The Weather Channel has been removed from DirecTV’s lineup and replaced with WeatherNation, a much-smaller channel based in St. Paul, Minn., because the popular weather network reportedly sought a $0.01 monthly rate increase.

DirecTV subscribers told Stop the Cap! the channel change happened just after midnight, although WeatherNation was already a part of DirecTV’s lineup.

“This is unprecedented for the Weather Channel,” said David Kenny, CEO of the Weather Channel’s parent company. “In our 32 years, we have never had a significant disruption due to a failure to reach a carriage agreement.”

The Weather Channel has launched a campaign to restore the network that carries the impression DirecTV does not care about the safety of their customers. The Weather Channel executives have stated their severe weather coverage is unparalleled and would leave satellite dish customers in rural areas without important information about dangerous weather.

But Dan York, responsible for DirecTV content, said weather information is available from a variety of sources, especially smartphones, and The Weather Channel has drifted away from its core weather mission, devoting up to 40 percent of its programming to reality TV shows.

The two sides are far apart, even arguing over the amount of the increase The Weather Channel wants for its programming. Executives at The Weather Channel claim their requested increase amounts to $0.01 per month, per subscriber, on top of the $0.13 average cost distributors pay for the weather network. DirecTV says it is substantially more than that and it seeking a 20% rate cut due to declining ratings.

The Weather Channel lacks the clout major corporate conglomerates like NBC Universal, Time Warner Entertainment, or Viacom have when negotiating contract renewals. Instead, it is counting on its loyal audience to bring the fight to the satellite provider.

So far, viewers seem to be responding. An anti-DirecTV website run by The Weather Channel has received more than 700,000 page views and reportedly brought 150,000 complaint calls to DirecTV customer service.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSJ The Weather Channel Off DirecTV 1-14-14.flv[/flv]

The Wall Street Journal reports the advent of smartphones has taken a significant toll on The Weather Channel’s viewership, leading DirecTV to ask for a 20% rate cut. (4:17)

A U.S. appeals court today ruled the FCC’s Net Neutrality policy requiring all Internet Service Providers to treat Internet traffic equally lacks legal authority.

The court found the FCC relied on an untenable foundation for its Net Neutrality policy that lacked legal standing, handing a victory to Verizon Communications that claimed its free speech rights were being violated.

The three judge panel were unanimous, finding the FCC could not regulate the Internet under the existing regulatory formula, in place since 2011 under the chairmanship of Julius Genachowski.

“Even though the commission has general authority to regulate in this arena, it may not impose requirements that contravene express statutory mandates,” Judge David Tatel said.

Many analysts predicted the FCC had a shaky case from the outset, relying on a controversial classification of broadband as an “information service” that was unlikely to survive a court challenge.

“Given that the commission has chosen to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers, the Communications Act expressly prohibits the commission from nonetheless regulating them as such,” Tatel wrote.

Many consumer groups argued the FCC should have reclassified broadband as a “telecommunications service” before implementing Net Neutrality. Today’s court decision seems to agree.

Wheeler

“The FCC — under the leadership of former Chairman Julius Genachowski — made a grave mistake when it failed to ground its open Internet rules on solid legal footing,” said Craig Aaron, president of Free Press. “Internet users will pay dearly for the previous chairman’s lack of political will. That’s why we need to fix the problems the agency could have avoided in the first place.”

FCC chairman Tom Wheeler expressed disappointment in today’s ruling and suggested the court would not have the last word.

“I am committed to maintaining our networks as engines for economic growth, test beds for innovative services and products, and channels for all forms of speech protected by the First Amendment,” Wheeler said in a statement. “We will consider all available options, including those for appeal, to ensure that these networks on which the Internet depends continue to provide a free and open platform for innovation and expression, and operate in the interest of all Americans.”

“We’re disappointed that the court came to this conclusion,” said Aaron. “Its ruling means that Internet users will be pitted against the biggest phone and cable companies — and in the absence of any oversight, these companies can now block and discriminate against their customers’ communications at will.”

But the cable industry denies it will attempt to interfere with Internet traffic.

Former FCC chairman Michael Powell, who helped design the “information service” framework for Internet oversight during the Bush Administration, said the cable industry he now represents as president of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association will maintain a “hands-off” approach to Internet traffic.

“The cable industry has always embraced the principles of an open Internet and the Court decision will not change that,” Powell said. “Consumers have always been entitled to enjoy the legal web content of their choosing and they will continue to do so. An open Internet is good for our customers, and good for our business. The cable industry has always made it clear that it does not – and will not – block our customer’s ability to access lawful Internet content, applications or services.”

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC FCC Loses Net Neutrality Case 1-14-14.mp4[/flv]

CNBC reports today’s Net Neutrality decision could impact online services like Netflix with an Internet “toll road” for video content. (1:48)

As expected for months, Charter Communications, Inc. today formally offered Time Warner Cable shareholders $132.50 per share to assume ownership of the nation’s second largest cable operator in a deal worth more than $61 billion, including debt.

