Stephenson

AT&T’s top executive has found himself uncomfortably caught in a political fracas pitting Trump loyalists who want to punish CNN, career staffers that claim they are genuinely concerned about the media concentration that would result from AT&T’s multi-billion dollar acquisition of Time Warner, Inc., and Trump critics rushing to defend whatever they perceive the administration is against.

A frustrated Randall Stephenson, AT&T chairman and CEO, appeared at The New York Times Dealbook Conference in New York Thursday to talk about his astonishment that the company’s merger has become a public political hot potato that theorizes on President Donald Trump’s active dislike of CNN and opponents of the president who suspect the Trump Administration is attempting to punish the news media for its negative coverage of the president.

“I have never been told that the price of getting the deal done was selling CNN, period. And likewise I have never offered to sell CNN,” Stephenson said, refuting rumors that emerged in a Financial Times piece on Wednesday that claimed AT&T would have to dump CNN to get its merger deal approved. “There is absolutely no intention that we would ever sell CNN.”

While repeatedly stressing his conversations with the Department of Justice were strictly confidential, Stephenson was willing to publicly deny that CNN was ever discussed as part of the merger review. Stephenson was not so willing to comment on rumors the DoJ was seeking a divestiture of DirecTV, which AT&T acquired for $48.5 billion in 2014.

Stephenson declared it “makes no sense” to sell CNN or Turner Broadcasting, the Time Warner-owned division that runs TBS, CNN, Headline News, TNT and other cable channels.

“There is a lot of information and data that we think can be used to stand up a new advertising business,” Stephenson said. “Pairing that with the Turner advertising inventory is a really powerful thing, we believe. That is what we aspire to do. Selling CNN makes no sense in that context.”

AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson: ‘I have never been told that the price of getting a deal done was selling CNN’ from CNBC. (2:19)

The political backlash that has since emerged may actually help AT&T’s PR effort to win approval of the deal as Trump critics now rush to defend AT&T as a victim of presidential authoritarianism.

Bloomberg News published an editorial this afternoon calling for the merger to be approved just to stick it to the Trump Administration:

You don’t have to be a fan of the merger to realize that there is something seriously wrong here. As others have noted, the merger appears to be in trouble for a worrisome reason: President Donald Trump hates CNN and wants to inflict some punishment.

That Trump has long opposed the merger is hardly a secret. During his campaign, he said that if AT&T and Time Warner were allowed to combine it would “destroy democracy.” He put out a campaign statement vowing to “break up the new media conglomerate oligopolies” that “are attempting to unduly influence America’s political process.”

As for his antipathy towards CNN, it’s been a running subplot ever since he decided to run for president. He bashed the station all through the campaign and hasn’t let up as president, accusing it of being one of the media outlets that trafficks in “fake news.” A few months ago, he shockingly tweeted an image of a train running over a CNN reporter.

Trump has every right to oppose the deal and to criticize CNN; as they say, it’s a free country. But he doesn’t have the right to bend the Justice Department to his will. Yet that appears to be what is happening. That antitrust expert who said last year that the deal didn’t pose any problems? Makan Delrahim is now the head of the Justice Department’s antitrust division. And wouldn’t you know it: He’s suddenly had a change of heart about the antitrust implications of the deal.

[…] It is appalling that the Justice Department’s antitrust department appears poised to do Trump’s bidding. The good news is that AT&T has vowed to go to court if the government tries to block the merger. So far, the judiciary has been the branch of government that has stood up to the president’s authoritarian impulses. I never thought I would be rooting for two very big companies to combine into one giant company, but I am. If the AT&T-Time Warner merger goes through, it will mean that the rule of law has won. At least for now.

AT&T couldn’t be luckier if the deal becomes a referendum on whether the Trump Administration is opposing the deal as part of a personal political dispute. Suggesting it is “good news” for AT&T to go to court to win its merger may make AT&T feel better, but ordinary consumers and ratepayers are once again forgotten in the debate over media consolidation.

AT&T CEO Randal Stephenson: Sale of CNN never came up with Department of Justice from CNBC. (5:45)

A last-ditch effort last weekend by executives of SoftBank and Deutsche Telekom to overcome their differences in merging Sprint with T-Mobile USA ended in failure, killing Wall Street’s hopes combining the two scrappiest wireless carriers would end a bruising price war that had heated up competition and hurt profits at all four of America’s leading wireless companies.

