from: 7 Town TV [1]

IPTV and Consumer Choice

It is the same story but CT is now the playing field Telecom

Throughout the entire time-line of public discourse about U-verse, which includes both regulatory & court proceedings, at&t has funded a marketing campaign that presents itself as a consumer choice organization (MoreConsumerChoice.org and wewantchoice.com). at&t is currently running the TV4US campaign with pro at&t letter being auto-generation to DPUC. This campaign strategically locates TV4US ADs near articles on the U-verse debate. (Such Ads have appeared in web version of NH Register, Record-Journal, Hartford Courant.) This is polluting the information integrity associated with this market competition issue.
The issue is about profit, not about consumer price. It is rooted in the tax and regulatory differences between providers of telephone, TV and Internet. All corporations prefer being Internet providers because they avoid paying for rights-of-way and requirements for universal service. The marketing and legal fees for this ‘Internet provider campaign’ disguised as ‘for the people’ has been massive.

In the Press: Hartford Business Journal 10.1.07 10.15.17 10.22.07
History of U-Verse

Now that at&t video franchise application is again 'in process' consumer advocates need to help determine how PUBLIC ACT 07-253 is interpreted in regulation:

Aug 16, 2005 – "IPTV works fine in the lab, where conditions are pristine. But throw IPTV into a live, working network with millions of paying customers, and all bets are off. Indeed, nobody knows how IPTV will behave once it is "scaled," or rolled out, to millions of paying customers. One of the largest IPTV installations in the world is in China, and that one has only about 500,000 customers. "Scaling is clearly an issue," says Jeff Weber, an SBC vice president in charge of IPTV. "And anybody who tells you otherwise isn't just dumb — they're lying." Scaling isn't the only issue, however. SBC also has to build numerous support systems — provisioning, customer service and billing, for instance. In addition, it has to train installation crews to deal with IPTV's many nuances. Source

* June 2006 – the DPUC ruled that at&t’s U-verse television product was not a “cable service” in a split and controversial decision. The decision did not authorize at&t to begin offering the product.
* The Office of Consumer Counsel (OCC), cable companies and consumer organization opposed the DPUC’s June 2006 decision which was appealed in Federal Court. docket 05-06-12 June 2007 – The Connecticut Legislature passed legislation to open competition in the marketplace to an alternate provider type. This legislation was championed by at&t’s and was also contested by informed consumer advocacy groups. The law required significant regulatory follow-up to clarify it issues like taxes and community access.
* July 2007 – Governor Rell signed the new legislation.
* October 1, 2007 - at&t Connecticut filed an application for a video franchise pursuant to under the new application process. The process requires that the DPUC determine if the applicant qualifies for a state-wide video franchise.
* October 9, 2007 – the Federal Court ruled on the appeal of the DPUC’s June 2006 order. The Federal Court overturned the DPUC’s order, and determined that U-verse is a cable service under federal law.
* October 15, 2007 – the DPUC denied at&t’s October 1st competitive video franchise application because the Federal Court found that at&t’s U-verse is a cable service. at&t was to cease marketing U-verse and applying for a cable TV franchise.
* Also on October 15, 2007 – In a press release, Attorney Richard Blumenthal stated: ..."the state Department of Public Utility Control (DPUC) - in a landmark victory - has agreed that AT&T's U-Verse must be regulated as a cable service, which will ensure real cable competition throughout Connecticut.” ...“This decision is a huge total victory for Connecticut consumers - holding the promise to change the landscape of cable service and provide real competition with lower prices and better service for all consumers throughout the state, Blumenthal said.” ...“I commend and thank the DPUC for standing steadfast on the side of consumers in this hard-fought battle. I will continue this fight relentlessly - defending the DPUC decision if AT&T unwisely and unfortunately challenges it."
* October 16, 2007 – at&t challenged in state court the DPUC’s decision arguing that at&t is entitled to seek a certificate of video franchise."
* October 23, 2007 – Governor resonds to economic threats and supports at&t. Gov. M. Jodi Rell issued a statement urging state regulators to reverse their decision earlier this month to force AT&T to seek a cable TV franchise for the service." CACSCC Chairmans Letter to Governor
* October 24, 2007 – Attorney Generals Office -Motion to Stay - requesting at&t be allowed to continue marketing during challenge period." Motion
* October 25, 2007 – at&t response to Motion to Stay
* October 31, 2007 Hartford Superior Court Judge Robert McWeeny renders a decision.at&t does not need to seek cable franchise.

INFORMAL RENEWAL REQUEST: Docket 07-08-16

Comcast notes that it routinely incurs substantial costs in the renewal and transfer processes. By passage of Public Act 07-253, An Act Concerning Certified Competitive Video Service, Comcast states that the Connecticut legislature has recognized that the costs of renewal and transfer are no longer appropriate in a competitive environment. Accordingly, Comcast believes that a renewal proposal that includes similar regulatory relief meets the franchise renewal standards of state and federal law and requests that the renewal Franchises contain the following provisions. Lastly, Comcast requests that the Department issue a Decision in each of the above matters no later than October 26, 2007.

Open for comments
AN ACT CONCERNING CERTIFIED COMPETITIVE VIDEO SERVICE

Public ACT No. 07-253 mean what to Community Access and customers access to television products.
See Bill Summary For Download: COMPREHENSIVE Q+A GUIDE TO PUBLIC ACT 07-253

From the Desk of the cable competiton
Supporting PEG ATT Perspective
Policy Position and The Technical View of Video Provider

Effective Oct 1st 2007 (b) A certified competitive video service provider and a community antenna television company or nonprofit organization providing community access operations shall engage in good faith negotiation regarding interconnection of community access operations where such interconnection is technically feasible or necessary. Interconnection may be accomplished by direct cable, microwave link, satellite or other reasonable method of connection. At the request of a competitive video service provider, community antenna television company or provider of community access operations, the Department of Public Utility Control -- > Docket 07-05-23 request for comment, the DPUC has stated its intention to examine the parameters of AT&T’s funding obligation to Community Access Television in Connecticut. An additional Docket 07-10-11 to Establish Administrative Guidelines for the Public Educational and Governmental Programming and Education Technology Investment Account Pursuant to Public Act 07-253 was opened 10.5.07. and ATT filed an application fo be an MVPD Provider 10.1.07 which is being handled via Docket 7-10-04 - Application of The Southern New England Telephone Company for Certificate of Video Franchise Authority