Interim Site

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.

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-decision status: draft. cacscc comments1--.comment2 -- OCC --NECTA --Comcast 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

• Questions to Video Providers Reply ATT
• Questions for Cable Providers Some Replies: Cox Comcast
• Questions for Community Advocates Some Replies:CACSCC GTV-Wfd


• 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 15, 2007 Energy & Technology Commitee Leadership submit letter embracing a at&t because intent of 07-253 was to grant at&t a statewide franchise.
• October 15, 2007 DPUC Ruling 10.15.07 and Superior Court 10.31.07 and Community Response Can your Free Speech be bought? and the OCC gives voice
• 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.
• Playing Field Changes Here DPUC Commissioners issue statement that at&t is granted video franchise without full public docket process.



• Pursuant to Section 2(g) of the Act, AT&T has acquired a Certificate of Video Franchise Authority (CVFA). This CVFA provides AT&T: (1) a grant of authority to provide video service as requested in the Application; (2) a grant of authority to own, lease, maintain, operate, manage or control facilities in, under or over any public highway in the delivery of such service, subject to the laws of the state. This grant of authority is subject to the lawful operation of video service by AT&T or its successor in interest.




INFORMAL RENEWAL REQUEST: Docket 07-08-16 Vernon Refranchise Withdrawn [CACSCC Comments]

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 for all in process renewals no later than October 26, 2007.

Absent a conclusion and after requesting the comment period be delayed until 12.5.07 Comcast submitted new franchise applications for all franchise across the state most likely anticipating the same 'no review' approval afforded the competititor. Sample application filed 12.3.07 for Comcast Branford.
Open for comments PUBLIC HEARING VIDEO Link Here

• November 1, 2007 Cable Light Dockets begin being introduced as Cable Response to Competition CCFA Dockets----Comcast --Branford 07-12-03--Danbury 07-12-04 --Hartford 07-12-05-- New Haven 07-12-06 Norwich 07-12-07-- Plainville 07-12-08 --Seymour 07-12-09 --Waterbury 07-12-11-- Vernon 07-12-10 --Old Lyme 07-12-26-- Lakeville 07-12-25 --Middletown 07-12-27--Litchfield 08-01-14-- Groton 08-09-06
  --Charter 08-05-12
  
  
• March 7, 2008 Public Hearing - Our goal this year is to try to address some of what we consider to be the most grievous problems that arose from last year's bill, or that we face as a result of last year's law, so that's what we're about this session.REP. FONTANA
• March 10, 2008 ATT Interconnect Commitment Letter written to committee on Energy & Technology.
• Aug 8, 2008 ATT DPUC Review of Reporting Requirements Pursuant to Public Act 07-253
including 120 days to be implemented --Docket 08-02-11
• Sept 9, 2008 PA 07-253, FRANCHISING, AND PUBLIC ACCESS TV OLR RESEARCH REPORT



Only sixteen Interconnects One Year later and ATT Infrastructure costs for CTN reallocated from PEGPETIA Funds. CTN claimed to not be PEGPETIA during 2008 Public Hearings. Cable Companies assumed cost of CTN with there build-out requirements that were not required of ATT. PEGPETIA - the competitive source of capital funds replacing franchise negotiated capital investment is reallocated by State Government Budget Process to General Fund.

• 03.05.2010ementation Documents -- Overview -- Disclosure -- Specifications
• March 10, 2008 OFFICE OF CONSUMER COUNSEL v. SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND TELEPHONE CO. Decision