Save Access

from: The Capital Times

AT&T boxes big and ugly, mayor warns

Judith Davidoff — 6/08/2007 10:47 am

More than 300 hulking, refrigerator-size "graffiti magnets" could soon sprout in Madison yards if state lawmakers pass a controversial cable TV deregulation bill, Mayor Dave Cieslewicz is warning.

"There would be hundreds of these boxes throughout the city," Cieslewicz said in an interview this week. "They would be on the street right-of-way and also in people's backyards. They are large -- five feet by four feet -- they make a visual statement and they could be graffiti magnets."

Under current law, Cieslewicz said the city can prohibit AT&T from installing the boxes without a franchise agreement, such as the one the city has with Charter Cable.

But the city's veto power would be severely curtailed under the deregulation bill that has already passed the state Assembly.

"We wouldn't have much to say about it," Cieslewicz said. "AT&T could go in and start installing these things right after the legislation takes effect."

What's worse, he said, is that the boxes are unnecessary.

"The only reason for them is that AT&T is trying to do this project on the cheap," he said. "They want to run fiber to the boxes, but then standard copper (lines) to the home. They need the boxes to transfer data. They could run fiber straight to the home which is what companies on the coasts are doing."

Rep. Phil Montgomery, R-Green Bay, lead author of the proposed state bill, did not return a phone call today for comment.

AT&T has installed these boxes in some cities, but its efforts have been thwarted in others.

"They became such a matter of controversy because of their size, location and obtrusiveness that the city of Milwaukee modified its zoning procedures" to allow local alders a chance to review where the boxes would be located in their district, said University of Wisconsin telecommunications professor Barry Orton.

The prospect of the boxes has fomented a virtual revolt in some Chicago suburbs, with several communities enacting temporary moratoriums on their installation. Two cities, Itasca and Naperville, distributed large plywood boxes around the city to illustrate the size of AT&T boxes. Itasca's boxes were pink.

AT&T, however, followed up by suing the municipalities and a United States District Court Judge recently rejected a motion to dismiss the case.

Brad Clark, cable television coordinator for the city of Madison, said AT&T officials told him that they would need to install 300 to 400 utility boxes in Madison.

AT&T spokesman Joe Steele declined to confirm the number, saying it was "proprietary" information.

"For competitive reasons we are not releasing the numbers," he said.

Steele said the boxes have not proven to be a magnet for graffiti and that AT&T is responsive to aesthetic concerns.

"We work with local municipalities to pull the appropriate locations and place them in the public right of way so they are not obstructive to drivers or out of line with the aesthetics of the neighborhood," Steele said.

Steele acknowledged that the placement of a utility box in the public right of way could very well mean a large box on a homeowner's front terrace. But he insisted that AT&T takes local interests into consideration when placing boxes.

"We work closely with the municipality to meet any local ordinances and choose locations that are conducive to the neighborhoods," he said.

He said the boxes are needed to deliver the broadband technology and video technology that customers are demanding. He rejected criticism that AT&T was pinching pennies, claiming the telecommunications giant is spending billions on its initial 13-state launch of "Project Lightspeed."

"$6.5 billion is a tremendous investment to bring all this new technology out to AT&T's customers," he said.

'Beneath the radar': In January 2006 AT&T quietly requested a permit to install a large utility box in a Madison public right-of-way. LeAnne Hannan, an astute civil engineer in the city Engineering Department, raised questions about the size of the box and asked AT&T whether it was for the company's Project Lightspeed. When told yes, she contacted the City Attorney's Office.

"They were trying to run it beneath the radar," Assistant City Attorney Roger Allen said of AT&T's efforts to obtain a city permit for the box.

Steele has a different take.

"Utility boxes are about AT&T's investment in Wisconsin and the other states that AT&T services," he said. "It's all about bringing the new technology and services to their customers. That is what the intent of upgrading the utility boxes is."

After AT&T submitted its permit request, the city offered to negotiate a franchise agreement with the company to operate a cable service in Madison, but the parties were not able to come to an understanding. AT&T claims it offers video services, not cable service, and therefore should be exempt from cable franchise regulations.

Madison, and other municipalities, disagree and say AT&T should be subject to the same rules as cable companies are.

"We are not against competition," Cieslewicz said. "We would welcome AT&T. They can right now negotiate an agreement just like Charter has. All we want is a level playing field."

"They want special consideration and that is really the issue here," he added. "They don't want to pay the same fees that Charter does. They don't want to give the same access for public and educational programming. They don't want to provide the same consumer protection."

Critics say such wrangling with municipalities across the country prompted AT&T to lobby heavily for state legislation that deregulates the cable industry by transferring franchise powers from localities to the state. Negotiations between AT&T and Madison officials, in fact, ceased when Montgomery introduced such a bill to the Wisconsin state legislature, said Allen.

Proponents say the bill would introduce more video choices to Wisconsin markets and result in lower prices for consumers. Critics say it strips municipalities of control over infrastructure and consumer protections.

The measure easily passed the state Assembly in May after some additional consumer protections were added to the bill. But it faces a more uncertain future in the state Senate, where it has been referred to the Joint Finance Committee.

Cieslewicz said the bill still has a long way to go before it is acceptable to city officials.

"They've taken a horrible bill and made it just bad and we're saying that's just not good enough."

Judith Davidoff — 6/08/2007 10:47 am