Search

Telecom - Commission letter addressed to the Distribution List

Ottawa, 26 April 2021

Our reference: 1011-NOC2020-0366

BY EMAIL

Distribution list

RE: Requests for information with respect to Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2020-366, Call for comments regarding potential regulatory measures to make access to poles owned by Canadian carriers more efficient, as modified by Telecom Notice of Consultation 2020-0366

Dear Madam, Sir,

On 30 October 2020, the Commission issued Notice of Consultation CRTC 2020-366, Call for comments regarding potential regulatory measures to make access to poles owned by Canadian carriers more efficient (TNC 2020-366), inviting interested persons to propose regulatory measures that could facilitate improved access to poles owned by Canadian carriers (telecommunications poles) or poles to which Canadian carriers control access, which in turn would help accelerate the deployment of broadband-capable networks in regions of Canada with limited or no access to such networks.

Commission staff has reviewed the interventions, the replies to interventions and the proposed requests for information submitted by the parties to the proceeding, and considers that additional information is required in regards to TNC 2020-366. Parties are therefore required to provide comprehensive answers, including any supporting information, to the attached requests for information.

Pursuant to subsection 37(2) of the Telecommunications Act, the Commission may require a person other than a Canadian carrier that is in possession of information that the Commission considers necessary for the administration of the Act, to submit the information to the Commission.

As set out in Procedures for filing confidential information and requesting its disclosure in Commission proceedings Broadcasting and Telecom Information Bulletin 2010-961, 23 December 2010, parties may designate certain information as confidential. Parties must provide an abridged version of the document involved, accompanied by a note explaining how the information removed is confidential.

Responses to the requests for information are to be filed with the Commission, and served on all other parties, by 7 June 2021. Parties may request (i) further responses, specifying in each case why a further response is necessary, and (ii) the public disclosure of information that has been designated confidential, setting out in each case the reasons for disclosure. These requests must be filed with the Commission, and served on the parties to whom they are addressed, by 28 June 2020.

Further processes will be announced via procedural letters and/or updates to the notice at future dates.

Sincerely,

Original signed by

Lisanne Legros
Director, Telecommunications Networks Policy
Telecommunications Sector

c.c. Parties to proceeding Telecom Notice of Consultation 2020-366 (Distribution List)
Julian Brainerd, CRTC, julian.brainerd@crtc.gc.ca

Attach. (2)

Attachment 1

Distribution List

grant.logan@me.com
mlebourdais@cariboord.ca
damon.boyle@bcuc.com
dfell@eorn.ca
metaviews@gmail.com
cbbcregulatory@ourtrust.ca
langdeau.philippe-etienne@hydroquebec.com
info@canwisp.ca
economic.development@rdbn.bc.ca
bchydroregulatorygroup@bchydro.com
david.urbach@zayo.com
rtagami@ubcm.ca
ben@communityfibre.ca
regulatory@cnoc.ca
warren@rmalberta.com
caroline@connexionmatawinie.org
info@firstmile.ca
regulatory@bcba.ca
howard.randell@gov.bc.ca
jdemers@fqm.ca
francois.bureau@mcc.gouv.qc.ca
mcaron@mrctemis.ca
bell.regulatory@bell.ca
cedwards@ccsaonline.ca
mcarriere@argenteuil.qc.ca
regulatoryconsultations@fcm.ca
document.control@sasktel.com
c.melancon@eeyou.ca
carl.macquarrie@corp.xplornet.com
regulatory.matters@corp.eastlink.ca
kent@electricity.ca
stephen.scofich@tbaytel.com
regulatory@rci.rogers.com
jonathan.holmes@itpa.ca
Regulatory.Affairs@TELUS.COM
kim.miller@telus.com
christopher.ewasiuk2@sjrb.ca
regulatory@sjrb.ca
dennis.beland@quebecor.com
leonard.eichel@cogeco.com
jlawford@piac.ca
regulatory@teksavvy.ca
regulatory@beanfield.com
regulatory@iristel.com

Attachment 2

Request for Information

The following requests for information are intended to inform the Commission on the obstacles to access poles owned by Canadian carriers (telecommunication poles) or poles to which Canadian carriers control access, in order to accelerate the deployment of broadband-capable networks. Generally, companies seeking access to poles (pole attachers) do so for one or more of the following purposes: to attach communication equipment to poles or strands, to attach transmission cables to strands, or to attach drop-wires to the pole. Pursuant to a pole attacher’s request to access the pole, the pole owner determines whether spare capacity is available to fulfill the specific request, and identifies any make-ready work that must be done to accommodate the request.

