You asked for background information on a telecommunications technology called video ready access devices (VRAD). You wanted to know who has jurisdiction over the siting of VRAD boxes and the role that municipalities play in their siting. You also requested options for the legislature regarding jurisdiction over the siting of VRAD boxes.

SITING VRAD BOXES

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. Typically the boxes are installed on telephone poles. AT&T anticipates installing several hundred boxes in the state.

It appears that 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 Department believes however, 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.

DPUC docket 94-05-07 (May 20, 1998), p. 6

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. Correspondence in this proceeding (docket 07-03-34) is available on the following webpage

http: //www. dpuc. state. ct. us/dockcurr. nsf/Web+Main+View/Search+Telcom?OpenView&StartKey=07-03-34

LEGISLATIVE OPTIONS

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 legislature could make the boxes subject to the provisions of CGS § 16-235. This provision gives municipalities initial jurisdiction over certain utility facilities such as water tanks. But local land use agencies must make their decisions within 30 days of a utility's application. The utility can appeal the decision to the DPUC. This approach would allow for shared local and state jurisdiction over the boxes, although it has been used infrequently in the past because it applies to a limited range of utility facilities.

Another approach would be to give the Siting Council jurisdiction over the boxes' siting, as it has over cell phone and certain other telecommunications towers. By law, at least 60 days before an application is filed with the council, the applicant must consult with the municipality where the facility would be located. The applicant must provide the municipality's chief elected official with any technical reports it has on the need for the facility, the site selection process, and the facility's environmental impacts. The municipality can hold meetings and hearings as it considers necessary. The municipality is entitled to participate as a party in the council's proceedings and can appeal its decision. In the case of telecommunications towers, PA 07-222 requires the council to request the proposed host municipality to provide its location preferences and siting criteria within 30 days after the application is filed. The council must consider these preferences and criteria. While this approach would give municipalities input in the siting process, it is unclear to what extent VRAD boxes can be relocated and still provide reliable service.

Finally, the legislature could give DPUC sole jurisdiction over the boxes, but require it to consult with the municipality and require the siting to meet specified criteria. For example, the criteria could discourage siting boxes in historic districts or near schools. The legislature could specify the criteria in statute, or require DPUC in consultation with municipalities and other interested parties to adopt regulations on this issue.

KM: ts