CRTC sets timeline for pole access and directs ILECs to pay some costs

The CRTC set expedited timelines for large telephone companies to provide competitors with access to poles, increased reporting requirements for pole access requests to enhance transparency, and determined that new parties seeking access to poles are not responsible for certain costs. The CRTC issued the decision Wednesday coupled with a press release. “Poles are essential for the deployment of telecommunications networks. The measures introduced today will have tangible impacts for Canadians by helping competitors speed up their deployment of broadband networks, leading to more competition,” new CRTC chair Vicky Eatrides stated in the release. The CRTC noted the decision applies to BCE Inc. and its subsidiary Télébec, Saskatchewan Telecommunications Holding Inc., and Telus Corp. The decision also covers telephone poles, hydro poles and utility poles that are owned by a Canadian telecommunications carrier. The commission does not have the power to regulate poles owned by provincially regulated utility companies or non-Canadian third parties. In 2019 the CRTC initiated a proceeding asking stakeholders to identify barriers to building new facilities or to accessing existing facilities for the purpose of extending broadband in underserved areas. “Many interveners raised the fact that untimely and costly access to poles was one of the most significant barriers to the deployment of broadband-capable networks in rural and remote regions of Canada,” the CRTC noted in its Wednesday decision. The result of the 2019 proceeding led the CRTC to open a consultation the following year. The commission asked for proposals on regulatory measures it can implement to better facilitate access to poles. The main issues the CRTC identified were: access to telecommunications poles, access to spare capacity, dispute resolution, and poles under joint-use agreements. The lack of timelines in the permit application process is the main cause of delays in the permitting process, according to the CRTC. Some timelines to respond to an access application in the incumbent local exchange carriers’ (ILECs) support structure service tariffs exist; however, there is no time limit for applications to access 50 or more poles, or for applications in remote areas or areas impacted by unusual conditions. Further, the CRTC found that a significant proportion of applications to access fewer than 50 poles are not granted in the timelines specified (maximum 30 days). “ILECs have very little incentive to accelerate the process to allow competitors to access their support structures, while being granted a competitive advantage in the delaying of the deployment of competitors’ networks, if not actively, at least by being passive in their processing of access applications,” the commission wrote. As a result the CRTC determined that each step of the access permitting process should have a defined timeline. The commission then determined that new attachers (parties seeking access to poles) are not responsible for the costs associated with corrective work. Corrective work is defined by the CRTC as “any work required to correct pre-existing anomalies resulting in non-compliance with applicable Construction Standards by a support structure.” “This would not only be consistent with the policy objectives, but would also prevent ILECs from seeking additional compensation for a service for which they are already compensated through tariffed rates,” the CRTC wrote in its decision. “While the Commission acknowledges that ILECs may not be fully compensated for their maintenance costs solely through the attachment rates, it considers this appropriate, because a portion of the costs can be allocated to the pole owner’s operations as well. It therefore follows that attachers should not bear the full burden of the pole maintenance costs,” the CRTC wrote. The CRTC further added that ILECs can file a new cost study for support structure services if they believe that rates are no longer reasonable. The CRTC is also preventing ILECs from denying an application which would require corrective work at their own cost. ILECs must amend their support structure service tariffs indicating that an access application cannot be denied due to lack of capacity that could be remediated by corrective work, performed at the ILEC’s cost. Before the issuance of Wednesday’s decision there was no direction on pole replacement or cost-sharing policy for pole replacement. A pole is either replaced if it is at the end of its life or if it is deemed too small to accommodate for loading. ILECs must now replace a pole, at its own cost, if the lack of capacity to accommodate a new attachment is due to the fact that the pole does not respect safety and construction standards. In the case where there is simply a lack of capacity, ILECs and attachers are directed to enter into good-faith negotiations. The commission noted that a single attacher assuming more than 50 per cent of the total pole replacement costs does not qualify as good-faith negotiations. In order to monitor the effectiveness of its policies, the CRTC is ordering ILECs to submit information about each instance where they elected not to replace a pole. – Reporting by Jenna Cocullo at jcocullo@thewirereport.ca and editing by Paul Park at ppark@thewirereport.ca

CRTC sets timeline for pole access and directs ILECs to pay some costs

News | February 15, 2023

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

CRTC sets timeline for pole access and directs ILECs to pay some costs

News | February 15, 2023

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

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

CRTC launches Streaming Act consults on CanCon definition, radio regulations

Rogers, Cogeco, Eastlink ask CRTC to block Big Three from wholesale access

CRTC opens door to participation funds for Online News Act

CRTC planning consult on cabinet order that it revisit blocking Big Three’s wholesale access to fibre in Ontario, Quebec

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us