In an attempt to gain open access to cable networks, a group of Los Angeles
consumers has filed a nationwide class action lawsuit against AT&T Corp., Time Warner
Cable and other leading cable companies seeking injunctive relief and
The lawsuit alleges the defendants have harmed more than 500,000
consumers by depriving them of the right to choose their high-speed
Internet service provider and forcing them to either purchase Internet
services they do not want or pay much more than a competitive market would
Susman Godfrey LLP, filed the class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Western
Division in Los Angeles on behalf the consumers.
Parker C. Folse, III, Susman Godfrey partner in the Seattle office and lead
counsel for plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said consumers want to choose their
provider for high-speed Internet services.
“Consumers who access the Internet using ‘Plain Old Telephone Service’
(POTS) have a wide range of choices and the benefits of competitive
pricing,” Folse said.
“But experts, educators and futurists are all telling us that high-speed,
broadband Internet service is our future, and in that market, AT&T (T),
Time Warner (TWX)
and the other cable companies are telling us we have only one choice in the
communities they serve,” he added.
Other cable companies named in the lawsuit include Arahova Communications, Inc., Cox Communications, Inc. (COX),
Comcast Corp. (CMCSA), a> Cablevision Systems Corp. (CVC),
Jones Intercable, Inc. (JOIN), Tele-Communications, Inc. (TCOMP),< /a>
MediaOne Group ( UMG).
This lawsuit contends that basic antitrust law gives consumers the right to
choose their own ISPs. The suit is similar to the claim filed by GTE Corp. in Pittsburgh in October, but also seeks to
create new laws regulating broadband access in the U.S.
Folse said anti-trust laws provide for competition and consumer choice
provisions that are fundamental to the free-enterprise system.
“We believe that, under established principles of antitrust law, what many
cable companies have been doing is illegal, anti-competitive, and
anti-consumer,” Folse said. “The complaint we have filed contends that the
cable companies named as defendants are preventing the growing number of
consumers who want high-speed Internet access from enjoying the full
benefits a competitive market would bring.”
The lawsuit does not specify a dollar amount for damages, but it does
challenge current cable practices nationwide.
Currently, Internet users can continue to use their present ISP after they
subscribe to a new high-speed provider through a cable company. However,
they are required to pay for both, and to use the cable-provided @Home or RoadRunner services to accesstheir
The Federal Communications Commission
continues to maintain its hands-off approach to the open access issue. But
mounting pressure from current court cases in Portland, Ore., Pittsburgh
and not Los Angeles may force the federal regulatory commission into action.
Debra Lathen, FCC cable bureau chief, confirmed this week that the FCC’s
position on open access is one of “vigilant restraint,” during a recent
Town Hall meeting in Los Angeles.
Lathen said that the FCC has decided not to mandate open access to
broadband networks in order to get the high-speed technology deployed as
quickly as possible.
However, Lathen said that if the FCC sees a monopoly developing, or if
consumers are denied choice in the marketplace, or the FCC believes that a
closed system is being built, their position might change.