Canada’s transition to digital television was supposed to be a non-event for cable and satellite customers, because those providers will continue to service analog televisions for sometime to come.  But Shaw Communications found a way to squeeze a few more dollars out of some of their subscribers anyway.

While Canadian broadcasters were discontinuing analog over-the-air television, many Shaw Cable service areas were also dumping an increasing number of analog channels in favor of digital.  In Kamloops, B.C., Cheryl Whiting discovered that conversion was going to cost her plenty.  Although Shaw provides one digital set top box for free, each additional box rents for $2.95 per month, and Whiting will need four of them if she wants to continue watching cable stations above channel 13 throughout her home.

“I may as well sign my paycheque over to them,” Whiting told The Daily News.

Shaw’s ongoing “digital upgrade” is clearing away much of the analog cable dial to make room for additional digital television signals and faster broadband, but that transition comes at a price to customers who now need a set top box on most of their televisions.

Many customers were upgraded during the month of August, with most of the rest scheduled for conversion during September.

[flv width=”540″ height=”416″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Shaw Digital Network Upgrade – Analog Customers.flv[/flv]

Shaw tells customers it is moving all of their cable channels above “broadcast basic” to a digital platform, requiring customers to place digital set top boxes on all of their televisions.  (1 minute)

Bartz

The CEO of the Yahoo! has been shown the door, but unlike many recently-unemployed workers who get the bad news during an exit interview, Carol Bartz learned she was out in a humiliating phone call from the board of directors.

That left Bartz telling employees she’d been fired in an internal memo sent from her iPad.

Investors were happy to see the back of Bartz, sending Yahoo! shares higher on the news.  Bartz faced a growing number of critics in the past few years, almost immediately after arriving as CEO in early 2009.  Much like Yahoo! itself, her critics accused her of being out of touch with Internet culture and the realities of today’s high-tech businesses.

Bartz was no friend of coordinating expanded and improved broadband projects through the government.  She opposed the National Broadband Plan and Net Neutrality policies, dismissing both as government interference.  That put her in direct opposition to Google, which has spent millions in the public policy arena to influence expanded broadband in the United States.

Despite the lackluster results Yahoo! managed under her leadership, Bartz remained well-compensated, earning $60 million over the past two years.

Yahoo! has remained a challenged endeavor as a first generation Internet superstar long-faded after the dot.com crash in 2000.  Various efforts to relaunch Yahoo!’s flagging advertising revenue business, long dominated by Google, have not been very successful.  Yahoo!’s biggest problem has been its lack of innovation, creating new reasons for web visitors to return to a company that used to be a household name.

Now some believe the only hope Yahoo! has left is to sell itself to someone else.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Broadband Regulation 3-2-10 .flv[/flv]

Free Press’ policy director Ben Scott held his own, despite being hopelessly outnumbered, in a business-friendly CNBC ‘Power Lunch’ debate over broadband public policy held in March 2010.  Scott faced Yahoo! CEO Carol Bartz, Larry Clinton from the “Internet Security Alliance,” which receives substantial support — not disclosed by CNBC — from AT&T and Verizon, and CNBC’s clueless Michelle Caruso-Cabrera, who insisted 99 percent of America already subscribes to broadband.  All of the industry talking points were on hand, which isn’t too surprising when they come from industry front groups like the ‘ISA.’ (3/3/2010 — 5 minutes)

For the sake of public relations, most cable and telephone companies are happily providing service credits to customers who ask after they lost service as a result of Hurricane Irene.  Denying those requests through invocation of weasel contract clauses referencing “acts of god” or “weather-related incidents” will assuredly leave customers less than pleased.  That’s a lesson some employees in Comcast’s call center still need to learn.

The fact is, most consumers shouldn’t have to pay for service undelivered.

Here is one Comcast customer’s plight:

When I contacted Comcast in the days following Irene I was initially told I’d be without service for a day and would receive credit for the loss. When I called two days later, I was told it would be two days, but I would receive credit. When I called six days later I was told they didn’t know how long it would be and that when it was restored I would not be receiving credit for the lost service.

“Wait, you’re telling me you’re going to try and bill me for service I never received,” I asked the customer service agent.

