[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNN ATT Merger with TMobile 3-21-11.flv[/flv]

Gizmodo’s Matt Buchanan helped educate viewers of CNN’s American Morning about the implications of AT&T’s merger with T-Mobile.  While Ali Velshi tried to deliver AT&T talking points about “decreased” wireless pricing, Buchanan took him to school with the fact an increasing number of wireless customers are paying higher bills because of indefensible SMS text message charges, mandatory data plans, and other extras that pad today’s cell phone bills.  Additionally, the one company that challenged the nearly-identical prices and plans from AT&T and Verizon like none other was T-Mobile.  Now, with T-Mobile out of the way, every American faces paying the same high prices for cell service.  (5 minutes)

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Nelson Says ATT Faces High Hurdles in T-Mobile Buy.mp4[/flv]

Getting AT&T’s deal with T-Mobile approved by U.S. regulators could be difficult, as the Obama Administration contemplates the loss of the fourth largest national carrier, leaving just three national players.  Michael Nelson, analyst at Mizuho Securities USA Inc., discusses AT&T Inc.’s agreement to buy Deutsche Telekom AG’s T-Mobile USA unit for $39 billion in cash and stock. Nelson talks with Erik Schatzker on Bloomberg Television’s “InsideTrack.”  (5 minutes)

Dismissing the implications of an antitrust regulatory review not seen in the United States for years, AT&T this morning officially unveiled its intention to acquire T-Mobile in a $39 billion deal that will give AT&T nearly 40 percent of the American wireless market.

With a combination of the two companies, the new super-sized AT&T would become America’s largest wireless operator, and deliver nearly three out of every four wireless customers to just two companies — AT&T and Verizon.

Wall Street is delighted.

“Phenomenal deal if it happens,” said Jonathan Chaplin, an analyst with Credit Suisse Group AG. “Huge upside for AT&T — [T-Mobile owner] Deutsche Telekom getting a great price; however, we believe regulatory risk is enormous.”

That may prove an understatement, if public interest groups have their way.

“The combination of the second-largest wireless carrier, AT&T, with the fourth-largest, T-Mobile is, as former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt once said, ‘unthinkable,'” said Public Knowledge President Gigi Sohn. “We urge policymakers to think similarly today. The wireless market, now dominated by four big companies, would have only three at the top. We know the results of arrangements like this – higher prices, fewer choices, less innovation.”

“It’s difficult to come up with any justification or benefits from letting AT&T swallow up one of its few major competitors,” said Parul P. Desai, policy counsel for Consumers Union. “AT&T is already a giant in the wireless marketplace, where customers routinely complain about hidden charges and other anti-consumer practices.”

...Ourselves with AT&T

“I think it could reach some level of controversy,” said an antitrust expert, who worked for the Justice Department’s antitrust division. “There’s going to be spectrum issues. This is going to be a complex deal and I don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion that it will be approved.”

Despite the concerns, AT&T is confident that regulators have been sufficiently cowed by the company’s lobbyists to approve just about anything they bring to the table.

AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson told reporters on a conference call that the company spent plenty of time doing “homework” on how to get the deal to pass regulator scrutiny.

The American carrier even bet its winning outcome with a $3 billion cancellation fee, payable to Deutsche Telekom if the deal cannot be consummated.

In AT&T’s presentation this morning, the company promised they would improve America’s worst-rated cell phone company by merging with America’s second worst-rated cell phone company.  Specifically, AT&T says the deal will bring T-Mobile’s wireless spectrum allocations to the larger carrier, which can alleviate spectrum shortages.  The company also promised, in return for deal approval, expand service in more rural locations and quicker upgrades to the next generation of speedy wireless data — LTE.

Ralph de la Vega

Ralph de la Vega, AT&T’s president and CEO of Mobility and Consumer Markets, showed slides promising T-Mobile customers would benefit from new choices in cell phones and would enjoy AT&T’s far larger nationwide network, delivering improved service.  But he also hinted it would cost value-oriented T-Mobile customers, promoting the deal’s potential of winning new revenue from customers soon forced to pay AT&T’s significantly higher prices.

AT&T claimed the company still would face robust competition from Verizon, Sprint, and a number of much-smaller regional carriers like MetroPCS and Leap Wireless’ Cricket — themselves under pressure to merge.  But consumer groups are skeptical.

“Don’t believe the hype: There is nothing about having less competition that will benefit wireless consumers,” said Free Press Research Director Derek Turner. “And if regulators approve this deal, they will further cement duopoly control over the wireless market by AT&T and Verizon.”

“The FCC’s National Broadband Plan, issued last year, warned about the absence of sufficient competition in the wireless market. The possibility that three players would control nearly three-quarters of that market will surely trigger intense scrutiny by the agencies,” said Andrew Schwartzman of Media Access Project.

