To The Editor:
Your recent editorial, (“Scrambled Signals,” October 29, 2007), insults the dignity of your readers and drags the journalistic integrity of this publication into the gutter.
In taking its nonsensical position on our U-verse TV service and making ludicrous accusations about the way AT&T conducts business, the Hartford Business Journal shows a hard-to-reconcile bias against local businesses trying to bring new jobs and investing hundreds of millions of dollars in the state.
We’d like to correct the record.
The consumer-friendly new state video competition law, which passed overwhelmingly in the General Assembly over the summer, was not written “almost exclusively to [AT&T’s] benefit,” as your editorial states. Written to mirror rules that are in place in at least 18 other states, this law simply acknowledges that the status quo in Connecticut has not brought any competitors to cable companies since they were given monopolies decades ago.
The law keeps consumer protections in place while ensuring that any company can bring a new offering to this market (including, notably, local cable companies who will be able to compete for the first time against one another). AT&T is simply the first to take the plunge.
Why are consumers behind the new law in droves? According to an FCC study, rates for cable television service have risen 93 percent over 10 years. However, rates in markets where there is a wireline TV competitor have dropped nearly 20 percent.
As always, competition works to benefit the consumer. Because U-verse was available in Connecticut, television viewers began to see the benefits of choice through new services and lower costs. Now that the Connecticut Superior Court ruled in favor of AT&T, we hope these benefits will again become available soon (just recently, Cablevision announced a rate increase of over 4 percent for basic service).
Competitive Issues
The editorial claims that the video law gives new providers an “unfair advantage,” but that’s simply false. First, cable companies command at least an 88 percent share of the market – a pretty big advantage and one that’s kept the monopoly in place to the detriment of consumers. Secondly, and more importantly, the General Assembly chose to apply dozens of consumer protections to the new providers.
The major difference is that new entrants aren’t required to commit to building 100 percent of their market area. But that’s a sensible policy to encourage competition and is consistent with the way our state has long looked at new entrants, including when cable companies entered the voice market to compete with the phone company.
We understand that editorials are opinions. And while we would note that all of the Connecticut editorial boards that have looked at this issue have come out in favor of the new law, a contrarian position has a welcome place in any public issue. What has no place are accusations of bribing or “owning” public officials and omitting or misrepresenting key facts in order to arrive at a different conclusion.
To suggest that AT&T owns elected officials, legislators and judges is unprofessional, unethical and crosses the line. As the premier business publication in the state, the Hartford Business Journal’s words should hold respect and have the power to influence the business community. Following its cheap shots aimed at AT&T, Governor Rell, the General Assembly, Attorney General Blumenthal, and Connecticut consumers, the Hartford Business Journal may well have damaged its reputation and integrity.
Ramona Carlow
Connecticut President
AT&T
New Haven
