AT&T’s broadband customers are taking their business elsewhere as second quarter results show the phone company lost 649,000 DSL customers in the last three months, while only picking up 553,000 new U-verse Internet users to replace those leaving. The result was a net loss of nearly 100,000 broadband customers in a single quarter. The company also only managed to attract 155,000 new U-verse television customers away from satellite or cable operators during the quarter.

AT&T blames the losses on “seasonality” — code language for part-time residents, college students, and other fluctuations that occur as customers come and go. Total broadband connections dropped 0.2% for AT&T, with 16.43 million remaining customers.

Landline customers also continue to depart AT&T in droves. More than one million home phone customers pulled the plug on AT&T this quarter. AT&T has lost nearly 11 percent of their landline customers over the past year.

For those remaining, a combination of rate increases, cost cutting and fierce marketing of bundled packages of services are keeping revenue growing on both the residential and business side.

Executives continue to hint the company is reviewing its future in the rural landline business. AT&T lobbyists have shepherded new laws in several states that would allow them to abandon rural landline customers where the company is no longer required to be “the carrier of last resort.”

AT&T U-verse is turning out to be not much of a threat to cable and satellite operators, only achieving a 17.3% penetration rate in areas where the service is available.

The real money for AT&T is being made in the wireless sector, where increasing prices, changes to service packages, and data usage-based billing are all paying off  — revenue for wireless data alone is up 18.8% to $1 billion during the second quarter. AT&T earned $14.3 billion from its wireless business in just the second quarter alone.

At the same time, the company is slashing investments in parts of its network and cutting employees.

Capital expenditures in the second quarter amounted to $4.48 billion, down 15% from the $5.27 billion AT&T spent a year ago. AT&T also cut its workforce by 6.4% since June 2011, with a reported 242,380 total remaining employees.

In other highlights:

• Wall Street analysts are praising AT&T’s stricter upgrade policies and device upgrade fees. In fact, at least one analyst wants to see AT&T raise the fee to $50 for every phone upgrade. The fees discourage customers from upgrading their phones, which dramatically reduces AT&T’s costs. AT&T subsidizes phones for customers. The longer customers hold off from upgrading, the more revenue AT&T keeps for themselves and shareholders. AT&T has made it clear it will continue to “introduce discipline”  in the handset market to enforce “rational pricing,” which means customers will continue to see further reductions in device subsidies and face higher prices when upgrading phones.
• Much of AT&T’s investment will be in its LTE 4G network. AT&T’s spending on wireline services including U-verse is on the decline.
• AT&T admitted its policy of monetizing data usage for profit is well underway: “[We are getting] ourselves set up for revenues that are going to be tied to usage, which will then be tied to our capital requirements and a really profitable situation.”
• AT&T is aggressively pushing customers to upgrade to smartphones so they can earn additional revenue. “Smartphone subscribers now number 43 million and make [up] 62% of our total postpaid base. But smartphones accounted for 77% of postpaid sales during the quarter, showing continuing opportunity for growth. And when you look at our total smartphone base, we’ve added 9 million high-value smartphone customers in just the last 12 months.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ATT 2Q2012 Results.flv[/flv]

AT&T spins its 2nd Quarter results for shareholders in the best possible light. Although revenues are up, the number of customers leaving AT&T for other providers may challenge future growth and earnings. (4 minutes)

The President’s Council of Advisors on Policy and Technology’s recommendation that the growing demand for wireless spectrum be met by sharing frequencies with the federal government is getting a cold reception from the wireless industry.

AT&T, other wireless operators, and their lobbying trade association have been embarked on a fierce campaign in Washington to free up additional spectrum they can use to meet growing demands for wireless data. Unfortunately, clearing spectrum that can be re-purposed for wireless phone companies requires complicated, and often expensive frequency reassignments as existing users relocate elsewhere. With the federal government holding a large swath of spectrum for the use of a range of public safety, research, and military applications, the best source for new frequencies comes from Washington.

PCAST’s final 200-page report urges the Commerce Department prioritize locating 1000MHz of frequencies that could be re-purposed for private wireless communications. But the council also recommended that frequencies could be more quickly made available by asking wireless telecom companies to share them with existing users.

