Search

Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2024-25

PDF version

Ottawa, 5 February 2024

Public record: 8690-Q15-202002674 , 8622-R28-202004365, 8690-R28-202304468 and 1011-NOC2024-0025

Call for comments – Attachment of wireless facilities on support structures owned or controlled by incumbent local exchange carriers

Deadline for submission of interventions: 5 April 2024

Deadline for submission of replies: 6 May 2024

[Submit an intervention or view related documents]

Summary

In recent years, demand for mobile wireless services has increased significantly as Canadians use these services in many aspects of their everyday lives. The latest wireless technology— fifth-generation (5G) networks—will continue to expand faster, higher-quality wireless services across the country.

5G wireless networks require companies to deploy thousands of additional cell sites across Canada. Finding appropriate locations for these sites can be challenging and costly. To simplify and aid 5G deployment, the Commission is examining whether it should modify existing rules that allow third parties to attach equipment—such as 5G small cells—onto poles across Canada.

Introduction

  1. Mobile wireless services are critically important to Canadians. The latest wireless technology— fifth-generation (5G) networks—will continue to expand faster, higher-quality wireless services across the country. These networks are also expected to support new applications that benefit individual Canadians and to create new opportunities in the digital economy.
  2. The Commission seeks to implement regulatory policies that serve to promote sustainable competition while prioritizing the use of existing infrastructure and network investment. Such an approach could help wireless companies deploy 5G networks broadly and compete to offer innovative wireless services at prices Canadians can afford.
  3. 5G uses a mix of high-, mid-, and low-band frequencies to provide a service that is faster, has lower latencyFootnote 1, and higher capacity than previous generations. The high-band frequencies used in 5G networks use millimetre-wave signals, which can only travel short distances. This means that the cellular radio access points (commonly referred to as small cells)Footnote 2 will have a small coverage area. This is different from the signals used in older networks, which tend to propagate signals further, thereby requiring a smaller number of cell sites.
  4. In order to achieve the network density required for 5G networks, thousands of small cells will need to be deployed across Canada. To accomplish this, small cell equipment or facilities are being deployed on a variety of street furniture, such as streetlights and utility poles, buildings, and incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC) support structures. ILEC support structures include the polesFootnote 3 and strandsFootnote 4 that support the weight of communications lines and other facilities. The Commission regulates competitor access to support structures owned or controlled by ILECs through tariffs.Footnote 5
  5. In this proceeding, the Commission will address the challenges associated with the deployment of wireless facilities, such as small cells, on ILEC-owned or -controlled support structures. This proceeding will examine a number of issues, including (i) the applicability of existing support structure tariffs to wireless facilities; (ii) the types of wireless facilities that will be deployed, and (iii) what regulatory changes, if any, may be required to facilitate the deployment of advanced wireless technologies in Canada.

Regulatory background

Regulation of ILEC support structures 

  1. In Telecom Decision 95-13, the Commission set out basic principles regarding a general right of access to ILEC support structures, as well as the rates for such access. The Commission directed various incumbent carriers to make their support structures available to other telecommunications carriers and cable television undertakings, where capacity is available.
  2. At that time, the Commission also determined that it would be in the public interest to minimize the number of support structures through their joint use. The Commission therefore determined that owners should be able to set and enforce construction standards based on technical and safety requirements that do not unreasonably impede access, with no restrictions on the type of plant placed on ILEC support structures, unless those restrictions relate to safety and technical requirements. The Commission also considered that there should be no restrictions on the types of services provided by users of support structures, so long as the services are provided in accordance with applicable legislation, regulations, and Commission decisions.
  3. The Commission has repeatedly affirmed the right of access to support structures in decisions issued since Telecom Decision 95-13. In Telecom Decision 2008-17, the Commission maintained that support structures should be considered public good services and continue to be mandated. In addition, in Telecom Regulatory Policy 2015-326, the Commission upheld previous determinations with respect to mandated access to support structures.
  4. In Telecom Regulatory Policy 2023-31, the Commission made several determinations to facilitate access to poles owned by ILECs and poles to which ILECs control access. One of these determinations was to confirm that when ILECs provide access to support structures that they own or partially own, and to support structures that they do not own but to which they have the right to grant permits for access, they are providing a telecommunications service within the meaning of the Telecommunications Act (the Act) and are therefore subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction. The Commission further determined that ILEC support structure service tariffs apply to joint-use poles, specifically poles owned partially or wholly by the ILECs, as well as the elements of other poles on which the ILECs exercise any involvement or control, or for which they control access. The Commission also noted its intent to launch a future proceeding to address the issue of small cells.

