by: Tom Corelis
Competing providers square off in a court of law after private talks fail
vs 
Comcast and AT&T squared off in court last week, with Comcast alleging that AT&T’s U-verse service is so poorly installed that it interferes with Comcast signals inside of customers’ homes. Both companies use copper coaxial cable for service installations, and Comcast alleges that around 20,000 homes are affected in the Chicago area, with customers seeing outages and service disruptions.
AT&T says the case lacks merit, and that it intends to “vigorously” fight it. “[We are] pleased to bring Illinois consumers a new choice for video services,” said an AT&T spokesperson, “[We] will oppose Comcast's efforts to thwart that.”
Customers affected by the glitch suffer service degradation, including reduced internet speeds.
Quite often, customers will cherry-pick services from both providers: a customer might choose to have internet and phone service from AT&T, for example, but purchase television service from Comcast. However, Comcast claims that AT&T’s U-verse installations don’t affect individual customers – but rather every customer sharing the same service node.
After private discussions failed – AT&T denied any wrongdoing throughout talks – Comcast chose to obtain a temporary restraining order against its rival.
“Comcast is disappointed in AT&T’s lack of responsiveness in addressing the damages they are causing our customers in the Chicago area,” said a Comcast representative. “AT&T has been aware of this problem for more than a year and yet they have been unresponsive and have no sense of urgency in addressing or fixing it. AT&T should act like a good corporate citizen and work with Comcast to resolve this privately.”
Ars Technica reports incidents of AT&T’s U-verse service interfering with other providers, too: anecdotal reports from Time Warner users indicate similar glitches, and those customers are “seeking further information from Time Warner on the issue.”
Between AT&T, the FCC, and a simmering customer base, Comcast certainly has its hands full – however some of that vitriol may subside as the company phases out its heavily-criticized policy of “data discrimination.”
