman-McCabe.

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/NAB Explains Spectrum.flv[/flv]

The NAB explains the concept of “spectrum” — or ‘the airwaves’ to consumers and what a major reduction in UHF channel space would mean for “free television.”  (3 minutes)

Groups like San Francisco Beautiful fear AT&T's U-verse cabinets will succumb to graffiti, like this one in nearby Oakland. For the group, U-verse cabinets on the sidewalk promote urban blight.

Construction of the first of nearly 500 four-foot-tall utility cabinets is scheduled to begin this morning by AT&T, eager to expand its U-verse fiber-to-the-neighborhood service in the city of San Francisco.

San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors voted 6-5 last Tuesday to allow AT&T to begin building the metal cabinets, which hold the interface between the company’s fiber optic network and individual subscribers’ copper phone lines.

Mark Blakeman, AT&T’s vice president of external affairs, wasted no time announcing the location for the first box, to be situated on La Playa in Outer Richmond.  AT&T promises to launch U-verse service in the area within six months.

Most of the company’s initially-proposed 495 cabinets will be located on public sidewalks or other nearby rights-of-way.  Unlike San Francisco’s other utilities, AT&T will be able to install its boxes above-ground.  That has brought years of criticism from neighborhood groups who decry the cabinets are ugly, block the view of pedestrians and vehicle traffic, and are magnets for graffiti.

For groups like San Francisco Beautiful, it’s just the beginning.  AT&T’s longstanding goal is to install more than 700 boxes across the city’s landscape.

“It is going to put the blight of 726 utility boxes on our streets,” San Francisco Beautiful spokesperson Milo Hanke said. “Utility boxes from AT&T that are ugly and in most instances we still believe they are unnecessary; they should be on private property.”

AT&T will roll out its U-verse service in different parts of the city in segments, starting with the Richmond and Sunset Districts.

AT&T anticipates taking at least two years to complete the project across the city, but claims it remains open to bypassing neighborhoods that simply refuse to accept its boxes.  AT&T might not have a choice, considering the agreement they have with city officials.

Neighborhoods must be given time to provide input to city officials before permits are issued to AT&T.  If a city supervisor in a particular district doesn’t like the boxes, the “memorandum of understanding” grants the politician ultimate veto power over AT&T’s permit requests.  That means AT&T will be forced to do a lot of hand-holding public relations throughout the city to win support for their equipment.

That’s something AT&T is not used to in other states, where the company has won the right through deregulation to install its equipment cabinets anywhere it pleases, so long as they are located in a public right of way.  That has left a series of 4-6 foot tall boxes in the front yards of consumers in states like North Carolina, with absolutely no recourse.

AT&T will install its "compact model" cabinet within city limits, not the 6' tall boxes some homeowners in other states contend with.

In California, regulators can require utilities screen equipment with plants, maintain boxes to remove graffiti and correct noisy cabinet fans, and give property owners some input about where the often-unsightly boxes end up.  But those regulations are only as good as those willing to enforce them.

San Francisco Beautiful notes AT&T boxes in nearly Oakland are often covered in graffiti for extended periods, reducing property values and promoting neighborhood blight.

Hanke claims last week’s agreement violates a 2005 city order from the Department of Public Works mandating utilities put their equipment underground wherever possible.

“The supervisors fell victim to AT&T’s bluster,” said Hanke. “This benefits a private company at the public’s expense.”

AT&T’s Lance Kasselman told the San Francisco Chronicle it won’t go where it isn’t wanted.

“Obviously, those who clearly want it will get it first,” Kasselman told the newspaper. “People who want it or don’t want it, or have questions and concerns, should tell us on our website. We’ll meet with whoever wants to talk about it.”

With a close 6-5 vote, some city supervisors are well aware of the public minefield that awaits them in neighborhoods that despise AT&T’s equipment.  With opponents calling on citizens to complain, Supervisor Scott Wiener (Castro/Noe Valley/Diamond Heights) knew he needed to prepare.

“This morning, I did a yoga class to clear my head before writing a letter to neighborhood associations in my district,” Wiener told the Chronicle.  “I’m trying to make sure people understand what (Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors) vote means.”

