An ad in the Syracuse Post-Standard announces a new invention -- a variation on the bow tie antenna design originally designed in the 1950s.

Last Thursday, Syracuse newspaper readers were treated to news of an impressive breakthrough that promises to deliver salvation from high cable and satellite TV bills forever.

Clear Cast, a “razor thin” indoor digital HDTV antenna lets you watch television… for free.

The product is shown being packaged up for shipping while an impatient-looking FedEx driver tries to coordinate the apparent extraordinary demand for a downright revolutionary development in television engineering.

Local residents called the newspaper and other local news outlets to try and learn more about the curious new device.

Stop the Cap! can now report the revolution can be postponed.

In fact, the published account  about the “new invention” was actually a paid advertisement-designed-to-look-like-a-news-story.  Clear Cast is effectively a variation on the traditional indoor UHF bow tie antenna your local Radio Shack used to sell for $1.49.  The major difference is that it is designed to be attached to a window with accompanying suction cups.  That is a valid approach to improving reception, but whether it is worth the asking price of $38 is another matter.

As consumers seek alternatives to higher cable and satellite TV bills, overhyped ad copy promising freedom from high bills cannot be far behind.  Repackaging basic antennas that were part of our lives from the 1950s-on can go too far when leaving some residents with the impression they are getting more than a basic television antenna.

In fact, over-the-air viewing can be easily accomplished in strong signal areas with the cheapest antenna, as long as it is designed for both VHF and UHF reception.  Many VHF stations with channel numbers from 2-13 quietly relocated to the UHF dial, but still advertise their original channel numbers.  If your television is not equipped with a UHF antenna, reception may be difficult.

For the benefit of those under the age of 40: most televisions used to come equipped with both antenna designs — two elongated antenna rods some used to call “rabbit ears” and an accompanying round loop antenna, or often a bow tie design that clipped to one of the two longer aerials.  The long straight antennas are designed for VHF signals, the bow tie or loop design accommodated improved UHF reception.

Over the last decade, marketing has attempted to revolutionize what remains basic, sober, antenna design — with an accompanying “revolutionary” price tag.  When satellite television was first introduced, some manufacturers redesigned set top aerials to look like a satellite dish and then pitched them as “saving you the high price of satellite TV because it is not satellite!”  In today’s HD-ready era, marketers have done it again.

Will Clear Cast work?  Undoubtedly, but probably not much better than any other traditional bow tie design that costs $35 less.

If you are cutting cable’s cord and want to rely on over-the-air television, our best advice is to start with something inexpensive and upgrade only when necessary.  In urban and suburban areas, an effective indoor antenna can cost less than $5.  Try repositioning it until you find the best spot to receive the most channels with the least signal reception errors.  Directional indoor antennas can offer mild signal improvement, especially in areas where adjacent signals from nearby cities create reception problems.  Because the American digital broadcast standard is frankly less robust than the European counterpart, those in more distant suburbs or rural areas will really need to invest in a rooftop antenna to enjoy consistent reception.  A potential compromise would be to mount an outdoor antenna in the attic.

Avoid “futuristic” designs and powered indoor antennas and read consumer reviews carefully.  We’ve found most indoor antennas priced above $35 to be more hype than performance-per-dollar.  If you need an outdoor antenna, check your local Yellow Pages for antenna specialists who understand local reception conditions and can recommend high quality, long lasting antennas that will work for the stations you want to receive.

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSYR Syracuse Newspaper ad for free TV The Real Deal 12-15-11.mp4[/flv]

WSYR in Syracuse investigates the ‘revolutionary’ new indoor TV antenna that is so popular, only residents in certain zip codes can order it.  (2 minutes)

Cablevision's top executives head on out. Tom Rutledge (left) and John Bickham (right) left within weeks of each other.

The unexpected and sudden departure of two senior executives at Bethpage, N.Y.-based Cablevision has pushed the rumor mill into overdrive the cable company is about to be sold or taken private.

John Bickham, president of cable communications and chief operating officer Tom Rutledge will both be spending more quality time with their respective families after departing Cablevision.  Last Thursday’s announcement that Rutledge would resign caused Cablevision’s stock price to drop by nearly 14% during trading Friday.

The inevitable conclusion on Wall Street: Cablevision is about to be sold or taken private.

Major shareholders and investment firms have criticized Cablevision over the years for being “too successful” signing customers to fixed price double or triple-play packages that provide a full suite of products and services, but deliver few growth opportunities shareholders demand. With heavy competition from Verizon FiOS in most of their service areas, Cablevision’s ability to simply raise rates is limited, especially when customers bounce between promotional offers from the phone and cable companies.

Rutledge’s departure, in particular, has been seen as a major negative on Wall Street because he was responsible for many of Cablevision’s most innovative products, including streamed video, his advocacy for boosting broadband speeds, and the company’s aggressive move into home security.

Craig Moffett, a Wall Street analyst from Sanford Bernstein, thinks Comcast and Time Warner Cable are set to divide the spoils in a shared buyout — Comcast grabbing northern New Jersey and Connecticut and Time Warner Cable assuming control of Cablevision’s systems in New York.  But other analysts don’t think that scenario is so likely, especially when considering the Dolan family’s long history in the cable business.

