Common sense has won out over semantic shenanigans.
The Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control on Monday rejected AT&T’s application to be designated a "competitive video provider" under a new state law, requiring the telco to get a cable franchise instead.
The decision reverses the DPUC’s conclusion last year that AT&T’s IPTV service constituted a data service, not a video service akin to cable. That crafty positioning by AT&T, designed to get around cable-franchising laws, was shot down by two federal judges this summer, who ruled that U-verse TV is for regulatory purposes a cable service.
AT&T says the DPUC’s rejection of its competitive-video-provider application will hurt consumers. (The telco said it will appeal the decision in Connecticut Superior Court.) The agency “ignored both the spirit and the letter of a brand-new consumer-friendly law and is protecting the cable monopoly,” Ramona Carlow, AT&T Connecticut’s president overseeing regulatory and external affairs, said in a statement.
AT&T also cited the support of Connecticut State Sen. John Fonfara and State Rep. Steve Fontana, co-chairmen of the state legislature’s Energy and Technology Committee. They wrote in a letter to the DPUC that the "competitive video provider" law was intended to find a middle ground — providing certain consumer protections while speeding up the franchising process for new video providers like AT&T.
Consumer choice is laudable public-policy goal. But why should a corporation like AT&T, the largest telephone company in the United States with a market cap of around $260 billion, receive special treatment as it tries to poach cable customers simply because it’s sending linear TV channels down an IP pipe rather than a cable pipe?
Connecticut attorney general Richard Blumenthal, who has strongly opposed AT&T’s efforts to avoid being regulated as a cable operator, said the competitive-video-provider law would have let the telco "cherry pick" the wealthiest or most accessible regions, whereas existing cable regulations require making service available in all communities. "I urge AT&T to accept [the DPUC’s decision] — and follow the law — rather than continue to litigate and defy reality and the law," Blumenthal said in a statement issued Monday.
The DPUC on Monday agreed with Blumenthal that the transport mechanism for TV service is irrelevant. Quelle surprise! IPTV is TV, after all.
The smarter way to stay on top of the multichannel video marketplace. Sign up below.