One week after Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal called on state regulators to subject AT&T’s U-Verse IPTV service to state franchising, AT&T filed a petition seeking reconsideration of a federal district court ruling, handed down last month, that classified AT&T’s U-Verse service as a cable service under the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984. On July 26, U.S. District Court Judge Janet Bond Arterton overturned a 2006 decision of the Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control (CDPUC) that allowed AT&T to offer IPTV services to Connecticut customers without being subject to cable franchise requirements. Focusing on the amount of subscriber interactivity involved in AT&T’s video service, Arterton concluded that the two-way transmission of data between subscriber set-top boxes and the AT&T network does not place U-Verse outside the statutory definition of cable service that refers to the transmission of video services to subscribers on a one-way basis. In documents filed with the court, AT&T charged Arterton with overlooking settled precedent and with disregarding the FCC’s definition of cable service, in which “the FCC has interpreted the one-way transmission clause . . . to include only those services in which the same package or packages of video programming are transmitted to all subscribers all the time, as is the case with traditional service, but not with AT&T’s U-Verse TV service.” Arguing that the court erred in determining that interactivity must be visible to the subscriber to qualify as “interactivity” under the Cable Act, AT&T added: “such a principle would mean that many Internet users could fall within the definition of a cable service because many Internet users are not always, or necessarily, aware of the two-way interactions between their computers and servers underlying various Internet functionalities.”