Today’s “exclusive use” licenses all too often are being underutilized and, in fact, are sometimes used as a valuable investment tool to buy, trade, or sell. Issuing exclusive licenses guarantees that no other players can use those frequencies. That is a valuable tool for wireless companies protecting their market share from potential competitors.

PCAST declared the concept of a “spectrum shortage” to be largely a myth:

Although there is a general perception of spectrum scarcity, most spectrum capacity is not used. An assigned primary user may occupy a band, preventing any other user from gaining access, yet consume only a fraction of the potential spectrum capacity. Unique among natural resources owned by the public, spectrum capacity is infinitely renewable from second to second—that is, any spectrum vacated by one user is immediately available for any other user.

Measurements of actual spectrum use show that less than 20 percent of the capacity of the prime spec­trum bands (below 3.7 GHz) is in use even in the most congested urban areas.

This spectrum inefficiency is not just a problem for the wireless industry, it also afflicts government use as well. But it is a problem that can be solved by modernizing spectrum allocation policy in the United States.

“Exclusive frequency assign­ments should not be interpreted as a reason to preclude other productive uses of spectrum capacity in areas or at times where the primary use is dormant or where underutilized capacity can be shared,” the report concludes.

If implemented, the wireless industry could begin accessing hundreds of megahertz of new spectrum, with the understanding there may be other users sharing certain frequencies in different areas at different times. For example, AT&T could use spectrum assigned to forest rangers in federal parks for wireless data in Manhattan or other urban areas, where neither user will create interference for the other. Verizon could use spectrum allocated for naval communications at seaside ports in land-locked Nebraska, Utah, Kansas, or West Virginia.

As technology progresses, shared spectrum users will easily afford equipment that dynamically locates open frequencies for communications with little or no interference even if two users are located right next door to each other.

The benefits to taxpayers, governmental users, and private industry are notable:

1. The cost to relocate existing government users to other bands is prohibitively time-consuming, complicated, and expensive. Taxpayers often foot the bill for the frequency changes;
2. Government use of spectrum is not particularly efficient either. Identifying under-utilized spectrum for shared-use can bring pressure to government users to consolidate operations and increase operating efficiency;
3. Private industry gets much faster access to new spectrum, which suddenly becomes plentiful and potentially affordable for new entrants in the wireless marketplace.

Despite the benefits, the wireless industry had a frosty reception to the new report:

Joan Marsh, AT&T Vice President of Federal Regulatory:

“While we are still reviewing the PCAST report, we are encouraged by the sustained interest in exploring ways to free up underutilized government spectrum for mobile Internet use.  However, we are concerned with the report’s primary conclusion that ‘the norm for spectrum use should be sharing, not exclusivity.’  The report fails to recognize the benefits of exclusive use licenses, which are well known.  Those licenses enabled the creation of the mobile Internet and all of the ensuing innovation, investment and job creation that followed.

“While we should be considering all options to meet the country’s spectrum goals, including the sharing of federal spectrum with government users, it is imperative that we clear and reallocate government spectrum where practical.  We fully support the NTIA effort of determining which government bands can be cleared for commercial use, and we look forward to continuing to work with NTIA and other stakeholders to make more spectrum available for American consumers and businesses.”

CTIA – The Wireless Association:

The CTIA is the wireless industry’s lobbying group

“We thank the Administration and PCAST for focusing on the need to make more efficient use of spectrum currently assigned to federal government users. As the PCAST report notes, it is sensible to investigate creative approaches for making federal government spectrum commercially available, including the development of certain sharing capabilities. At the same time, and as Congress recognized in the recently-passed spectrum legislation, the gold standard for deployment of ubiquitous mobile broadband networks remains cleared spectrum.

“Cleared spectrum and an exclusive-use approach has enabled the U.S. wireless industry to invest hundreds of billions of dollars, deploying world-leading mobile broadband networks and resulting in tremendous economic benefits for U.S. consumers and businesses. Not surprisingly, that is the very same approach that has been used by the countries that we compete with in the global marketplace, who have brought hundreds of megahertz of cleared spectrum to market in recent years.

