OTTAWA – The CRTC on Thursday denied an application by British Columbia’s minister of transportation and infrastructure (MOTI) to suspend a November decision that forces it to enter agreements with third party carriers wanting to attach equipment on poles that are being moved by the province.
The November decision was triggered by a Rogers and Shaw application, which asked that they be treated similarly to the incumbent Telus when it comes to compensation to relocate their transmission lines when the province decides to move their poles. In the decision, the CRTC said the province must either stop compensating Telus or compensate Rogers and Shaw at a rate not less favourable than what Telus gets.
In February, the minster asked the CRTC to suspend the decision until it makes a full determination on the application. Interventions from Rogers, Telus and Quebecor argued that the minster did not meet the three-part legal test for a stay, including showing irreparable harm. Rogers argued that the ministry did not suffer new costs to implement the cost sharing agreements with other carriers; the other carriers argued that the harm was hypothetical because the minister hasn’t had to relocate any poles since the decision was issued.
The CRTC said Thursday the minister failed to demonstrate that the decision would cause it irreparable harm, agreeing that there is a lack of evidence of those negative impacts.
“MOTI’s administrative costs would only occur if a carrier requests an agreement with MOTI,” the decision said. “There is, however, no evidence on the record of any new MOTI-initiated pole relocation projects that involve TCI’s poles or of any requests by another carrier seeking to enter into an agreement with MOTI for relocation compensation.
“Instead, MOTI outlined the administrative tasks that would likely have to be performed if it received a request for an agreement prior to Commission approval of the TCI revised tariff pages,” the decision added.
The CRTC also turned away the minister’s argument that the costs of implementing the decision outweigh any compensation that they owe – part of the balance of convenience portion of the test – because it failed to provide evidence for that.
“MOTI did not provide any evidence of the monetary cost of negotiating agreements with other carriers,” the decision said. “The record does not reveal any known circumstance that would trigger a request by a carrier for an agreement.
“Accordingly, in the absence of a stay, any harm to MOTI that might be incurred could be minimal. If a stay were granted, however, the harm to other carriers, if they have to pay relocation costs in circumstances where TCI, and now Rogers and Shaw, are compensated for such relocation costs, combined with the public interest in avoiding the market distortion that would result from this scenario would be significant.”
The decision applies when Telus’s revised tariff pages are approved by the commission to fairly compensation the attaching carriers. Telus and BC Hydro jointly own a network of poles in the province, which third party providers rely on to expand their telecommunications services.
Photo via Bell
