from: The Day.com [1]
Telecoms Charge AT&T With Delaying New Service
Long Waits Hindering Fiber-Optic Plans, Say Groton Firm, Others
By Patricia Daddona , Published on 5/31/2007
Three years ago, Thames Valley Communications in Groton began building a fiber-optic network to provide customers with high-speed Web access. It hoped to have the system in place by 2009.
But the company has had to wait — in some cases for over a year — to attach fiber-optic cable to utility poles owned by AT&T so it can bring the broadband to homes in its five-town service area. The firm has now set a new deadline of mid-2010, and Chief Operating Officer David Lee says it's a direct result of delays by AT&T.
The Groton cable franchise, part of the Groton Utilities municipal system, is not alone in its complaints against the telecommunications giant.
Fiber Technology Networks LLC, known as Fibertech, first argued in April to the state Department of Public Utility Control that “access to poles must be reasonably quick” to ensure potential customers don't turn to another provider to meet their needs. The company is seeking to provide high-speed Internet and voice services to businesses and institutions in Connecticut.
Both companies accuse AT&T and the joint owners of utility poles, Connecticut Light & Power and United Illuminating, of making it difficult to compete.
Glenn Carberry, the New London-based attorney for Fibertech, fears “there will be no real telecommunications competition in Connecticut until competitors can get service to their customers in a timely manner.”
Now, at the invitation of the DPUC for more input into the issues Fibertech's case raises, Thames Valley, Verizon, T-Mobile and National Grid Communications, along with the towns of Killingly and West Hartford and the state's Office of Consumer Counsel, are calling for a broad review.
Fiber-optic technology employs insulated, hair-thin cable to relay information at high speeds using light. Telecommunications companies and some towns are embracing the technology as a means to deliver more video, voice and Internet-based services to consumers.
George Moreira, senior counsel for AT&T, characterized disputes over access to utility poles as “overstatement.” Twenty years ago, a utility pole only had to provide space for cable, telephone and electric companies that offered singular types of service. Today, he said, competition is fierce.
“It is certainly a much busier place,” said Moreira. “The processes we have in place are very fair and equitable.”
Companies or towns that want to use fiber-optic networks to deliver services must apply to AT&T to get space on the utility poles as they expand their networks in what are considered “public rights of way.” AT&T jointly owns most of the state's more than 800,000 utility poles with CL&P, United Illuminating and smaller outfits, and handles telecommunication connections for the utilities, Moreira said.
The DPUC oversees these steps, which may include a “make ready” process, either to make room for new connections, called “attachments,” on the poles, or to install taller poles.
AT&T is in the process of building out a fiber-optic network to support its own Web-based services, dubbed U-Verse. But company spokesman Seth Bloom said “it doesn't have any impact on any decision we would make (regarding space on its poles). It's completely separate.”
Fibertech has claimed it takes as long as 130 days in some cases to install attachments on the poles.
Stephen Studer, a Thames Valley attorney, said connecting fiber-optic attachments to poles takes an average of 56 weeks. The company wants to connect to about 25,000 poles covering more than 700 miles in Groton, North Stonington, Voluntown, Ledyard and Stonington.
Thames Valley would like to see speedier access, itemized billing for use of the poles and less than 100-percent upfront payment, said Studer. The long waits, according to Studer, “delay the entry of companies like TVC into the marketplace.”
According to AT&T, installing an attachment on a pole, done in batches of at most 400 poles at a time, takes an average of about 110 to 120 days. In addition, without upfront payment, said Moreira, state regulators would have to chase untimely payments.
“The processes have been in place for a very long time and they're applied uniformly to anybody that's attached to those poles, including ourselves,” he said.
Bill Vallee, the principal attorney for Mary J. Healey, the state's consumer counsel, says AT&T should have one standardized approach for installing attachments on poles or charging for them. The state of New York conducted a review that led to such a change in 2003, he said.
“Everybody uses AT&T equipment,” said Vallee. “They have a legal right to use that equipment. (But) AT&T says, 'We get to charge you what we want and tell you how and when to do it.' ”
DPUC spokeswoman Beryl Lyons said her agency could call meetings, public hearings or evidentiary hearings on the issue.
“We need to determine what is a reasonable amount of time and are the complaints valid,” Lyons said. “There should be a level playing field and that's one of things we will address.”
AT&T said it favors the broad review competitors and Healey are seeking.
“Let's see what comes out actually on the record when it's subject to cross examination,” Moreira said.
CL&P's spokesman Mitch Gross said AT&T's current system works well. “The primary issue here is safety,” he said. “The process may not be as fast as some would like, but very deliberate steps are taken to make sure anything attached to a pole is done safely.”
p.daddona@theday.com