“Policymakers on a bipartisan basis have grasped the importance of making more spectrum available to meet the growing demand for mobile Internet services, and this report highlights a range of forward-looking options, some of which are not yet commercially available, that may be considered to meet this important national goal. We look forward to continuing to work with the Administration, the FCC, NTIA, Congress and other interested parties to increase access to federal government spectrum and to continue to assist our nation in its economic recovery.”

In short, the major players in the wireless industry are hostile to the idea of losing exclusive-use spectrum. That comes as little surprise because shared spectrum cannot be controlled by the wireless industry. Spectrum squatting, where large phone companies or investment groups hang on to unused spectrum either to keep competitors out or as an investment tool until it eventually can be resold at a major profit, is a significant problem in the industry. Wall Street analysts routinely assign value to the spectrum holdings of wireless carriers, whether they are used or not. Since most spectrum is now sold to the industry at “highest bidder wins” auctions, only the largest players are frequently serious contenders. Auctioning off shared spectrum, if practical, will bring lower bids — but could potentially bring new bidders like start-up ventures that have some new ideas on how to use wireless frequencies to compete.

Therefore, it has been in the wireless industry’s best interests to keep the idea of sharing frequencies with other players out of the minds of Washington regulators and legislators. Their technical objections and claims that shared spectrum would somehow destroy innovation and investment ring hollow, and are weak deflections from the more obvious agenda: to maintain their status quo control of wireless frequencies, well-utilized or not.

AT&T and other wireless players will no doubt lobby their case to Washington politicians, many who will rush to the industry’s defense. The shadow argument most likely to be used to defend the current “exclusive use” auction system is the auction proceeds collected by the federal government. Billions have been raised from past auctions, and shared use frequencies would never net that level of return. But PCAST’s report exposes the rest of the story. The cost to reallocate existing users to other frequencies, hand out new radios, raise new antennas and purchase new transmitters is often so costly, the government’s net gain, post-auction, is likely to be minimal.

Abroad, many governments have already adopted shared use, discarding the focus on spectrum earnings and refocusing spectrum allocation on delivering the best bang for the buck — whether that dollar belongs to the consumer, the wireless industry, or the government.

Attempts by AT&T and others to kill PCAST’s recommendations should also be considered proof the industry’s dire claim of a spectrum shortage emergency is vastly overblown. In a true crisis, everyone makes compromises.  That does not appear to be the case here. Congress and regulators should receive that message loud and clear.

AT&T this morning announced its own widely-anticipated pricing shift for its wireless phone customers, largely mimicking Verizon’s “Share Everything” plan and pricing, with minor differences.

AT&T’s Mobile Share plan, available in late August, emphasizes the fact families can now share a single data plan, but will also require customers to pay for unlimited voice and texting services. But unlike Verizon, current AT&T customers grandfathered on other plans can continue to keep their current plan, even after their next subsidized phone upgrade. AT&T also says it is not discontinuing existing individual and family plans.

While Verizon’s plan emphasizes the cost to add various devices on its “Share Everything” plan, AT&T asks customers to select a plan based on anticipated data usage. Customers can add up to 10 devices on an AT&T Mobile Share plan, one of which must be a traditional smartphone.

Like Verizon, AT&T is eliminating the extra-cost tethering option on its new plans. Tethering customers will now use their smartphone data plan allowance.

AT&T’s pricing is designed to appeal to bigger spenders.

“The larger the data bucket you choose, the less you pay per gigabyte and the less you pay for each smartphone added to the shared plan,” AT&T says in a news release.

Wall Street seems to approve.

“The ‘more you share, the more you save’ concept is one that will resonate well with customers because of the value provided through the Mobile Share data plans themselves and in smartphone connection fees,” said Roger Entner, Founder and Lead Analyst of Recon Analytics. “AT&T also is providing its customers with flexibility and choice by keeping its existing data plans and not requiring customers to move to Mobile Share unless they want to. It’s a win-win for both AT&T and its customers.”

But customers hoping to shop around will find little difference in pricing between Verizon Wireless and AT&T, who will charge nearly the same thing for each of their family share plans.

Verizon charges $40 for each smartphone, $30 for basic/feature phones, mobile broadband modems and wireless-equipped laptops cost $20, and each tablet adds an additional $10.

AT&T will charge a maximum of $45 for each smartphone, $30 for basic/feature phones, wireless modems and wireless-equipped laptops cost $20, and each tablet runs $10.