[flv width=”600″ height=”358″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KGO San Francisco ATT Utility Boxes 7-19-11.flv[/flv]

KGO-TV in San Francisco covers the AT&T U-verse box controversy, and the Board of Supervisors’ decision to approve their installation.  (2 minutes)

Don’t like the prospects of a merger between AT&T and T-Mobile and worried your AT&T bill will increase as a result?  If you are an AT&T on-contract customer, the New York law firm of Bursor & Fisher wants to talk to you.

Scott A. Bursor, the founding partner of the firm, says he wants to represent AT&T customers to help stop the proposed merger, or win significant financial concessions on behalf of those who could face skyrocketing cell phone bills as a result of reduced competition in the marketplace:

AT&T’s $39 billion takeover of T-Mobile would turn back the clock to the era of the Ma Bell monopoly. The deal would give AT&T and Verizon control over 80% of the wireless market, would stifle the competitive market forces that would otherwise help to keep prices down, and would stifle new products and innovation.

AT&T’s claim that the takeover will help improve network quality makes no sense. T-Mobile’s network overlaps almost entirely AT&T’s. And AT&T already has more spectrum than any other company. In most areas, AT&T already holds at least 40 MHz of spectrum it is not even using. AT&T is keeping that spectrum off the market, which prevents competitors from using it to provide better service at lower prices.

Turning back the clock to the Ma Bell monopoly era will allow AT&T and Verizon to dictate what type of phone you can use, how you can use it, and what you will pay. It will destroy competition, leading to higher prices and worse service.

Since AT&T’s wireless contracts specifically prohibit customers from suing the company for any reason, the law firm seeks to pursue the alternative “mandatory arbitration” specified by AT&T in an effort to either derail the merger or force the price much higher.

Customers who retain the law firm on their website can expect the firm to follow four steps that could bring arbitration awards as high as $10,000 per customer:

First, when you sign up, you will receive a confirmation email with a copy of our retainer agreement. We will also provide you with the an email address where you can contact us if you have any questions or concerns about the process.

Second, shortly after you sign up, we will send a letter on your behalf by certified mail to AT&T giving them notice that you intend to file an arbitration seeking to enjoin the takeover of T-Mobile. This is the first hoop you have to jump through to bring an arbitration under the fine print of AT&T’s Arbitration Agreement. We will send you a copy of that letter by email.

Third, if AT&T does not agree to cease and desist from completing the merger within 30 days, we will file a demand for arbitration on your behalf with the American Arbitration Association. The demand will include extensive evidence and legal authority we have gathered to prove that AT&T’s takeover of T-Mobile will harm competition in violation of the Clayton Antitrust Act. We will email you a copy arbitration demand when it is filed.

Fourth, our team of lawyers will litigate your arbitration case aggressively to make sure that your arbitration rights, and your rights under the antitrust laws, are protected. If we are successful, we may seek a $10,000 payment for you.

Bursor

AT&T scoffs at the effort, releasing a statement calling Bursor & Fisher’s actions “completely without merit.” Company officials also claimed arbitrators have no standing to block a corporate merger, hinting the endeavor may be more about winning the law firm a substantial payout than representing the interests of consumers.

Bursor & Fisher are not pursuing AT&T for free.  The attorneys will deduct 50 percent of any award as their contingency fee — a percentage considerably higher than the more common 33-40 percent attorneys usually deduct, and this does not include further reductions to cover any “costs” advanced by the firm.

We found this somewhat curious, considering AT&T’s own arbitration legalese already provides for an attorney premium in their award — twice the amount of any legal fees and reimbursement of expenses.  So deducting an additional 50 percent and taking fees from any consumer awards seems like a case of unfair double-dipping.

But since you are not obligated to pay a cent in fees, anything you might manage to walk away with is more than you started with.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ATT T Mobile Merger.flv[/flv]

Free Press has some fun at AT&T and T-Mobile’s expense with these four video ads opposing the merger.  Of course, the expense is all yours if the merger succeeds in further reducing wireless competition and allowing the all-new AT&T to raise prices even higher.  (3 minutes)

Murdoch

As Fox’s parent company News Corp. continues to reel in a wide-ranging criminal investigation involving phone hacking murder and terror victims in the United Kingdom, the scandal is now spreading into the United States with new revelations this week that CEO Rupert Murdoch, working with New York’s then-mayor Rudy Giuliani, used politically-motivated threats to force Time Warner Cable to add a newly-launched Fox News Channel to the cable dials of New Yorkers, raising their cable bills in the process.

