By Ahmad Hathout
Quebecor and Bell are wrangling on the issue of when exactly permits are processed for the purposes of determining who is responsible for corrective work on support structures that must carry more attachments.
Quebecor filed a Part 1 application, made public on Monday, asking the CRTC to clarify the status of attaching permit applications that had yet to be fully approved by Bell when the CRTC in January ordered the telcos to make the necessary corrective work on structures at their own expense to prepare for new equipment.
Specifically, the issue is when those outstanding applications became “processed” and therefore subject to the CRTC’s new ruling.
Quebecor argues that, at the time of the ruling, Bell had yet to give the cable company a quote for corrective work and the permits to attach, so the telco must pay for the corrective work.
According to the application, Bell — which wasn’t immediately available for comment — argues that it considers an application processed at the point when Quebecor submits the original attachment form.
This, Quebecor argues, is untenable.
“The signature on form 9032 is simply Videotron’s acceptance of the work, allowing Bell to undertake the necessary repairs (corrective work in this case) before issuing the permit once the work is completed,” Quebec says in its French-language application.
“It is therefore illogical for Bell to claim that a permit application can be considered processed when no permit has been issued,” it continues. “Such an interpretation contravenes the spirit of the Commission’s recent decisions on this matter.”
Quebecor also wants the CRTC to clarify that the cost of certain “related” work done by Bell in the course of making the corrective work must be assumed by the structure owner.
For example, Quebecor argues that if Bell must replace a pole to accommodate new attachments, then the cost of moving transmission lines or competitor equipment from the old to the new pole, must be borne by the telco.
The CRTC ruled in February 2023 that the cost of replacing a pole to accommodate third-party attachments must not be borne entirely by the requester.
“Therefore, in the case of a pole replacement which does not qualify as corrective work (not conforming to construction standards), but rather as preparatory work (lack of capacity), the Council is clear: the sharing of costs must include the related costs associated with the relocation of the facilities (or transfer of attachment),” Quebecor argues, adding corrective work should be done regardless of whether or not there is a permit request.
“In light of this, we ask the [CRTC] to confirm that, as in the case of a pole replacement being considered preparatory work, the costs of replacing a pole that must be borne by the [telco], when that replacement qualifies as corrective work, include the costs associated with work related to that replacement, such as engineering costs and costs associated with relocating the applicant’s facilities.”
If not this, then competitors would have to assume additional costs that will be passed down to consumers, Quebecor says.
Photo via Xplore
