EXCLUSIVE: AT&T HomeZone First Look
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 246
- Views 60K
Connecticut Authorities Set AT&T Free from Cable Franchise Regulations
06/08/2006
AT&T may need to add another "T" to its name, following a decision Wednesday by the state Department of Public Utility Control that Internet Protocol Television is not subject to cable franchising requirements.
This leaves the way clear for the former American Telephone & Telegraph to launch its "U-verse" television service — already in limited release in the San Antonio area — in Connecticut later this year. Consumer advocates and cable companies blasted the decision, claiming it won't create competition. "Without government regulation and a universal service requirement, IPTV providers will cherry-pick the wealthiest and most accessible consumers, leaving the rest of Connecticut with no choice and higher costs," Attorney General Richard Blumenthal wrote in a statement. In part, cable-franchising rules require a provider offer a specified amount of public access programming.
The decision made final a May 5 DPUC draft decision, when the commissioners said the service is just another form of data stream, bearing more resemblance to the Internet than television.
The DPUC's vote wasn't unanimous — unusual for the five commissioners — but spokeswoman Beryl Lyons said, despite the 3-2 vote, "All five agreed that the law was not clear The technology moved faster than the law."
Blumenthal and others have 45 days to appeal the decision, Lyons said. In his release, Blumenthal said he would review the ruling and consider an appeal.
The attorney general's wasn't the only office to react negatively to the decision. Consumer Counsel Mary J. Healey's office sent out a news release titled, "DPUC Takes a Byte Out of Consumer Protection!" claiming the decision only promotes AT&T's interests.
Cablevision Systems said the decision is contrary to state and federal law, calling it a "special deal for a $100 billion phone company that creates an uneven playing field for competitors."
But John Emra, a New Haven-based AT&T spokesman, said the cable industry spent a lot of money "trying to scare people with untrue allegations."
It will be several weeks before AT&T spells out its plans for Connecticut, Emra said. The company has yet to decide on pricing for the service, but knows it will have to spend a lot of money — about $4.6 billion nationally — installing fiber optic wires and other technologies to carry the IPTV. Pricing, he said, will be "competitive" with cable.
The way it will work, Emra said, is a national video office will collect programming from satellites, encode it in a digital format, then send it via the fiber optic lines to local offices. Those offices, he said, will also pull local content, including programming from network affiliates, and store it all on servers.
Neighborhood video nodes will collect and disseminate the content via existing copper lines to individual homes. A remote control will request specific content from the server via a set-top box on the television.
"Cable sends all channels to all consumers at all times," and users change frequencies to watch a particular channel, Emra said in explaining the difference. "We're only sending that specific channel you're asking for at that particular moment," which means IPTV can offer more content than cable.
When asked how the service differs from satellite dishes, Emra said users with IP-ready cell phones could program digital video recorders with those phones, or even choose a camera angle from football games, instead of only seeing what a producer chooses to send.
According to Emra, AT&T has committed to carrying public access shows. And within three years of its start, 30 percent of the households served nationally will be low income.
"Monopolists will do anything they can to protect what they have," Emra said, adding he expects the cable companies to appeal the decision.
http://www.connpost.com/business/ci_3912639
06/08/2006
AT&T may need to add another "T" to its name, following a decision Wednesday by the state Department of Public Utility Control that Internet Protocol Television is not subject to cable franchising requirements.
This leaves the way clear for the former American Telephone & Telegraph to launch its "U-verse" television service — already in limited release in the San Antonio area — in Connecticut later this year. Consumer advocates and cable companies blasted the decision, claiming it won't create competition. "Without government regulation and a universal service requirement, IPTV providers will cherry-pick the wealthiest and most accessible consumers, leaving the rest of Connecticut with no choice and higher costs," Attorney General Richard Blumenthal wrote in a statement. In part, cable-franchising rules require a provider offer a specified amount of public access programming.
The decision made final a May 5 DPUC draft decision, when the commissioners said the service is just another form of data stream, bearing more resemblance to the Internet than television.
The DPUC's vote wasn't unanimous — unusual for the five commissioners — but spokeswoman Beryl Lyons said, despite the 3-2 vote, "All five agreed that the law was not clear The technology moved faster than the law."
Blumenthal and others have 45 days to appeal the decision, Lyons said. In his release, Blumenthal said he would review the ruling and consider an appeal.
The attorney general's wasn't the only office to react negatively to the decision. Consumer Counsel Mary J. Healey's office sent out a news release titled, "DPUC Takes a Byte Out of Consumer Protection!" claiming the decision only promotes AT&T's interests.
Cablevision Systems said the decision is contrary to state and federal law, calling it a "special deal for a $100 billion phone company that creates an uneven playing field for competitors."
But John Emra, a New Haven-based AT&T spokesman, said the cable industry spent a lot of money "trying to scare people with untrue allegations."
It will be several weeks before AT&T spells out its plans for Connecticut, Emra said. The company has yet to decide on pricing for the service, but knows it will have to spend a lot of money — about $4.6 billion nationally — installing fiber optic wires and other technologies to carry the IPTV. Pricing, he said, will be "competitive" with cable.
The way it will work, Emra said, is a national video office will collect programming from satellites, encode it in a digital format, then send it via the fiber optic lines to local offices. Those offices, he said, will also pull local content, including programming from network affiliates, and store it all on servers.
Neighborhood video nodes will collect and disseminate the content via existing copper lines to individual homes. A remote control will request specific content from the server via a set-top box on the television.
"Cable sends all channels to all consumers at all times," and users change frequencies to watch a particular channel, Emra said in explaining the difference. "We're only sending that specific channel you're asking for at that particular moment," which means IPTV can offer more content than cable.
When asked how the service differs from satellite dishes, Emra said users with IP-ready cell phones could program digital video recorders with those phones, or even choose a camera angle from football games, instead of only seeing what a producer chooses to send.
According to Emra, AT&T has committed to carrying public access shows. And within three years of its start, 30 percent of the households served nationally will be low income.
"Monopolists will do anything they can to protect what they have," Emra said, adding he expects the cable companies to appeal the decision.
http://www.connpost.com/business/ci_3912639
Last edited:
Gary, I could see one way to use two inputs. If you're in a DMA that has another DMA nearby, one antenna could be for "local" locals and the other for "distant" locals. I'm sure there are other applications (being between the local towers, for instance) and having to use a splitter shouldn't be that big of a hassle.GaryPen said:
Oh right, like Cable is just going to sit back and let AT&T get away with having different restrictions...
GaryPen said:
Thanks Gary, #3 above explains alot. So my DSL is not going to be used for transport of video, but rather of information that will enhance my video watching experience, ie. super advanced guide, remote scheduling, mixing & matching of media, etc. while mainting the Satty as the transport.
With this revised info I completeley withdraw my earlier remarks
State regulators asked to stay decision on AT&T video plan
(Hartford,CT.-AP, June 13, 2006 Updated 8:09 PM) _ Several cable television companies and the state attorney general asked Connecticut regulators today to stay a decision allowing AT&T to offer video over phone lines without requiring the company to seek a cable franchise.
The companies and Attorney General Richard Blumenthal cited the close vote, pending federal legislation and the possible success of a court challenge.
The companies requesting the stay include Cablevision, Charter Communications and CoxCom. An industry group, the New England Cable and Telecommunications Association, also asked for the stay.
A spokesman for AT&T says the telecommunications firm expected a challenge and looks forward to bringing competition to Connecticut.
A spokeswoman for the DPUC says the agency is reviewing the matter.
http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=5026900
(Hartford,CT.-AP, June 13, 2006 Updated 8:09 PM) _ Several cable television companies and the state attorney general asked Connecticut regulators today to stay a decision allowing AT&T to offer video over phone lines without requiring the company to seek a cable franchise.
The companies and Attorney General Richard Blumenthal cited the close vote, pending federal legislation and the possible success of a court challenge.
The companies requesting the stay include Cablevision, Charter Communications and CoxCom. An industry group, the New England Cable and Telecommunications Association, also asked for the stay.
A spokesman for AT&T says the telecommunications firm expected a challenge and looks forward to bringing competition to Connecticut.
A spokeswoman for the DPUC says the agency is reviewing the matter.
http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=5026900
Hey guys, I just got through speaking with a Dish network installer at his van. It turns out that he and his boss along 3 others from dish installed one of these at a AT&T employee house (good news). The install went well, however, he said after 3 hours he left the place with 5 AT&T guys still trying to get all the bugs worked on on the ethernet side (bad news). My impression from him is that AT&T has their work cut out for them, but they will get it done.
OCNIER,
Yeah, right, that is just Dish trying to downplay something that someone else did. I'm sure they will have a lot of work to do before it is released, but I don't think Dish has a lot of room to talk. With their USB ports that never even got activated, along with NIC's on their VIP receivers that have, so far, not been activated either. I dare Dish to do something different and new for once.
Yeah, right, that is just Dish trying to downplay something that someone else did. I'm sure they will have a lot of work to do before it is released, but I don't think Dish has a lot of room to talk. With their USB ports that never even got activated, along with NIC's on their VIP receivers that have, so far, not been activated either. I dare Dish to do something different and new for once.
You might be right, I can only go off of what the guy could tell me. Anyway, it's still good news on the horizon.
Last edited:
Cool I just might get me one.
Can Dish make the 622 to same as the AT&T HomeZone with software? Does the 622 have a network cable?
Similar threads
