New Haven Independent

Posted by: Cap Coleman | October 18, 2007 8:17 PM

This is what happens when the government interferes with a free market by strangling businesses and the public with regulations, to be administered by bureaucrats, exploited by lawyer-politicians like Blumenthal and "interpreted" by federal judges after suffocating litigation. The result: an innovative company is prevented from delivering a desired product to a willing public. Only a liberal democrat can screw up the opportunity for new ideas, new products and new jobs under the guise of the collective interest. Blumenthal fits the ... mold. Unless "everyone" can have a product, no one can have it.

Posted by: Wellstone13 | October 18, 2007 9:36 PM

So, from AT&T, unlicensed mega-corporate telecommunications, or forget it? Have they made an argument why getting a license is prohibitive? I would LOVE to have every home in Connecticut to have ATT TV as an alternative to Cable, but I have no problem with them being licensed and regulated by the State. AND, as a consumer, I feel that the licensed/regulated product would be more comparable, and more easily compared (for example, inclusion of community access channels) and therefore be pushed to compete not on newness and marketing pizzazz, but on price and service reliability with the Cable companies. If ATT TV gets all funky and full of different types of audio/visual experiences than Cable, well, that's ok, but it is not a competing service.

Thanks for pointing out to us, NHI, that ATT's Connecticut chief is willing to air dirty laundry and allow that ruling to embitter their receipt of an award. At least they showed. The importance they place on this makes one thing obvious, they expect to make tons of profit off TV.

Posted by: on whalley | October 19, 2007 9:33 AM

I don't get why every little thing in our lives has to be regulated by government. If somebody comes along and offers a product I want why shouldn't I be able to get it?

If AT&T can charge me less by not supplying all of these "public access" channels (lord knows how I love watching nation of Islam preachers and dancing middle-aged neo-hippys) then great!

I don't want to see it and I certainly don't want to pay for it. I bet it's government regulation that keeps providers from offering ala-carte channel subscription because government dictates to us what we all NEED to have access to.

From local regulatory commissions to the FCC you guys better take a lesson from 1775 and stop butting in.

Posted by: Cap Coleman | October 19, 2007 2:37 PM

It is obvious that "Wellstone13" has little knowledge of franchise v. license. It is also obvious that he has a socialist-fueled grudge against a company making money and consumers who wish to buy from that company enjoying their purchased product without interference by collectivists. Does he also have a grudge against the "workers" (whom left wingers love to exalt) who will lose out on jobs because of an AG and a federal judge who enjoy their entrenched jobs?

Posted by: bugupit | October 19, 2007 6:41 PM

"I bet it's government regulation that keeps providers from offering ala-carte channel subscription because government dictates to us what we all NEED to have access to."

Anybody know the answer?

Posted by: Wellstone13 | October 19, 2007 6:57 PM

Capper: Franchise? License? Ya got me! No clue. But I suspect I am far from alone on that.
So let me ask you this...if

"The regulators on Monday ordered AT&T to get a cable television license for the Internet protocol-based TV service it is currently providing in Connecticut.
Commissioners unanimously rejected the company's application for a "video franchise" certificate, which state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said would have allowed AT&T to run "U-verse" under regulations that are less strict than those for cable television. The DPUC ordered AT&T to apply for a cable TV license no later than Dec. 31.""

Why is Blumethal catching heat?

It's not a lack of caring for jobs. I simply don't believe AT&T's blackmailing threats to lay off 1300 if the State requires a "franclice". I suspect CT household net worth will keep them around for a while, trying to pull this off. Of course I care about the workers. I was there with SNET when they began their fibre optic network and talked about TV like services in the future. But like many of us, I also so the select wealthy communities in which they chose to pilot the service (SNET) and saw that service get shut down in Connecticut in an SBC corporate board room profit driven decision. So, I take their return to CT with a skepticism and a sense that ATT needs to buid community bridgees.