The deal has been under negotiation for several months between the German carrier and AT&T.  Many Wall Street analysts see the deal as a major win for T-Mobile, which has struggled mightily against the AT&T and Verizon juggernauts.  The German company wins a seat on AT&T’s board, a part interest in the carrier, and a high valuation on its network.  AT&T gets the country’s only other major carrier using the same technology it does — GSM — and picks up the potential of more robust coverage in the urban and suburban areas T-Mobile focuses on.  AT&T will also follow the time honored tradition of buying something they cannot afford outright — they will finance it with a generous credit line arranged by J.P. Morgan Chase.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Mergers and Acquisitions ATT and T-Mobile Merger to Create Industry Giant 3-21-11.flv[/flv]

CNBC managed to achieve an exclusive interview with the CEOs of AT&T and T-Mobile about their merger.  As with most business media, don’t expect a lot of challenging questions in response to the claims made by the company executives about the merger or its impact on consumers.  (20 minutes)

Good news to report for North Carolina consumers.  With a coordinated pro-consumer pushback, we’re achieving some victories in the battle to stop big cable and phone companies from pushing community broadband networks out of the state.  Since Rep. Marilyn Avila (R-Time Warner Cable) was not amenable to withdrawing the bill cable lobbyists authored, your appeals to members of the Finance Committee made a major difference: winning exemptions for the state’s existing community networks and redefining an under-served area to any community where 50 percent of households cannot obtain high-speed broadband service.

North Carolina’s local media is becoming increasingly aware of H.129 for the first time, and so are many consumers — outraged over reports state government is spending its valuable time working on the cable industry’s wishlist.

Today was a very important victory and we are glad to have done our part to win it, but this battle is by no means over.  We fully expect Time Warner trickery — their lobbyists will be back next week to try and undo what we have accomplished together.

We’ve been here before.  A de-fanged bill is okay, but a bill voted down altogether is better.

Please thank Chairman Mitchell S. Setzer for his call for a recorded vote, which helped us track who represents consumers and who fights for the cable company’s agenda.

We’d also like to thank Rep. K. Alexander, Rep. Faison, Rep. Luebke, Rep. Ross, Rep. H. Warren, and Rep. Womble for their strong support for better broadband in North Carolina.  There will be more to thank along the way, but this is a good start.

We are continuing the consumer fight to see H.129 shot down as the travesty it represents.  This proposed legislation does not deliver a single new broadband connection, improve ones that already exist, or deliver lower prices to anyone.

Citizens in Raleigh are making their feelings known on WRAL-TV’s website:

“NC should be encouraging and assisting rural cities and towns looking at doing this, not putting up obstacles. But I’m sure the Time Warner, Comcast and AT&T lobbyists have deep pockets full of excellent graft.”

“This all comes down to the city of Wilson. They offered every telecom and cable provider to provide 100Mbps internet access to 100% of the people in the city if they want it at a rate of $50/month (I think that was the amount). Every single private company laughed and said it was not profitable and they would take the contract. So, the City of Wilson took it upon themselves to provide the product the city wanted. Now, all of the companies are whining? Provide what the City of Wilson did at the price they did and there would be no problem. Don’t blame this on taxes. The simple issue is that TWC, Charter, and you name it want to make 100-200% profit and offer substandard high speed internet. “

“Come on NC. Reject the Bill and approve an order to allow cities to provide this technology if the monopolistic companies will not. Get them out of our state.”

“Frankly, if it were to mean that I could dump Time Warner Cable and their cra**y service and their “Oh we’re raising our rates again due to the Sun coming up 5 minutes late” attitude, I would be elated!”

“When will it ever be enough for the cable and phone companies? Their lines and equipment have been in place for YEARS and what do we get….rate increases every year, outages, lines cut, spotty internet service. It’s high time they have some competition. If they can afford to give new customers discounts for 12 months, why not keep the prices at that level with only moderate increase over time and then KEEP MORE customers in the fold? Just a thought!”

“The internet service offered by Wilson ROCKS. Twice the speed at half the price of TWC. No wonder they’re trying to block this from happening.”

The people are speaking, and they do not want state legislators moonlighting for the interests of cable and phone companies.  Remind your legislators you want more choice, not less.  Tell them to oppose H.129 and ask Rep. Avila to withdraw her bill.

Rep. Marilyn Avila (R-Time Warner Cable) at today’s House Finance Committee Meeting (1 Hour, 13 minutes)

In a stretch even the most accomplished Yoga master would never attempt, an industry-funded dollar-a-holler group has told Congress that Internet Overcharging is a useful tool to combat online piracy.

On Tuesday, Daniel Castro, an analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), testified before the House Judiciary Committee on the issue of combating “rogue sites [that] operate in a low risk, high reward environment.”

In December 2009, ITIF proposed a number of policies to help reduce online copyright infringement, especially in countries that turn a blind eye to copyright enforcement. The purpose of these policies is to establish a robust enforcement mechanism to combat IP theft online. These recommendations include the following:

• Create a process by which the federal government, with the help of third parties, can identify websites around the world that are systemically engaged in piracy;
• Enlist ISPs to combat piracy by blocking websites that offer pirated content, allowing pricing structures and usage caps that discourage online piracy, and implementing notice and response systems;
• Enlist search engines to combat piracy by removing websites that link to infringing content from their search results;
• Require ad networks and financial service providers to stop doing business with websites providing access to pirated content;
• Create a process so that the private sector can consult with government regulators on proposed uses of anti-piracy technology;
• Fund anti-piracy technology research, such as content identification technology;
• Pursue international frameworks to protect intellectual property and impose significant pressure and penalties on countries that flout copyright law.