Bloomberg News this afternoon reported Charter Cable has offered $83 in cash for each outstanding share of TWC stock, as well as about $49.50 in Charter stock. That makes the attempted takeover the third largest merger deal worldwide since 2009.

Rutledge

Charter CEO Thomas Rutledge, a former executive at TWC and Cablevision would lead the combined enterprise under the Charter Cable name, likely pushing out TWC’s new CEO Robert Marcus. Rutledge argues that combining Charter and TWC would bring about considerable cost savings, particularly for spiraling programming costs. Analysts say the deal would also mean a reduction in Time Warner Cable’s workforce, especially in middle management, as operations are consolidated around Charter’s leadership.

Rutledge today said he privately approached Time Warner Cable executives with an offer in late December.

“We haven’t received a serious response,” Rutledge said today in a Bloomberg News telephone interview. “Our objective was to talk to management and try to get them engaged. They have not, so we’re going to make our case to shareholders about why this deal is good for them and hope they ask management and the board to watch out for the interests of shareholders.”

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Marangi on TWC Deal 1-13-14.mp4[/flv]

Chris Marangi from Gamco tells CNBC Charter Communications’ proposal to buy Time Warner Cable for $61.3 billion is probably too low, but the cable industry is “ripe for consolidation” and further mergers are likely. (1:39)

Time Warner Cable’s chief financial officer Artie Minson reportedly requested Charter make a higher bid that included more cash, but Charter refused.

Malone

The man pulling the levers behind Charter’s curtain is Dr. John Malone, former CEO of Tele-Communications, Inc., which was America’s largest cable operator in the late 1980s and 1990s. Malone’s Liberty Media is Charter Communications’ largest single investor. Malone has long argued for consolidation and cooperation in the cable industry to boost profits and control programming costs that drive up cable television bills.

Malone specializes in structured mergers and acquisitions that result in tax-free buyouts. Charter’s offer relies heavily on debt financing and would allow Charter to shield its ongoing net operating losses from taxes.

Malone indicated he is willing to play hardball to force a merger.

Malone told investors he expected Time Warner Cable to resist a takeover by Charter — America’s fourth largest cable company — so he is prepared to nominate Charter-friendly directors for Time Warner Cable’s board before nominations close Feb. 15. Time Warner Cable shareholders could force the merger by voting for Malone’s handpicked directors, who would promptly approve Charter’s takeover offer. But Time Warner executives will likely argue Charter’s offer is disadvantageous for TWC shareholders.

“Since we made our first proposal, Time Warner Cable has lost another half million video customers,” Rutledge said. “Their customer service continues to decline in every measure. We can improve it. We have a demonstrated track record of improving customer service. It’s a question of credibility.”

Consumer Reports reports otherwise. Charter Communications has perennially been ranked America’s second worst Internet Service Provider cable operator in annual reader surveys. Only Mediacom is ranked lower among cable operators.

Now that Charter’s offer has gone public, investors suspect other cable operators may soon consider bidding for Time Warner Cable as well. Comcast is a likely bidder with an interest is taking control of Time Warner Cable’s systems in New York City and certain midwestern markets. Comcast would also like TWC’s regional sports channels serving southern California.

Customers will have no say in the matter, except through appeals to federal regulators which must approve any sale.

Unlike TWC, Charter Cable has usage limits on their broadband service.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC CNBC David Faber on TWC Deal 1-13-14.mp4[/flv]

CNBC’s David Faber reports today’s offer from Charter Communications is not technically a “bid” for Time Warner Cable. Instead, it’s a public offer to hopefully force TWC executives to take Charter’s offer more seriously. (3:25)

After years of inaction, northern Canada will finally see improved telecommunications services that the rest of us have taken for granted for at least a decade.

Under a plan developed by the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), NorthwesTel (a Bell Canada subsidiary) will spend $233 million by 2017 to improve Internet service and bring other telecommunications services into the 21st century.

At present, many communities still lack phone features like caller ID, call waiting, and three-way calling. Dial up access remains common and landline based broadband from DSL remains spotty. Larger communities like Whitehorse can obtain broadband at speeds up to 100Mbps, however.

The eastern Arctic regions, including Nunavut, rely primarily on satellite broadband while those in the western Arctic can access a mix of DSL and Wireless ISP services in more populated areas and settlements. Cell phone service is available in some areas, but reception doesn’t hold up once customers roam outside of town. Mobile broadband upgrades are anticipated to make 4G home broadband a possibility, although it is likely to be expensive and usage-capped.

NorthwesTel’s operating area

Telecom analyst Iain Grant told the Canadian Press NorthwesTel’s plans to upgrade it services are long overdue. Grant is a proponent of fiber broadband access over satellite and reminded the CRTC a Canadian company called Arctic Fibre is working on a fiber optic route across the Canadian Arctic that will connect China to Europe.

