Much Needed Competition

For Charter

To the Editor:

In the May 1 edition of The Bee, Russell Anderson aimed, in my view, a correct criticism of Mr Borst and Mr Mangiafico. [Letter Hive, “The Selectmen Have Blown It.”] His criticism centered on how the AT&T VRAD box installations have been mismanaged. The Board of Selectman, as evidenced by the spring 2008 Bee front page picture of Mr Mangiafico standing next to a VRAD box across from the middle school, related articles and subsequent actions, have short circuited and delayed the implementation of a viable technological option for their Newtown constituents. We are still waiting for the U-Verse option. This option must be permitted in order to allow for appropriated and needed competition and to eliminate the cable monopoly in Newtown. We are already seeing more attractive pricing options and increased programming services from Charter (even in bankruptcy) as they aggressively tool-up for competition. More additional consumer benefits are likely once the stranglehold on U-Verse is lifted by Newtown officials.

Below I have included part of my letter to The Bee of August 24, 2008, which addressed, in part, the need to eliminate the cable monopoly and quoted Attorney General Blumenthal’s response to me regarding the cable monopoly.

Excerpt from August 24, 2008 letter:

While it is absolutely appropriate to examine all safety related issues pursuant to the VRAD Box installations by AT&T in Newtown, it would be inappropriate to place unnecessary roadblocks in the path of this project. Communications in today’s world are complicated and the monopoly of cable companies needs to be eliminated.

In response to my inquiry to him regarding lack of appropriate channel offerings from Charter Communications, Attorney General Blumenthal (in a response dated June 2, 2008) indicated the following:

Unfortunately, a federal law enacted by Congress in 1992 deprived states of all power to protect consumers from abuses in the cable industry’s programming and pricing policies.

Attorney General Blumenthal went on to add in his response:

As a result of this federal law, cable subscribers have been subjected to a constant stream of rate increases, without corresponding improvements in consumer choices and services. Indeed, a recent report of the Federal Communications Commission showed that prices for both cable programming and equipment increased at a rate of 7.5 percent annually, twice the rate of inflation. Unfortunately, the cable companies in Connecticut face little competition. Unless Congress recognizes the facts and changes the law, neither I nor any other state official can act to protect consumers.

AT&T’s U-Verse would provide much needed competition and an alternative to cable TV and cable Internet service as offered by Charter.

The items I mentioned in August of 2008 remain pertinent today!

Sincerely,

Richard English

3 Curry Drive, Newtown                                                      May 1, 2009