Placement of Wi-Fi equipment on ILEC-owned or -controlled support structures

  1. Telecom Decision 2014-77 arose from an application from Shaw Cablesystems G.P. (Shaw) requesting that the Commission resolve a dispute between Shaw and TELUS Communications Inc. (TCI)Footnote 6 with respect to the placement of Wi-Fi equipment on Shaw’s own cable, which was installed on strand leased from TCI. TCI had requested that Shaw file an application in order to obtain a permit from TCI to place this equipment.
  2. After considering various factors including spare capacity, construction standards, interference, administrative processes, and competitive implications, the Commission determined that there was no basis on which to require permits for strand equipment, such as Wi-Fi devices, inserted into cabling attached to TCI strand. As a result, the Commission determined in Telecom Decision 2014-77 that the support structure service item of TCI’s General Tariff should be modified to read that a licensee is not required to apply for a permit to place strand equipment on its own cable on strand leased from TCI.
  3. In a follow-up decision, Telecom Decision 2014-389, the Commission maintained that the determination that licensees are not required to obtain permits from ILECs for strand equipment inserted into licensee cabling attached to ILEC strands should apply to all ILECs that provide support structure services.

Review of mobile wireless services

  1. In the proceeding leading to Telecom Regulatory Policy 2021-130, parties suggested that in contrast to the determinations made in Telecom Decision 2014-77, small cells represent a new technology not contemplated in the tariffs and not related to existing facilities. Some parties proposed that the Commission implement a permit requirement for the placement of small cells on ILEC support structures to properly account for such attachments in the tariffs.
  2. In Telecom Regulatory Policy 2021-130, the Commission found that the record of the proceeding did not contain sufficient evidence to determine whether or not small cells are sufficiently different from other strand equipment, such as Wi-Fi devices, to warrant amendments to the existing ILEC support structure tariffs. In that decision, the Commission described the types of evidence that it would require in order to make such a determination, including technical requirements for the various types of 5G equipment and related deployment concerns. Specifically, the Commission noted that this would include evidence with respect to capacity, construction standards, and radiofrequency interference.

Applications

RCCI and Videotron’s application

  1. On 12 May 2020, Rogers Communications Canada Inc. (RCCI) and Quebecor Media Inc., on behalf of Videotron Ltd. (Videotron) filed a joint application for an order directing Bell Canada to process and grant small cell pole attachment permit applications in accordance with its approved support structure tariffs.
  2. RCCI and Videotron claimed that the deployment of wireless infrastructure had been blocked by Bell Canada and would continue to be blocked until Bell Canada is obligated to grant small cell permits in accordance with its approved support structure tariffs. They argued that Bell Canada was benefitting from an undue preference because it was deploying small cell antennas on its own poles, while delaying and refusing to issue permits for the same attachments to competitors. According to RCCI and Videotron, the result was that Bell Canada effectively precluded wireless competitors from deploying critical new wireless equipment using existing pole infrastructure on a timely and cost-effective basis, while Bell Canada faced no such barrier to the deployment of its own new wireless infrastructure on its poles. RCCI and Videotron therefore requested an order directing Bell Canada to process and grant permit applications for small cell pole attachments.
  3. In response, Bell Canada argued that the tower and site sharing rules established by the Department of Industry (also known as Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada [ISED]) apply to the attachment of antenna systems on Bell Canada’s poles. Bell Canada further argued that the Commission has no jurisdiction over the sharing of licensee infrastructure, such as towers and sites for antenna systems using regulated spectrum, namely small cells.

