By Ahmad Hathout
TORONTO – Shaw Communications plans to push Ontario to make mandatory the municipalities’ co-operation with telecommunications service providers to allow access to their infrastructure quickly for network builds, as urgency to lay the groundwork for 5G picks up.
The Alberta-based company registered lobby files with the province last week that reflect the telecom’s intention to bring the case to ministers that there is an urgent need for telecoms to obtain easy access to city infrastructure “to ensure connectivity can be built in a timely manner,” the registration says. It’s unclear how Shaw would like that co-operation to be mandated, whether through a policy direction or a legal amendment.
The lobby registration comes after years of disputes between the telecoms and certain Canadian municipalities over infrastructure access that have led to prolonged processes of appeals to the CRTC and, in some cases, the courts. Bell, Rogers, Telus and Shaw have been in past conflicts with cities including Hamilton, Terrebonne, and Calgary on the interpretation of the terms of their municipal access agreements (MAA). The CRTC has established a model MAA to help the telecoms and municipalities come to amicable terms on use of property and rights-of-way, but sometimes it’s anything but cordial.
Shaw’s Freedom Mobile is in a more precarious position than the other major telecoms as it is still an emerging fourth player in the midst of deploying the rest of the spectrum to build on its growing LTE network. Combined with its purchase of 600 Mhz spectrum in the most recent auction, the regional player wants to ensure it makes a splash in the country’s most populous province where it already has 4G services.
While Shaw declined to comment for this story, when asked whether they support Shaw’s initiative, spokespeople for Rogers and Bell pointed to their existing comments about access to infrastructure in their submissions to the government-appointed panel tasked with providing recommendations to the government for amending the Telecommunications Act. All major parties, including Shaw, argued for unobstructed access to municipal infrastructure under the auspices of the CRTC and not hamstrung by lower jurisdictions.
In its submission, Bell recommended that the government do away with the current “advanced consent” model for municipal access as “it is common for negotiations for access to municipal rights-of-way to last for two years or longer,” and instead apply a “notification” model wherein carriers would not need to obtain advanced consent from municipalities to construct wireless telecommunications infrastructure “but only to notify the relevant public authorities of such plans,” who still have an opportunity to challenge proposed construction with an application to the CRTC.
Meanwhile, Rogers said in its submission that attachments should not be “left entirely to negotiation by the parties” so that “owners of them cannot be permitted to exact a monopoly price for their use.”
All the major telecoms shared the suggestion that the law should grant federally-regulated access rights on a technologically-neutral basis, meaning the old “wireline” definition should be expanded to include wireless and other technologies.
One of the recommendations of the Broadcast and Telecom Legislative Review report seems to agree with the carriers as it said the federal government should “assign operational oversight of the radio communication and broadcasting antenna siting process to the CRTC, including managing the interaction with municipalities and land-use authorities.”
“These bodies each have distinct and legitimate policy concerns regarding passive infrastructure.”
The urgency of timely access to municipal infrastructure has been accelerating. Rogers has already green-lit its initial 5G network and Bell and Telus will do the same sometime this year. The next-generation networks require many small cell attachments on “passive infrastructure,” such as lamp and hydro poles, ducts, towers, lights, transit shelters, mail boxes and rights-of-way, for the ubiquitous connectivity promised by the new technology. However, the telecoms have long complained attachment rates set by the Ontario Energy Board are far too high, resulting in disputes and a renewed call for the CRTC to step in and regulate those costs.
However, because the government has yet to speak about which of the BTLR report recommendations it will turn into law, it may take a long time for any change to materialize – long enough for the wireless companies to fall behind on 5G.
As the panel report notes, the labyrinth of government bodies involved include the CRTC, Innovation Canada, the Canadian Transportation Agency, provincial and territorial utility regulators and municipalities. “These bodies each have distinct and legitimate policy concerns regarding passive infrastructure,” the report said.
The panel also recommends the Telecommunications Act be changed to “require the CRTC to consult with the relevant municipality or other public authority prior to exercising its discretion to grant permission to construct telecommunications facilities.”
When asked what discussions were had with any of the telecoms on the matter so far, Ontario government spokeswoman Christine Bujold said nothing has yet transpired and pointed to the province’s funding for a new provincial broadband program, which involves the ministry of infrastructure.
Announced in July of last year, the strategy includes a promise to “cut red tape to make it easier for [the] government and the private sector to deliver [the] broadband project,” it said. “This will remove hurdles that slow down development and delay broadband expansion.”
The strategy document notes that Ontario has the highest hydro pole attachment rates in Canada, which creates a “financial barrier to expansion in rural, remote and northern areas,” and said that the government “will listen to the telecommunications sector” and work with them to reduce said barriers.
