from: Capital Times [1]
AT&T loses bid for TV service
Jeff Richgels — 10/25/2007 10:10 am
AT&T has been handed another defeat in its efforts to offer its U-verse TV service in Connecticut without a cable franchise -- a situation with potential implications for other states, including Wisconsin.
A bill introduced in Wisconsin would provide for statewide cable franchising but has run into strong opposition. AT&T moved forward with U-verse in Milwaukee without a franchise, was sued for that move by the city, then made an interim agreement with the city pending outcome of the case or the franchising legislation.
AT&T has set no timeframe for offering U-verse in the Madison area.
The Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control this week rejected AT&T's application to be designated a "competitive video provider" (instead of a cable company) under a Connecticut law that took effect Oct. 1. The ruling forces the telephone company to halt its U-verse TV deployment in that state as it appeals the decision, or until it is granted a cable franchise, Multichannel.com reported.
AT&T said in a statement that "the DPUC has thwarted the will of the Connecticut legislature and governor and has harmed Connecticut consumers in ways and to a degree that is impossible to calculate. The only parties that benefit from the DPUC's unlawful action are the cable monopolists."
The agency ordered AT&T to apply for a cable franchise by the end of this year. Until it receives a cable franchise, the DPUC has barred AT&T from marketing to or signing up additional customers for U-verse, as well as from constructing or installing any video-distribution facilities in the state of Connecticut, although it can continue to serve existing U-verse subscribers until the DPUC rules on its cable-franchise application. AT&T claimed it would be forced to disconnect 7,000 subscribers of U-verse service in the state.
Being free of a franchise means being free of the regulations and payments that typically go in a franchise agreement.
In its ruling, the DPUC cited the July 26 decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut that found U-verse TV constituted a "cable service" being offered over a "cable system" by a "cable operator," as the terms are defined in the federal Cable Act.
The agency also said it agreed with Connecticut attorney general Richard Blumenthal, who filed opposition to AT&T's competitive-provider application on Oct. 11.
"AT&T is an unfranchised cable company illegally providing cable service in Connecticut," Blumenthal said in the filing. "AT&T is therefore not a lawfully operating video service provider nor is it a franchised cable company seeking to provide competitive service outside its franchise area. Instead, AT&T is a third category ndsh a cable company that is unlawfully operating without a franchise."
AT&T said it would file an emergency action with the Connecticut Superior Court to have the ruling reversed.
Other judges across the country could take what is happening in the Connecticut case into account if they deal with similar cases. And if the Connecticut case makes it to the U.S. Supreme Court, a ruling by that body would set a precedent that would apply across the country.