“We’re not going to try. We will be billing you,” he responded.

Another customer service representative verified the information with a supervisor, but sounded as incredulous as I felt when he came back to the phone.

The outage, he explained, is now considered an “act of god”.

“I can’t believe we’re going to do this,” he said.

He suggested I call back when the service was restored for credit.

“I can’t believe we’re not going to give credit,” he said again, before telling me to have a nice weekend.

To be fair, this is the experience of a single customer, and a search of prior storm events in Comcast service areas does show the company is usually willing to issue storm-related credits, as long as it was their service that was disrupted.  One of the issues cable providers have to deal with in weather disasters is ascertaining exactly who and what suffered the outage.  If the area’s local power company loses service, Comcast cable service could be affected directly or not at all.  A widespread outage could cause amplifiers to lose power, cutting off cable service to those with or without power.  But should Comcast credit you for lost service if the only thing keeping you from watching is a downed power line in your neighborhood that hasn’t affected cable service?

That dilemma many customer care professionals solve with courtesy credits to maintain customer goodwill.  But not every provider may automatically issue them, especially when dealing with low level employees in a customer care center.

If Comcast is refusing to provide you with service credits, there are a few quick steps to bypass “the unauthorized to give you what you want”-team and get your money back:

1. If calling by phone, ask if you are talking with a local customer care representative or one located thousands of miles away.  Ask to be transferred to a local office for assistance.  Those on the ground going through the same storm nightmares you are are likely to be more amenable towards giving you a service credit.
2. If using an e-mail form or online chat, call Comcast or visit your local Comcast cable store instead.  Again, someone sharing your misery is more likely to find a way to get you a service credit than someone who hasn’t lived through it.
3. File a complaint with the Better Business Bureau online requesting your service credit.  While Comcast is not BBB accredited, the organization has helped satisfactorily close more than 2,000 customer complaints.
4. Call your local television or newspaper “consumer reporter” and alert them.  Bad publicity is a great way to get any unyielding business to bend.

We expect a few negative stories in the media will be more than enough to inspire Comcast to provide service credits, gracefully.

Besides, if Comcast gives you a hard time about “acts of god,” you can always tell them the same thing when they ask to be compensated for cable equipment that succumbed in the storm.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WABC Hassling LIPA 9-2-11.mp4[/flv]

Storm-weary Long Island residents are getting fed up with extended service outages.  One went as far as to allegedly threaten a “Columbine-style attack” on a Long Island power facility.  Repair crews are also being hassled.  WABC in New York reports.  (3 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WCBS Anger in LI 9-1-11.mp4[/flv]

WCBS found the same kind of anger in Suffolk County, aggravated by self-congratulating press conferences by utility companies even as hundreds of thousands of customers remained in the dark with no end in sight.  One Connecticut man even threatened a repair crew with a gun for trespassing.  (2 minutes)

Charter Cable told a Howell, Mich. family that lost everything in a major house fire they owed the cable company $1,600 for cable equipment, remote controls — even the batteries — that were consumed in the blaze.

Kerry Cacchione, her three children and her husband Jeff lost every single possession they owned in the fire seven weeks ago.  The Cacchione family, like many home renters, neglected to purchase all-important renter’s insurance, and without it, all of their furniture, clothing, and other valuables were gone for good.

When the family returned home to see the property, undergoing repairs paid for by their landlord, they were confronted with an enormous bill from Charter Communications, their cable company.

“$1,600, and they [charged us] for every remote, every battery, every modem, every cable box, and every DVR box,” said Cacchione.

The Cacchione family took the bill to Charter Cable and begged for forgiveness, telling employees there was no way they could afford to pay that cable bill.

Kerry reports Charter was unsympathetic and refused to waive the charges, leading her to ask WXYZ’s “Call for Action” to intervene.

With the threat of more bad publicity on the 6 o’clock news, Charter Communications decided to wipe out their bill.

Charter is among the most intransigent cable companies when it comes to demanding compensation for cable equipment destroyed or damaged in fires.  The company always relents when confronted with the prospect of bad publicity, such as when a customer service representative told one tornado victim in Alabama she would wait on the phone while she searched through debris in the neighborhood for lost cable equipment.