RCCI’s applications

  1. On 17 July 2020, RCCI filed an application with the Commission seeking an order prescribing the role of Bell Canada and Bell Aliant, a division of Bell Canada, in providing access to poles owned by NB Power in light of perceived issues with access to poles under joint-use agreements (between Bell Canada and NB Power) for the purpose of installing new small cells.
  2. In a letter dated 12 August 2020, the Commission put RCCI’s application on hold given the potential overlap with other ongoing proceedings.
  3. In a further Commission letter dated 15 February 2023, the Commission asked RCCI whether it wished to amend or withdraw its application, given that some of the concerns RCCI raised may have been addressed by Telecom Regulatory Policy 2023-31. In response, RCCI indicated that it would not be amending or withdrawing its application because Telecom Regulatory Policy 2023-31 did not specifically address issues related to small cells.
  4. On 4 July 2023, RCCI filed a second application with the Commission seeking interim and final orders directing Bell Canada and its affiliates (Bell MTS, a division of Bell Canada; Northwestel Inc.; and Télébec, Société en commandite) and TCI to process and grant permits to attach wireless equipment such as small cells to their poles, in accordance with their approved support structure tariffs. The request for interim relief was denied by way of a Commission letter dated 5 February 2024, because the Commission found that the request did not meet the criteria for granting interim relief.

Proceeding

  1. The Commission considers it important to provide greater regulatory certainty to those seeking access to ILEC-owned or -controlled support structures and to promote the efficient deployment of wireless networks, including 5G-capable networks. This will benefit Canadians by helping wireless companies compete to offer innovative and high-quality services at more affordable prices. To this end, the Commission hereby initiates a proceeding and invites interested persons to comment on the issue of the placement of wireless facilities on ILEC-owned or -controlled support structures.
  2. This proceeding will incorporate the record of the application filed by RCCI and Videotron, as well as the record of the two applications filed by RCCI outlined above. The Commission considers that incorporating the record of these applications into the proceeding is appropriate in this case because they raise similar issues, which will allow the Commission to comprehensively address the issue of the attachment of wireless facilities on support structures owned or controlled by ILECs in the same proceeding.

Issues

  1. The Commission has identified the following issues to be addressed in this notice:
    • The Commission’s jurisdiction over the deployment of wireless facilities on ILEC-owned or -controlled support structures
    • The application of the current ILEC support structure tariffs to the attachment of wireless facilities
    • The requirement for competitors to obtain a permit to deploy wireless facilities on ILEC-owned or -controlled support structures

The Commission’s jurisdiction over the deployment of wireless facilities on ILEC-owned or -controlled support structures

  1. In Telecom Regulatory Policy 2023-31, the Commission determined that when ILECs provide access to support structures that they own or partially own, and to support structures that they do not own but to which they have the right to grant permits for access, they are providing a telecommunications service within the meaning of the Act and are therefore subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction.
  2. The Commission notes that, in the proceeding related to Telecom Regulatory Policy 2021-130, and in response to RCCI and Videotron’s joint application and RCCI’s 2023 application, Bell Canada argued that the Commission does not have jurisdiction over the placement of small cells on support structures because these fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of ISED’s tower and site sharing rules.
  3. With regard to this matter, the Commission is of the preliminary view that it has concurrent jurisdiction with ISED over the deployment of wireless facilities, including small cell equipment, on ILEC-owned or -controlled support structures. Since the Commission regulates competitor access to ILEC-owned or -controlled support structures through tariffs, access to these support structures for the deployment of wireless facilities would fall within the Commission’s jurisdiction to regulate telecommunications services under section 24 and subsection 25(1) of the Act.Footnote 7
  4. The Commission therefore invites parties to provide comments on its preliminary view on this matter.