A. Information Gathering

Pole attachers have identified numerous reasons that result in delays, high-costs and even denials of their requests, as significant barriers to access Canadian carrier owned poles in an efficient manner. Conversely, pole owners have taken the position that pole access requests are being granted efficiently and that there are no significant concerns to be addressed.

Bell Canada and its Affiliates, TELUS and SaskTel are requested to provide the following information:

  1. Identify the number of poles you currently own or manage, by province.
    1. Of the poles noted above, how many are currently subject to a joint-use agreement, by province?
  2. Populate the tables below:
                 
    Pole Access Requests – 2019
    Permit applications that affected 50 poles or less Permit applications that affected more than 50 poles
    a.   For each pole attacher requesting access, the number of permit applications received for access to telecommunication poles. .
    b.   By pole attacher requesting access, the number of permit applications received that were granted within the following timelines (from initial permit application to permit granting):
    • 0-30 days
    • 31-60 days
    • 61-90 days
    • More than 90 days.
    c.   For each pole attacher requesting access, the number of permit applications that were denied due to lack of spare capacity.
    d.   For each pole attacher requesting access, the number of permit applications that were denied due to lack of spare capacity and where the capacity that was needed to grant the permit application was utilized within 60 days of the permit being denied.
    e. Where b. (i) to (iv), plusc., do not add-up to the total permit applications received in a., above, identify the discrepency and provide details.
                 
    Pole Access Requests – 2020
    Permit applications that affected 50 poles or less Permit applications that affected more than 50 poles
    a.   For each pole attacher requesting access, the number of permit applications received for access to telecommunication poles.
    b.   By pole attacher requesting access, the number of permit applications received that were granted within the following timelines (from initial permit application to permit granting):
    • 0-30 days
    • 31-60 days
    • 61-90 days
    • More than 90 days.
    c.   For each pole attacher requesting access, the number of permit applications that were denied due to lack of spare capacity.
    d.   For each pole attacher requesting access, the number of permit applications that were denied due to lack of spare capacity and where the capacity that was needed to grant the permit application was utilized within 60 days of the permit being denied.
    e. Where b. (i) to (iv), plusc., do not add-up to the total permit applications received in a., above, identify the discrepency and provide details.
  3. Provide a copy of all current templates of Support Structure License Agreements currently used for the provision of support structure services to licensees.

B. Access Permits,Make-ready Work and Timelines

Several parties indicated that the timely and affordable access to support structures has become the most significant barrier they face in deploying broadband capable networks. In some instances, in order to accommodate the pole attacher’s request, certain make-ready work would need to be completed.

  1. In its intervention, Bell Canada noted that the support structure process starts with a request to attach facilities to support structures through a permit request. This initiates a review of the permit request by the companies provincial support structure management team. The review triggers a field inspection to ascertain capacity on the structure and any work that may be required to make the structure ready to accommodate the requested access. If make-ready work is required, an estimated cost to complete such make-ready work is provided to the pole attacher. If approved, the make-ready work is completed and the pole attacher can proceed with the installation. A subsequent field inspection is then conducted to confirm that the installation matches what was requested and approve the construction as meeting applicable construction standards.

Only SaskTel and TELUS are requested to answer the following:

  1. Confirm that the Bell Canada support structure permit approval process described in its intervention generally applies. Where it differs from your process, provide a description of your process.

