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.”

WESH-TV in Daytona Beach/Orlando, Fla. is one of the Hearst-owned stations affected in the dispute with Insight/Time Warner Cable/Bright House Networks.

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)

Insight/Time Warner Cable customers in Louisville, Ky. are now watching CBS shows on WROC-TV from Rochester, N.Y.

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)

By 2050 Australian consumers will need a monthly data allowance of more than 100,000 gigabytes to sustain what will, by then, be considered average use of the Internet.

That finding comes in a report, “A Snapshot of Australia’s Digital Future to 2050,” which is measuring the impact of the country’s transformation to a ubiquitous fiber to the home broadband experience for the majority of Australian consumers and businesses.

Australia and New Zealand are both embarked on a transformative effort to rid themselves of slow speed, copper-based broadband networks. Both are rolling out a combination of fiber to the home service in urban and suburban areas, and fixed wireless networks in rural areas.

The South Pacific region could soon become a global broadband leader for innovation in high speed applications development because neither country will be constrained by broadband networks that deliver the least amount of broadband service for the highest cost.

The report predicts super-fast broadband will literally transform society in Australia, with traditional media as relevant tomorrow as a buggy whip is today.

Market researcher IBISWorld says newspapers, television, radio and the record and film industries are destined for the scrap heap in a new digital world.

The report also predicts the traditional understanding of employment may also radically change, with citizens acting as free agents, pursuing work on individual projects for a variety of employers, leveraging broadband to learn what tasks need to be performed each day. Work will be performed in home offices or on the go using the country’s broadband network.

Universal high speed broadband will transform the information and communications technology sector into a $1 trillion business by 2050 — in Australia alone, predicts the report.

Australia’s PM radio program explores how life in the country will change over the next 38 years with fiber optic broadband a part of virtually everyone’s life.  (June 14, 2012)  (4 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Northern Minnesota's Paul Bunyan Communications is threatened by FCC reforms that they claim favor larger phone companies.

Northern Minnesotans will have to wait longer for broadband after a telephone co-op announced it was suspending its $19 million broadband expansion project because funding is being diverted to more powerful phone companies like AT&T and Verizon — neither of which have any concrete plans to improve rural wired broadband.

Bemidji-based Paul Bunyan Communications, which serves 28,000 hearty Minnesota customers, has been working on broadband expansion for several years, bringing broadband to customers who have known nothing except dial-up since the Internet age began. Only now the project is threatened because of well-intentioned plans by the Federal Communications Commission to expand rural broadband, but in ways that cater primarily to larger phone companies that lobbied heavily for the changes.

At issue is Universal Service Fund reform, which plans to divert an increasing share of the surcharge all telephone customers pay away from rural basic phone service and towards broadband expansion in rural America.

Paul Bunyan used their share of USF funding to scrap the company’s existing, antiquated copper-wire network in favor of fiber optics. Other phone companies have traditionally used the money to keep their existing networks running. Now the independent phone company says large phone companies like Verizon and AT&T have successfully changed the rules in their favor, and will now benefit from a larger share of those funds, ostensibly to expand broadband to their rural customers.

Bissonette (Courtesy: MPR)

But neither AT&T or Verizon have shown much interest in rural broadband upgrades. AT&T, which recently announced it concluded its U-verse rollout in larger cities, has also thrown up its hands about how to deal with the “rural broadband problem” and plans no substantial expansion of the company’s DSL service.

Verizon also announced it had largely completed the expansion of FiOS, a fiber to the home service. Verizon has also been discouraging customers from considering its DSL service by limiting it only to customers who also subscribe to landline phone service.

Verizon Wireless has introduced a wireless home broadband replacement that costs considerably more than traditional DSL, starting at $60 a month for up to 10GB of usage.

As a result of the funding changes, Paul Bunyan is reconsidering plans to expand its broadband, phone and television services to Kjenaas and about 4,000 other residents in rural Park Rapids and a township near Grand Rapids.

It may also have to cut workers.

“It’s kind of ironic,” Paul Bunyan’s Brian Bissonette tells Minnesota Public Radio. “The mantra of these changes is to create jobs. It’s killing jobs.”