Now Wall Street, hungry for a consolidation deal, is strategizing what will come next.

Sprint/T-Mobile Merger

In the end, SoftBank’s chairman, Masayoshi Son, simply did not want to give up control of Sprint to Deutsche Telekom, especially considering Sprint’s vast wireless spectrum holdings suitable for future 5G wireless services.

The failure caused Sprint Corp. shares and bonds to plummet, and spooked investors are worried Sprint’s decade-long inability to earn a profit won’t end anytime soon. Sprint’s 2010 Network Vision Plan, which promised better coverage and network performance, also helped to load the company with debt, nearly half of which Sprint has to pay back over the next four years before it becomes due. Sprint’s perpetual upgrades have not tremendously improved its network coverage or performance, and its poor performance ratings have caused many customers to look elsewhere for wireless service.

Investors are also concerned Sprint will struggle to pay its current debts at the same time it faces new ones from investments in next generation 5G wireless technology. Scared shareholders have been comforted this morning by both Son and Sprint CEO Marcelo Claure in an all-out damage control campaign.

Son has promised the now-orphaned Sprint will benefit from an increased stake in the company by SoftBank — a signal to investors SoftBank is tying itself closer to Sprint. Son has also promised additional investments to launch yet another wave of network upgrades for Sprint’s fourth place network. But nothing is expected to change very quickly for customers, who may be in for a rough ride for the immediate future. Son has already said his commitment to raise Sprint’s capital expenditures from the current $3.5-4 billion to $5-6 billion annually will not begin this year. Analysts claim Sprint needs at least $5-6 billion annually to invest in network improvements if it ever hopes to catch up to T-Mobile, AT&T, and Verizon Wireless.

Masayoshi Son, chairman of SoftBank Group

“Even if the next three-four years will be a tough battle, five to 10 years later it will be clear that this is a strategically invaluable business,’’ Son said, lamenting losing control of that business in a deal with T-Mobile was simply impossible. “There was just a line we couldn’t cross, and that’s how we arrived at the conclusion.”

During a call with analysts on Monday, Sprint’s chief financial officer Tarek Robbiati acknowledged investors’ disappointment.

Investors were hoping for an end to deep discounting and perks given to attract new business. T-Mobile’s giveaways and discounting have reduced the company’s profitability. Sprint’s latest promotions, including giving away service for up to a year, were seen by analysts as desperate.

Son’s own vision plan doesn’t dwell on the short-term, mapping out SoftBank’s progress over the next 300 years. But for now, Son is concerned with supporting the investments already made in the $100 billion Vision Fund Son has built with Saudi Arabia’s oil wealth-fueled Public Investment Fund. Its goal is to lead in the field of next generation wireless communications networks. Sprint is expected to be a springboard for those investments in the United States, supported by the wireless company’s huge 2.5GHz spectrum holdings, which may be perfect for 5G wireless networks.

But Son’s own failures are also responsible for Sprint’s current plight. Son attempted to cover his losses in Sprint by pursuing a merger with T-Mobile in 2014, but the merger fell apart when it became clear the Obama Administration’s regulators were unlikely to approve the deal. After that deal fell apart, Son has allowed T-Mobile to overtake Sprint’s third place position in the wireless market. While T-Mobile grew from 53 million customers to 70.7 million today, Sprint lost one million customers, dropping to fourth place with around 54 million current customers.

Son’s answer to the new competition was to change top management. Incoming Sprint CEO Marcelo Claure promptly launched a massive cost-cutting program and layoffs, and upgrade-oriented investments in Sprint’s network stagnated, causing speeds and performance to decline.

Claure tweetstormed damage control messages about the merger’s collapse, switching from promoting the merger’s benefits to claims of relief the merger collapsed:

• “Jointly stopping merger talks was right move.”
• “Sprint is a vital part of a larger SoftBank strategy involving the Vision Fund, Arm, OneWeb and other strategic investments.”
• “Excited about Sprint’s future as a standalone. I’m confident this is right decision for our shareholders, customers & employees.”
• “Sprint added over 1 million customers last year – we have gone from losing to winning.”
• “Last quarter we delivered an estimated 22% of industry postpaid phone gross additions, our highest share ever.”
• “Sprint network performance is at best ever levels – 33% improvement in nationwide data speeds year over year.”
• “We are planning significant investments to the Sprint network this year and the years to come.”
• “In the last 3 years we’ve reduced our costs by over $5 billion.”
• “Sprint’s results are the best we’ve achieved in a decade and we will continue getting better every day.”