Bell Canada and its Affiliates, TELUS and SaskTel are requested to answer the following:

  1. The general permit request process appears to consist of the following six steps: (1) review of the request by the support structure management team for a given province, who initiate a field inspection to ascertain capacity on the poles; (2) assessment of the make-ready work required to accommodate the permit request; (3) if make-ready work is required, an estimate of cost to complete such make-ready work is provided to the attacher; (4) completion of make-ready work by the pole owner, following approval of the cost estimate by the pole attacher; (5) the pole attacher proceeds with installations; and (6) the pole owner conducts a field inspection to ensure construction complies with the permit.
    • In this process, steps (1) through (6), with the exception of step (5), are currently within the control of the pole owner. With the exception of step (5), provide:
      1. The average time it takes to complete each step (1) through (4), by the magnitude of the applicant’s request: Less than 50 poles, and 50+ poles.
      2. Provide timeline, by project magnitude noted in i. above, for completion of step (6) once attacher notifies pole owner of work being completed.
      3. With a view to making support structure access more efficient for pole attachers, propose specific changes to the process, responsibility and timelines for each step noted above.
      4. For the proposed changes noted in b) iii., for each step (1) through (4) and step (6), propose amendments, to update the support structure tariffs.

All parties to this proceeding are requested to answer the following:

  1. In order for support structure access requests to be processed in a non-discriminatory manner, Shaw and Rogers proposed that the ILECs should process support structure requests through their respective Carrier Services Group (CSG), to ensure that the pole attacher’s build plans are not accessible to the pole owners retail arm:
    1. Provide views on the CSG process referenced above, or propose other approaches that can be implemented to protect the confidentiality of a pole attacher’s build plans from the retail arm of the ILEC.
  2. Multiple parties noted that the ILEC’s permitting processes for applications to access poles had long delays and, when applications were denied, the ILECs do not provide sufficient information to explain the denial.
    • Parties also noted that the tariff does not currently specify a response time for permit applications for 50 poles or more, and requested that the tariff be amended to include a specific timeline for response.
      1. Comment on the proposition made by multiple parties for a 60-day deadline for ILECs to grant a permit for access application for 50 poles or more. If you disagree with the proposed 60-day deadline, provide an alternate deadline with rationale or, rationale as to why a specific timeline cannot be provided.
      2. Provide your views, with rationale, on the information that should be provided to an applicant whose pole access request is denied.
      3. When a pole attacher’s request is delayed beyond the tariff specified service standards due to unusual circumstances or the request being for a remote area, specify the information that should be provided to the applicant to explain the delay. 
  3. TekSavvy proposed a system of credits to be applied towards monthly recurring charges for permits that are issued past the tariff approved timelines. Provide comments on TekSavvy’s proposal, and/or propose consequences that should apply when pole owners fail to issue permits within the tariff deadlines, for requests that were not identified by the pole owner as meeting the specified tariff exceptions.
  4. Quebecor submitted that the lack of clear definitions of make-ready work in the current Support Structure Access (SSA) Tariffs is 'a glaring gap that must be addressed by defining “make-ready work,” and the corresponding notions of "simple make-ready work" and "complex make-ready work.”’ Footnote1
    1. Provide your views on whether the categories proposed by Quebecor are appropriate and indicate if you agree with Quebecor’s proposed definitions of each category. If you disagree with Quebecor’s proposed categories, submit, with rationale, your preference in terms of categories and/or definition of make-ready work.
    2. Provide timelines for the completion of make-ready work in each category proposed by Quebecor or those you propose. Identify and explain any specific exceptions where the proposed timelines may not be met.
    3. Identify and discuss what categories of work can be completed by a pole attacher, or their approved contractor.
  5. Some intervenors proposed that the ILECs tariff be amended to exclude from make-ready work any pre-existing non-compliance work (corrective work) and associated costs to bring poles to applicable construction standards.
    • Rogers proposed that where corrective work is required, and such work can be done by a pole attacher or their approved contractor, the pole attacher in its application would provide notice to the pole owner ILEC, and include an estimate of the costs for the corrective work. Rogers further proposed that the pole owner could either complete the corrective work within 15 days or the pole attacher would complete the work within 30 days of such notice.
      1. Comment on the description of corrective work above and provide a definition and any further description of corrective work.
      2. Provide views on Rogers’ proposal or propose an alternate approach and/or timelines for efficient completion of corrective work.
      3. Provide a discussion on any circumstances where the costs for corrective work, to bring an existing pole to applicable construction standards, should be borne by the pole attacher requesting access.
  6. With respect to situations where the existing pole needs to be replaced to accommodate a pole attacher, explain the criteria for the determination of the installation of a new pole to replace an existing pole.
    1. Specify what aspects of the determination and actions would have to be made by the pole owner, and what aspects of the determination and actions can be made by the pole attacher or their approved contractor.
    2. Provide a breakdown of costs and proportion of costs, where applicable, which would apply to each of: i) the pole owner; ii) the other licensees already on the pole; iii) the electric utility (on joint-use poles, where applicable); and iv) the new pole attacher, for the following instances:
      1. The new pole attacher advances the replacement of the pole, where the pole to be replaced is not fully depreciated.
      2. The new pole attacher advances the replacement of the pole, where the pole to be replaced is fully depreciated.
  7. With respect to situations where a new strand needs to be installed or an existing strand needs to be replaced to accommodate a pole attacher, explain the criteria for the determination of the installation of the new strand.
    1. Specify what aspects of the determination and actions would have to be made by the pole owner, and what aspects of the determination and actions can be made by the pole attacher or their approved contractor.
    2. Provide a breakdown of make-ready costs and proportion of costs, where applicable, which would apply to each of: i) the pole owner; ii) the other licensees already on the strand; and iii) the new pole attacher.
  8. Multiple parties were in favour of implementing a One Touch Make-Ready (OTMR) regime. If such a regime were to be implemented by the Commission, what should be the limitations, conditions, responsibilities and rights of all the parties (pole owners, existing licensees, new pole attachers, and approved contractors)?
  9. In its intervention, Bell Canada noted that they have launched a trial with a limited number of pole attachers of an OTMR process, which would allow a pole attacher to complete all make-ready work that is within Bell’s control themselves, using their approved contractors, with the exception of work that requires service cutovers or is otherwise deemed to be a high risk, at Bell’s discretion.

