Gov. M. Jodi Rell sees improved competition for cable TV business in Connecticut with legislation she has signed, but critics say the new law is a blow to consumers.
Rell signed legislation that establishes regulatory procedures for video service providers to offer cable TV.
The state Department of Public Utility Control last year ruled that AT&T’s video product, which already has installed in nine towns, is a packet of data streamed over a network and is “fundamentally different” from cable TV. The ruling was a blow to cable TV operators who said state regulators freed AT&T from regulations that govern cable TV providers.
Rell said the law will spur competition in the industry and create jobs.
“An injection of healthy competition into this market will benefit consumers in the long run,” she said in a statement. “Competition should result in better service and more reasonable rates, and states that have passed similar bills are measuring the success in thousands of new jobs.”
State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said the law will hurt consumers.
“I am deeply disappointed by this legislation, which exacerbates an already egregious imbalance against consumers in the current cable playing field,” he said in a statement. “It fails to ensure meaningful competition that benefits all consumers as I have long advocated.”
Blumenthal also said it does not establish clear standards for service quality, resolution of billing disputes and other consumer issues that comprise most of the complaints his office receives.
OCC Objects
The state Office of Consumer Counsel, which sued in federal court last year to overturn the decision by state regulators, lobbied against the legislation as it moved through the General Assembly earlier this year.
Cable companies have abided by state law for 30 years and the legislation allows lower expenses to be paid by AT&T, “thus skewing the economics of the market in their favor,” the OCC said in a statement Thursday.
Seth Bloom, a spokesman for AT&T, said the new law does not let AT&T pay lower costs or taxes than those charged to cable TV companies.
“I just don’t get it,” he said of the criticism.
Bill Vallée, principal attorney for the consumer counsel’s office, said a decision is expected soon in the federal lawsuit.
A spokesman for the New England Cable & Telecommunications Association Inc., which battled AT&T, did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
The new law requires video service providers to be certified by the Department of Public Utility Control, the governor’s office said. Video providers also are now subject to most of the service and state tax requirements placed on cable companies, including community access and customer information standards, Rell said.
The law changes little for AT&T, which offers the video product in more than a dozen other states.
“It gives us the certainty we need to keep building and giving consumers a choice,” said John Emra, a spokesman for AT&T.
Following the decision by regulators, AT&T launched its TV service in nine towns in January and offers the service in parts of 20 towns. Its investment in Connecticut over three years will be about $336 million.
AT&T offers several packages of more than 100 channels or more than 400 channels ranging in price from between $44 a month to $129 a month.