In Saturday’s joint announcement, Claure said that “while we couldn’t reach an agreement to combine our companies, we certainly recognize the benefits of scale through a potential combination. However, we have agreed that it is best to move forward on our own. We know we have significant assets, including our rich spectrum holdings, and are accelerating significant investments in our network to ensure our continued growth.”

“They need to spend (more) money on the network,” said William Ho, an analyst at 556 Ventures LLC.

CNBC reports Sprint’s end of its T-Mobile merger deal has hammered the company’s stock. What does Sprint do now? (1:30)

Sprint/Altice Partnership

Sprint executives hurried out word on ‘Damage Control’ Monday that Altice USA would partner with Sprint to resell wireless service under the Altice brand. In return for the partnership, Sprint will be able to use Altice’s fiber network in Cablevision’s service area in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut for its cell towers and future 5G small cells. The deal closely aligns to Comcast and Charter’s deal with Verizon allowing those cable operators to create their own cellular brands powered by Verizon Wireless’ network.

An analyst at Cowen & Co., suspected the Altice deal may be a trial to test the waters with Sprint before Altice commits to a future merger between the two companies. Altice is hungry for expansion, currently owning Cablevision and Suddenlink cable operators in the U.S. But Altice has a very small footprint in the U.S., leading some analysts to believe a more lucrative merger might be possible elsewhere.

Sprint/Charter Merger

Charter Communications Logo. (PRNewsFoto/Charter Communications, Inc.)

Charter Communications stock was up more than 7% in early Monday morning trading as a result of speculation SoftBank and Charter Communications were restarting merger talks after a deal with T-Mobile collapsed.

CNBC reported that Mr. Son was willing to resume talks with Charter executives about a merger between the cable operator and Sprint. Charter executives have shown little interest in the deal, still distracted trying to merge their acquisitions Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks into Charter’s current operation. Charter’s entry into wireless has been more tentative, following Comcast with a partnership with Verizon Wireless to resell that considerably stronger network under the Charter brand beginning sometime in 2018.

According to CNBC, John Malone’s Liberty Media, which owns a 27% stake in Charter, is now in favor of a deal, while Charter’s top executives are still opposed.

CNBC reports Charter and Sprint may soon be talking again about a merger between the two. (6:33)

Dish Networks <-> T-Mobile USA

Wall Street’s merger-focused analysts are hungry for a deal now that the Sprint/T-Mobile merger has collapsed. Pivotal Research Group is predicting good things are possible for shareholders of Dish Network, and upgraded the stock to a “buy” recommendation this morning.

Jeff Wlodarczak, Pivotal’s CEO and senior media analyst, theorizes that Sprint’s merger collapse could be good news for Dish, sitting on a large amount of unused wireless spectrum suitable for 5G wireless networks. Those licenses, estimated to be worth $10 billion, are likely to rise in value as wireless companies look for suitable spectrum to deploy next generation 5G networks.

Multichannel News quotes Wlodarczak’s note to investors:

“In our opinion, post the T-Mobile-Sprint deal failure there is a reasonable chance that T-Mobile could make a play for Dish or Dish spectrum as it would immediately vault the most disruptive U.S. wireless player into the leading U.S. spectrum position (w/ substantially more spectrum than underpins Verizon’s “best in class” network),” Wlodarczak wrote. “This possible move could force Verizon to counter-bid for Dish spectrum (or possibly the entire company) as Dish spectrum is ideally suited for Verizon and to keep it out of T-Mobile’s hands.”

AT&T/DirecTV Buyout of Dish Network

Wlodarczak has also advised clients he believes the deregulation-friendly Trump Administration would not block the creation of a satellite TV monopoly, meaning AT&T should consider pairing its DirecTV service with an acquisition of Dish Networks’ satellite TV business, even if it forgoes Dish’s valuable wireless spectrum.