The CRTC has been unimpressed with the Bell Canada subsidiary’s performance, noting the quality of service is well behind the rest of Canada. The Commission has placed a four-year price cap on services and has broken up NorthwesTel’s near-monopoly on service by ordering it sell landline, Internet, and other voice services separately, which opens the door for new competitors to emerge. New entrants could either develop their own networks or resell service purchased wholesale from the phone company.

The CRTC heard numerous complaints from northern residents during hearings held in the region earlier this year. Common complaints included inadequate access to broadband, expensive and outdated telephone service, and no competition in parts of the region. Residents also complained about poor cell service.

One competitor that has specialized in cellular service in northern Canada, Ice Wireless, announced it is spending more than $12 million to upgrade its network in Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, introducing mobile data service for the first time.

NorthwesTel serves the Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut and northern parts of British Columbia and Alberta.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBC North CRTC issues decision on Northwestel plan 12-18-13.flv[/flv]

CBC North reports northern Canada is well overdue for telecom service upgrades, and Canadian regulators are no longer waiting around for competitors to show up. (1:45)

AT&T is offering T-Mobile customers — and only T-Mobile customers — up to $450 to switch their wireless service to AT&T, but is the switch actually worth it? A close inspection of AT&T’s fine print suggests some customers might want to think twice.

According to AT&T, beginning Jan. 3, under the limited-time offer, T-Mobile customers who switch to AT&T can trade-in their current smartphone for a promotion card of up to $250, which can be used toward AT&T products and services.  Trade-in values will vary based on make, model and age of the smartphone, but many of the latest and most popular smartphones will qualify for a value of $250.  T-Mobile customers can receive an extra $200 credit per line when they transfer their wireless service to AT&T and choose an AT&T Next plan, buy a device at full retail price or activate a device they currently own. The “Next” plan offers customers a chance to upgrade to a new device every year under an installment plan that divides the retail price of the phone over 20 months.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNN The Most Dangeous Man in Wireless 1-8-14.flv[/flv]

The Wall Street Journal’s ‘Digits’ explores the open marketing warfare between AT&T and T-Mobile. (3:34)

Although $450 sounds like an outstanding deal, some Wall Street analysts that usually panic when a company seems to be giving away the store, are still sleeping well at night.

“It’s not as great an offer as it appears on the surface,” Michael Hodel, equity analyst at Morningstar tells MarketWatch. “The fine print is critical.”

1. Not every smartphone will qualify for the $250 “promotional card.” Only the latest model smartphones showing no signs of wear and tear are going to earn full value. Customers with older feature or basic phones will not qualify for anything at all. Customers may be able to get just as much selling their old phone themselves.
2. AT&T is not offering a cash rebate. The value of the “promotional card” and the $200 ‘switch from T-Mobile’ bonus can only be spent on AT&T products and services. The promotional card will help defray the cost of buying a new smartphone from AT&T (which may not have the best price) and the $200 bonus will appear as a credit on a future AT&T bill.
3. By accepting the $200 bonus, customers give up any device subsidies, an important distinction if you want an Apple iPhone. AT&T’s device subsidy on this phone is higher than $200.
4. AT&T has tighter credit standards than T-Mobile. Customers with spotty credit may be asked to put down a deposit with AT&T before the company will take your business.

Legere

AT&T argues its offer will benefit T-Mobile customers by giving them access to the larger coverage area of AT&T’s wireless network and more widespread 4G service. But AT&T customers pay higher prices for access to that network. A T-Mobile customer is more likely to be sensitive to the price of the service — one of the strongest marketing points T-Mobile has in its favor. Most customers unhappy with T-Mobile’s less robust coverage tend to cancel service at the end of their contract (or earlier) and switch to either AT&T and Verizon Wireless.

According to an October report from MoffettNathanson Research, a typical T-Mobile family with 3-5 lines on a single account usually save around $50 a month off AT&T’s prices. That represents $600 a year in savings.

T-Mobile’s scrappy and aggressive marketing has had an impact, particularly on AT&T. Just a few years earlier AT&T tried to buyout T-Mobile in a consolidation move rejected by the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division. After the merger collapsed, incoming T-Mobile CEO John Legere has long forgotten whatever niceties existed between the two companies when they were trying to join forces. Legere has been on the attack against both AT&T and Verizon Wireless all year, and the effort is clearly beginning to pay off as T-Mobile adds customers.

Last year at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) Legere called AT&T’s network “crap” on stage. So when Legere crashed AT&T’s party at this year’s CES convention, still sporting his pink T-Mobile t-shirt, AT&T’s security guards threw him out.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNN The Most Dangeous Man in Wireless 1-8-14.flv[/flv]

CNN calls T-Mobile’s John Legere the most dangerous man in wireless, for exposing “disgusting” AT&T and Verizon’s over 90% gross margin on their wireless services and their consumer unfriendly business practices. (2:41)