Free Newsletter
Connecticut franchise battle continues
The attorney general in Connecticut is not backing down in his quest to make sure AT&T's U-verse is subject to the same requirements as cable TV operations. Attorney General Richard Blumenthal's latest volley is a public request that AT&T's franchise application be rejected, which seems counterintuitive on its face. Blumenthal fought to make AT&T obtain a franchise license from the Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control in August. The PUC was all about letting AT&T slide, but a federal judge suggested otherwise.
The PUC later denied Blumenthal's petition to make AT&T get a franchise license, but it appears that the resurrected Bell did so anyway, because Blumenthal issued statement urging its denial.
"This new application by AT&T seems to accept that they must seek a franchise, but makes a sham of meeting the franchise requirements," he said. Blumenthal wants AT&T to have build-out requirements typical of cable franchise agreements.
"I will continue to vigorously fight to assure that all Connecticut consumers enjoy the full benefits of competition and choice," he said. "All citizens should have access--not just residents of wealthy or readily served areas. AT&T cannot be allowed to cherry pick customers and deny others the same right."
Opposing Blumenthal are an army of lawyers, lobbyists and accountants who have carefully calculated the areal penetration return-on-investment for U-verse and determined that hired guns are cheaper than building out across the tracks. It's really that simple.
For More:
- Blumenthal's statement is posted here
Related Articles:
U-verse avoids Connecticut regulators Report
Connecticut franchise fight continues Report
Comments
Posted by Chairman CACSCC | October 14, 2007 - 1:26pm
There are a few active DPUC dockets related to AT&T's U-verse including #07-10-04 Application of the Southern New England Telephone Co. for Certificate of Video Franchise Authority. This docket appears to have a letter writing campaign in process with several letters phrased almost identically and pro-AT&T. Several contain this text: I read somewhere that the cable companies are upset because they think their new competitors will "cherry pick" only the best neighborhoods to provide new services. The bottom-line is "Can AT&T fairly competes and offers all consumers competition?" If they could we would not be in this wasteland of circular regulatory & legal dialogue which is consuming consumer tax dollars, community access volunteers’ time & budgets and misinforming consumers about competition.
Posted by Anonymous | December 4, 2008 - 3:09am
It shouldn't matter how the service is delivered, if cable channels are offered over the system, then it should be deemed a cable service and thus subject to franchise requirements.
Its not fair that they get a free ride while other companies offering the same channels have to pay franchise fees.
All companies who offer services should all be on even ground, not to where one system is treated unfairly compared to the other.
The answer should be crystal clear, if they deliver cable, then their a cable company.
Posted by Salome | September 6, 2009 - 6:09pm
Badly need your help. There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don't know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president.
I am from Finland and also now am reading in English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: "Breaking alongside babuu, he acts sleep more butch hair qualities and humans with the blades of the zenmetsu-gan identities."
Thank you very much 8-). Salome.
SHARE
WITH:
Comments (3) | Post a comment