Minnesota Public Radio explores how rural Minnesota broadband is being threatened by a telecom industry-influenced plan to divert funding to larger companies like AT&T and Verizon for rural broadband expansion those companies have no plans to deliver. (May 23, 2012) (4 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Frontier Communications will not roll out a national IPTV service to compete with cable operators in all of its service areas, but is still exploring its options for providing pay-TV service in larger cities.

That decision, announced by executive vice president and chief financial officer Donald R. Shassian, came at last week’s Global Technology, Media, and Telecom Conference sponsored by Wall Street investment bank J.P. Morgan.

Shassian used the occasion to clarify remarks made during the company’s first-quarter results conference call, which caused some shareholders and analysts concern about the company’s lackluster performance, capital spending plans, and company debt that will come due early next year.

Shassian said Frontier will not deploy U-verse-like IPTV service across its entire national service area, but is considering the future option of delivering the service (and better broadband speeds) theoretically in selected markets.

Shassian also raised the prospect of modifying part of its acquired fiber-to-the-home FiOS network to fiber to the neighborhood technology that companies like AT&T are currently using. But for the foreseeable future, most Frontier customers will have to subscribe to satellite television if they want a video package with their home phone and broadband service.

Stop the Cap! was the first to report Frontier was considering licensing AT&T U-verse to use in selected larger markets where the company has lost considerable ground against cable competitors that deliver consistently faster broadband service.

Wall Street reaction to the proposal has been negative, with concerns Frontier will need to spend hundreds of millions, if not billions, to deploy such a network.

Shassian sought to distance the company from any suggestion they will further increase spending on network improvements. In fact, Shassian says Frontier will end its broadband expansion program, and the extra spending to pay for it, by 2013.

“Our capital expenditure spending will decrease in 2013 as the geographic broadband expansion of our network concludes,” Shassian said. “We expect capital expenditures to drop by approximately $100 million in 2013.”

In lieu of national IPTV service, Frontier remains committed to its resale partnership with satellite TV provider Dish Network. But Shassian did admit U-verse technology is among the options the company is exploring to remain competitive.

Surprisingly, Shassian also said the company was considering partially modifying its acquired FiOS network in Indiana and the Pacific Northwest, because of the cost savings it could deliver.

“We have been evaluating alternative platforms which could generate savings from capital expenditures, video transport and even content costs that can be significant to the FiOS video market business,” Shassian said. “I want to be clear that we have no plans to deploy IPTV across our nationwide network and therefore do not see upward CapEx pressure from any potential changes in our facilities-based video strategy.”

Asked about the potential cost savings afforded by swapping out FiOS technology for IPTV fiber to the neighborhood service, Shassian said it could open the door to expanding service in areas where existing copper-based last mile network facilities can sustain a minimum of 20Mbps broadband service. Frontier claims 1.9 million homes in its service area can receive 20Mbps today, of which 600,000 are currently within a Frontier FiOS service area.

“If we changed, we may have to change out set top boxes on [existing FiOS customers],” Shassian said.

In this clip, Frontier Communications’ executive VP and chief financial officer Don Shassian speaks to a J.P. Morgan investor conference in Boston about the company’s broadband and IPTV plans. (May 15-17, 2012) (4 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

The implication of substantially altering the company’s existing fiber-to-the-home network baffled some analysts.

One, who talked with Stop the Cap! asking not to be attributed, suspects Shassian’s role as a financial officer at Frontier may explain part of the mystery.

“He’s not the chief technology officer, and I suspect he is partly confused about the different technologies,” the analyst explains. “I can’t see Frontier tearing down their current network, but it may make sense for them to switch technology strategies when considering if and where they can expand their network.”

“Frontier’s first quarter results were more than disappointing, and the company is being exceptionally cautious about anything that requires spending right now,” the analyst said. “The next shoe to drop is another dividend cut, which would kill the stock in the market, and if we think Frontier will spend a billion to improve its network, that dividend is going down.”

Our source says he does not have much confidence in Frontier’s current management.

“They talk a nice story, but the numbers never finally add up,” he says. “Rescuing wireline is expensive and companies always promise it will cost incrementally little to expand revenue-enhancing broadband to their rural customers, but if that were true, the companies would have already done it, and without significant spending they have not.”

