Battle Over Connecticut Deregulation Bill Heats Up

The bill has much bipartisan support in both chambers, according to Sen. Bob Duff (D). The vice chair of the Committee on Energy & Technology expects the bill to be passed. The proposal has been around for at least two years so lawmakers have had plenty of time to work on it, he said. The bill recognizes that telephone service is different now and updates state telecom laws that have been around for nearly 100 years, he said. “The bill will help consumers and help the industry and eliminate unnecessary burdens.” The bill is co-sponsored by Sen. John Fonfara (D), co-chairman of the Energy & Technology Committee.

The bill is backed by companies like AT&T and Verizon. AT&T’s access lines in the state declined from nearly 2.4 million in 2000 to around 1.1 million at the end of 2011 as consumer spending on landlines declined, said John Emra, regional vice president. It’s critical that companies have the flexibility to remove products and services as the consumer demands change, he said. The company hasn’t developed a list of services it seeks to cut, he said. But when it happens, the company would ensure minimal impact to consumers. Verizon cited deregulation proposals in states like Indiana, one of the first states to update its telecom and video regulations, in 2006. Studies have shown within a year of revamp, telecom companies had invested an additional $400 million in the state, said Keefe Clemons, general counsel with Verizon’s northeast region. The proposal is also backed by several state and local chambers of commerce.

Emra claimed several provisions of the bill were nearly identical to language agreed upon by companies, consumer groups and state utility regulators in the last legislative session. The bill would eliminate the reporting requirements like filing tariffs for competitive retail services with the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA). Most of AT&T’s major competitors in the voice market don’t file tariffs, Emra said. The proposal doesn’t change the role of the PURA or change existing consumer protections, he said. While PURA supports the removal of tariff-filing requirements, it noted in some cases the listing of service rates, terms and conditions may not be sufficient. It urged requiring providers to offer their customers a link to company websites where service information could be clearly presented. The agency didn’t comment on provisions that would allow withdrawal of services.

However, a coalition of unions and consumer groups claimed the bill would give providers permission to no longer offer service to the state’s most rural areas. The opponents cited a report released Tuesday by Demos, a nonpartisan policy research group, which claimed deregulation in the state would lead to higher rates, less consumer protections, and loss of phone services in rural and low-income communities. The report claimed in 17 of 20 states where deregulation has occurred, rates have gone up.

The Demos report is “full of inaccurate assertions and incorrect information,” an AT&T spokesman said. Nothing in the bill would allow or cause rates to increase, change any existing protections for consumers or permit companies to terminate landline service, he said. The report “mistakenly asserts” that other states that have updated their telecom laws have seen rate increases, he said. Those states have seen growth in jobs and investments, he said.

Additionally, allowing cell towers on state parks would damage wildlife habitat and create hazard to migrating birds, several environmental groups said. The use of state parks and forests for purposes other than the original intended use could potentially expose the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection to considerable litigation, the agency said.

Meanwhile, the bill would ban state regulation of interconnected VoIP services. Interconnected VoIP services are considered to be informational services by the FCC and aren’t subject to current FCC or state regulatory requirements, PURA said.