“AT&T, post their Time Warner deal, could (and frankly should) be interested in purchasing Dish’s core DBS business taking advantage of a potentially more laissez faire regulatory climate/emergence of V-MVPD’s, to significantly bolster their DirecTV business (and help to justify the original questionable DirecTV deal) by creating a SatTV monopoly in ~10-15M US households, increased programming scale and massive synergies at a likely very attractive price.”

Such a transaction would likely resemble the regulatory approval granted to merge XM Satellite Radio and Sirius Satellite Radio into SiriusXM Satellite Radio in 2008. Despite the merger, just months after its approval, the combined company neared bankruptcy until it was bailed out with a $530 million loan from John Malone’s Liberty Media in February 2009. Liberty Media maintains an active interest in the satellite radio company to this day.

Credit challenged AT&T customers may be out hundreds of dollars if they fail to understand the difference between AT&T’s service deposit and a “credit management fee” for new customers. 

For years, postpaid customers with damaged/no credit have been asked by AT&T employees to post a significant deposit to establish service. For many U-verse and cell phone customers that amount can reach $449 or more. Customers complain AT&T sales employees rarely explain whether they are being asked to put down a refundable deposit or being billed AT&T’s novel “credit management fee,” especially after they are reassured the “deposit” will eventually be returned to customers.

In Ohio, one customer is upset that AT&T has misrepresented its $449 one time “credit management fee” as a refundable deposit and claims AT&T now wants to keep that money for itself, despite his perfect payment record.

Michael Tedesco told FOX 28 in Columbus when he signed up for cable provider AT&T, he was required to spend $449 towards a deposit to get U-verse service activated.

“I was 19 and didn’t have any established credit, so they told me I had to put down a deposit,” said Tedesco. He claims AT&T promised to return $5 of that money each month as a credit on his bill, which means Tedesco would receive his full deposit back only after approximately 7 1/2 years of staying with AT&T. Tedesco also claimed AT&T promised to immediately return the balance of any remaining deposit if he canceled service.

But that isn’t what happened.

“I’d been with them for two years, so that’s $120,” said Tedesco. “So $329 should be returned to me. But now they’re saying they changed their story. That it’s a non-refundable fee.”

AT&T’s non-refundable “Credit Management Fee” is often called a deposit by AT&T’s salespeople. But it isn’t.

A Google search about the non-refundable nature of AT&T’s “deposit” has revealed considerable controversy over AT&T’s “credit management fee” and how it is represented by AT&T employees trying to make a sale. When customers return to complain, they are told to read AT&T’s voluminous terms and conditions, which claim the fee might or might not be refundable.

Telecom companies have traditionally used refundable deposits as a way to insure themselves against a customer considered more likely to default on their bill. For decades, phone companies usually returned deposits back to customers, with interest, after 12-24 months of a satisfactory payment history.

AT&T has instead turned that insurance protection into another way to earn revenue for itself, and critics contend AT&T employees are misrepresenting the costly fee and how customers can get it back.

An AT&T spokesperson admitted shareholders come before customers.

“The credit management fee is in place to cover the upfront cost of service while protecting our shareholders against loss in the event a customer isn’t able to pay their bill,” wrote the spokesperson in a written statement. AT&T also claimed it tells customers up front it is not a deposit. “We communicate to these customers before they sign-up that this is a one-time non-refundable fee.”

If AT&T returns a portion of its “Credit Management Fee” at its discretion, it comes in $5 increments, which means it will take over seven years to get your money back.

The Ohio Attorney General has little power over AT&T’s contracts, language, or sales practices, and offered that consumers need to protect themselves from companies like AT&T.

“It’s helpful to ask things like ‘is there a schedule of when money will be credited to my account? What happens if I leave? How long do I have to stay with the company?'” Melissa Smith, from the AG’s Consumer Division, told the Columbus FOX affiliate. “But what’s most important, no matter what that operator says, is to make sure it lines up with what’s in the contract.”

In dozens of pages of terms and conditions for AT&T’s products and services, the relevant language is found under the Billing section (emphasis ours in the language below), and it is highly confusing because it conflates a traditional deposit program with AT&T’s newer, non-refundable “credit management fee,” making it next to impossible for consumers to understand which applies  until after their first bill arrives:

Advance Payments, Deposits, Fees and Limits.

