A federal judge has ruled that AT&T's U-Verse IPTV service meets the legal definition of cable service under the Cable Communications Policy Act. The 1984 law sets certain requirements that all cable operators must meet.
The ruling came as the result of a lawsuit filed by the State of Connecticut's Office of Consumer Counsel, the New England Cable and Telecommunications Association, and Cablevision. The Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control had previously ruled that U-Verse wasn't subject to the law's restrictions.
If U-Verse is considered a cable service it becomes subject to all federal regulations for cable operators. Otherwise it would be an unregulated service, much like VOIP isn't subject to standard telephone regulations.
In their complaint, the plaintiffs pointed out that U-Verse would be "nearly identical" in every way to any other cable TV service from the perspective of cable subscribers, ranging from programming available to on-demand services. AT&T argued that since it had yet to begin offering TV service, any comparisons between U-Verse and other cable offerings were just speculation.
AT&T has so far resisted signing franchise agreements with local governments. When setting up the U-Verse service in communities that have insisted on franchise agreements AT&T has either taken the issue to court or simply halted deployment altogether.
Traditional cable providers have complained because signing a franchise agreement means meeting requirements that aren't profitable like creating infrastructure in areas where there aren't enough customers to pay for it and providing public access channels.
Even if this ruling stands, AT&T could get statewide franchise agreements in states that allow it, making the objections of local governments a moot point. They've already done this in Texas and Florida. The Connecticut state legislature is already considering such a measure.
If U-Verse is considered a cable service it becomes subject to all federal regulations for cable operators. Otherwise it would be an unregulated service, much like VOIP isn't subject to standard telephone regulations.
In their complaint, the plaintiffs pointed out that U-Verse would be "nearly identical" in every way to any other cable TV service from the perspective of cable subscribers, ranging from programming available to on-demand services. AT&T argued that since it had yet to begin offering TV service, any comparisons between U-Verse and other cable offerings were just speculation.
AT&T has so far resisted signing franchise agreements with local governments. When setting up the U-Verse service in communities that have insisted on franchise agreements AT&T has either taken the issue to court or simply halted deployment altogether.
Traditional cable providers have complained because signing a franchise agreement means meeting requirements that aren't profitable like creating infrastructure in areas where there aren't enough customers to pay for it and providing public access channels.
Even if this ruling stands, AT&T could get statewide franchise agreements in states that allow it, making the objections of local governments a moot point. They've already done this in Texas and Florida. The Connecticut state legislature is already considering such a measure.
