Communications Advisory Bulletin
Federal District Court Declares AT&T U-Verse
to be Cable Service and Cable System
By Paul
Glist and T.
Scott Thompson
[July 2007]
On July 26, 2007, the United States District Court in Connecticut
rejected the claim of AT&T and the Connecticut Department of
Public Utility Control (DPUC) that AT&T’s “U-verse”
system was not a cable system delivering cable services. Office
of Consumer Counsel and New England Cable and Telecommunications
Association v. Southern New England Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T
Connecticut, Inc. and Department of Public Utility Control of the
State of Connecticut, Case No. 3:06cv1106 (JBA) (D. Conn.,
July 26, 2007).
AT&T has sought to treat its Internet Protocol Television (IPTV)
system as exempt from traditional cable franchising, based upon
the underlying technological architecture. Reversing last years’
Connecticut DPUC ruling that exempted AT&T as not “cable,”
the court ruled that AT&T had structured its offering to include
prescheduled “linear” channels (e.g., ABC) and other
channels offered to all subscribers in tiers selected by AT&T,
which met applicable federal definitions of cable. It rejected claims
that AT&T’s offering was akin to video streaming over
the public Internet, individually tailored programming, “interactive
on-demand” services or information services. It also rejected
claims of deference owed to the DPUC. The court ruled: “the
subscriber interaction involved in AT&T’s video programming
service is the same as that involved in traditional CATV programming.”
It therefore held the DPUC decision preempted by federal law.
Davis Wright Tremaine represented the New England Cable and Telecommunications
Association in this precedent-setting decision.
For more information, please contact:
This advisory is a publication of the Communications Group of Davis
Wright Tremaine LLP. Our purpose in publishing this advisory is
to inform our clients and friends of recent developments in the
communications industry. It is not intended, nor should it be used,
as a substitute for specific legal advice as legal counsel may be
given only in response to inquiries regarding particular situations.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Thank you.
Copyright
© 2007, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.
return
to bulletins main page
|
