Rogers, Shaw get cableco support in demand for relocation payments

Rogers Communications Inc. and Shaw Communications Inc. have the support of two regional telecom companies in a joint Part 1 that they filed, requesting that the CRTC force the British Columbian government to give compensation for mandatory relocation of their infrastructure in the province. Rogers and Shaw filed a Part 1 application in October, seeking compensation on the grounds that Telus Corp. receives compensation from B.C.’s Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MOTI) for forced relocation of its infrastructure. A response from MOTI noted that Telus receives compensation for relocating its conduit and cables, not only its poles. (Telus does not receive compensation for relocations when it does not own support structures, although this is relatively rare due to Telus's historic monopoly in B.C.) In interventions for the Part 1, fellow cablecos Bragg Communications Inc.’s Eastlink and Quebecor Inc. agreed wholly with Rogers and Shaw, arguing that Telus’ agreement with MOTI gives it an unfair boost. “This additional expense provides TELUS a significant competitive advantage, as they will receive reimbursement for a portion of their relocation costs,” Eastlink wrote. “This could have a significant impact on a carrier’s expansion plans, and/or could lead to increased costs, which may be passed on to end-users.” Writing in French, Quebecor offered similar arguments to Eastlink, writing that the provision of compensation to relocate support structures but not transmission lines is a “totally arbitrary decision.” Quebecor’s intervention also argued that British Columbia’s single pole line policy compounds the competitive advantage for Telus, as competitors cannot simply build their own poles or support structures and then claim compensation for any relocations ordered by MOTI. “ are penalized by MOTI’s single pole line policy, which places them at a significant, anti-competitive cost disadvantage in comparison to Telus,” Quebecor said. Because of its historical monopoly in B.C., Telus is the only telecom to own a substantial volume of support structures in the province, although some of that infrastructure is jointly owned between Telus and BC Hydro. In a lengthy filing, MOTI argued the opposite point-of-view — that if Rogers and Shaw were provided compensation for relocating transmission lines, it would constitute an unfair advantage over other telecoms in the province. “ could potentially result in an exception to the Province’s policy with respect to , thereby giving them a competitive advantage over other Canadian carriers.” MOTI also said that such a compensation scheme for relocating transmission lines could be unfeasible to administer, because the Ministry “requires no application or even notice for their presence on third‐party structures.” Meanwhile, an intervention from BCE Inc. recommended that the CRTC reject the request from Rogers and Shaw on the basis of the two companies’ proposed compensation scheme, where they would receive 50 per cent of relocation costs, or the same compensation as Telus, whichever is higher. “The Commission cannot make a determination on the reasonableness of proposed relocation apportionment without first seeing the other terms of access within a proposed access agreement,” Bell wrote. Bell’s recommendation for a rejection also noted that Rogers and Shaw may have not have invoked the appropriate section of the Telecommunications Act for their claim — they invoked Section 43(4) of the act, which permits the CRTC to intervene in the event that a carrier is unable to obtain consent for laying transmission lines. Bell’s intervention states that MOTI doesn’t require consent, meaning that Rogers and Shaw may have put forward erroneous arguments. (MOTI’s answer also put forward this argument.) However, Bell still endorsed the idea of compensation for Rogers and Shaw, writing that carriers “are entitled to relocation costs from public authorities even when attached to a third party's supporting structures.” Bell went on to recommend that the two companies negotiate an agreement directly with MOTI, or wait for a relocation request from MOTI and file a new Part 1 under a more appropriate section of the Act. “It would be preferable for the parties to reach a negotiated outcome rather than force to dispute a future relocation request.” In an answer to the Part 1, Telus also recommended that Rogers and Shaw’s requests be dismissed, while also pushing back on the claims that it receives a competitive advantage from the compensation scheme. “There is nothing unjust about TELUS being compensated for relocation costs,” Telus wrote. “TELUS’ relationship with MOTI is different than that of a licensee’s, that may result in certain terms that differ based on unique relationships and circumstances; the differences in no way grant any sort of preference upon TELUS with regard to MOTI’s compensation terms.” Telus also took issue with one of the two reimbursement methods that Rogers and Shaw proposed in their Part 1, wherein Telus would be required to pass on some of its reimbursement to third parties with transmission lines on Telus’ structures. “The Applicants cannot demand that TELUS be responsible for the reimbursement of third party relocation costs on the basis that this would be inconsistent with many existing access agreements.” However, Telus did not comment on the other proposed reimbursement method (where Rogers and Shaw would receive the higher of 50 per cent of relocation costs or the same amount payment as Telus); Telus also recommended that Rogers and Shaw continue to negotiate their own terms of access with MOTI, but without involving the CRTC. “These negotiations do not require TELUS’ involvement,” the company said. CORRECTION- An earlier version of this piece stated that Telus was only compensated for the relocation of its poles. However, a MOTI response noted that Telus also receives compensation for relocating transmission lines when it owns the support structures holding them. — Reporting by Tim Forster at tforster@thewirereport.ca and editing by Anja Karadeglija at akarad@thewirereport.ca

Rogers, Shaw get cableco support in demand for relocation payments

News | December 4, 2020

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, Shaw get cableco support in demand for relocation payments

News | December 4, 2020

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

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Competitors unhappy, incumbents closed-lipped about CRTC’s interim wholesale rates

Google granted exemption from requirements of Online News Act

CRTC sets interim rates for wholesale FTTP access

CRTC licenses Uvagut for mandatory carriage, Inuit TV as discretionary

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us