ISI Group Inc. analyst Vijay Jayant told Light Reading Cable he believes the more likely scenario would have the Dolan family buying out shareholders and taking the cable company private.

Time Warner Cable has repeatedly informed shareholders the company will not engage in bidding wars or overpay to win new acquisitions, and the Dolan family’s selling price for Cablevision is likely far higher than Time Warner would be willing to pay.  Comcast might have a political problem assuming control of more cable systems after its recent merger with NBC-Universal.  Shareholders may also rebel, as they did in a 2007 effort to take Cablevision private.  Investors felt they were offered too low a price to compensate them for their shares.

Moffett believes Cablevision’s days of high earnings and rapid growth are behind them, because just about everyone who wants cable service already has it, either from Verizon FiOS or Cablevision.

“No, we don’t think [Cablevision] can grow. And, no, we don’t think the rest of cable is doomed to the same fate,” Bernstein’s Moffett wrote in a report in late November. “The cause of [Cablevision’s] growth decline is straightforward: it has been so successful in achieving high product penetrations that growing further is quite challenging.”

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Joyce Says Cablevision May Be a Takeover Target 12-16-11.mp4[/flv]

David Joyce, media analyst at Miller Tabak & Co., talks about Cablevision Systems Corp. Chief Operating Officer Tom Rutledge’s resignation and the outlook for the company.  Bloomberg News.  (5 minutes)

A Fox affiliate in Green Bay, Wisc. has some trouble drawing distinctions between informational programming and infomercials after it repackaged a four minute ad for AT&T U-verse into a feature story on “Living With Amy,” its morning show targeting women viewers.

As well as failing to disclose to viewers the four minute “segment” was actually a paid commercial, AT&T doesn’t appear anywhere on the show’s sponsor page, potentially confusing viewers into believing the positive U-verse feature was produced by WLUK-TV as an unbiased news story.

It’s just the latest example of a series of “news reports” we’ve found (here and here) that highlight the blurring of the line between journalism and paid advertising.  In most cases, cable companies like Comcast and phone companies like AT&T are “invited guests” of the show’s host, who proceeds to gush over the products and service on offer without informing viewers those companies paid to be there.

This time, the Fox affiliate didn’t even bother with a “sit down” and ran a short infomercial for AT&T’s U-verse instead.

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WLUK Green Bay ATT U-verse 12-14-11.mp4[/flv]

This “story” appeared on WLUK’s “Living With Amy” show earlier this week.  It’s little more than a four minute commercial for AT&T U-verse, but viewers couldn’t tell because the station never disclosed it was paid advertising. (4 minutes)

Verizon Communications has held no talks with Netflix about a possible acquisition, despite frenzied media reports to the contrary.

Deal Reporter, a trade publication, was the source of the original rumor, but Bloomberg News reports the story is premature after talking with two sources who should know.

The rumored takeover did wonders for Netflix stock, which jumped more than six percent on the news.  That’s a boost the streaming and DVD-rental service needed after a year of public relations missteps and subscriber losses.

Verizon’s recent move towards launching its own streaming entertainment service outside of its FiOS fiber-to-the-home service areas made the rumor more credible, but other analysts think Verizon’s interest is on different company that shares Netflix’s love of the color red.

“Verizon’s not interested in Netflix, they see Redbox as a much better fit,” Sam Greenholtz, an analyst with Telecom Pragmatics in Westminster, Maryland, who has consulted for Verizon and was briefed by its employees about its plan, told Bloomberg.

It’s not the ubiquitous network of Redbox kiosks Verizon is after, it is the content distribution deals the company has with Hollywood studios.  Those deals are becoming quite lucrative for production companies — so lucrative in fact Time Warner’s chief entertainment mogul has cut back on his personal bashing of Netflix.  With Amazon, Time Warner’s own HBO Go, and Verizon entering the online video fray, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings declared there is now an “arms race” among the behemoths to dominate online viewing, and jack up licensing fees.

Hastings sees only the deepest-pocketed players as having a chance to make a stand in the online streaming marketplace, because content costs are increasing dramatically.  Hastings says Verizon and Amazon are bit players because they don’t offer a deep catalog of content and their offerings are more difficult to view on the family television set.

“The competitor we fear most is HBO Go,” Hastings said. “HBO is becoming more Netflix-like and we’re becoming more HBO-like. The two of us will compete for a very long time.”

HBO Go is part of the cable industry’s TV Everywhere project, delivering online video services to authenticated cable-TV subscribers.  Although HBO Go is typically included for free with an HBO subscription, the premium movie channel’s price has increased dramatically in the last three years.  In many areas, a monthly subscription for HBO now runs just shy of $15 a month.

CNN Money pondered whether Netflix can ultimately stay independent in a country where vertically and horizontally integrated super-sized entertainment companies control programming, distribution, and the Internet providers consumers use to access the content.  Netflix may still be an acquisition target:

Verizon. On the one hand, Verizon appears to be showing stronger interest in Redbox, which is planning to launch a streaming-video service in May 2012. On the other hand, Redbox is likely to face the same onerous licensing costs that plague Netflix, and Verizon might be better off buying a company experienced in licensing streaming rights. And besides, by hinting of a Redbox deal, Verizon can push down Netflix’ price – making a deal that much cheaper.

But if a Verizon deal makes sense on the face of it, it could become problematic over time. The two companies’ cultures are incompatible. Netflix takes risks that often (but not always) pay off, and builds its products around the customer’s experience. Verizon is risk-averse and builds its strategies on wringing fees from customers. If Netflix members staged a revolt over of the subscription fiasco, imagine how they’d react if Verizon raised fees further or demanded Netflix users sign up with its Internet service.

Microsoft. Netflix could give Microsoft the popular online service it’s never been able to build on its own. The Xbox has gone from gaming console to a well-received smart TV device, and integrating Netflix’ streaming-video service could put it ahead of Apple and Google. Plus, Reed Hastings could bring Microsoft a seasoned executive who instinctively understands where digital content is going.

Google. If the search giant can buy a phone maker, why not a video service? At $42.6 billion Google’s cash stockpile is 116 times the size of Netflix’s. Google already owns the only other digital-video property that has been embraced by the masses: YouTube. Combining the best features of both could lead to the only site you’d need to visit to get your video fix. Google’s recent comments on a controversial anti-piracy bill, however, could strain relations with studios that Netflix must license from.

Apple. As with Google, Apple’s $45 billion in cash will not only buy Netflix but sign many content deals and still leave tens of billions in the coffers. Thanks to iTunes, Apple has longstanding relationships with TV and movie studios, which could secure better terms for Netflix. And like iTunes, Netflix could spur enough sales of Apple devices that Apple doesn’t need to worry about making the profit that Netflix investors expect today.

Amazon. For as long as Netflix has been around, someone has been suggesting a merger with Amazon. Consumers have been buying DVDs from Amazon for years, and with IMDB, the best single film database on the planet, finding and researching movies to watch would be a cinch. The catch has been that owning Netflix’s mailing facilities would open it up to taxes in many states. But that may change now that Netflix seems ready to sell off its shrinking DVD-rental business.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Bibb on Verizons Possible Bid for Netflix 12-12-11.flv[/flv]

Porter Bibb, managing partner at Mediatech Capital Partners LLC, talks about Verizon Communications Inc.’s possible offer for Neflix Inc. and the outlook for the streaming video industry. He was widely cited as one of the primary sources of the Verizon acquisition rumor.  He speaks with Jon Erlichman on Bloomberg Television’s “Bloomberg West.”  (5 minutes)

RIM has a new PR problem.

Research in Motion, already reeling from a year of bad news about its beleaguered BlackBerry, is now red-faced over reports that two of its employees got drunk and engaged in raucous mayhem on an Air Canada flight to Beijing that grew so out of control, the pilots were forced to land the plane in Vancouver.

Now, the CBC has garnered an official transcript from a sentencing hearing which has further tarnished the image of RIM over its employees’ behavior, which a B.C. Provincial Court Judge called “disgusting.”

Pre-boarding, some fellow passengers noticed the pair of corporate executives appeared highly inebriated.

CBC News quoted from the court transcript: “…When the males boarded the flight they seemed quite intoxicated, they drank more, passed out, one would wake up and lean over the little cubicle, slap the other guy on the head because he wanted somebody to drink with, and then they would yell and abuse each other, then they’d pass out, then they’d wake up and start kicking again.”

When other passengers tried to intervene, they were threatened.  One was told “I know who you are,” while others were warned by one of the executives he would “off people when they left the plane.”

Eventually, both men were wrestled kicking and screaming to the floor, assaulting one flight attendant in the process.  Even a combination of plastic restraints and heavy tape were not enough.  Police reports indicate both men literally chewed through the plastic cuffs and ripped the tape off with their teeth.

At that point, pilots declared a security emergency and diverted the plane first to Anchorage, but quickly settled on much-closer Vancouver, where authorities met the aircraft and took both men into custody.

Air Canada eventually pegged its losses (assuming nobody files a civil case against the airline for the ‘air show’) at $193,900, which includes putting up passengers in Vancouver hotels overnight, extra fuel, navigation charges, and flying in a new crew for the resumption of the flight the following morning.

The B.C. Court Judge swiftly fined the two executives $70,000 to cover the costs of the hotel and meal vouchers for the passengers.  The judge wouldn’t hear defense attorney objections.

“I am somewhat sympathetic to your position but I am, quite frankly, absolutely disgusted with the actions of these two individuals who know better and acted like absolutely — well, I can’t say it. But that is the punishment that they should suffer,” the judge ruled.

Both men were quickly fired from the company when they returned to their Waterloo, Ont. homes.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBC News RIM Executives Launch Mayhem 12-12-11.flv[/flv]

CBC News has this exclusive report about the chaos caused by Research in Motion executives on Air Canada’s Flight 31.  (4 minutes)