AT&T gives customers with a large appetite for data a break on the monthly equipment fee for smartphones. Choosing a basic 1GB data plan with AT&T means you will pay $40 for the data and $45 for each smartphone on the account. Upgrade to a 4GB shared usage allowance and AT&T lowers the monthly fee on smartphones to $35. If you select a data plan of 10GB or larger, the smartphone device fee drops to $30 a month for each phone.

The prices for data are similar between the two carriers on lower-end plans (AT&T’s overlimit fee will be $15/GB, the same Verizon charges now):

	VZW
	Data Plan	1GB	2GB	4GB	6GB	8GB	10GB	12GB	14GB	16GB	18GB	20GB
	Price	$50	$60	$70	$80	$90	$100	$110	$120	$130	$140	$150
	Smartphone fee	$40	$40	$40	$40	$40	$40	$40	$40	$40	$40	$40

	AT&T
	Data Plan	1GB	4GB	6GB	10GB	15GB	20GB
	Price	$40	$70	$90	$120	$160	$200
	Smartphone fee	$45	$40	$35	$30	$30	$30

Customers hanging onto long-grandfathered unlimited data plans tied with budget-priced voice minutes and texting allowances will probably want to take those plans to the grave, especially if they are using moderate amounts of data on each smartphone.

For those already caught in Verizon or AT&T’s usage pricing schemes, want unlimited voice and texting, and depend on the costly tethering add-on may find some savings, at least in the short term. But for average families with two smartphones and a basic phone for grandma, shopping around for a better deal with either Verizon or AT&T is pointless. With Verizon, those three phones with a 1GB data plan will run $160 a month — with AT&T, $160 a month. Upgrading to a 4GB usage allowance on both carriers also means an identical bill: $180 a month.

Cell phone customers of both carriers probably wish “competition” meant more than a race to see which would gouge customers with higher bills first. The other will surely follow, evidenced by today’s developments.

Several years ago, phone companies like AT&T and Verizon discovered providing competing cable service over U-verse and FiOS meant approaching each community, asking permission to tear up the streets and yards of local residents to deliver the service. AT&T’s U-verse requires enormous 4-6 foot ugly metal cabinets in the front or side yard of a customer every few blocks. Verizon’s FiOS network necessitates the replacement of the copper wire network with fiber optic cables in its place. More than a few yards and streets were torn up installing the new cables.

Dealing with individual town boards, city councils, and other franchising authorities became a nuisance for the companies, so both decided to invest some serious lobbying money to rip control away from local authorities. Understanding they would never get away with advocating for no oversight, they settled for the next best thing — advocating for a statewide franchise law. With that, both phone companies simply needed to obtain a single license from the state to operate.

AT&T has been especially successful in passing such “reforms” in their service areas. Verizon has fought less successfully in the more-skeptical northeastern states unwilling to give the company carte blanche-benefit of the doubt.

Illinois is definitely AT&T territory, and the company’s successful push for statewide franchising in 2007 was tied to promises AT&T would hurry out its U-verse service across Illinois. Instead, with many Illinois customers still without access to U-verse, the phone company recently announced its upgrade-expansion was over. But AT&T remains grateful to the Illinois legislature for keeping its end of the agreement — removing certain pesky consumer protection and local oversight laws.

AT&T also craftily defined limits on how much authority the state franchise body could have to operate. In some states, franchise authorities are little more than paper pushers issuing franchise agreements at-will to operators, leaving local communities stuck with whatever quality of service the phone and cable company is willing to offer.

While phone companies spent millions lobbying for franchise reform, the cable industry has occasionally fought their efforts, maintaining AT&T and Verizon should have to follow the same rules they do. Cable operators spent years negotiating franchise agreements with every community they service. In many cases, the cable industry lost the battle but, along with AT&T and Verizon, effectively won the war.

In Carbondale, cable customers quickly learned that statewide video franchise “reform” pushed by AT&T was no help to them. Soon after the law was passed, Mediacom closed the only local customer service center in the city, in direct violation of their local 2009 franchise agreement that required Mediacom to keep its service center open for at least a decade after signing.

