CRTC addresses internet installation dispute between eastern Ontario township and small ISP

The CRTC has denied an application brought forward by a locally-owned internet service provider for multiple orders related to the installation of its facilities in Beckwith Township's municipal rights-of-way (ROW). The Thursday ruling comes after a dispute between Community Fibre Company Inc. (CFC) — which serves rural Ottawa and Lanark County— and Beckwith Township over timely access to municipal ROW. In a Part 1 application submitted in Aug. 2022, CFC alleged that Beckwith had not granted timely authorization to install its services. The company requested the commission grant consent for the installation of a new telephone pole, anchors, and strands on existing poles in Franktown, Ont., part of Beckwith Township. The company claimed that despite requesting consent in July 2022 and sending follow-up reminders, Beckwith had not provided a timely response. CFC argued that the delay would cause financial harm, increasing construction costs and delaying the availability of high-speed services to Beckwith residents. Beckwith, in response, stated that it was supportive of telecommunications infrastructure and had requested CFC to coordinate a site visit to confirm the pole's exact location before granting approval. They expressed concerns about visibility issues due to the pole's proximity to the roadside. In its reply, CFC emphasized that Beckwith's response was delayed, resulting in wasted resources and unnecessary costs. They also criticized Beckwith for its lack of explanation regarding the delay, stating that municipalities play a crucial role as gatekeepers of public ROW and delays impact the timely deployment of telecommunications services. The CRTC found that Beckwith had granted consent for CFC to install the requested pole, rendering the first issue resolved. Regarding CFC's request for consent to install anchors to support the installation of new strands on existing poles, the commission found the request premature. CFC had not submitted applications to the relevant pole owners (BCE Inc. and Hydro One), and there was a lack of technical and geographic specifications. The commission also addressed CFC's request for an order requiring Beckwith to promptly review and approve future municipal consent requests. While recognizing the importance of timely approval, the commission suggested that this issue would be best resolved through negotiated municipal access agreements (MAA), aligning with its principles established in previous decisions and encouraged the parties to negotiate mutually acceptable terms and conditions. CFC also requested the CRTC initiate a proceeding to review Beckwith's actions regarding liability waivers for buried fibre in conduit. The commission found that there was insufficient evidence to justify such a proceeding, and CFC had not clearly demonstrated a violation of any provisions of the Telecommunications Act. –Reporting by Jenna Cocullo at jcocullo@thewirereport.ca and editing by Paul Park at ppark@thewirereport.ca

CRTC addresses internet installation dispute between eastern Ontario township and small ISP

News | October 26, 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 addresses internet installation dispute between eastern Ontario township and small ISP

News | October 26, 2023

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

CRTC finalizes terms of Uvagut TV distribution

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

CRTC announces changes to Broadband Fund

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us