Yeah I agree that AT&T should be under similar laws as cable due to one its not wireless base like Satellite TV Service 2nd they are still using physical cable rather it be cable or fiber. Just because they call it something else like IPTV does not matter they are still going to have a big cost to run physical cables to get this service up and running just like cable tv providers run into. Sounds like their just trying to find some loopholes is all. Poke
DSL · Cable · VOIP · Security · Satellite · Fiber · News · Tips · Reviews · Community · Tools - dslreports.com
A federal judge says AT&T's U-Verse IPTV service is a cable service. AT&T says it's not, and therefore isn't subject to the same consumer protection and build-out rules as cable operators. Unless AT&T is given what they want, the company says they'll scrap U-Verse plans in the State. The State Attorney General says the company is wasting time and "flagrantly breaking the law" in order to dodge consumer protections.
Unions this week jumped into the fight in support of AT&T, after AT&T informed them they could lay off 1,300 employees if the court ruling stands. AT&T is also enlisting the aid of their customers, sending them this e-mail claiming the State "is saying no to competition, consumer choice and progress."
your choice and control is in jeopardy because the Department of Public Utility
Control (DPUC) issued a ruling affecting AT&T's ability to continue providing our U-Verse service in Connecticut. The DPUC ruling says, in effect, that AT&T is not entitled to be a new video competitor under a new law designed to bring much needed video competition to the state. If this decision stands, the DPUC will have taken away from consumers the best alternative to cable TV.
Technically that's misleading, given that AT&T could have entered the market and started competing under existing rules -- they simply didn't like the financial requirement of mandated build outs to ensure even service coverage. AT&T has also created this website that tells consumers that "interest groups and individuals supporting the incumbent cable companies" are trying to eliminate the consumer's right to choose.
DSL · Cable · VOIP · Security · Satellite · Fiber · News · Tips · Reviews · Community · Tools - dslreports.com
A federal judge says AT&T's U-Verse IPTV service is a cable service. AT&T says it's not, and therefore isn't subject to the same consumer protection and build-out rules as cable operators. Unless AT&T is given what they want, the company says they'll scrap U-Verse plans in the State. The State Attorney General says the company is wasting time and "flagrantly breaking the law" in order to dodge consumer protections.
Unions this week jumped into the fight in support of AT&T, after AT&T informed them they could lay off 1,300 employees if the court ruling stands. AT&T is also enlisting the aid of their customers, sending them this e-mail claiming the State "is saying no to competition, consumer choice and progress."
your choice and control is in jeopardy because the Department of Public Utility
Control (DPUC) issued a ruling affecting AT&T's ability to continue providing our U-Verse service in Connecticut. The DPUC ruling says, in effect, that AT&T is not entitled to be a new video competitor under a new law designed to bring much needed video competition to the state. If this decision stands, the DPUC will have taken away from consumers the best alternative to cable TV.
Technically that's misleading, given that AT&T could have entered the market and started competing under existing rules -- they simply didn't like the financial requirement of mandated build outs to ensure even service coverage. AT&T has also created this website that tells consumers that "interest groups and individuals supporting the incumbent cable companies" are trying to eliminate the consumer's right to choose.