In court, Mediacom argued their signed contract with Carbondale was null and void because of the changes to the Illinois Public Utility Act, which transferred franchise authority to the Illinois state government and out of the hands of local officials.

Carbondale officials sued Mediacom in 2010 over the franchise violation, and the cable company opened a temporary customer service center in a local shopping center as an interim measure.

Now two courts have found in favor of Carbondale’s carefully written franchise agreement, and have ruled Mediacom cannot simply tear up their local franchise agreement, state law or not.

What made the difference for Carbondale was language in the agreement that kept close to the consumer protection provisions now found in the statewide franchise law. Courts found that because Carbondale did not stray from the state’s standards, they were within their rights to expect Mediacom to continue operating under the terms of the franchise agreement the company signed.

“The circuit court correctly concluded that the plaintiffs and Mediacom ‘mutually agreed to contracts, both valid at the time of their formation, and valid after the enactment of the customer service and privacy protection standards of (statute),” Justice James M. Wexstten wrote in the appellate ruling.

That leaves Mediacom mulling extending its lease on their single local customer service center, at least until they decide whether or not to appeal the case to the Illinois Supreme Court.

Jackson County Assistant State’s Attorney Dan Brenner and Carbondale City Attorney Mike Kimmel, who fought Carbondale’s case in court told The Southern they would not be surprised to see Mediacom pursue the case.

“As far as we’re all concerned, they’ve got to keep that service center open in Carbondale until the contract ends or they get this thing reversed,” Brenner told the newspaper.

Customers sitting down to watch the local news in Louisville, Ky. on Time Warner Cable (formerly Insight) now get to see stories about ongoing bankruptcy woes at Eastman Kodak, house fires in Irondequoit, road work in Greece, and Scott Hetsko’s local forecast… for Rochester, N.Y.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WLKY Louisville WLKY Remains Off the Air 7-16-12.flv[/flv]

WLKY in Louisville is no longer seen on former Insight cable systems (now owned by Time Warner Cable). In its place, Louisville viewers are watching WROC-TV in Rochester, N.Y.  Here is why. (3 minutes)

No, it is not some weird sunspot reception and nobody transported you from Kentucky to western New York while you were sleeping. It’s simply another epic battle waged in:

RETRANSMISSION CARRIAGE CONSENT WARS: 2012

“Not getting the channels you are paying for does not necessarily entitle you to a refund, but does require you to pay more when a deal is eventually struck.”

These skirmishes used to be commonplace around the end of the year, when carriage agreements between cable, satellite, and telephone companies with cable networks and local stations came up for renewal. When the programmer passed a figure written on a folded up piece of paper across the table to your pay television provider, the shock and awe of that number, occasionally 100-300 percent more than the year before, was the opening shot in a battle that now increasingly leads to favorite local stations or cable channels being stripped from your lineup.

In Louisville, that is precisely what happened to WLKY-TV, one of 15 stations owned by Hearst Television, taken off the lineup when Time Warner Cable/Insight/Bright House Networks could not successfully negotiate a renewal agreement. Time Warner complained Hearst wanted 300% more for each of the affected stations, an increase sure to be passed along to cable customers already long weary of endless annual rate increases. That was the same story told in other cities affected by what is now a week-long blackout. In Greensboro/Winston-Salem, N.C., Time Warner customers are doing without WXII-TV. Kansas City customers lost two local stations owned by Hearst — KMBC and KCWE. Two stations are also missing from Bright House’s lineup in Orlando: WESH and WKCF.

[haiku url=”http://www.phillipdampier.com/audio/WHAS Louisville Interview with WLKY GM 7-16-12.mp3″ defaultpath=disabled]

Hearst Television’s general manager and president of WLKY has stopped referring to those watching the station simply as “viewers.” Glenn Haygood now calls them “subscribers.” Haygood talks with WHAS Radio about the dispute and what he thinks about Insight/Time Warner Cable. (10 minutes)

But why are Louisville viewers now watching the boating forecast for Lake Ontario, several hundred miles away? Because Time Warner Cable thinks it has a signed contract with Nexstar Broadcasting Group that lets them turn several Nexstar-owned stations into “superstations,” importing them in cities where contract disputes have knocked the local station off the cable lineup. In Louisville, WLKY, a CBS affiliate, has been replaced by WROC, the CBS affiliate in Rochester. In Greensboro and several other cities, WXII, an NBC affiliate, has been replaced with WBRE in Wilkes Barre, Penn. Some other Time Warner customers are instead watching WTWO out of Terre Haute, Ind., for NBC shows.

