Proponents of Connecticut legislation overhauling telecommunications split the proposals into three parts in order to skirt broad opposition.
“A lot of people are fearful of anything that looks like deregulation,” said State Rep. Lonnie Reed (D-Branford), co-chair of the legislature’s Energy & Technology Committee. “Even in my own caucus, there is a lot of distrust.”
The proposals allow the broadband industry to continue operation without regulatory approval, permit cell phone towers on water-company-owned watersheds, and change regulatory requirements for AT&T’s landline service.
“The three bills would be disastrous for consumers,” said Daniel Ravizza, Connecticut Citizen Action Group organizer.
The proposals have been surrounded by broad misinformation and misunderstanding, sadi Reed who views the broadband bill as most important and most likely to pass.
“This is a big idea, but it is hard to get people to understand,” Reed said. “We really need to upgrade our broadband if we are going to be competitive.”
Broadband refers to the medium carrying telephone calls, high-speed Internet, and other telephony applications like faxes. The medium can be fiber optics, coaxial cable, or wireless, as opposed to the older method of telephone landlines for phone service and dial-up Internet.
Companies such as Comcast and Cox Communications have increased the broadband infrastructure in Connecticut over the past 15 years and that has lowered the cost of telephony services while offering higher Internet speeds.
The cost of a phone bill in Connecticut has dropped 70 percent over the past 15 years because of the increased broadband infrastructure, said Paul Cianelli, president and chief executive of the industry advocate New England Cable & Telecommunications Association.
In order to keep installing this infrastructure, the broadband industry wants Connecticut to pass a bill saying the state won’t start subjecting it to review by the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority. Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island have passed similar bills with a hands-off regulatory promise, along with 23 other states outside New England.
“To put that sort of capital in the state, we want to make sure we have a favorable regulatory climate,” Cianelli said. “We are making sure Connecticut has the same access to quality phone and Internet broadband service, so they can compete with any other state.”
While the Connecticut proposal doesn’t change how the state oversees the broadband industry — still subjecting it to Attorney General and Consumer Counsel oversight — consumer advocates see the legislation, House Bill 6401, as letting business run rampant over consumers.
“It makes no sense to deregulate something and have no voice for consumers,” Ravizza said.
Having top-notch Internet and phone service is important to enticing and retaining businesses in the state, Reed said.
With Connecticut making major economic development pushes like Bioscience Connecticut, having the proper business infrastructure is vital to fulfilling these goals, Reed said.
“You don’t realize how important it is to economic development,” Reed said.
One of the other telecomm proposals — Senate Bill 888 — has run into environmental opposition as it would allow cell phone towers to be built on water-company-owned watersheds, as long as the Connecticut Siting Council and the state Department of Public Health approve.
“We just want to improve coverage for customers” said John Emra, AT&T regional vice president for external and legislative affairs. “Right now, there are just tens of thousands of acres that we can’t build on.”
In order to maintain strong cell phone signals throughout the state, companies like AT&T need to build more towers, Emra said. Watershed areas are preferable because they often have higher elevations that can send out stronger signals and are further away from residential developments, where cell towers are opposed for being obtrusive to the landscape.
Cell towers on company-owned watersheds already are allowed in Connecticut.
The proposal keeps towers out of residential and scenic areas, but S.B. 888 raised concerns over clean water, Reed said.
After the 2011 storms, Connecticut mandated that cell towers have backup power generation, potentially putting fuel near drinking water. “Those are protected resources, and how does that look if we allow that fuel there,” Reed asked.
The third proposal, H.B. 6402, modernizes regulation of AT&T. The proposal changes requirements written when the phone company had a monopoly, since broken in 1994.
Groups including AARP and CCAG have lobbied effectively that this proposal would allow AT&T to drop its landline service and drastically increase the cost for phone services.
Because of this messaging, the proposal is unlikely to pass this year, the third time it has been proposed, Reed said.
AT&T has fired back at the AARP and CCAG messaging, calling them outright lies, Emra said.
State and federal law prohibits AT&T from dropping landline customers. As for phone costs, AT&T still would be subject to the same market competition, so even if rates increased, customers could switch to a cheaper competitor.
When the requirements were written, AT&T provided phone service to 100 percent of the state. Today, the company services 28 percent, the rest are serviced by cable and wireless firms.
“Those cable and wireless companies aren’t regulated at all by the state,” Emra said.
H.B. 6402 would do away with requirements on AT&T such as providing an annual audit, although regulators still could make the company subject to periodic audits. “Put aside the rhetoric, nobody has gotten hurt in any other state that passed this law,” Emra said.
