Telecom Procedural Letter addressed to the Distibution List
Ottawa, 15 February 2018
Our reference: 8690-C126-201612250
RE: City of Calgary’s Part 1 Application dated 28 November 2016 - Request for Extension to Deadline for filing Reply
By letter dated 19 January 2018, Commission staff established a revised process associated with the consideration of The City of Calgary’s (Calgary) Part 1 application dated 28 November 2016 which named Bell Canada, Rogers Communications, Shaw Communications Inc., TELUS Communications Company (collectively, the Carriers) and Zayo Canada as Respondents.
On 31 January 2018, the Carriers filed their answer to Calgary’s Part 1 application. On 2 February 2018, Zayo Canada filed its answer to Calgary’s Part 1 application.
By letter dated 8 February 2018, pursuant to section 7 of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure, Calgary requested an extension to the date for filing its reply to 23 March 2018. Calgary noted that in Telecom Decision 2017-461) Footnote1 , the Carriers and Calgary were required to file submissions on each of the two parts of the Application.
By letter dated 13 February 2018, the Carriers stated that they had no objection to Calgary’s request.
In the circumstances, Commission staff considers the request for an extension to the date for the filing to be reasonable. Accordingly, Calgary has until 23 March 2018 to file a reply,serving copies on the Carriers and any other party.
Procedural Matters Raised by Carriers
In their 31 January 2018 answer, the Carriers also requested an additional reply period for the Carriers to comment on Calgary’s reply to the Carriers’ answer. The Carriers stated that a further process may enable the Carriers to confirm that counter-proposals were acceptable or, conversely, that seemingly reasonable proposals are not and why that was the case.
In its letter dated 8 February 2018, Calgary objected to the Carriers’ request for an additional reply. Calgary stated that the matters before the Commission arise by way of a Part 1 application filed by Calgary and that at no point have the Carriers contested the right of Calgary to make that application, including as to each of the two grounds of relief sought.
In their letter dated 13 February 2018, the Carriers stated that Calgary’s reply would likely offer rationale in support of specific clauses and may offer modifications to specific proposed terms in response to concerns raised by the Carriers. The Carriers submitted that by affording the Carriers the opportunity to reply to Calgary’s comments, they could advise the Commission whether any terms modified by Calgary were acceptable or not, and to provide their rationale for such determinations.
In Telecom Decision 2017-461, in re-establishing the process for Calgary’s Part 1 application, the Commission reminded the respondents that they were required to identify the sections of Calgary’s proposed Municipal Consent Access Agreement (MCAA) to which they object, provide supporting rationale for their objection(s), and propose alternative wording.
In their 31 January 2018 answer, the Carriers filed submissions on the ROW Bylaw and identified in detail which sections of the proposed MCAA they were in agreement with and which sections of the proposed MCAA with which they did not agree, proposing alternate wording.
Commission staff is satisfied that it would be appropriate to allow the Carriers to file an additional reply submission to indicate whether they agree with any counter-proposal by Calgary to the Carriers’ 31 January 2018 wording for the proposed MCAA. This would be an efficient and preferred approach to identify on the record those provisions that remain in dispute between the parties, for which a Commission determination is required.
Therefore, the Respondents may, by 30 March 2018, file an additional reply and serve a copy on Calgary and any other party their additional reply submission. The Respondents may only indicate whether they agree with any alternate wording that Calgary may propose in its 23 March 2018 Reply and may not include in the submission any further arguments or discussion.
At any time during this process, Calgary and the Respondents may negotiate mutually acceptable wording of the various sections of the proposed MCAA which remain in dispute and advise the Commission of such negotiated wording.
Original signed by
Director, Dispute Resolution and Regulatory Implementation
c.c.: Jesslyn Mullaney, CRTC, 819-953-5255, email@example.com
Doug Evanchuk, firstname.lastname@example.org;
Kelly Hess, email@example.com;
Bell Canada, firstname.lastname@example.org;
Rogers Communications, email@example.com,
Shaw Communications Inc., firstname.lastname@example.org;
TELUS Communications Company, email@example.com;
Zayo Canada, firstname.lastname@example.org,
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities, email@example.com;
The Forum for Research and Policy in Communications, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date modified: