The companies announced a 48 billion dollar merger in the summer of 1998. TCI (Tele-Communications, Inc. http://www.tci.com) is the second largest cable television provider in the United States. AT&T (http://www.att.com) is a world leader in the telephone business even after losing its local telephone subsidiaries in the last blockbuster anti-trust case. Some readers may remember when AT&T was the parent corporation for the regional Bell telephone companies-including Southwestern Bell (http://www.sbc.com). Southwestern Bell is now known as SBC Communications, Inc. and is headquartered here in San Antonio. 

So why would AT&T buy TCI? It wants to get back into providing local phone service. It can either install thousands of miles of wire into homes and businesses around America or it can find someone who has already done that job. Enter TCI. It has cable connections to more than 14 million customers in North America according to the annual report posted on its website. Buy merging with TCI, the new AT&T telephone service could piggyback on the cable service. AT&T would not have to lay any new wire. 

A brief explanation of the jargon may help. The available capacity to transmit messages over each connection is referred to as "bandwidth." Some connections, like the old string tied between two tin cans, have very low bandwidth. It could only carry one conversation at a time. And, only one person could talk. Quality was not good. Other systems have very, very high capacity. Fiber optic cable connections are loaded with bandwidth. Enough bandwidth to add telephone service without interfering with the nightly news on the television. 

 You might ask why a Computer Law article is full of this information. TCI is a major internet service provider through the @Home By TCI.NET division. Cable modems provide very high speed connections. Is the AT&T merger with TCI in the public interest? That question and some others are being debated before the Federal Communications Commission and some city councils. Although the merger would increase competition for telephone service it may kill competition for internet service. Will customers still sign up for internet service from a traditional ISP over the current telephone wire at a maximum speed of 56k? Ok, I know it is really only about 53k and that there are ways of combining two modems. 

Further, how can the ISPs even connect the customer if the consumer terminates the "plain ol' telephone" line (POTS in the lingo) in favor of telephone service carried over the high speed cable connection? It can't. Not unless the cable company is required to open its lines to use by its own competitors. Does some of this sound familiar? 

Although federal legislation has almost relieved local government entities of any control over cable television rates, the cities still control access to streets and public rights of way. In San Antonio CPS, SAWS, Paragon Cable and SBC hold these types franchise agreements. 

The right to use the streets then becomes a very valuable bargaining chip at the local level. AT&T won't be able to get into the homes without using the streets. That is how Portland, Oregon and Oakland, California got involved. The various local governments must approve the assignment of TCI's franchise agreements to AT&T. The "franchise" is the contractual permission to use the public right of way. Generally, a clause in the agreement restricts the privilege to the particular holder. Any transfer to a new operator requires approval by the city. Consumer advocates in some of those areas have opposed the assignment of the franchise unless AT&T agrees to open the cable to competing ISP's. Portland voted to deny consent to the assignment in early January. C|net reported the story on January 5, 1999 at http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,30508,00.html?st.ne.ni.rel. C\net also indicates that similar decisions are pending in Dallas and Denver. 

Law Site of the Month: February 1999 

 The two institutions are experimenting with combining new technology with important aspects of the practice of law and of government. The use of professional mediators that will conduct on-line "hearings" and render a decision within seventy-two hours is intriguing. Before you get too excited you should understand the service is limited to certain subject mater-such as disputes involving "users of on-line systems; Those who claim to be harmed by wrongful messages; and system operators (to the extent that complaints or demands for remedies are directed at the System Operator)." 

It may be a while before child support or bad debt cases are handled electronically, but things are happening faster than many of us ever envisioned. When I started practice nineteen years ago virtually all legal documents were prepared on a typewriter. At that time it was not an electric typewriter in some offices! I still remember a salesman trying to convince me to buy a magnetic card reader rather than an IBM Selectric typewriter even though the difference was more than ten thousand dollars.