Utility Commissioners Rule—

 AT&T Must Get Consent On VRAD Installations

By John Voket

In a decision rendered September 30, the Department of Public Utility Control determined that that the siting of a video ready access device (VRAD cabinets) and other utility distribution equipment in the public rights of way and on privately held land requires the prior notice and consent of adjoining proprietors and municipalities prior to installations.

While the issue of citing the terminals, and related safety issues, have been a concern to Newtown’s Board of Selectmen for nearly two months, the DPUC’s review resulted from a petition filed by the Cities of Bridgeport, Danbury, and Stamford to investigate the safety and siting of telecommunications equipment.

The VRAD cabinets house the equipment necessary to provide video U-verse services. The decision notes that the majority of AT&T’s VRAD are utility pole-mounted and range in size from 43.5” wide, 20.8” deep and 63” high; 43.5” wide, 20.8” deep and 48” high; and 48” wide, 26” deep and 49.5” high. AT&T currently owns approximately 800,000 utility poles throughout the state; fewer than one percent will have VRAD cabinets mounted on them.

Further, AT&T cannot place the cabinets higher than they are because they are already at the height recommended by the manufacturer.

Anthony Palermino, lead commissioner for this matter, noted that, “This has been an arduous process in which the department sought to balance all parties’ and the public’s interests while encouraging a competitive video service environment.

“Siting VRAD cabinets in the public rights of way requires notice and consent of adjoining proprietors and municipal officials prior to installation to meet statutory requirements and to protect public safety,” Commissioner Palermino said. “The DPUC expects the company to meet the aforementioned objectives in arranging for siting its equipment and employ its best practices policy to the sitings.”

The department concluded that AT&T should have acted in a more responsible manner by providing full and complete notice to the public officials and requested informed consent from adjoining proprietors prior to the placement of its facilities. By providing detailed information to the affected adjoining proprietors, state and local officials and entities, before facility installations, the company would have received greater feedback and acceptance of the VRAD cabinets.

In the decision AT&T is ordered to:

1. Establish a formal working group to resolve any other outstanding issues or disagreements with municipalities affected relative to the application of municipal guidelines.

2. File quarterly reports detailing adjoining proprietor owners’ consent including the number of notices sent, the number of objections received, and a description of the company’s response to resolve those disputes.

3. Report any safety issues or concerns occurring in Connecticut or in other states relative to the VRAD cabinets.

4. Adopt “best practices” by the company’s affiliates in other states that could enhance the VRAD installation in Connecticut, and

5. Provide to the respective municipalities specific locations, including utility pole numbers and street addresses, for the proposed VRAD cabinet installations.

Finally, the department will entertain requests from adjoining property owners objecting to existing VRAD cabinets or those about to be placed by AT&T. In those cases, objecting property owners, after unsuccessfully negotiating with AT&T, will be permitted to present evidence and offer argument as to why the project should not go forward as proposed or why the existing VRAD cabinet should be removed.

The department expects to intervene on these matters only as a last resort after all other options have been exhausted and when all reasonable attempts to secure the property owner’s consent have failed.

The decision was well-received by Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal.

“I am pleased that the DPUC — as I urged — changed its draft decision to assure virtually all consumers now can challenge placement of VRAD boxes even if they’ve already been installed,” Mr Blumenthal said in a statement. “The final decision reaffirms legal rights of all consumers to dispute placement of these refrigerator-sized boxes — which AT&T illegally ignored. This ruling is a victory for consumers, forcing AT&T to follow the law and assuring their right to dispute installation of utility equipment. This right belongs to everyone, not just property owners who complained previously.”

The attorney general said the only omission in the DPUC decision is that no notice to property owners is required for previous placements, which makes consumer education and awareness all the more urgent. “Consumers have 30 days to object, so time is important,” Mr Blumenthal said. “Municipalities should act promptly as well if they have public safety concerns.”

Mr Blumenthal assured consumers who are looking for competitive choice when it comes to subscription television delivery that the DPUC decision should not “slow or stop U-verse service statewide. I welcome U-verse because it should benefit consumers by increasing competition, lowering prices and providing greater choice.”

At a local Board of Selectmen meeting September 15, AT&T representatives were told they could not install any new terminals in Newtown without meeting with the town engineer or his designee, to review and receive municipal clearance on potential siting locations.

Selectmen Paul Mangiafico and Herb Rosenthal both pointed to a VRAD terminal adjacent to the Newtown Middle School on Queen Street, that extends partially over the sidewalk, as an example of short-sighted installations. A company representative who appeared at the September 15 selectmen’s meeting outlined an upgraded criteria the company would employ moving forward that not only included consulting with town officials on all future installation plans, but ways in which they would solicit input of property owners who live in immediate proximity to proposed installation sites.