Utility Commissioners—

Phone Company Must Seek Local Clearance For VRAD Boxes

By John Voket

Just ten days after Newtown First Selectman Joe Borst issued a memo to AT&T demanding the company halt installation of refrigerator-sized VRAD (video ready access device) boxes from several locations in town, the Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control issued a draft decision that will affect similar installations statewide.

Besides calling for the company to suspend VRAD box installations planned for locations on Boggs Hill Road and Sugar Street, Mr Borst called for the telephone company to furnish the Board of Selectmen with all locations of the boxes already in operation, as well as planned future locations for any of the information delivery terminals.

The proliferation of the boxes throughout the state raised the ire of Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, as well as community leaders throughout the state. As a result of growing concerns, on September 5, Connecticut regulators issued a draft decision that AT&T must get permission from municipalities before putting its large video equipment boxes on utility poles and other properties.

The DPUC’s preliminary ruling resulted from a petition from Bridgeport, Danbury, and Stamford. The cities asked regulators to investigate the safety and location of the telecommunications equipment.

Mr Borst and fellow Republican Selectman Paul Mangiafico were also concerned about reports of fires and explosions possibly tied to batteries within the boxes. But company spokesperson Mary Pat Healy reassured the officials at a recent selectmen’s meeting that suspect batteries had been replaced in all VRAD terminals in Connecticut.

The so-called VRAD cabinets, which house equipment for AT&T’s video U-Verse services and broadband, are about five feet high by four feet wide. Fewer than 8,000 of AT&T’s 800,000 utility poles in Connecticut will be used to mount the equipment, regulators said.

AT&T “should have acted in a more responsible manner” by providing notice to public officials and seeking informed consent from municipalities and neighboring property owners, the state agency said. A final decision is expected September 29.

Adam Cormier, a spokesman for AT&T in New Haven, would not comment specifically on regulators’ criticism of the telecommunications company.

“It’s a draft decision, so we look forward to working with the department and all the parties to bring the docket to a final decision,” he said.

Burt Rosenberg, assistant corporation counsel for Stamford, said the city challenged AT&T because officials demanded to be informed about where the equipment is placed. The boxes, which he said are about the size of small refrigerators, are one foot off the ground and present a hazard to pedestrians, bicyclists, and others, Mr Rosenberg said.

The cities said the boxes should be at least seven feet above the ground, he said. Lawyers for the municipalities cited the federal Americans with Disabilities Act as a basis for the complaint, arguing that blind pedestrians or people who use wheelchairs are particularly at risk.

During her meeting with selectmen in Newtown, Ms Healy explained that the manufacturers of the boxes cited greater safety concerns the higher the boxes were installed on utility poles.

Following the decision by the Department of Public Utility Control, AT&T will inform cities of the location of the VRAD equipment and municipal officials will meet with the telecommunications company to voice objections, Mr Rosenberg said.

The attorney general praised regulators, but said he will ask that AT&T be ordered to seek retroactive permission from municipalities and property owners for video equipment boxes already installed. The draft decision requires the company to seek permission to install boxes if property owners or municipalities had objected, he said.

In a statement, Mr Blumenthal said he saw no reason for the DPUC action to curtail AT&T’s roll-out of the U-verse services.

“There is absolutely no reason that this decision should slow or stop U-verse service statewide,” Mr Blumenthal said. “I welcome U-verse because it should benefit consumers by increasing competition, lowering prices, and providing greater choice.”

Mr Blumenthal also suggested the company should adopt as well the DPUC’s requirement for smaller and fewer boxes, better screening and landscaping, graffiti removal, and other best practices industrywide.

“This contested proceeding and its costs are self-inflicted by the company, as the DPUC correctly comments. My hope is that there now will be collaboration among municipalities and property owners with the company, enabling statewide U-Verse service, and broader consumer benefits,” the Attorney General said.

The issues that concerned Newtown officials and others in Connecticut are not unique. The Associated Press reported recently about similar situations across the country.

David Crommie, who is president of a San Francisco neighborhood group called the Cole Valley Improvement Association, complained after seeing some boxes sprout in town and managed to delay AT&T’s plans to install up to 850 of them. AT&T now is expected to reapply for an exemption to the city’s environmental-review procedures.

“We have nothing against the technology. We just don’t want that delivery system,” Mr Crommie said. “It’s 19th Century packaging for 21st Century technology.”

AT&T’s rival Comcast Corp (CMCSA), the nation’s largest cable company, apparently thought so too. It ran ads in Illinois calling the cabinets “giant utility boxes.” In most locations, U-verse cabinets are four feet tall, four feet wide and two feet deep.

AT&T did not think it was funny and sued Comcast in March for running a “false, deceptive and disparaging advertising campaign.” The companies signed a standstill agreement in May. But Comcast has utility box problems of its own.

Several residents in Lower Makefield Township, Penn., about 30 miles northeast of Philadelphia, got upset when new green boxes from Comcast popped up around town, sometimes between driveways. Township Supervisor Matt Maloney said residents felt Comcast’s boxes were an “intrusion.”

“They’re putting it in without permits,” he said. “It is their contention they are not required to do so. It’s our contention that they are.”

Comcast, which has installed 50 boxes and does not plan to add more, said it is working with the township to resolve these issues. A resolution has yet to come to Geneva, Ill., where Mayor Kevin Burns is furious with AT&T.

A few years ago Geneva passed a 180-day moratorium that effectively stopped installations of AT&T’s U-verse cabinets. The phone company sued Geneva and six other Illinois municipalities for restricting its plans. AT&T claimed it had the right to use public rights of way for its telecom network.

Mr Burns said his city merely wanted some say. “If we were going to have our landscape dotted with refrigerator-size boxes, we should have some control over them,” he said.

Illinois passed a law last year fast-tracking approval for cable rivals to enter the pay-TV market, stripping away much of the clout wielded by municipalities. Geneva dropped a countersuit against AT&T in 2007 and gave permits for installing U-verse boxes in early August.

But all this time, AT&T has maintained its suit against the city. Mr Burns said that “is beyond my comprehension.”

In Springfield, Ill., AT&T has agreed to pay the city $1,500 for each of the 75 to 100 U-verse cabinets it plans to install. The money will be used for landscaping that can make the boxes blend with the environment, said city spokesman Ernie Slottag.

AT&T also recently installed about 120 U-verse boxes in Santa Rosa, Calif., after that city worked with the phone company and Comcast to find locations for their equipment. Eric McHenry, the city’s chief technology officer, said AT&T’s units were trickier to place since they were much larger than Comcast’s boxes.

But while Santa Rosa had limited say on the cabinets — units go into public utility easements and, like Illinois, California had passed a fast-track video franchise law — Mr McHenry said AT&T relocated boxes when requested.

Here in Newtown, Mr Borst is expecting a representative from AT&T to appear before selectmen to detail how the company will move forward locally, and whether or not the company will request permission retroactively regarding all terminals already installed on poles or cement pads in town. That presentation by the telephone company could come as early as Monday, September 15, when selectmen meet at the Booth Library at 7:30 pm.

(The Associated Press contributed to this story.)