AT&T is requesting clarification from the Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control following the agency's ruling that AT&T must obtain retroactive consent from homeowners whose property abuts areas where the telco is deploying outdoor IPTV access nodes. AT&T's request comes nearly a full week after the five-page ruling issued by the DPUC, and AT&T already has said it will comply with the agency's rules. So, it is either checking to make sure it does everything to the letter, or else it is just making sure there is not a loophole to be exploited (We're kidding, sort of).
AT&T already notifies residents of equipment deployments in their area, and it is unclear what would happen if a property owner whose property lies next to one of the telco's video-ready access devices suddenly says it is not OK for the VRAD to be there. How long before one neighbor who is tired of cable TV sues another for the right to have a VRAD planted nearby? Furthermore, how much of a crimp will it put in AT&T's deployment process if more regulators from more states follow Connecticut's example?
The action came after folks in a few communities in Connecticut objected to the VRAD deployments, but the DPUC's action sets the precedent for states to have some kind of authority along with municipalities (The word choice is purely ours-that is one of the areas in which AT&T is seeking clarification) over how the gear gets deployed. AT&T has had problems with the Connecticut DPUC before. The agency last fall said AT&T was operating as a video provider in the state illegally without a video franchise, but the DPUC was later ordered by a state superior court to give the telco a franchise.
- see this story at Multichannel News