ATT says its service is IP, Internet Protocol, and therefore somehow different from cable. When Comcast installed my digital, what I observed was an IP driven system. That indicates to me how Comcast can so easily provide Internet service, and why my Comcast blips out much like my (formerly) SNET DSL Internet.

Posted by: FThat | October 19, 2007 10:01 PM

first, coleman's rhetorical points about wellstone's grudges are lost on me, if not EVERYBODY. further, coleman, why imply that franchise v. license is relevant without offering any explicit reasoning? sayin' it just to hate? ran out of gas on that one? probably.

regarding regulation: i like how my utilities and drinking water and trash removal, food and drugs, transit, schools and businesses (all shared resources) are regulated, i mean "governed." don't you? what sort of privatized adam smith anarchy are you preaching? since you're on a hippy-hating role, you might as well ante up some more rhetoric and dispel "our" delusions with your limbaugh-educated rightness.

anyway, why do people have to pay for television like it's another utility if they already buy the garbage that gets advertised on it?

i might just watch free tv if at&t could innovate something like that. go at&t! go get a cable license!

Posted by: king james v | October 20, 2007 9:31 PM

AT & T fought against trying to provide federally and state mandated public access. For those of you who are television ingnorant, there are only a few television news sources (lots of channels, but the same news sources) left. And there are no other local stations that serve New Haven like Citizens Television, who along with the new haven independent and the grand news are the only true alternative, local media sources left here. So don't feel bad for AT&T, besides in five years they'll have merged with starbucks, wallgreens and toyota to run everyting anyway.
Think globally, stay locally informed.

Posted by: on whalley | October 22, 2007 8:36 AM

"regarding regulation: i like how my utilities and drinking water and trash removal, food and drugs, transit, schools and businesses (all shared resources) are regulated, i mean "governed." don't you?"

Nope. I don't. And last time I checked Limbaugh was just another big government shill pushing for globalism disguised as a conservative.

Posted by: eli | October 22, 2007 2:05 PM

On Whalley, you used to be smart. Yes there are dancing hippies angry muslims, christians and "none of the aboves" on YOUR public access station. But there is the CHANCE for any and all of our local citizens to voice their opinions, report the unreported, focus on thier schools, churches, temples, .... whaterver. You cannot do this on channel 8, you cannot write this in the new haven register. The regulations that keep at & t in check help insure our first amendment rights to voice our opinion by puttion on a television program (no charge by hte way) and keep the big media boys honest to some degree. do i like the programs on CTV, not a lot of them, but defending the right to free speach is defending not what you like and agree with, rather it is defending the right for otheres to air what you disagree with and sometimes find offensive. Much like this cyber paper / blog, whatever we're calling it.
King James V is correct that our voices are not shared by the big six media outlets, and AT & T has skirted the laws. comcast sucks, absolutely, but they are playing by the law.

Posted by: on whalley | October 23, 2007 8:16 AM

Sure Eli but no where does the right to free speech indicate I have an obligation to pay for it. Maybe before the internet was available in every coffee house, library and home I'd concede you have a point but even then there were pirate radio transmitters and anyone could publish and distribute their own work.

This fees tucked away in my cable bill, phone bill, cell bill and internet bill are all ridiculous. It's not my responsibility to feed, house, clothe or provide a place to broadcast oneself for anyone I don't want to. That would be Socialism.

Give me some papers to sign so I can opt out of every modern luxury for absolute tax freedom not resulting in imprisonment or death and I'll take it. Until then I don't think it is too much to ask for ala carte cable service and not to be responsible for giving fanatics a place to preach and hippies a place to dance.

Look, here's your precious CTV news without the CTV http://democracynow.org/

It's magic!! Run to one of the half dozen library branches or 5 colleges if you don't have a computer or internet access. There is no iron wall keeping information from people. I shouldn't have to pay to open the imaginary window.