We may require you to make deposits or advance payments for Services, which we may use to satisfy your initial bill for Services, to offset against any unpaid balance on your account, or as otherwise set forth in these TOS or permitted by law. Interest will not be paid on advance payments or deposits unless required by law. We may require additional advance payments or deposits if we determine that the initial payment was inadequate. Upon determination solely by AT&T of satisfactory payment history or as required by law, AT&T may begin refunding of the deposit or advance payment through bill credits, cash payments, or as otherwise determined solely by AT&T. Based on your creditworthiness, a non-refundable fee may be required to establish service and we may require you to enroll, and remain enrolled, in an automatic payment or electronic funds transfer plan. We may establish additional limits and restrict service or features as we deem appropriate. If your account balance goes beyond the limit we set for you, we may immediately interrupt or suspend service until your balance is brought below the limit. Any charges you incur in excess of your limit become immediately due.

Many customers learn about the fee only after receiving their first bill, which usually arrives after the contract grace period deadline offered to customers who change their mind and exit the contract penalty-free.

“I recently ordered new service and I was told ‘Congratulations you don’t require a deposit,'” wrote ‘Susanja.’ “That’s great, right? Not! I just opened my first bill and there’s a $500 credit management fee for a total of $600+ for my first month’s bill.”

By the time the first bill arrived, she was already locked into a contract with a substantial cancellation penalty.

WTTE-TV in Columbus investigates AT&T’s “Credit Management Fee.” (3:29)

Customers switched to Frontier Communications from Verizon in Florida, California and Texas continue to complain they are being overcharged for service, sometimes by hundreds of dollars a month, and they’re fed up.

Danielle Ferrari, owner of a clothing and consignment shop in Tampa, has been battling the phone company over its erroneous billing since the first day it took over service from Verizon Communications.

“The very first bill was wildly wrong,” Ferrari told WFTS Action News. “The next one wasn’t correct and the next one wasn’t correct.”

Ferrari had paid Verizon a little more than $100 a month, but Frontier sent a bill for more than $340. Calls to customer service brought broken promises the company will fix Ferrari’s bill, but the overcharges kept on coming. Subsequent calls to Frontier have accomplished nothing, and attempts to speak with a supervisor were denied.

Customers who decide to cancel their Frontier service and change providers are not out of the woods yet either. Canceling is what 79-year old Dennis Klocek from Palm Springs, Calif. tried to do, leaving him owed $127.62 for dropping his Frontier phone, TV, and internet service. Frontier claims it refunds customers not with a check, but a prepaid debit card, which the company promised to mail to his home address. It never arrived.

When Klocek called Frontier about the missing card, the company refused to reimburse him, claiming the card had been sent and was almost entirely depleted by someone who used it at several convenience stores and fast food restaurants in nearby Cathedral City. As far as Frontier was concerned, once the card was mailed, the matter was out of their hands and responsibility. Klocek is upset Frontier sent his refund in the form of a debit card, which he never authorized and obviously lacked the security features a refund check would have given him.

“These people can’t get away with this,” Klockek told KESQ-TV. “What’s going on? How many other people are getting screwed like this? I don’t like this and I am going to get to the bottom of it. I feel empty. I feel like I can’t trust anybody in big business, meaning ‘AKA’ Frontier.”

Frontier also refused Klockek’s request to speak to a supervisor, leaving him at a dead end. He took his complaint to the Palm Springs television station instead, which seems to potentially bring Frontier around.

“We empathize with our former customer and are actively helping him work with the card issuer to implement a fraud investigation, resolve the matter and receive the refund,” wrote Frontier representative Javier Mendoza.

WFTS-TV in Tampa reports multiple Florida customers are having billing problems with Frontier Communications. (1:38)

Back in Tampa, Frontier customer Christina Herrman said she’s been dealing with overcharges by Frontier Communications for years.

“Ever since Frontier took over, our bill has gotten exceedingly more each month, now up to $260,” she posted on a thread talking about the issue on Facebook. “Even charging us for a 2nd cable box/DVR for the past year that we never had.”

Requesting a supervisor can lead to punishing hold times.

“I wait on hold for 20 minutes to get one on the phone, to spend another hour and they can’t help me,” she posted. “Hours upon hours wasted trying to deal with them.”

She eventually surrendered and now just pays whatever amount Frontier bills her.

In Dallas, Tex., Beth Smith Powell also took to Frontier’s Facebook page to complain she spent almost 40 hours on the phone with Frontier representatives about their bait and switch promotions.

