CT: AT$T says no U-verse if license is necessary

from: Norwalk Advocate [1]

AT&T says no U-verse if license is necessary
By Brian Lockhart
Staff Writer

October 25, 2007

HARTFORD - If AT&T must apply for a cable franchise for its fiber-optic U-verse, it would stop offering the television service in Connecticut, a company vice president said yesterday.

"It's not a threat," said John Emra, AT&T regional vice president of legislative affairs. "We will not enter the marketplace."

AT&T launched U-verse late last year as an alternative to cable and satellite television and hoped to operate it under a new competitive video service law.

The company said it has about 7,000 subscribers, or 20 percent of the state, in 40 towns, including Stamford, Norwalk, Westport, Fairfield and Greenwich.

State Sen. John Fonfara, D-Hartford, and state Rep. Steve Fontana, D-North Haven, co-chairmen of the legislature's Energy and Technology Committee, said they may push for emergency legislation to reverse a recent order by state utility regulators that AT&T apply for a cable license.

"We wanted to let the public know we take this very seriously," Fontana said. "We don't believe the Department of Public Utility Control has done the right thing and would like to fix it."

Last year, the DPUC decided that U-verse is not cable and AT&T did not have to apply for the franchise. The state Office of Consumer Counsel appealed the decision. Earlier this month, a federal court judge ruled that U-verse is a cable service.

Last week, the DPUC ordered AT&T to stop signing up customers and get a permit.

The case is complicated by the competitive video service law that took effect Oct. 1. AT&T expected it would apply to U-verse.

Fonfara and Fontana said they helped craft the legislation to help AT&T and other television providers overcome archaic cable franchise rules that gave a few companies a monopoly.

"Our legislation was not about AT&T," Fonfara said. "AT&T is clearly the elephant in the room, (but) we crafted this legislation universally. . . . It is our belief and hope we'll see additional entrants."

Several years ago, when AT&T was SNET, the company offered a cable service but "fairly heavy regulation requirements" made it "impossible," Emra said.

The Office of Consumer Counsel and state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal have said they want competition, but the video service law lacks consumer protections, including a requirement that applicants offer their television service statewide.

Joe Cordero, an AT&T project manager, disputed Blumenthal's allegation that the company is singling out wealthier towns for the service.

"Our plans not only cover a large percentage of our (phone) customers but a diverse cross section" that includes inner-city neighborhoods in Bridgeport, New Haven and Hartford, Cordero said. "AT&T is in the business of selling to as many customers as possible."

Fonfara said he understands concerns about the bill but said it has enough merits to move forward.

"Some of the attorney general's outspokenness has taken us a little by surprise," Fonfara said.

AT&T is appealing the federal court ruling and is due in state Superior Court tomorrow to ask a judge to overturn the DPUC order.

Even if the federal court ruling is upheld, DPUC may allow U-verse to operate under the video service law, Emra said.

Fontana and Fonfara said DPUC "misinterpreted" the law and they may ask the legislature to vote on changes to the bill during a special session.

Blumenthal this week encouraged the DPUC to let AT&T resume signing up customers while the legal battle proceeds.

But Emra said AT&T disagrees with the move.

"We are not interested in going out to market to new customers to disappoint them later and have the service turned off," he said.