NewsBot
June 2nd, 2008, 08:50 PM
http://i.dslr.net/urls/90/13290.gif (http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Will-Get-CT-Customer-Consent-Before-Deploying-VRADs-94935)
Last week Connecticut's DPUC ruled (http://www.pokecommunity.com/shownews/94782) that from now on, AT&T must get the approval of landowners and municipalities before it plunks down a controversial VRAD near (or on (http://www.pokecommunity.com/shownews/93381)) a CT resident's lawn. The fixtures, required for AT&T to offer VDSL & IPTV, have angered home owners in several states who say they erode property values. For its part, AT&T today issued a statement (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/06-02-2008/0004824438&EDATE=) saying they'd comply with the ruling, though they claim they were already informing landowners before installing the boxes. Says the phone giant:Even though such notification was not a requirement based on prior DPUC rulings, we did so anyway because we thought it was the right thing to do.
Aren't you sweet! The problem is that Connecticut law requires that utilities cannot place hardware on (or under) public property without the consent of abutting property owners and municipalities. Connecticut's Attorney General has stated (http://www.stamfordplus.com/stm/information/nws1/publish/News_1/Blumenthal_praises_decision_against_AT_T2446.shtml) the boxes were being installed without landowner consent or warning.
If you sense a little sexual bureaucratic telecom-related tension, Connecticut has had problems with AT&T blocking competitor access to utility poles (http://www.pokecommunity.com/shownews/92013), and AT&T recently ran over the State DPUC (http://www.pokecommunity.com/shownews/89043) when initially lobbying State lawmakers for favorable U-Verse legislation.
read comment(s) (http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Will-Get-CT-Customer-Consent-Before-Deploying-VRADs-94935)
More...
Last week Connecticut's DPUC ruled (http://www.pokecommunity.com/shownews/94782) that from now on, AT&T must get the approval of landowners and municipalities before it plunks down a controversial VRAD near (or on (http://www.pokecommunity.com/shownews/93381)) a CT resident's lawn. The fixtures, required for AT&T to offer VDSL & IPTV, have angered home owners in several states who say they erode property values. For its part, AT&T today issued a statement (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/06-02-2008/0004824438&EDATE=) saying they'd comply with the ruling, though they claim they were already informing landowners before installing the boxes. Says the phone giant:Even though such notification was not a requirement based on prior DPUC rulings, we did so anyway because we thought it was the right thing to do.
Aren't you sweet! The problem is that Connecticut law requires that utilities cannot place hardware on (or under) public property without the consent of abutting property owners and municipalities. Connecticut's Attorney General has stated (http://www.stamfordplus.com/stm/information/nws1/publish/News_1/Blumenthal_praises_decision_against_AT_T2446.shtml) the boxes were being installed without landowner consent or warning.
If you sense a little sexual bureaucratic telecom-related tension, Connecticut has had problems with AT&T blocking competitor access to utility poles (http://www.pokecommunity.com/shownews/92013), and AT&T recently ran over the State DPUC (http://www.pokecommunity.com/shownews/89043) when initially lobbying State lawmakers for favorable U-Verse legislation.
read comment(s) (http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Will-Get-CT-Customer-Consent-Before-Deploying-VRADs-94935)
More...