Every renter should always have renter’s insurance, which typically will cover damaged cable equipment. It’s very affordable and protects renters from losses. Many consumers believe landlords carry insurance which will protect them in the event of a natural disaster or fire, but those insurance policies protect the landlord’s property, not renters’ possessions. The peace of mind afforded by renter’s insurance can make all the difference in a major loss like the one experienced by the Cacchione family.

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WXYZ Detroit Losing It All 8-31-11.mp4[/flv]

WXYZ in Detroit comes to the rescue of yet another family falling victim to an enormous cable bill from equipment lost or damaged in a house fire.  (3 minutes)

Phillip Dampier

Now that the initial shock of an aggressive — some say “audacious” — move by the Justice Department to block a merger AT&T confidently called “a done deal” is past, analysts of all kinds are attempting to discern the inside reasons for the merger’s rejection, where the deal can go from here, and what signals this will send the rest of America’s telecom industry.

In short — was this one merger proposal too far over the line?

The Justice Department reviewed reams of data, document-dumped by AT&T, on the company’s rationale for wanting to absorb T-Mobile and its implications for employees, consumers, and the dwindling number of wireless competitors.

They quickly discovered they did not like what they were seeing:  an all-new AT&T with a combined 132 million wireless customers, completely dwarfing all of their competitors and signaling a full-scale retreat from the company’s historic landline network.  An unregulated, increasingly concentrated wireless marketplace, represents the Wild West of fat profits, ripe for the picking by those large enough to control the market.  Increasingly, that means two former Baby Bells — AT&T and Verizon.

The Wall Street Journal charted more than two decades of mergers and acquisitions, which reduced nearly two dozen players down to five supersized telecom companies.

The Politics

Decisions at Justice are hardly made in a vacuum.  Politics always plays a role, and it’s a safe bet Obama Administration officials well-above rank-and-file lawyers in the Antitrust Division sent clear signals to the Department about how it wanted the review handled.  After all, this same team of lawyers had almost no trouble approving a mega-merger between NBC-Universal and Comcast Corporation, not finding anything ‘antitrust’ about that deal.  But Justice officials hurried out their own lawsuit with a wide-ranging, harsh condemnation of the deal at yesterday’s press conference.  As most Americans already know, competition in the cable industry is hardly robust, but market concentrating mergers and acquisitions are approved regularly in that industry.  So why did the Justice Department have such a problem with AT&T?

America's Wireless Market: Beyond well-behind, third-place Sprint, no other carrier comes close to AT&T or Verizon Wireless.

Many analysts seem to blame the company’s “arrogance” in telling reporters the merger was a breeze to be approved, others point to spectrum issues, as well as complaints about AT&T’s poor service potentially ensnaring T-Mobile customers.  But above all, Justice lawyers believe that America’s wireless marketplace needs at least four national wireless carriers, particularly scrappy T-Mobile, which has a long history of being a disruptive player in the market, loathe to offer the kind of “identical twin”-pricing common at AT&T and Verizon Wireless.  Losing T-Mobile’s aggressive performance in the market would mean declaring open season for price increases and abusive business practices.  After all, where would wireless consumers go?

That “four national carrier”-test could be a big problem for T-Mobile, as it could mean Justice lawyers would also reject an presumed alternative — combining Sprint and T-Mobile,  rumored before AT&T moved in and stole the show.  A new entrant willing to buy-out Deutsche Telekom’s U.S. wireless interests may be the only palatable solution acceptable to Justice lawyers because it would keep T-Mobile intact and running, independent of other wireless carriers.

Justice also completely discounted the relevance of regional carriers like MetroPCS, Cricket, U.S. Cellular, and other smaller providers.  The reason is simple: roaming.  All of these smaller providers are completely dependent on the four large national carriers to deliver essential roaming services for their customers who travel outside of the regions where these smaller companies deliver service themselves.  All national carriers would have to do to control an overly-competitive “problem” carrier is withdraw roaming agreements or raise prices for them.

