Lawmakers Commissioned Report On VRAD Boxes In 2007

In September 2007, the state Office of Legislative Research reacted to requests from legislators and produced a report on the AT&T VRAD boxes. The full report is viewable at www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0553.htm.

Issues noted in the investigation included jurisdiction over the siting of VRAD boxes and the role that municipalities play in their siting, as well as options for the legislature regarding jurisdiction over the siting of VRAD boxes.

The report notes that VRAD boxes are nodes on the telecommunications network where fiber optic lines are connected to the copper wires that serve individual homes and businesses. AT&T is installing these boxes in Connecticut to support its video, voice, and data transmission services.

According to the legislative report, the Department of Public Utility Control (DPUC) has primary jurisdiction over the siting of VRAD boxes since they are used to provide telecommunication services regulated by the department. However, Peter Pescosolido, head of DPUC’s telecommunications unit, suggests that municipalities have some jurisdiction, following the precedent DPUC set in its regulation of customer-owned coin operated telephones (COCOTS, pay phones owned by entities other than telephone companies).

In 1998, DPUC concluded that: “…municipalities possess the ability to control and operate public highways and sidewalks. The Department believes that within this authority, municipalities also have the ability to restrict the placement of pay telephones when it has been satisfactorily demonstrated that public safety has been threatened or negatively affected.

“The Department also believes that prior to restricting the placement of COCOTS, the municipalities must possess documentation that demonstrates that the continued placement of a pay telephone would threaten the public’s safety and welfare. Once sufficiently demonstrated, municipalities may restrict the placement or direct the removal of the pay telephone at the PSP’s [owner’s] expense.

“In all cases the removal and/or restriction of the placement of pay telephones must be conducted on a nondiscriminatory basis (i.e., municipalities may not permit certain classes of competitors to place their telephones in certain areas while denying access to others).”

The report goes on to say that the DPUC believes that the removal and/or restriction of a pay telephone should be employed as a last resort. Pay telephones provide public benefit to transient end users and for certain consumers that do not subscribe to local telephone service. Every effort should be made to ensure end users have access to the public telephone network.

At the time of the report, three cities (Bridgeport, Danbury, and Stamford) have sought a declaratory ruling from DPUC regarding the safety of the VRAD boxes. They also requested that DPUC issue a cease and desist order to AT&T until this issue is resolved. DPUC is currently seeking to mediate the differences between the cities and AT&T.

Among the legislative options, the 2007 report notes the legislature has a range of options regarding who should have jurisdiction over the siting of VRAD boxes. At one end of the spectrum, the legislature could give municipalities sole jurisdiction over siting under zoning law or the municipalities’ general public safety authority.

“This could allow for home rule regarding the siting of the boxes. On the other hand, it could hamper deployment of devices used to expand access to high speed Internet service and to provide a competitor to cable TV services,” the report states.