Castro’s idea of allowing providers to establish “pricing structures and usage caps” stands out like a sore thumb in the context of battling piracy because it is the only recommendation on the list that targets every broadband user with the same broad brush, punishing every customer whether they are engaged in piracy or not.

It would be like setting up roadblocks and searching every vehicle in a city to search for a shoplifter.  Every individual is found guilty before being proved innocent, and will be forced to pay higher prices regardless of the outcome.

The ITIF proposal runs contrary to years of efforts by Internet Service Providers to avoid being involved in the personal business of their customers.  In 2009, major ISPs wanted no part of enforcing a proposal from the record industry for a “three strikes, you’re out” plan.  Verizon, among others, made clear copyright enforcement was not their responsibility to police, although many ISPs are willing to forward copyright infringement notices to individual customers.

Castro’s testimony goes over the top when he blames his own suggested pricing antidote for “hurting law-abiding consumers who must […] pay higher prices for Internet access to compensate for the costs of piracy.”

Of course, no ISP has ever suggested they would use the extra revenue earned from Internet Overcharging to combat another industry’s piracy problem.

His sweeping indictment against consumers extends beyond nipping at their bank accounts on behalf of telecommunications companies who help fund the group he represents.  He also suggests those who oppose his piracy prescriptions are either in league with, or defenders of piracy — or other offenders ranging from criminal enterprises to kiddie porn peddlers.

Castro’s support for usage caps to control illicit online activities leaves collateral damage as far as the eye can see.  It also simply won’t work for many forms of piracy Castro complains about.  ISPs with usage caps go out of their way to note even the most draconian limits still allow thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of songs to be downloaded — legal or otherwise.  Castro testified e-published books are now increasingly vulnerable to piracy, content compact and easy to obtain even with usage limits.  Combating websites dealing in counterfeit goods with usage limits isn’t even worth trying.

What Castro’s proposal will do is limit access to the growing amount of legitimate online video traffic.  While the author cites statistics that “one in four bits of traffic traveling on the Internet today is infringing content,” (taken from a report commissioned by NBC-Universal, who has a major interest in this battle) he ignores other facts.  Namely, more than three-quarters of all broadband traffic is legal and legitimate.  Nearly 20 percent of primetime broadband traffic is coming from companies like Netflix who are in the business of providing a legal alternative to video piracy.

Castro’s argument on usage caps simply falls apart: ISPs, who have never been particularly interested in being the enforcement divisions for Hollywood studios, should be given the right to limit broadband usage and raise prices to combat piracy even when most of that traffic heads for legitimate websites?

Public Enemy #1 for Content Theft circa 1981: The $1,400 VCR

Online piracy enforcement should not involve Internet Overcharging schemes, and arguments that it should only illustrate why so many consumers and public interest groups get nervous about industry-proposed enforcement mechanisms.  Too often, they ignore presumption of innocence before guilt, browbeat alleged offenders into settlements to avoid costly litigation — guilty or not, and turn over policing to an industry with a long track record of overreach to protect their business interests. The record speaks for itself:

• Demands to ban videotape recorders in the 1970s and early 1980s for “piracy reasons”;
• Tax cassettes and video tapes to cover alleged piracy losses in the 1980s;
• Tax blank digital media in the 1990s because of “rampant piracy”;
• Impose monthly “piracy recovery surcharges” on broadband users in the 2000s;

Now the industry wants to police the piracy problem on its own terms.  As before, the proposed solutions are worse than the problem.

Back to the future.  In 1981, ABC’s Nightline ran this report on the entertainment industry suing a VCR owner, retailers, and manufacturers for piracy over taping a television station with a videocassette recorder.  The concern in 1981 — technology was moving faster than copyright law could keep up.  Many of the yesterday’s players are part of today’s debate, including Universal, the company that purchased research indicting 20 percent of all Internet traffic as “illegal.” (Part 1 of 3 – 9 minutes – Courtesy WEWS-TV Cleveland, ABC News, and ‘videoholic1980s’)

Today’s piracy debate rehashes the same accusations of content theft, only the technology has changed.  One executive tells the Nightline audience he’s offended at being told the industry already earns enough.  The movie and television industry predicted calamity over the VCR more than 30 years ago, saying it would cost them billions in lost profits.  Hollywood eventually lost the argument against the VCR and their businesses turned out fine, earning billions in revenue selling videotapes of movies and television shows to consumers they were willing to sue just a few years earlier. (Part 2 of 3 – 9 minutes)

Before Washington is asked to join the panic-frenzy over online piracy, perhaps they should recall the same predictions of doom and gloom made by many of the same companies — predictions that were overstated.  Imagine if they had succeeded in banning the VCR?  Indeed, just as before, Hollywood stands to earn billions online when they make their content available for easy, legal viewing at a reasonable price.  Slapping usage limits on broadband consumers is the worst idea ever to promote legal viewing of digital content because it discourages customers from shopping for it.  (Part 3 of 3 – 4 minutes)