“I had a sales rep come to my home and give me a price on TV/internet/phone for two years,” Powell wrote. “I asked her several time was this price good for the full two years, she said yes.”

When the first bill arrived, it was nearly $500, leaving Powell aghast. After two hours with Frontier’s customer service, she was promised the bill would be adjusted. It wasn’t adjusted much because when the next bill arrived, it was over $400, forcing her to spend another two hours working with Frontier to straighten that bill out. In the meantime, she was threatened with service interruption and a collection agency if her original bill was not paid in full.

Just a few months later, Powell’s bill suddenly increased $40 a month and nobody could initially explain why.

“Come to find out my two-year CONTRACT was BS — it was only a six-month discount,” Powell wrote. “I have the paperwork but […] Frontier will not honor this contract.”

It appeared Frontier walked away from the commitments their third-party door-to-door sales agents made promising 24 months of savings by only delivering six, after the billing errors were corrected.

“Shame on Frontier for being dishonest and not honoring your written sales rep contract,” Powell complains. “I’ve spent about 40 hours on the phone and chat trying to get help and no one will honor your advertised rate!”

Alan Borden, a Tampa consumer protection attorney with Debt Relief Legal Group, told WFTS Frontier’s bills are very long and hard to understand.

“They make it as convoluted as possible but theoretically, they can sneak in these overcharges where you won’t notice, or you’ll just give up,” Borden said.

Which is exactly what many customers do. Frontier has earned an “F” rating from the Better Business Bureau and has collected more than 9,400 customer complaints in the last few years.

The FCC is preparing to pay about 1,000 TV stations and cable operators $1 billion dollars to subsidize necessary expenses to change over-the-air channels to make room for cell phone companies.

The channel changes are a result of a now-complete spectrum auction that will reallocate part of the UHF TV dial for use by cell phone companies for wireless broadband. Part of the auction proceeds will be used to reimburse TV stations and cable operators for the expenses associated with changing channel positions and equipment needed to receive those signals.

The move will significantly compress the UHF TV dial, requiring viewers to rescan their local channel lineups in what the industry is calling a “repack” of stations to closer dial positions. When complete, the UHF TV band will shrink from channels 14-51 to 14-36. Channels 38-51 are being reallocated to the wireless industry (channel 37 remains reserved for radio astronomy use only).

Some stations will need to buy a new antenna or transmitter, others may require interim or larger facilities to manage the change. The National Association of Broadcasters complains the FCC is not allocating enough money to cover what it estimates will eventually cost TV station owners $2.139 billion. TV tower rigging crews, who climb antenna towers and perform installation and maintenance services, are booked well in advance and are charging prices consistent with the urgent need to prepare for the biggest TV transition since the switch to digital broadcasting.

Because nobody is certain exactly how much the free TV repack and transition will eventually cost, the FCC intends to partly reimburse commercial stations about 52% of their costs (62% for non-commercial stations) during the first round of funding. Another $750 million is expected to be allocated for the second round of funding to cover the rest.

The agency also intends to scrutinize receipts to make certain stations are not dipping into the fund to help pay for the forthcoming transition to ATSC 3.0 broadcasting, which will eventually make current TV sets and some station equipment functionally obsolete. TV stations can only recoup expenses directly related to the repack. The FCC suspects as repack deadlines near, TV tower rigging crews could raise prices further and take a bigger percentage of the fund than station owners may realize. If costs rise out of proportion to what is now deemed reasonable, some stations may face out-of-pocket expenses the FCC will not reimburse if the fund is exhausted.

The FCC did not account for cell companies stepping in and directly assisting TV stations to vacate their existing channel positions faster than the FCC initially planned. T-Mobile, which won a large number of licenses that cannot be used until certain TV stations make channel changes, is reaching agreements with stations directly, offering incentives to move faster. In New York City, an agreement between FOX and T-Mobile will save the FCC fund almost $80 million. FOX-owned stations WWOR and WNYW will move their transmitters from the Empire State Building to One World Trade Center, allowing them to switch channel positions and make room for T-Mobile more than a year ahead of schedule.

When the repack is complete, viewers watching over-the-air will need to rescan their televisions to find their local stations once again.

A Public Service Announcement from the FCC explains the “rescanning” process to keep or receive new digital over-the-air stations. (1 minute)