“Somehow in the last 100 years, every time there is a problem of getting more spectrum, there is a technology that comes along that solves that problem. Every two and a half years, every spectrum crisis has gotten solved, and that’s going to keep happening. We already know today what the solutions are for the next 50 years.” — Martin Cooper, inventor of the portable cell phone

Despite the fear-mongering by North America’s wireless phone companies that a spectrum crisis is at hand — one that threatens the viability of wireless communications across the continent, some of the most prominent industry veterans dispute the public policy agenda of phone companies like AT&T, Verizon, Bell, and Rogers.

Martin Cooper ought to know.  He invented the portable cell phone, and remains involved in the wireless industry today.  Cooper shrugs off cries of spectrum shortages as a problem well-managed by technological innovation.  In fact, he’s credited for Cooper’s Law: The ability to transmit different radio communications at one time and in the same place has grown with the same pace since Guglielmo Marconi’s first transmissions in 1895. The number of such communications being theoretically possible has doubled every 30 months, from then, for 104 years.

National Public Radio looks back at the earliest car phones, which weighed 80 pounds and operated with vacuum tubes. Innovation, improved technology, and lower pricing turned an invention for the rich and powerful into a device more than 300,000,000 North Americans own and use today. (April 2012) (3 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

A traditional car phone from the 1960s.

The earliest cell phones have been around since the 1940s.  St. Louis was the first city in the United States to get Mobile Telephone Service (MTS).  It worked on three analog radio channels and required an operator to make calls on the customer’s behalf. By 1964, direct dialing from car phones became possible with Improved Mobile Telephone Service (IMTS), which also increased the number of radio channels available for calls.

In the 1970s, popular television shows frequently showed high-flyers and private detectives with traditional looking phones installed in their cars.  But the service was obscenely expensive.  The equipment set customers back $2-4,000 or was leased for around $120 a month.  Local calls ran $0.70-1.20 per minute.  That was when a nice home was priced at $27,000, a new car was under $4,000, gas was $0.55/gallon, and a first run movie ticket was priced at $1.75.

With many cities maintaining fewer than a dozen radio channels for the service, only a handful of customers could make or receive calls at a time.  The first “spectrum crisis” arrived by the late 1970s, when car phones became the status symbol of the rich and powerful (the middle class had pagers). Customers found they couldn’t make or receive calls because the frequencies were all tied up.  Some cities even rationed service by maintaining waiting lists, not allowing new customers to have the technology until an existing one dropped their account.

Instead of demanding deregulation and warning of wireless doomsday, the wireless industry innovated its way out of the era of MTS altogether, switching instead to a “cellular” approach developed in part by the Bell System.

[flv width=”412″ height=”330″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ATT Testing the First Public Cell Phone Network.flv[/flv]

In the 1970s, when the first cell phone “spectrum crisis” erupted, the Bell System innovated its way out the the dilemma without running to Congress demanding sweeping deregulation.  This documentary, produced by the Bell System, explores AMPS — analog cell phone service, and how it transformed Chicago’s mobile telephone landscape back in 1979.  (9 minutes)

“Arguing that the nation could run out of spectrum is like saying it was going to run out of a color.” David P. Reed, one of the original architects of the Internet

Instead of one caller tying up a single IMTS radio frequency capable of reaching across an entire city, the Bell System deployed lower-powered transmitters in a series of hexagonal “cells.”  Each cell only served callers within a much smaller geographic area.  As a customer traveled between cells, the system would hand the call off to the next cell in turn and so on — all transparently to the caller.  Because of the reduced coverage area, cell towers in a city could operate on the same frequencies without creating interference problems, opening up the system to many more customers and more calls.

Inventor Martin Cooper holds one of the first portable mobile phones

In Chicago, Bell’s IMTS system only supported around a dozen callers at the same time. In 1977, the phone company built a test cellular network it dubbed “AMPS,” for Advanced Mobile Phone System.  AMPS technology was familiar to many early cell phone users.  It was more popularly known as “analog” service, and while it could still only handle one conversation at a time on each frequency, the system supported better call handling and many more users than earlier wireless phone technology.  By 1979, Bell had 1,300 customers using their test system in Chicago.

AMPS considerably eased the “spectrum crunch” earlier systems found challenging, and subsequent upgrades to digital technology dramatically increased the number of calls each tower could handle and allowed providers to slash pricing, which fueled the spectacular growth of the wireless marketplace.

