Rogers, York region dispute escalates on costs of burying cable

A regulatory dispute between Rogers Communications Inc. and the Regional Municipality of York escalated as the municipality asked the CRTC to schedule an oral hearing to decide who should cover the costs of burying Rogers’ cables to accommodate a regional transit project. The dispute centres on a Rogers request for the region to pay a majority of the $7 million it will cost to bury its cables affected by the region’s vivaNext transit project. In regulatory documents filed with the commission May 2, Rogers said that, according to a 2008 agreement with the region, the two sides agreed to split the costs of “like-for-like” cable relocation efforts but did not cover other relocation costs such as those incurred by the company when moving above-ground cables underground. Rogers said the vivaNext Project required the company to bury the cables for “beautification” purposes and asked the CRTC to order the region to pay the estimated $6.2 million more it will cost to have the cables buried. In a June 4 filing with the commission, the municipality said its requirement that Rogers bury the cables arose from pedestrian safety concerns, not a beautification project. York said it is implementing a series of “streetscaping features” on the new system for the benefit of transit riders, including lighting and “plants and trees that help to buffer pedestrians from vehicular traffic.” The region said Rogers’ initial proposal to hang the cable wires on hydro poles at a height of six meters would interfere with the street lighting and trees. York said its “original design” for at least one of the three construction sites required Rogers to hang the cables on poles at 11.3 meters above the ground. “The Region was informed by Rogers that it could not accommodate this height as it does not have the necessary equipment (tucks and cranes) to reach this high,” York region wrote. “Therefore, Rogers was directed to bury its transmission lines as the only feasible location.” The municipality said it has agreed to pay a portion of the costs to bury the cables beyond its obligations in the 2008 agreement and that it is offering other carriers the same cost-sharing deal to bury above-ground cables. In a Rogers response, the company reiterated that the region asked it to bury the cables for beautification purposes and said the region failed to provide evidence to the contrary. Rogers pointed to documents the region submitted to the commission, several of which indicated that buried cables are preferred for aesthetic reasons, it said. The company wrote in the response, filed with the commission June 14, that trees and planters are unrelated to safety and that street lights “are commonly and extensively accommodated in conjunction with aerial telecommunications facilities.” Rogers said York's “attempt to distance its burial requirement from aesthetics is contradicted by common sense and practice, as well the documents it has cited and filed in support of its Answer.” The region rejected Rogers proposed six-metre height and instructed the company to bury the cables without giving it an option to hang the wires at 11.3 metres, Rogers said. “If given the option and absent compensation for the additional costs of burial, Rogers would chose to place its facilities at 11.3 m on the new hydro poles,” the company wrote. A June 22 letter to the commission from Barbara McIsaac, the region’s legal counsel at Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, said Rogers never indicated a willingness to hang the wires at 11.3 meters. McIsaac asked the commission to schedule an oral hearing to address the company’s position. “This is a new position on the part of Rogers, and is a direct contradiction of the position it took during design discussions with the Region,” McIsaac wrote. “It is respectfully submitted that, in order for the Commission to fully appreciate the basis for the Region’s requirement that Rogers bury its transmission lines and the true magnitude of the real additional costs to Rogers, oral evidence is required.” Rogers responded again Tuesday with a letter that argued against the need for an oral hearing. The company said the region had “ample opportunity” to demonstrate the need to bury telecom cables as part of the transit system construction. Rogers has asked the commission to order the region “to pay 100% of the difference between total relocation costs and the aerial relocation costs” and to share the remaining costs according to the 2008 agreement. nkyonka@thewirereport.ca

Rogers, York region dispute escalates on costs of burying cable

News | June 28, 2012

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

Rogers, York region dispute escalates on costs of burying cable

News | June 28, 2012

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Telus’ arguments for incumbent access to wholesale regime not supported by competitors

Bell won’t participate in subsidized broadband projects if wholesale access for Big Three continues, signs agreement with CNOC

Rogers’ purchase of Bell’s MLSE stake not being challenged by Competition Bureau ‘at this time’

MPs grill Rogers CEO on price increases during industry committee meeting

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us