ARCHIVED -  Letter

This page has been archived on the Web

Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. Archived Decisions, Notices and Orders (DNOs) remain in effect except to the extent they are amended or reversed by the Commission, a court, or the government. The text of archived information has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Changes to DNOs are published as “dashes” to the original DNO number. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats by contacting us.

Ottawa, 13 July 2012

File No.:  8690-R28-201205204


Pamela J. Dinsmore
Vice President, Regulatory
Rogers Communications
333 Bloor Street East, 9th Floor
Toronto, Ontario M4W 1G9

Barbara A. McIsaac, Q.C.
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
World Exchange Plaza
100 Queen St. Suite 1100
Ottawa, Ontario  K1P 1J9

Re:  Application seeking a Commission determination of the appropriate allocation of the costs of certain relocations requested by the Regional Municipality of York –Commission staff interrogatories

Dear Madams:

On 2 May 2012, the Commission received the above-mentioned Part I application by Rogers Communications Partnership (Rogers) seeking a Commission determination to establish the appropriate allocation of the costs to relocate Rogers’s facilities to accommodate the Regional Municipality of York’s (York’s) vivaNext transit construction and contemporaneous beautification project (the project).

Commission staff request that Rogers and York respond to the attached interrogatories.

Responses to these interrogatories are to be filed with the Commission and served on all parties on the distribution list of this letter by 27 July 2012. Parties may file comments on the interrogatory responses by 3 August 2012. Parties that wish to designate some or all of their answers as confidential must do so in accordance with the CRTC Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Yours sincerely,

Original signed by Kim Wardle for

Mario Bertrand
Director, Dispute resolution and Decisions


c.c.:  Elizabeth Wilson, Regional Municipality of York,


Interrogatories addressed to Rogers

1. For each of the three phases of the project and assuming an aerial to aerial scenario, provide a breakdown of the major costing elements included in the company’s estimated relocation costs into the labour and material components.

2. For each of the three phases of the project and assuming an aerial-to-buried scenario, provide a breakdown of the major costing elements included in the company’s estimated relocation costs into the labour and material components.
3. For each of the three phases of the project, provide a list of the telecommunications facilities that are to be relocated pursuant to York’s proposal. Include (a) a description of the asset; (b) the age of the asset in years; (c) the estimated life in years (pursuant to Telecom Decision 2008-14);1 and (d) the replacement costs of the asset.
4. Pursuant to York’s proposal of 4 June 2012 (paragraph 70), provide a breakdown of the total costs of the project per cost element (e.g. design costs, excavation work, splicing and other) into the labour and material components. Based on York’s proposed cost allocation, provide an estimate of Roger’s share for each costing element identified.

5. For each major activity, provide a breakdown of the additional relocation costs (into labour and material) due to the delays and changes in planning and implementation, as well as the timelines for the construction.

6. With reference to paragraph 15 of Rogers’ 2 May 2012 submission, provide for each additional activity a breakdown of the additional costs (into labour and material components) resulting from the Region’s beautification requirements.

7. Quantify any potential cost savings of using buried versus aerial in terms of  maintenance, life span and replacement costs.

8. Indicate the total annual pole rental fees paid by Rogers to other companies (e.g. municipal hydro) for the telecommunications facilities affected by York’s proposal.

Interrogatories addressed to York

1.   In its 4 June 2012 submission, York indicated that all other telecommunications carriers, in addition to Rogers, are being asked to locate their facilities below ground and were being offered the same proposed cost sharing arrangements as for Rogers. Provide the name and a contact person for the other telecommunications carriers being affected by York’s proposal. Indicate as to whether these telecommunications carriers have agreed to the proposed cost sharing arrangements proposed by York.

2. Explain in detail why the hydro company is not being obliged to bury its cables in the same manner as the telecommunications companies.

[1] Review of certain Phase II costing issues, Telecom Decision CRTC 2008-14, 21 February 2008, as modified by Telecom Decision CRTC 2008-14-1, 11 April 2008

Date modified: