Cities, Consumer Counsel Sue Connecticut Regulator Over Municipal Gain Ruling

“for any purpose” without charge -- may not be used to provide muni broadband. The state consumer advocate, which earlier slammed the PURA decision (see 1805090049), filed an administrative appeal Wednesday at the Connecticut Superior Court in New Britain. It followed a similar challenge at the court last week by the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, and the suits may be consolidated into a single proceeding, said Consumer Counsel Elin Swanson Katz. A ruling is unlikely until late 2018 or 2019, she said. PURA’s decision that the state’s 2013 muni gain law is ambiguous about whether a municipality may provide broadband is “legally incorrect,” OCC said. The act to nullify the law “is illegal and beyond the statutory powers of PURA as an administrative agency,” said OCC, saying it violated the state constitution. In its separate appeal, municipalities said PURA made “numerous procedural errors” and exceeded its authority as it reached legal conclusions “without any factual basis, any evidentiary record, any hearing, any due process, or a single finding of fact.” Connecticut is “one of the most digitally connected states” but has “tens of thousands of citizens who are unserved or underserved by the existing broadband market,” Swanson Katz said. Incumbent ISPs oppose municipal efforts and PURA relied on their arguments, she said: “They would rather keep their monopolistic grip on the internet” and “charge exorbitant prices for what is often inadequate speed and poor service.” PURA didn’t comment.