Attorney General Richard Blumenthal today filed an emergency petition asking the Department of Public Utility Control to order AT&T to seek a cable license for its fledgling IPTV service, setting the stage for statewide competition in cable television.

Blumenthal's petition says a recent U.S. District Court ruling that IPTV is cable television nullifies changes to state law weakening regulation of cable television and requires the company to obtain a state franchise for the service.

Because AT&T serves virtually the entire state, the company needs to apply for a statewide license requiring it to eventually provide IPTV service to all households, Blumenthal said. AT&T, which already offers IPTV in a few communities, had wanted to provide the service without state regulation and only in selected areas.

"We are seeking to enforce a new era of cable competition," Blumenthal said. "The first steps are an emergency order that would stop AT&T from constructing new facilities and signing up new customers until it has a franchise.

"We have reached an historic turning point -- a real prospect for lower cable prices and better service -- but only if the DPUC respects the law and orders AT&T to be regulated. The federal court requires AT&T to seek a state franchise, leveling the playing field with its cable competitors. AT&T can no longer cherry-pick the wealthiest and most accessible customers, while denying most consumers the benefits of competition.

"The federal court ruling -- that IPTV is cable and must be licensed and regulated as cable -- should mean real competition. I have asked the DPUC to immediately order that AT&T must have a license for its IPTV service, assuring a competitive market for cable. I urge AT&T to embrace this decision and seek a statewide franchise, a win-win for the company and consumers. The company can expand into the entire state, and consumers will see the benefits of competition.

"This ruling nullifies a recent misguided state statute that eviscerates consumer protections for cable customers. Cable and IPTV operators remain subject to common sense consumer protection and public service requirements," Blumenthal added.

Office of Consumer Counsel Principal Attorney William L. Vallee, Jr. said, "The Office of Consumer Counsel urges the Department of Public Utility Control to order AT&T Connecticut to obtain a cable franchise. AT&T Connecticut should now set aside its focus on litigation and lobbying and instead concentrate on bringing quality and innovative services to the benefit of consumers, earning a profit and filling out its service bundles.

"As the OCC has repeatedly stated, competition in video services remains a goal it advocates and supports in every way. That said, the OCC has never advocated for competition for competition's sake. Only a truly competitive market can drive prices down toward cost, generate great innovations, and force service quality to remain at the highest levels, goals the OCC has long supported through its advocacy on behalf of consumers.

"The recent federal ruling in OCC v. AT&T decisively cut short the miscalculation embarked upon by the 3-to-2 decision reached by the department last summer, and it now remains for the department to quickly rectify the current illegal provision of video services by AT&T Connecticut in Connecticut. It is also vital that the conditions of franchise that emerge are in every way fair to all the players in the video market in this state.

"The federal court's ruling provides a legal foundation for the fact that an unequal playing field for video services is unacceptable and illegal, and that the legal structures already in place in state and federal law demand balance among the service providers."

AT&T argued that IPTV is not cable television under the law, allowing it to skirt federal and state regulation, public programming obligations and the requirement that it be offered to all households within a franchise area. U.S. District Court Judge Janet Bond Arterton rejected that argument, finding that IPTV is in fact cable TV and subject to the same rules and requirements.

The ruling overturned a 3-2 DPUC decision exempting IPTV from state regulation and universal service requirements.

Blumenthal's petition asks the DPUC to order AT&T to stop installing new IPTV facilities and signing up new customers until it has obtained a Connecticut cable television license. His petition also asks DPUC to prohibit AT&T from ceasing service to existing customers during the application process.