The Daily Beast reports efforts by Murdoch to pay a substantial bounty to get the news/commentary channel on in Manhattan were not effective, so Murdoch turned to a political alliance with Giuliani, who received significant support from Murdoch’s NY Post in his earlier election bid, to force the issue with threats against the cable operator:

Let’s start in 1996, three years after Murdoch’s New York Post helped make Giuliani mayor with the narrowest win in modern city history. That year, Rupert and Ailes, who’d actually managed Rudy’s unsuccessful mayoral run in 1989, were launching Fox Cable News and they had one rather daunting problem: Time Warner controlled the prime NYC cable franchise, with 1.2 million viewers, including virtually all of Manhattan, where every advertiser who might buy a spot lived or worked. And Time Warner refused to give Fox a channel for its new venture. In those days, Time Warner only had space for 77 channels on the dial, and 30 applicants had lined up before Fox. Richard Aurelio, who ran the NYC cable system for Time Warner, recalls now that he assured Ailes that in a year or so, they would “get more capacity and put you on.” But, says Aurelio, now long retired at age 83, “Murdoch was furious.” A former deputy mayor under John Lindsay, Aurelio says he’d “never seen such a display of raw political power,” branding it “ferocious.”

Records revealed that after Murdoch and Giuliani talked directly about the matter on Oct. 1, their aides had 25 conversations and two meetings in the space of a few weeks. A deputy mayor instantly warned Time Warner about the possibility that their franchise, granted by the city every 15 years, might not be renewed and volunteered to fly anywhere in the country to meet with a Time Warner executive above Aurelio. When Time Warner wouldn’t budge, Giuliani came up with an extraordinary remedy. The city controlled five public-access channels, written into law as alternatives to commercial television, and the mayor decided to give one of them to Fox. In fact, presumably to make it look like this wasn’t something he would just do for Murdoch, he offered another to Mike Bloomberg’s then-fledgling TV network. The Bloomberg News channel actually had its debut one night before a federal judge could stop the deal, but soon the courts blocked this transparently extralegal adventure.

Giuliani

While Murdoch was initially willing to pay cable systems up to $11 per subscriber to launch Fox News on cable systems in the fall of 1996, most cable systems were effectively out of channel capacity at the time.  Fewer than ten million households had access to the new new network when it launched, despite the record launch bonus Murdoch was willing to pay.  Time Warner Cable had promised the network it would likely have channel space within two years as the company completed the rollout of its then-new “digital cable” service, which opened up hundreds of new slots for additional channels, but Murdoch was not willing to wait.

The Giuliani Administration owed a lot to Murdoch’s newspaper operations in the city, trumpeting his political campaigns.  One year before Fox News launched, Giuliani’s then-wife Donna Hanover was hired by WNYW-TV, Fox’s owned and operated local station in New York, despite the fact it was over a decade since her last job in television.  Fox tripled her salary just after Giuliani began threatening Time Warner Cable’s franchise to provide cable service in New York, unless and until the cable system made room for Fox News.

By 1997, Time Warner Cable added the network not only to its Manhattan cable system, but agreed to roll the channel out to most of its cable systems nationwide by 2001.

Murdoch’s early willingness to pay a bounty to get cable carriage has proved a worthwhile investment, considering Fox News has now become one of the most expensive networks in the cable package.  In December, Chase Carey, COO of News Corp., compared Fox News’ value with ESPN — America’s most expensive cable channel.  Carey has sought wide-ranging rate increases for Fox News in 2011, even after the network won earlier increases which made them by far the most expensive channel in the news and commentary category, running about a dollar per month per subscriber.  Those rate increases are passed down to every cable subscriber in the form of a higher monthly bill, whether one watches the channel or not.

In 2007, additional pressure was brought against cable operators to add Fox Business Channel, a perennially-low rated channel that was started to counter “the anti-business bias” of CNBC.  Despite now being available in nearly half of all American households, the spring Nielsen ratings show only about 57,000 people over the age of 2 watch the channel on any given day, even though every cable subscriber with the network on their lineup pays for it.