Yesterday it was voice call congestion, today it is a “tidal wave” of wireless data.  But inventors like Cooper believe the solution is the same: engineering innovation.

“Somehow in the last 100 years, every time there is a problem of getting more spectrum, there is a technology that comes along that solves that problem,” Cooper told the New York Times. “Every two and a half years, every spectrum crisis has gotten solved, and that’s going to keep happening. We already know today what the solutions are for the next 50 years.”

Cooper believes in the cellular approach to wireless communications.  Dividing up today’s geographic cells into even smaller cells could vastly expand network capacity just like AMPS did for Windy City residents in the late 1970s. Using especially directional antennas focused on different service areas, placing new cell towers, innovating further with tiny neighborhood antennas mounted on telephone poles, or building out Wi-Fi networks can all manage the data capacity “crisis” says Cooper.

New technology also allows cell signals to co-exist, even on the same or adjacent frequencies, without creating interference problems. All it takes is a willingness to invest in the technology and deploy it across signal-congested urban areas.

Unfortunately, network engineers are not often responsible for the business decisions or public policy agendas of the nation’s largest wireless companies who are using the “spectrum crisis” to argue for increased deregulation and demanding additional radio spectrum which, in some cases, could be locked up by companies to make sure nobody else can use them.

[flv width=”600″ height=”358″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/NY Times Mobile Carriers Warn of Spectrum Crisis.flv[/flv]

The New York Times offers this easy-to-follow primer on wireless spectrum and why it matters (or not) in the current climate of explosive growth in mobile data traffic.  (3 minutes)

“Their primary interest is not necessarily in making spectrum available, or in making wireless performance better. They want to make money.” — David S. Isenberg, veteran researcher, AT&T Labs

Innovation, not wholesale deregulation, allowed the Bell System to solve the spectrum crisis of the 1970s by creating today's "cell system" that can re-use radio frequencies in adjacent areas to handle more wireless traffic.

Spectrum auctions bring billions to federal coffers, but actually deliver a hidden tax to cell phone customers who ultimately pay for the winning bids priced into their monthly bills.  It also makes it prohibitively expensive for a new player to enter the market.  Already facing enormous network construction costs, any new entrant would then face the crushing prospect of outbidding AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Bell or Rogers for the frequencies essential for operation.

As the New York Times writes:

When a company gets the license for a band of radio waves, it has the exclusive rights to use it. Once a company owns it, competitors can’t have it.

Mr. Reed said the carriers haven’t advocated for the newer technologies because they want to retain their monopolies.

Cooper advocates a new regulatory approach at the Federal Communications Commission — one that mandates wireless phone companies start using today’s technology to amplify their networks.

Cooper points to one example: the smart antenna.

Smart antennas direct cell towers to focus their transmission energy towards the specific devices connected to it.  If a customer was using their phone from the southern end of the cell tower’s coverage area, why direct signal energy to the north, where it gets wasted?  New LTE networks support smart antenna technology, but carriers have generally avoided investing in upgrading towers to support the new technology, expected to be commonplace inside new wireless devices within two years.

T-Mobile calls these technology solutions “Band-Aids” that won’t address the company’s demand for more frequencies to manage its network.  But that kind of thinking applied to the mobile phone world of the 1970s would have maintained the exorbitantly expensive IMTS technology discarded decades ago, since replaced by innovation that made more efficient use of the spectrum already on hand.  That innovation also transformed wireless phones from a tool (or toy) for the very wealthy to an affordable success story that now threatens the traditional wired phone network in ways the Bell System could have never envisioned.

[flv width=”412″ height=”330″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Its a Whole New System.flv[/flv]

It’s A Whole New System: AT&T and other wireless phone companies might want to learn the lesson the Bell System was trying to teach their employees back in 1979: Meet Change With Change.  This company-produced video implores the phone company to do more than the same old thing.  No, this video is not “PM Magazine.”  It is about innovation and actually listening to what customers want. With apologies to Mama Cass Elliot, there was indeed a New World Coming — the breakup of the Bell System just five years later.  Don’t miss the diabetic-coma-inducing, sugary-sweet jingle at the end.  Then reach for a can of Tab.  (10 minutes)