It represents a half-measure that Time Warner Cable’s Jeff Simmermon tells Stop the Cap! is “making the best of a tough situation.”

Viewers are naturally outraged.

“I’ve always wanted to know the weather and news in Rochester, Buffalo, Ontario and Caribou,” Kelly Grether teased. “Louisville did make [WROC’s weather] map believe it or not.”

Others are simply confused and engaged in must-flee TV.

“I saw the news coming on,” Greensboro resident Mona Wright told the News & Record. “It didn’t take me but one minute to figure out that these counties were nowhere around us; I changed the channel.”

Some Louisville viewers are even assuming the sales and discounts being advertised on WROC are good in Kentucky as well (often, they are not).

For now, it is difficult for Kentucky viewers to know what WROC is airing because the local on-screen program guide has not been updated to include listings for the Rochester station. Time Warner is pushing a lot of viewers to WROC’s website for program information.

Viewers hoping to practice their Jeopardy and Wheel of Fortune skills during the dinner hour lost that opportunity altogether in some cities, while in the Triad of North Carolina, viewers discovered the two shows on two different channels at the same time.

For now, WROC has completely ignored its new Kentucky audience, but WBRE’s morning anchors now regularly acknowledge and welcome their viewers from several states away.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WFTV Orlando WESH Disappears from Bright House 7-10-12.flv[/flv]

WFTV in Orlando reports on Bright House Networks’ customers being shut out of WESH-TV in Daytona Beach after the cable operator failed to meet Hearst Television’s demands for an increase in carriage payments.  (2 minutes)

The dispute has since enlarged to bring in side players who are unimpressed with Time Warner’s creative problem-solving:

• Impacted stations now off Time Warner’s lineup think the “new” stations on the lineup are about as honorable as employing scab workers during a union strike;
• Nexstar, for the second time, declares Time Warner is illegally importing their stations to unauthorized places. They are threatening to complain to the FCC and possibly sue to stop the practice. Nexstar earlier complained about a similar dispute in upstate New York which left viewers in northern New York watching WBRE in Wilkes-Barre. But the carriage dispute was settled quickly enough for WBRE to go back to being  viewable only in Pennsylvania, ending the dispute;
• Syndicated program owners sell shows like Wheel of Fortune on a “market exclusive” basis, which means competing local stations already paying for syndicated shows do not want out of area stations also carrying those shows to local audiences, diluting their audience.
• Advertisers on stations now off the lineup paid ad rates based on tens of thousands of cable viewers who are now probably watching another station. Some are demanding “make goods” or outright refunds to get the value for money they were originally promised.

But nobody is more caught in the middle than consumers, especially those paying for channels they are no longer getting.

“I want my money back,” says Orlando Bright House customer Luis Fernandez. “I have lost two stations on my lineup and my bill should be going down to compensate, but Bright House is refusing to credit me.”

Time Warner Cable does not usually give refunds either, arguing that its customers pay for a package of channels and the technology that delivers those networks to customers. Giving a refund for the loss of one or two stations would be tantamount to the industry’s worst nightmare: getting customers used to the idea of paying individually for every channel.

One customer willing to make himself a major nuisance in Wauwatosa, near Milwaukee, Wis., finally wore Time Warner down and secured a $5 a month discount on his bill for the length of the dispute that knocked Milwaukee’s WISN off his lineup.

“[I called] Time Warner to voice my disgust in them putting me (the paying customer) in the middle of their negotiation failures, and after reaching a ‘supervisor,’ I was able to get a discount on my monthly bill,” the reader told the Journal-Sentinel. “It wasn’t easy, but I did it.”

Hearst is encouraging viewers to drop Time Warner like a hot potato and switch to AT&T U-verse or a satellite provider like DirecTV. Negotiations seem to be continuing on a sporadic basis, but one week later, customers heading for the door have already left or are simply watching the local news on another channel.

