Telecom Procedural Letter addressed to Distribution List

Ottawa, 9 June 2017

Our reference: 8690-C126-201612250


Distribution list

RE: Change of schedule and process for addressing the City of Calgary’s Part 1 Application dated 28 November 2016

Dear Madam, Sir:

In a letter dated 30 May 2017, the Commission denied a request by Bell Canada, Rogers Communications, Shaw Communications Inc., TELUS Communications Company and Zayo Canada (collectively, the Carriers) to suspend consideration of the City of Calgary’s (Calgary) Part1 Application. The Commission also re-established the process for Calgary’s Application by setting out different dates for the filing of submissions and reply comments regarding the rights-of-way (ROW) Bylaw and the proposed Municipal Consent and Access Agreement (MCAA).

By letter dated 6 June 2017, Calgary requested that the Commission revise the schedule and process set out in its 30 May 2017 letter such that submissions and reply comments regarding both the ROW Bylaw and the MCAA would be filed at the same time.

By Commission staff letter dated 6 June 2017, the Carriers were requested to respond to Calgary’s procedural request by 8 June 2017.

By letter dated 7 June 2017, the Carriers (excluding Zayo Canada), stated that they did not object to Calgary’s proposed revisions to the schedule and process.

In view of the above, the schedule and process set out in the Commission’s letter dated 30 May 2017 are modified as follows:

The Carriers are reminded that they are required to identify in detail which sections of the proposed MCAA each carrier contests and propose alternate wording.


Original signed by

Michel Murray
Director, Dispute Resolution and Regulatory Implementation
Telecommunications Sector

Distribution List
City of Calgary,;
Bell Canada,;
Rogers Communications,;
Shaw Communications Inc.,;
TELUS Communications Company,;
Zayo Canada,;
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities,;

Date modified: