|
|
|
Ottawa, 17 August 1993
|
|
Telecom Public Notice CRTC 93-50
|
|
REVIEW OF THE USE AND SHARING OF COSTS OF TELEPHONE COMPANY SUPPORT STRUCTURES
|
|
I BACKGROUND
|
In Telecom Public Notice CRTC 92-54, 10 September 1992 (Public Notice 92-54), the Commission initiated a proceeding to consider an application by BC TEL requesting that the Commission review and vary that part of Telecom Letter Decision CRTC 91-8, 28 August 1991, relating to the formulae developed in Support Structures and Related Items - Public Proceeding on Rates, Telecom Decision CRTC 86-16, 15 August 1986 (Decision 86-16), for determining the costs associated with jointly-owned poles. The Commission invited comment on BC TEL's application and on the following issues related to Decision 86-16:
|
|
(1) whether it was in the public interest to continue to use the fairness factor in determining costs for telephone companies that do not share pole ownership;
|
|
(2) the merits of the treatment of strand in the aerial system cost study for Bell Canada (Bell), Newfoundland Telephone Company Limited (Newfoundland Tel) and Northwestel Inc. (Northwestel); and
|
|
(3) whether AGT Limited (AGT), The Island Telephone Company Limited (Island Tel), Maritime Telegraph and Telephone Company Limited (MT&T) and The New Brunswick Telephone Company Limited (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.
|
|
AGT, BC TEL, Bell, Island Tel, MT&T, NBTel, Newfoundland Tel and Northwestel were made parties to the proceeding.
|
|
By letter dated 16 October 1992, the Canadian Cable Television Association (CCTA) requested that the Commission expand the examination of the issues set out in Public Notice 92-54 and delay the proceeding until such time as both the structural hearing and the Department of Communications' local networks convergence process had been completed. CCTA submitted that the Commission should expand the proceeding to include consideration of the right of cable companies:
|
|
(1) to perform plant extensions, repairs and upgrades on plant attached to strand or placed in conduit of telephone companies;
|
|
(2) to place their own strand on telephone company poles;
|
|
(3) to place fibre optic cable on either telephone or cable company strand; and
|
|
(4) to provide both programming and non-programming services over their distribution systems.
|
|
By letter dated 26 October 1992, the Commission invited interested parties and the telephone companies party to the proceeding to comment on CCTA's request that the proceeding initiated by Public Notice 92-54 be delayed and expanded. The Commission received a number of comments with respect to CCTA's request.
|
|
By letter dated 9 November 1992, Unitel Communications Inc. (Unitel) requested that the scope of the proceeding initiated by Public Notice 92-54 be expanded to consider the appropriate terms and conditions by which it could have access to telephone company support structures.
|
|
On 19 April 1993, Fundy Cable Ltd. (Fundy) filed an application requesting that the Commission direct NBTel to grant it access to NBTel's support structures for the purpose of installing its own communications cable, including fibre optic cable.
|
|
II ISSUES
|
|
The Commission hereby initiates a new proceeding to expand the process commenced in Public Notice 92-54 to include the issues raised by CCTA, Unitel and other interested parties. Given that Fundy's application raises similar issues, the Commission will also consider that application in this proceeding. Accordingly, the Commission invites comment on issues related to:
|
|
(1) access to telephone company support structures by cable television undertakings and telecommunications carriers;
|
|
(2) the appropriate method or methods of establishing rates for the use of telephone company support structures;
|
|
(3) the ability of cable television undertakings and telecommunications carriers to construct, maintain and operate their plant and equipment on or in telephone company support structures;
|
|
(4) the types of plant that can be installed using telephone company support structures; and
|
|
(5) constraints on the provision of telecommunications services by cable television undertakings and telecommunications carriers using telephone company support structures.
|
|
The record of the proceeding initiated by Public Notice 92-54 will form part of the record of this proceeding.
|
The Commission notes the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal in British Columbia Telephone Company v. Shaw Cable Systems (B.C.) Ltd. and Telecommunications Workers Union, 12 May 1993, (A-1500-92, unreported), setting aside British Columbia Telephone Company - Support Structure Agreement, Telecom Letter Decision CRTC 92-4, 26 June 1992, and referring it back to the Commission.
|
|
III RELATED PROCEEDINGS
|
|
The Commission notes that it currently has before it applications from Bell, under Tariff Notice 4617, and from BC TEL, under Tariff Notice 2691, relating to the provision of cable support structures. In light of the impact of possible changes to Decision 86-16 on the disposition of these applications, the Commission is of the view that the proceedings to consider them should be deferred until after the completion of this proceeding.
|
|
IV PROCEDURE
|
|
1. AGT, BC TEL, Bell, Island Tel, MT&T, NBTel, Newfoundland Tel and Northwestel (the companies) and other parties to the proceeding initiated by Public Notice 92-54 are made parties to this proceeding.
|
|
2. Other persons wishing to be party to this proceeding must file a notice of intention to participate by writing to Mr. Allan J. Darling, Secretary General, CRTC, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0N2, fax: 819-953-0795, by 14 September 1993. The Commission will issue a complete list of parties and their mailing addresses.
|
|
3. The companies are directed to file submissions on the issues raised in this Public Notice, including any specific proposals for changes to the methodology set out in Decision 86-16. Other parties may file similar submissions. All such submissions must be filed with the Commission and served on all other parties to the proceeding by 15 November 1993.
|
|
4. Any party may address interrogatories to any party who files submissions pursuant to paragraph 3 above. Any such interrogatories must be filed with the Commission and served on the party or parties in question by 15 December 1993.
|
|
5. Parties must file responses to any interrogatories with the Commission, serving copies on all other parties, by 14 January 1994.
|
|
6. Requests by parties for further responses to their interrogatories, specifying in each case why a further response is both relevant and necessary, and requests for public disclosure of information for which confidentiality has been claimed, setting out the reasons for disclosure, must be filed with the Commission and served on the party or parties in question by 24 January 1994.
|
|
7. Written responses to requests for further responses to interrogatories and to requests for public disclosure must be filed with the Commission and served on the party making the request by 3 February 1994.
|
|
8. The Commission will issue a determination with respect to requests for disclosure and for further responses as soon as possible.
|
|
9. Parties may file comments with the Commission, serving copies on all other parties, by 9 March 1994.
|
|
10. Parties may file reply comments with the Commission, serving copies on all other parties, by 23 March 1994.
|
|
11. 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
|
|
|