Bell Canada further noted that the typical reasons to deny a permit or require make-ready work include:

  1. Bell Canada in its intervention noted the following approval process for a OTMR licensee and/or contractor to be included in the tariff:
    • Qualified OTMR Licensee: Refers to a Licensee and/or contractor that has applied for and successfully completed a six-month trial during which the Company shall allow the licensee and/or contractor to conduct OTMR for certain permit requests at the Company’s discretion. Upon completion of the six-month trial the Licensee and/or contractor will either be approved for OTMR and considered a Qualified OTMR Licensee or the qualification shall be denied with written reasons to support such a denial. Even after certification of a OTMR Licensee after the six-month trial, the Company reserves the right to withdraw that certification after providing written reasons to support such a denial.
      1. Provide views on Bell Canada’s approval process for Licensees and/or contractors to become Qualified OTMR Licensees, including process and timelines.
      2. Provide tariff amendments that would clearly define the approval process for Licensees and/or contractors to become Qualified OTMR Licensees.
  2. In its intervention, Bell Canada acknowledged that further work could be done on their poles without full engineering sign-offs by the pole attacher if the limitation of liability in their Support Structure Agreement (SSA), as approved by the Commission, would be amended. As such, Bell Canada proposed to introduce a new section 6.1.1. in the SSA which would state:

    “6.1.1. For the purpose of section 6.1 of this agreement, processes developed in good faith for the purposes of accelerating access to structures, including with respect to OTMR by Bell Canada or third-party licensees, shall not be considered gross negligence or willful acts of Bell Canada which restrict the application of section 6.1. the Licensee having fully assessed any potential risks and responsibility arising from participating in such processes and assuming all such risks and responsibility for any damages to Bell Canada, the Licensee or a third party.”

    1. Provide views, with rationale, as to the appropriateness of the amendment to the SSA suggested by Bell Canada. If the changes proposed by Bell Canada are not deemed appropriate, suggest alternative solutions to the liability issue raised by Bell Canada.

C. Pole Owner Priority Access

In Revised regulatory framework for wholesale services and definition of essential service, Telecom Decision 2008-17, the Commission assigned support structures to the public good category. The Commission stated that “[s]ervices in the public good category are those that the Commission has determined provide an important social benefit and are, therefore, mandated” and that “engaging in the construction of duplicate support structure facilities would result in an inefficient use of public and private resources and would be an inconvenience to the public.” This classification was adopted in order to grant fair access to all TSP attachers for the public good of all Canadians.

