Utilities, cities clash with telecoms over infrastructure jurisdiction

Electrical utilities and municipalities have arched their backs over various proposals to streamline or adjust regulatory jurisdiction when it comes to resolving disputes over use of “passive infrastructure” in Canada. Those requests come as carriers look to not just deploy broadband network infrastructure but also thousands of 5G small cell sites and other new technology across the country. Some telecom companies said in their submissions to a major review of Canada’s communications laws they want to expand the CRTC’s jurisdiction so it becomes the final arbitrator on certain infrastructure disputes -- echoing similar proposals pitched during the fall pre-budget consultations that came amid frustrations over disparate pole attachment rates set by provincial energy regulators. Francis Bradley, chief operating officer at the Canadian Electricity Association, says his organization is “unequivocally opposed to the CRTC getting authority over utility infrastructure.” “We don’t think as a regulator they have either the legal authority, constitutional authority or the expertise,” he told The Wire Report in a phone interview. “We have provincial regulators that have developed and have the expertise to be able to provide opinions with respect to the safety and security of these infrastructures.” Stakeholder responses to the Liberal government’s Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review panel’s examination of Canada’s communications laws were due Friday. The panel’s terms of reference said telecom companies will require a “legislative framework” that ensures adequate access to “passive infrastructure” -- pointing to hydro poles, ducts and rights-of-way as examples -- so companies can “efficiently roll out new infrastructure” to build-out their next generation and future networks. That elicited a bevy of jockeying responses. For example, Rogers Communications Inc. suggested to the panel the CRTC should be granted the ability to decide terms of access to “passive support structures of municipalities and electrical utilities” through changes to the Telecommunications Act, and should be implemented even before the panel issues its final report, due by January 2020. Quebecor Inc.’s submission asks, in French, for a legislative change to “confirm” the CRTC can decide disputes over the rates mobile network operators pay to municipalities for installing 5G equipment on ‘street furniture’ (fixtures like bus shelters, signs and traffic lights) and ensure that costs are “reasonable.” Others, including BCE Inc., are not making their submissions publicly available yet. The CRTC itself asked the government to vest one regulatory body with the power to be the ultimate decider on disputes over access to “passive infrastructure,” expressing concerns in its submission that various overlapping jurisdictions and competing private interests could hinder future network deployment -- concerns it had also raised to Parliament this fall. But Bradley and his organization’s panel submission argued the proposals to streamline infrastructure jurisdiction could lead to another layer of regulatory burden for them, adding he has yet to see evidence of new systemic barriers to telecom deployment. “We seem to have a proposal here that’s a solution looking for a problem,” Bradley said. His organization doesn’t even support using the term “passive infrastructure” for “dynamic” electrical assets like hydro poles, he said. It’s not just electrical utilities furrowing their brows. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities said in its submission, obtained by The Wire Report, it prefers the status quo for infrastructure governance and it’s “unclear” how Canada would benefit from jurisdictional changes to federal bodies such as Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) and the CRTC. “At a time when resources should be spent on deployment and increasing connectivity, a change in jurisdiction would create a significant and regrettable distraction,” it said. “A change of this magnitude and nature would inevitably create system-wide uncertainty. Uncertainty inevitably generates costs as each stakeholder’s roles, obligations, authority, etc., are ironed-out.” A joint-submission by the SouthWestern Integrated Fibre Technology Inc. (SWIFT) project and the Regional and Rural Broadband project at University of Guelph recently made public was somewhat harsher. “A centralized model where the federal regulator dictates terms and prices of passive infrastructure assets would be economically inefficient due to variation in costs and conditions at the local level across Canada’s diverse communities and regions,” it said. “Such a regulatory strategy would also run against the grain of Canada’s unique federalist constitutional arrangements and may lead to complex and intractable litigation.” That submission also argues the way “passive infrastructure” was brought up in the panel review’s terms of reference “replicates standard talking-points of carriers” who want to minimize consultations with local authorities and pay more reasonable rates for “accessing publicly-funded passive infrastructure.” It notes the numerous small cell transmitters required for next generation networks are “likely to raise concerns by residents and businesses in the vicinity whose property value may be perceived to be impacted by these antenna deployments.” A report from Accenture Inc. last year estimated there could be as many as 273,000 small cells deployed across Canada over the next five to seven years, and that companies will need to invest some $26 billion in 5G network infrastructure. The broadcast and telecom review panel received some 2,000 written submissions by various parties, which will be posted online by June 30, the deadline for its consultation summary report, according to the panel’s spokesperson Stéfanie Power. “The Panel wants to take time to read, review, and digest the submissions, and has indicated that the submissions will be made public when it releases the What We’ve Heard Report. Interested parties are welcome to make their submissions public and many have already done so,” Power said by email. Some have chided the panel for the publishing delay because it could take months before all the written submissions are made public. University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist wrote on his blog he has filed an Access to Information request for the submissions and called it a “bad look” for a panel that “already conducts most of its activities in secret.” — With reporting by Kyle Duggan at kduggan@thewirereport.ca and editing by Anja Karadeglija at akarad@thewirereport.ca

Utilities, cities clash with telecoms over infrastructure jurisdiction

News | January 15, 2019

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

Utilities, cities clash with telecoms over infrastructure jurisdiction

News | January 15, 2019

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

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Ericsson invests $634 million in R&D in Canada

Ericsson proud of research and development facilities in Canada

Rogers spends $8 million upping capacity at Toronto stadium; TTC work remains underway

SaskTel rolls out 5G service to more than 50 rural and remote areas

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us