By Ahmad Hathout
Rogers wants the CRTC to limit the time telcos reserve space to attach wireless equipment on their own poles, according to a submission to the regulator.
The ask comes in response to a consultation launched by the commission inquiring, among other items, about whether it has jurisdiction over wireless attachments on telco-owned or controlled structures. The CRTC holds the preliminary view that it has concurrent jurisdiction over those structures with the department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development (ISED), which has domain over towers and siting.
Beside recommending that the CRTC confirm that jurisdiction – which it said is key to the cable giant’s ability to roll out 5G service – Rogers also wants the commission to prohibit the telcos from reserving capacity on those structures for their own use for a period of more than two years.
“We have heard suggestions that an ILEC might seek to reserve all support structures for its small cell deployments in a given area for up to 10 years,” Rogers said in its April submission. “We are also aware of an ILEC installing brackets/mounts on joint-use poles but not deploying small cells, apparently to reserve the pole for its future use.
“The ILECs have already benefited from a lengthy head start in small cell deployments on poles they own or control, or access under a joint use arrangement,” Rogers added. “While there would appear to be ample capacity to support competitive deployment of these facilities, this capacity could rapidly evaporate if the ILECs are permitted to reserve all the poles in an area for years or impose arbitrary capacity restrictions, such as a prohibition on small cell deployments on poles or strand that is adjacent to existing small cell deployments.”
The cable giant is also asking for this rule to apply to situations where the telco doesn’t own the pole, but just manages the space dedicated to communications technology.
Rogers is also asking the CRTC to impose timelines on wireless access to these structures à la its February 2023 decision to impose deadlines on timely access to wired attachments on those same structures. Rogers said timely access means more competition, which means more affordability and more resilient and reliable wireless networks.
“While the ILECs have widely deployed small cell equipment on their poles, they have refused to process third party requests to attach small cells under their tariffs,” Rogers claimed in the submission. “This conduct has delayed and increased the costs of competitive wireless network deployment without any plausible public interest justification. Competing carriers have been forced to explore other means to deploy small cells, but they have often done so at a considerable additional cost.”
Rogers is also asking the CRTC to reject the need for third parties to get a permit to attach wireless equipment on the poles. It said that would align with the telco support structure tariffs that do not require permits for wireless attachments on the strand – a cable that’s attached to the pole.
The cable giant noted that current telco support structure tariffs include a requirement to get a permit for wireless attachments directly on the pole. If the CRTC continues to require such a permit, Rogers is asking for it to enforce the February 2023 timelines on approvals and to revisit the permit question within two years of the decision of this proceeding.
Quebecor and Eastlink, two other third party attachers, similarly said the CRTC must recognize that it has domain over these wireless attachments and to move quickly to ensure the timely process by which other cable carriers can attach its equipment on telco structures.
The Montreal-based telecom, however, went further. It blasted Bell for allegedly delaying access to its poles, which it claims has delayed the objectives of good competition in the market.
It is, therefore, asking the CRTC to levy administrative monetary penalties against its rival for allegedly contravening the undue preference rules by giving itself – while delaying others’ – access to its poles.
Bell previously asked the CRTC to defer the question of jurisdiction to the Federal Court of Appeal or have it as its own consultation. The regulator declined to do that.
In its submission last week, the telco reiterated its belief that ISED has sole jurisdiction over the deployment of wireless equipment on telco-owned structures and that it should continue to consider deferring the question to the court.
That means the CRTC – by virtue of its alleged lack of jurisdiction over the matter – does not have the authority to waive the requirement for a permit to attach wireless equipment on its structures, contrary to Rogers’s claim.
But even if the CRTC finds that it has jurisdiction, Bell argued it shouldn’t regulate these wireless attachments. That’s simply for the same reason the regulator forbears from other matters: that there is allegedly sufficient competition for wireless equipment access.
The telco cites the availability of “multiple alternative support structures,” including the ability of competitors to attach their wireless equipment on building rooftops, billboards, light fixtures, bus shelters and other street furniture.
While the cablecos argued that the support structure tariffs should be technology neutral, Bell disagreed. It said that the telcos’ tariffs do not apply to those wireless attachments.
“The support structure tariffs are not drafted in a manner that is neutral between attachments such as telephone lines coaxial or fibre optic cabling, on the one hand, and radiocommunication apparatus, on the other,” Bell said in its submission.
“The language contemplates the attachment of ‘cables, equipment and other facilities,’ not radio apparatus, and has no terms pertaining to radio apparatus, such as terms to deal with spectral interference issues, safety considerations associated with radio propagation, or operational terms to deal with temporary disconnections of radio-apparatus,” it added.
The telco claims, in any event, that it does not deny permitting for competitor access to its structures.
The other major telco, Telus, said it believes the CRTC has concurrent jurisdiction with ISED on the matter. However, on the question of whether current support structure tariffs should apply to wireless equipment, the Vancouver-based telecom is asking for an essentiality test to determine whether they are essential to competition in the retail markets.
“After conducting an essentiality test, if the Commission determines that access to ILEC support structures should be mandated for small cell attachments, then the Commission must determine if this access should be provided pursuant to tariffed rates, terms and conditions,” Telus said in its submission. “In this respect, the Commission should exercise its jurisdiction by ruling on the need for an application and permitting process for the placement of wireless facilities on ILEC support structures.”
Telus said both the CRTC and ISED can have jurisdiction, as once an antenna is attached to a telco structure, it becomes a tower or site governed by ISED’s framework. Under ISED’s framework, the terms and rates for attaching becomes a commercially-negotiated endevour, Telus said.
Telus agreed with Bell that there are numerous other structures that competitors can stick their equipment, whose terms and rates are negotiated privately.
If the CRTC finds that these rates for access should be regulated, then Telus said it should regulate the terms of access to all support structures within its jurisdiction, including those of cable companies and other telecoms.
The Public Interest Advocacy Centre said it believes that the CRTC does have concurrent jurisdiction on the matter with ISED and that the current support structure tariffs include wireless facilities.
The consumer advocacy group added that permits should not be required to attach wireless equipment to the poles in question because that could lead to “significant administrative work, costs and delays.”
Photo via Xplore.