Satellite Showdown — DirecTV vs. Viacom: Playing Down and Dirty With Everyone

[flv width=”426″ height=”260″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Viacom Ad.mp4[/flv]

Viacom turns the tables on DirecTV’s clever ads to lambaste the satellite provider for cutting off more than two dozen cable channels owned by Viacom.  (1 minute)

If a customer took Hearst’s advice, they might find themselves out of the frying pan and into the fire. Newly arriving DirecTV customers can join the Anger Party 20 million satellite customers are now throwing over a much larger, higher profile dispute between the satellite provider and Viacom. Collateral damage: the loss of networks including Palladia, Centric, Tr3s, CMT, Logo, NickToons, VH1 Classic, TeenNick, Nick Jr., Nick@Nite, Spike, BET, VH1, TV Land, Comedy Central, Nickelodeon and MTV.

Some financial analysts are calling the dispute the mother-of-all-program-fee-battles, and as they watch both sides dig in, some warn it could mean DirecTV customers won’t be watching The Daily Show with Jon Stewart until August.

DirecTV says Viacom wants a 30% rate increase to renew its contract to carry the company’s networks. That is comparatively cheap contrasted with the prices Hearst wants Time Warner Cable to now pay. Analysts expect DirecTV and Viacom will eventually settle their dispute by agreeing to a 27% rate increase, but nobody knows how long the two will battle it out before an inevitable agreement is reached.

Regardless of the timing, customers will likely pay the price. Nomura analyst Michael Nathanson informed his Wall Street clients DirecTV will end up paying Viacom $2.85 per subscriber — about 60 cents more per month than it pays today. That’s tough for DirecTV to swallow, and probably even harder to pass along to customers. Satellite TV providers have some of the country’s most-frugal pay television customers who are especially resistant to rate increases.

The dispute is so high profile, both companies are bringing out high-powered executives and show talent to argue their respective cases.

Millions of dollars are at stake, and both Viacom and DirecTV are willing to fight to the death, even leaving customers on the battlefield.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/DirecTV Viacom Dispute 7-12-12.mp4[/flv]

Not so fast, says DirecTV CEO Michael White, seen here presenting DirecTV’s position in the Viacom dispute for the benefit of concerned customers.  (1 minute)

“All we are trying to get is a fair deal for our customers and I’m sorry our customers are being forced into the middle of this,” DirecTV’s Michael White said. “We just think we pay a half a billion dollars a year and a billion dollar increase over five years, over 30 percent, is not justified by the marketplace or fair relative to our largest competitors or by their ratings.”

Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman counters, “In the last seven years since we did the last DirecTV deal, we have successfully and peacefully concluded affiliate agreements with every major distributor in the U.S. We are prepared to move forward. It’s unfortunate consumers for the first time are not able to enjoy our channels,” said Dauman, adding, “I don’t want to negotiate in public.”

DirecTV was telling its customers it can watch many of the missing shows for free online, until Viacom reportedly began removing that direct viewing option last week. That hardball tactic could impact everyone trying to stream Viacom’s shows — DirecTV customer or not.

“We’ve temporarily slimmed down our offerings, as DirecTV markets them as an alternative to having our networks,” a Viacom spokesman told CNNMoney. “The online content is intended to serve as a complimentary marketing tool for our partners.”

“At least they were honest about the reasons why they pulled this,” said Stop the Cap! reader Dick Armlo, a DirecTV customer in Idaho. “But fortunately, you can still find a lot of the shows on Amazon’s video on demand and Hulu.”

Customers threatening to switch providers often discover the new neighborhood they move to is just as bad as the one they left.

Dish Network customers are currently enduring a long-standing dispute with Cablevision-owned AMC Networks. The result is no AMC, IFC, Sundance Channel and WeTV on Dish. AMC is telling Dish customers to turn their dish into a birdbath and head elsewhere… perhaps to AT&T U-verse which just recently averted its own blackout with AMC over the same channels. AT&T customers can expect part of their next rate increase to cover the negotiated rate hike AMC won for itself — the one AT&T agreed to on your behalf. After all, it’s your money at stake, not theirs.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Viacom CEO on Dispute 7-12-12.flv[/flv]

CNBC talks with Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman to get his views about the dispute with one of his best customers — DirecTV.  (2 minutes)