Bell Canada and its Affiliates, TELUS and SaskTel are requested to answer the following:

  1. The cable companies and competitors submitted that future use reservations on poles should not be allowed and pole access licenses should be issued to pole owners as well as other pole attachers on a first-come-first served basis.
    • Bell Canada, TELUS and SaskTel submitted that if future capacity reservation priority was not extended to pole owners, planned deployment of broadband networks would be interrupted. Some pole attachers noted the appropriatness of future use reservation for the ILEC’s imminent deployment plans.
    • Bell Canada also noted that pole access tariffs rates have been established under the assumption of priority access for pole owners, and any changes would require a review of costs and rates.
      1. Provide specific evidence of planned deployment of broadband networks that would have been interupted if priority future capacity reservation was not available to the pole owner ILEC (specific evidence would include pole attacher requests that were received for access to poles that the ILEC had imminent deployment plans for).
      2. Provide rationale on why a pole owner should have privileges, including priority access and future use capacity reservation, on their poles.
        1. Specify whether such privileges should apply only to new poles being installed for a certain period of time, or to all poles owned by the pole owner.
        2. Other than future use capacity reservation, specify any other priority access terms that a pole owner should have on the poles it owns. If applicable, distinguish between new poles and existing poles.
        3. With respect to future use reservation, specify any limit to capacity that can be reserved or time-limit for future use reservations. If applicable, distinguish between new poles and existing poles.
      3. If the Commission were to adopt a first-come-first-served policy for pole license application and permitting, identify:
        1. The duration of permit validity, within which pole attachments should be installed (after which the permit expires and the pole capacity becomes available);
        2. The duration of the “cool-off period”, i.e. the number of days after which the applicant whose permit validity expired can resubmit the request for pole access.
      4. Provide a discussion on how priority reservation for pole owners affects the tariffed cost of pole access. Further, if a first-come-first-served approach was implemented for pole access, provide a discussion on how the tariffed costs for pole access would be affected.

All pole attachers are requested to answer the following:

  1. The cable companies and competitors submitted that future use reservations on poles should not be allowed and pole access licenses be issued to pole attachers, including pole owners, on a first-come-first served basis. Rogers noted the anti-competitive impact of ILEC capacity reservation on broadband deployment.
    • Bell Canada also noted that pole access tariffs rates have been established under the assumption of priority access for pole owners, and any changes would require a review of costs and rates.
      1. Provide evidence of broadband network deployment projects being delayed for Canadians because of future use capacity reservation by the pole owner.
      2. Provide rationale on whether a pole owner should have privileges, including priority access and future use capacity reservation on their own poles.
        1. Specify whether such privileges should apply only to new poles being installed for a certain period of time, or to all poles owned by the pole owner.
        2. Other than future use capacity reservation, specify any other priority access terms that a pole owner should have on the poles it owns. If applicable, distinguish between new poles and existing poles.
        3. With respect to future use reservation, specify any limit to capacity that can be reserved or time-limit for future use reservations. If applicable, distinguish between new poles and existing poles.
      3. If the Commission was to adopt a first-come-first-served basis for pole license application and permitting, identify:
        1. The duration of permit validity, within which pole attachments should be installed (after which the permit expires and the pole capacity becomes available);
        2. The duration of the “cool-off period”, i.e. the number of days after which the applicant whose permit validity expired can resubmit the request for pole access.
      4. Provide views on Bell Canada’s assertion that any changes to a pole owner’s future use reservation capacity would require a review of costs and rates.

D. Access to Joint-Use Poles

The ILECs have submitted that a majority of their poles are joint-use poles, pursuant to a joint-use agreement with the electric utility, which support both telecommunication and hydro-electric facilities.

Bell Canada and its Affiliates, TELUS and SaskTel are requested to answer the following:

  1. Bell Canada and TELUS have joint-use pole access arrangements to manage pole access on electrical utility poles. These arrangements allow the ILEC to manage/coordinate the process applications from pole attachers to access the dedicated telecommunication space of these joint-use poles.
    1. Identify each electric utility or subsidiary of an electric utility with whom the ILEC has a joint-pole use agreement.
    2. For each utility or subsidiary identified, provide the number of poles that come under the agreements identified in a. above.
    3. For each agreement identified in a. above, indicate whether the agreement gives the ILEC any priority access or any preferred access to reserve capacity for future use.
    4. Describe any provisions in the agreements noted in a. above, which would prevent the ILEC from managing the administration of pole access through the CSG or other proposed process, to maintain the confidentiality of the pole attacher’s build plans from the retail arm of the ILEC.