Sprint, among others, is obviously the most relieved by yesterday’s events.  Their long term viability as a national carrier dwarfed by AT&T and Verizon Wireless would have raised numerous questions about whether that company could survive in the long term.  Sprint would have also felt pressure to beef up its own operations, likely through acquisitions of several regional carriers, particularly MetroPCS and Cricket, which share its CDMA network standard.

Wall Street is livid, of course.

The great gnashing of teeth has begun on Wall Street, evident as stock analysts begin raising questions about President Obama’s “anti-business” policies.  While executives at both AT&T and T-Mobile are at risk of losing substantial bonuses for pulling the deal off (and providing special retention packages to keep key talent from leaving), there is also a lot of money to be lost in New York and Washington should the deal collapse.  Take the “little people” that will be out tens of millions in deal fees and proceeds from extending credit, implementing the merger itself, and structuring the legal mechanics.  They include:

Arnold & Porter: The now infamous law firm that accidentally posted an un-redacted document on the Federal Communications Commission website that exposed, in AT&T’s own words, what consumer groups already strongly suspected: AT&T preferred the long term benefits of knocking pesky T-Mobile out of the marketplace, even though the $39 billion dollar price tag dwarfed the $4 billion estimated cost of building AT&T’s own 4G LTE network.  That’s the 4G network executives deemed “too expensive” earlier this year.  With a deal collapse, the firm can say goodbye to lucrative legal fees and perhaps more importantly, their reputation of properly managing their clients’ business affairs.

Greenhill & Co.: Greenhill is one of several all-star, platinum-priced advisory firms hired by companies acquiring other companies to structure and implement their mergers.  With Greenhill hoping for a substantial piece of at least $150 million set aside by AT&T to cover these specific costs, a merger-interrupted could cost key people some nice year-end bonuses.

JPMorgan (Chase): The House of J.P. Morgan handed over a check for AT&T worth up to $20 billion to help finance the deal.  JPMorgan doesn’t do that for free.  In addition to any interest proceeds, JPMorgan also charges a range of underwriting and administrative fees that could easily total $85 million dollars.  AT&T might have to send the check back.

Cable Business News & Business Media: One of the most ironic developments watching the Justice Dept. decision unfold was the unintentional amount of AT&T advertising promoting the merger that preceded video reports and appeared adjacent to AT&T-related stories.  Those ads may soon end, costing cable news and the business press substantial ad revenue.

Cable business news networks offered up scathing analyses. Among anchors and analysts upset with the news of the merger’s potential derailment, it didn’t take long for “couched questions” to begin, pondering whether President Obama was against big companies, jobs, or the concept of the private sector in general.  Completely missing: coverage of the benefits for consumers who potentially don’t have to endure a further concentration in the wireless marketplace.

Craig Moffett from Sanford Bernstein, who usually celebrates all-things-cable, today told the Wall Street Journal the actions at Justice will harm business at every U.S. wireless carrier.

“Put simply, the industry will be structurally less attractive than it would otherwise have been,” he said. “Pricing is likely to be less stable, and profound technological risks, including free texting and bandwidth arbitrage, that would be manageable in the context of a significantly consolidated industry now become much more threatening.”

Judge Ellen

In other words, a hegemony of AT&T and Verizon Wireless could play rough with third party developers trying to undercut text message pricing and deliver data plan workarounds. With more competitors, consumers could simply abandon abusive providers.  Without those competitors, consumers have to pay AT&T’s asking price or go without service.

The Law

AT&T may be hoping it scored one potential success in its anticipated legal challenge against the Justice Department’s antitrust case.

The judge assigned to hear arguments is Ellen Segal Huvelle, who has a track record of slapping down government overreach.  Huvelle previously rejected Justice Department objections to the merger of SunGard and Comdisco — two disaster-recovery businesses.  The government argued the merger would leave just two major players in that business.  Judge Huvelle dismissed that, claiming the government too-narrowly defined what a disaster-recovery business entailed.  If she finds AT&T’s arguments of robust competition from regional carriers, landlines, and Voice Over IP credible, Justice lawyers may have a problem.  So could consumers.

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/PBS Audacious Move to Block Merger 8-31-11.flv[/flv]

PBS Newshour explores where the AT&T/T-Mobile merger goes next, now that the Justice Dept. sued to stop it on antitrust grounds.  (7 minutes)