ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter Addressed to Distribution List

Ottawa, 20 March 2015

Our reference: 8690-T66-201501107

BY EMAIL

Distribution List

RE: Part 1 Application - Request for Commission direction to utilize the Model Municipal Access Agreement as basis for negotiations

On 19 March 2015, the Commission received a letter from Bell Canada, MTS Inc. and Allstream Inc. (collectively MTS Allstream), Rogers Communications Partnership, Shaw Cablesystems G.P. (Shaw) and TELUS Communications Company (collectively, the Carriers), requesting an extension of the date by which they must file their reply in their  above-noted Part 1 application, to 15 April 2015.

The Carriers stated that they had discovered, on the CRTC’s website, that the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (the FCM) filed an intervention on the application but failed to serve the Carriers. They stated that require additional time to review this intervention and to address in their reply comments the substance of the FCM’s position.

The Carriers also stated that they require additional time to review the numerous schedules, exhibits and spreadsheets filed by the City of Calgary and alleged breaches with the terms of expired Municipal Consent Access Agreements (MCAAs).

In addition, the Carriers stated that on 2 April 2015, the joint Carrier-City operational committee will meet to discuss the specific matters related to the provision of “as built” drawings for installations completed during the course of 2014. They stated that in accordance with the Commission staff’s direction in its 16 March 2015 letter, the result of these efforts will be reported to the Commission on 8 April 2015. The Carriers stated that allowing them to file their reply comments after these steps have been taken would be a more efficient and logical process.

Finally, the Carriers stated that the City of Hamilton, through its letter of support filed as Schedule 8 in the City of Calgary’s answer, and the City of Calgary, through its affidavit filed as part of the FCM’s submission in the Hamilton/Bell proceeding^{Footnote 1}, are intervening in each other’s submissions. They stated that the FCM is collaborating with City of Calgary and the City of Hamilton

in making similar arguments and is participating in both proceedings. The Carriers stated that aligning the reply comments submission date in the two proceedings which are dealing with similar issues, with many of the same parties, would afford all parties the fair opportunity to review and comment on the many issues.

By letter dated 20 March 2015, the City of Calgary stated that an extension was justified but was opposed to an extension to 15 April 2015.

The City of Calgary stated the primary issue raised in this Part 1 application, as framed by the Carriers, was whether the City was required to utilize the Model MAA as a starting point in negotiations and not how the Carriers are going to address or repair the breaches of the MCAAs. Furthermore, it stated that only two of the schedules to The City’s reply contain material which is new to the Carriers, one of which contains only a three page letter of support from the City of Hamilton. The City of Calgary stated that all the other Schedules consist entirely of material which the Carriers were already familiar with.

With respect to the 2 April 2015 meeting, the City of Calgary stated that the role of the Model MAA and the standards for as-built drawings were two distinct issues, and it was therefore not efficient or logical to allow the Carriers’ to delay their response until after the results of the meeting were reported to the Commission.

The City of Calgary further stated that there was also no benefit to be gained by aligning the timelines in this proceeding with those of the Hamilton/Bell proceeding as it is Hamilton replying in the Hamilton/Bell proceeding, and the Carriers replying in this proceeding. Furthermore, of the five Carriers, only Bell and Allstream are involved in the Hamilton/Bell proceeding. The City of Calgary submitted that procedural fairness does not permit that the Carriers be provided with significantly more time to prepare their reply Comments than would normally be permitted.

The City of Calgary noted that the Carriers initiated this Part 1 application with full knowledge of the process by which such applications were heard and the Carriers had every opportunity to ensure they had sufficient resources available to address the City’s answer. The City of Calgary stated that since the date on which it was properly served with the Carriers’ application, it has prepared its answer to the Carrier’s application within the Commission’s standard timeframe while also responding to a procedural request initiated by the Carriers during that timeframe. In the City of Calgary’s view, there was no just reason that the Carriers should not be expected to do the same. Further, the Carriers do not have to undertake any translation work, such as is the case in the Hamilton/Bell proceeding, which would justify additional time.

The City of Calgary stated that it was informed by FCM that the Carriers were served with FCM’s Intervention on 18 March 2015, a delay of five days from the date on which the Intervention was filed with the Commission. The City of Calgary noted that at the outset of these proceedings, and following the Carriers’ nine day delay in serving the City with their application, it was granted an extension of seven days to submit its answer. In the City of Calgary’s view, an extension of three days was sufficient to accommodate the inconvenience to the Carriers of not being promptly served with FCM’s Intervention, and that no extension beyond that date was justified. Accordingly, the City of Calgary submitted that the Carriers should be permitted to submit their reply Comments no later than 26 March 2015.

Commission staff notes that the record indicates that the Carriers were not properly served with the FCM’s intervention filed with the Commission, and considers therefore that an extension is warranted. Commission staff considers, however, that an extension beyond what is reasonably required to correct the aforementioned procedural deficiency is not warranted.

In this regard, Commission staff notes that in their Part I application, the Carriers have requested that the Commission direct the City of Calgary to recommence negotiations of a municipal access agreement with the Carriers using the Model Municipal Access Agreement as the basis for negotiations. As such, the matters to be determined in disposing of the application do not require resolution of particular allegations of non compliance with the terms of expired MCAAs.

Commission staff also considers that the request to extend the date by which the Carriers are to file their reply comments in order to account for the joint Carrier-City operational committee meeting on 2 April 2015 is unsupported. In this regard, staff notes that the purpose of this committee meeting is to determine the timeframes and format by which “as built” drawings for 2014 would be submitted to the City of Calgary, which matters are not of direct relevance to the request set out in the Part 1 application, as noted above.

Further, Commission staff considers that the procedural timelines set out for both the Hamilton/Bell proceeding and the proceeding with respect to which the present procedural request relates allow the parties sufficient opportunities to comment on the issues relevant in each of these proceedings. As such, there is no benefit to be gained by delaying consideration of one of these proceedings by way of aligning the timelines for the provision of reply comments.

Therefore, in view of the circumstances, the Carriers are requested to file with the Commission, serving a copy on the City and the FCM, reply comments by 27 March 2015.

Where a document is to be filed or served by a specific date, the document must be actually received, not merely sent, by that date.

Sincerely,

Original signed by

Michel Murray
Director, Dispute Resolution & Regulatory Implementation
Telecommunications Sector
c.c.: Jesslyn Mullaney, CRTC, 819-953-5255, jesslyn.mullaney@crtc.gc.ca

Attach. Distribution List

Distribution List:

Bell Canada, bell.regulatory@bell.ca
MTS Allstream, iworkstation@mtsallstream.com
Rogers Communications, Pamela.dinsmore@rci.rogers.com
Shaw Communications Inc., regulatory@sjrb.ca
TELUS Communications Company, regulatory.affairs@telus.com
The City of Calgary, Maryanne.bendfeld@calgary.ca
FCM, stephane_emardchabot@sympatico.ca

Date modified:

2015-03-20