Posted by: eli | October 23, 2007 11:32 AM

Whalley, the Sixty Eight Cents ($0.68) a month you pay for public access is well spent. If you don't like it, get a set of rabbit ears or get dish network and don't watch locally produced content, but tell me what other television source dissementates local activities and culture like CTV does?
Democracy now is a good source of alternative media (which CTV airs three times a day) but it is biased, and folks who disagree with what it reports, or what the angry clergyfolks preach, have the option to produce their own program to express their opionon, much like this blog does. Are you against new haveners having the right and facility to produce their own tv shows for the wicked sum of sixty eight cents? do you think all people with strong opinioins you disagree with should be banned from getting their opinion out? Does china or north korea have public access? There are plenty of sources for knowledge & free speech, that doesn't mean we should limit them. I don't honestly think you realize the true importance of the abiltiy to freely express ourselves. Enjoy Sean Hannity & WELI. I'll be enjoying my $12 a month cable (it's called life line cable and Comcast hates to provide it because they don't make $$ on it, but it's been REGULATED by the DPUC - regulations again - to be available) and continue supporting public access, even if it does cost me less then the price of a new haven register each month for the right to do so.

Posted by: westvillecharlie | October 24, 2007 9:25 PM

Where was blumenthal when stop & shop laid off 800+ workers in north haven? at & t is going to find some way to lay them off.
if at&t wants to provide television service, and they use public byways (telephone poles on our streets, cables under our ground) then they need to be subject to the same rules as the cable television providers. in turn, the cable tv providers should be held responsible for the same terms as the phone companies if they want to provide phone service.
Also, onwhalley - don't get the cable tv if you are so upset your pocket change is being used to support both free speech and local television. why are you NOT complaining about the $58++ they charge in the first place for basic cable, or that you can't get hbo or pay per view on analog anymore. Leave CTV alone, don't bother with local events and happenings, the rest of us will support it for what it is. And by the way, not only do i dont complain about my seventy cents a month, i have actually dontated more money to them because unlike our big station, chanel 8, CTV actually covers things that happen around me.

Posted by: on whalley | October 25, 2007 9:11 AM

How by any stretch of the imagination would not charging me $.68 BAN anyone's ideas or ability to speak on them? What I said remains true. There are no magic information barriers in todays world. The information is out there for everyone even if CTV goes away. Frankly CTV has very little if any information at all being broadcast.

I've been home with the flu the past day and a half and have enjoyed the non-stop NASA channel and the Pentagon channel on CTV. Is that the local information everyone loves? Or is it the non-stop rerunning of the 2005 Marrakesh Halloween Dance Party that everyone loves?

It's absolutely worthless. I'd love to drop down to the cheap service but I can't get the History Channel with it. The cheap service, which they apparently do not profit from and which is regulated by DPUC (does that mean DPUC has decided for you what information you need to have access to?) is the worst collection of channels imaginable. Why not make it ala cart? For the same $12 you're spending you get a few channels you'd actually watch rather than 3 UPN stations and 2 Fox channels giving you five chances to watch the same program. If you don't wish to spend the $60 or so a month for the whole package an ala cart selection would work in your favor. It's a better thing for those on tighter budgets. If you can make wild and crazy conclusions about killing CTV leading to a North Korean dictatorship than I can say that if you oppose deregulation in favor or ala carte subscriptions than you must hate poor people. Cant I? It's just as stupid.

Posted by: sharonb | October 25, 2007 11:31 AM

Why are the proponents of local media and free speech wasting their time with this onwhalley person. Some people choose to be thickheaded. I am suprised however that someone who is smart enough to appreciate the n.h. independent is so negative towards local television, but that's how people are i guess.
I myself support if not the specific programs on CTV, the concept of the freedom and ability to choose to create my own television program as a vehicle to express myself, just as i am doing right now by entering this comment. I think this is the point mr. or ms. onwhalley is missing. By the way, i would like to see the n.h. independent widen it's "v-log" to actually air on CTV, or whnu or somewhere of the like.
Thank you for the oppurtunity to express myslef nh.independent.