Bell Canada is requested to provide the following:

  1. In reference to Rogers’ Part 1 application, dated 17 July 2020, which was put on hold by the Commission to be examined as part of NOC 2019-406, and now this proceeding:  
    1. File the Joint-Use Agreement between Bell Canada and NB Power, which was the subject of Rogers’ application.
    2. Identify and discuss any terms and conditions in the agreement that provide Bell Canada future use capacity reservation on NB Power poles.
    3. Identify and discuss any terms and conditions in the agreement that provide Bell Canada preferred access to NB Power poles.
    4. Identify and discuss any terms and conditions in the agreement that provide Bell Canada faster response time to access and install facilities in the communication space of NB Power poles.
    5. Identify and discuss any terms and conditions in the agreement that preclude pre-approved attachers or their contractors from validating or completing make-ready work on the communication space of NB Power poles.
    6. For 2019 and 2020, identify projects for which Bell Canada requested and completed installation on NB Power poles. Specify in table format: the date of the request was made to NB Power, the date NB Power granted access, the date that the work was completed, and the number of poles accessed.
    7. For 2019 and 2020, identify projects for which pole attachers requested and completed installation on NB Power poles. Specify in table format: the date the permit application was received by Bell Canada, the date the request was made by Bell Canada to NB Power, the date NB Power granted access or denied access, the reason for denial of access, date that the work was completed, and the number of poles accessed.

E. Expedited Dispute Resolution process for Support Structure Access

There is a broad consensus amongst parties that the Commission needs to improve its current dispute resolution process, or establish a new, expedited process for access to telecommunications poles. Parties generally submitted that the Commission’s dispute resolution process needs to be faster and more efficient.

All parties to this proceeding are invited to address the following:

  1. In general, pole attachers submitted that an expedited support structure specific dispute resolution process should be put in place to provide quick resolution for support structure access request issues. Practices and procedures for dispute resolution, Broadcast and Telecom Information Bulletin CRTC 2019-184, sets out informal as well as formal dispute resolution processes that are currently available for disputes, including support structure disputes.
    • Xplornet proposed  an informal dispute resolution process, where Commission staff are empowered to impose a solution, eliminating the need for disputing parties to seek an expedited hearing for outstanding issues to be resolved. Shaw suggested that Commission staff be authorized to engage an independent third-party telecom support structure expert, to hear the dispute and issue a binding decision within days.
    • Specific to the efficient access to ILEC owned or managed poles, provide views and a detailed discussion on how existing practices and procedures for dispute resolution, set-out in Broadcast and Telecommunication Bulletin CRTC 2019-184, may be modified or augmented.
  1. A number of parties have proposed preventative measures intended to deal with support structure disputes before they arise. In its submission, Quebecor proposed several measures the Commission could take, including directing the ILECs to organize information and training sessions for the benefit of competitors when they issue new technical, operational or administrative directives regarding access to its support structures. Furthermore, a number of groups have suggested the establishment of provincial “coordination tables” similar to that formed by the Government of Quebec, where service providers can come together to collaborate and problem solve.
    1. Provide views with rationale as to what kind of preventive measures the Commission can facilitate to improve access to telecommunications poles.
    2. Provide views on each ILEC pole owner establishing similar coordination tables in each province that it operates, identifying:
      1. Who should participate in the working group.
      2. How often should the group convene.

Bell Canada, TELUS, Hydro Quebec, Government of Quebec, and ISED (parties who participated in the coordination table meetings), are requested to answer the following:

  1. Bell Canada noted that recently it had announced the creation of a coordination table to support the deployment of projects that offer high-speed internet to business and citizens in rural areas. The coordination table reviews the priorities of various pole-attacher’s, conducts field visits, brainstorms solutions to particular roadblocks and ultimately, implements solutions to release permits.
    • Provide views with rationale as to the effect the working group has had on the coordination and deployment of broadband networks. Specifically comment on:
      1. Solutions that were implemented to provide permits.
      2. Disputes that were potentially avoided as a result of the coordination table. Explain.
      3. Specific recommendations for amendments to the support structure tariffs.
Date modified: