|
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.
Copyright
© 2007, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.
return
to bulletins main page |
