-
TELECOM PUBLIC NOTICE
|
-
Ottawa, 10 September 1992
|
-
Telecom Public Notice CRTC 92-54
|
-
REVIEW OF CABLE TV SUPPORT STRUCTURE ARRANGEMENTS
|
-
I APPLICATION BY B.C. TEL
|
-
In Support Structures and Related Items - Public Proceeding on Rates, Telecom Decision CRTC 86-16, 15 August 1986 (Decision 86-16), the Commission established criteria for setting the rates charged to cable companies for the use of telephone company poles and other support structures. Rates for cable support structures were to be based on cost formulae set out in Decision 86-16, with increases limited to 10% per year.
|
-
In Tariff Notice 2342, dated 28 August 1991, British Columbia Telephone Company (B.C. Tel) filed, pursuant to Decision 86-16, an application for approval of tariff revisions to increase rates for the provision of CATV Support Structure Service. The cost study filed by B.C. Tel in support of its application indicated two major increases over the previous year, one of which related to the costs of poles that were owned jointly with power companies. Specifically, B.C. Tel's 1991 calculation reflected the total investment in such poles, while the 1990 calculation reflected only B.C. Tel's share. As a result, B.C. Tel's proposed costs for jointly-owned poles were 251% greater in 1991 than in 1990.
|
-
In its application, B.C. Tel stated that applying the formula prescribed in Decision 86-16 to only its share of jointly-owned pole costs did not accurately reflect the costs attributable to a CATV licensee. The company suggested that costs based on total investment in jointly-owned poles was a more appropriate basis for allocation.
|
-
In Telecom Letter Decision CRTC 91-8, 28 August 1991 (Letter Decision 91-8), the Commission ruled that the intent of Decision 86-16 is that the allocation formula set out therein apply only to the telephone company's share of the costs of jointly-owned poles. Accordingly, the Commission found that it was inappropriate for B.C. Tel to include costs in its study that were not associated with its share of jointly-owned assets.
|
-
By letter of 29 July 1992, B.C. Tel filed an application pursuant to section 66 of the National Telecommunications Powers and Procedures Act requesting that the Commission review and vary that part of Letter Decision 91-8 relating to the application of the formula for determining the costs associated with jointly-owned poles. B.C. Tel submitted that the Commission erred in fact in finding that the intent of Decision 86-16 is to apply the formula only to the telephone company's share of the costs of jointly-owned poles.
|
-
The Commission invites comment on the issues raised by B.C. Tel's application. The Commission also invites comment on the issues described below.
|
-
II RELATED ISSUES
|
-
At present, Decision 86-16 also forms the basis for the cable support structure rates of Bell Canada (Bell), Newfoundland Telephone Company Limited (Newfoundland Tel) and Northwestel Inc. (Northwestel). The aerial system costs of the various telephone companies are related to each other through the use of a fairness factor that differentiates between two types of pole ownership. Specifically, Bell, Newfoundland Tel and Northwestel have agreements with power companies for the use of poles that are owned outright by those power companies. B.C. Tel, however, has an ownership interest in poles that are used jointly with power companies. As a result, under the formulae established in Decision 86-16, B.C. Tel's costs are spread over a larger number of units, yielding significantly lower per-pole costs, even though its total costs are equivalent to those of Bell. The fairness factor established in Decision 86-16 functions to bring down the per-pole costs of Bell, Newfoundland Tel and Northwestel, upon which rates are based, to a level comparable to those of B.C. Tel.
|
-
In this proceeding, the Commission wishes to consider whether it is in the public interest to continue to use the fairness factor and, if not, whether this factor should be replaced by some other mechanism.
|
-
The Commission also wishes to review the treatment of strand in the aerial system cost calculations established in Decision 86-16. Currently, B.C. Tel, Bell and Northwestel multiply the net annual embedded cost of strand by both a sharing factor (1/3) and a space factor (derived by dividing communications space by the weighted average usable space on poles). Newfoundland Tel does not apply the space factor in determining strand costs for aerial systems. The Commission requests comment on the relative merits of these two treatments.
|
-
Finally, the Commission also wishes to consider whether AGT Limited (AGT), The Island Telephone Company Limited (Island Tel), MT&T Maritime Telegraph and Telephone Company Limited (MT&T) and The New Brunswick Telephone Company (NBTel) should base their rates for cable support structures on the methods established in Decision 86-16, as may be modified as a result of this proceeding.
|
-
III RELATED PROCEEDINGS
|
-
The Commission notes that it currently has before it an application from NBTel, under Tariff Notice 153, for approval of proposed tariff revisions related to rates and construction charges for cable support structures. At the Commission's request, NBTel filed a cost study using the method set out in Decision 86-16. In light of the impact of possible changes to Decision 86-16, the Commission is of the view that the proceeding regarding NBTel's application should be deferred until after the completion of this proceeding.
|
-
Accordingly, the Commission intends to issue a public notice with respect to that application, after a decision is issued in this proceeding.
|
-
In addition, in Northwestel Inc.- Rates, Terms and Conditions for Cable Support Services, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 92-39, 9 July 1992, the Commission initiated a proceeding to consider issues related to the provision of cable support structures in the operating territory of Northwestel. The record of that proceeding should be completed by 24 September 1992. However, again in light of the impact of possible changes to Decision 86-16, the Commission is of the view that a decision with respect to Northwestel's cable support structures should also be deferred until after a ruling in this proceeding.
|
-
IV PROCEDURE
|
-
1. B.C. Tel's application may be examined at any of the company's business offices or at the offices of the CRTC in the following locations:
|
-
Room 201
Central Building
Les Terrasses de la Chaudière
1 Promenade du Portage
Hull, Quebec
|
-
Suite 1007
Bank of Commerce Building
1809 Barrington Street
Halifax, Nova Scotia
|
-
Complex Guy-Favreau
East Tower
200 René-Lévesque Blvd. West
Room 602
Montréal, Quebec
|
-
Suite 1810
275 Portage Avenue
Winnipeg, Manitoba
|
-
Suite 1380
800 Burrard Street
Vancouver, British Columbia
|
-
A copy of B.C. Tel's application may be obtained by any interested person upon request directed to the company at the address noted below.
|
-
2. The mailing addresses to be used in connection with this proceeding are:
|
-
Mr. Allan J. Darling
Secretary General
CRTC
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0N2
Fax: (819) 953-0795
|
-
Ms. Dorothy E. Byrne
Vice-President
Legal & Corporate Affairs
British Columbia Telephone
Company
21-3777 Kingsway
Burnaby, British Columbia
V5H 3Z7
Fax: (604) 432-9681
|
-
3. AGT, Bell, B.C. Tel, Island Tel, MT&T, NBTel, Newfoundland Tel and Northwestel are made parties to this proceeding. Other persons wishing to participate in this proceeding must file a notice of intention to participate by writing to the Commission at the address noted above by 8 October 1992. The Commission will issue a complete list of parties and their mailing addresses.
|
-
4. Parties may file comments with the Commission, serving copies on all other parties, by 29 October 1992.
|
-
5. Parties may file reply comments with the Commission, serving copies on all other parties, by 19 November 1992.
|
-
6. Where a document is to be filed or served by a specific date, the document must be actually received, not merely mailed, by that date.
|
-
Allan J. Darling
Secretary General
|