The application of the current ILEC support structure tariffs to the attachment of wireless facilities

  1. In Telecom Decision 95-13, the Commission considered that there should be no restrictions on the type of plant placed on ILEC support structures, unless those restrictions relate to safety and technical requirements. The Commission further considered that there should be no restrictions on the types of services provided by companies using support structures, as long as those services are provided in accordance with applicable legislation, regulations, and Commission decisions.
  2. Similarly, although in Telecom Decision 2014-77 the narrow issue of Wi-Fi equipment inserted into a competitor’s own cable on a strand licensed from an ILEC was considered, the Commission determined that a licensee is not required to apply for a permit to place strand equipment on its own cable on strand leased from TCI.
  3. The Commission therefore considers that the issue is not whether or not the tariffs should apply to wireless facilities; rather, the issue is whether the deployment of wireless facilities, including those that enable 5G-capable networks, such as small cells, is sufficiently different from technologies deployed in previous generations such that the support structure tariffs, as currently set out, do not adequately address their deployment needs.
  4. The Commission notes that small cell technology can take many forms. Some equipment or facilities may be attached to the strand in much the same way as Wi-Fi equipment, but other equipment or facilities may be attached to the pole itself, or even attached to both. Some equipment or facilities are quite small, while others may be much larger than existing Wi-Fi equipment. In some instances, the strand used for Wi-Fi equipment may in fact also be used or repurposed for the attachment of small cell facilities.
  5. Consequently, it remains unclear what specific facilities parties are referring to throughout recent Commission proceedings when discussing the needs and challenges of the deployment of wireless facilities, such as small cells, and whether the different types of technologies or facilities would require different regulatory solutions. Given these outstanding questions, the Commission considers it necessary to examine what types of equipment or facilities might be categorized as “small cells” before it determines whether any changes should be made to the existing tariffs.
  6. As a result, the Commission invites parties to file submissions with respect to what specific equipment or facilities (e.g. small cells) are being deployed on ILEC-owned or -controlled support structures for wireless networks, including 5G-capable networks.
  7. In light of the above, the Commission is of the preliminary view that the support structure tariffs are neutral as to the technology deployed and the service offered by the licensee. However, the Commission invites parties to comment on whether modifications to the tariffs are necessary in order to properly address the new challenges that arise in the context of the deployment of wireless networks, including 5G-capable networks.

The requirement for competitors to obtain a permit to deploy wireless facilities on ILEC-owned or -controlled support structures

  1. In Telecom Decision 2014-77, the Commission found that there was no basis on which to require permits for strand equipment inserted on licensee cabling located on an ILEC’s strand. As a result, licensees do not require permits for the addition, rearrangement, transfer, replacement, or removal of their own strand equipment when they already lease space on ILEC strand. In order to make this determination, the Commission considered several technical factors including spare capacity, construction standards, and interference. However, the Commission has limited information with respect to whether the wireless facilities that are being deployed for 5G networks have different technical characteristics and requirements than Wi-Fi equipment.
  2. The Commission therefore invites parties to comment on whether, from a technical perspective, wireless facilities, such as small cells, raise new concerns that were not considered in Telecom Decision 2014-77 and whether these concerns would justify a departure from the Commission’s determinations in that decision.
  3. The Commission also considers that there may be broader concerns with respect to the administrative impact associated with the magnitude of small cell deployments. As such, the Commission considers that there may be a need to make regulatory changes to ensure that licensees can efficiently deploy their networks while at the same time ensuring that ILECs can properly manage their support structures.
  4. The Commission invites parties to file data on what the impact of requiring permits (or not) would be, and to file any proposals they have to administratively streamline the deployment of wireless facilities, such as small cells, to make them more efficient, while recognizing the needs of support structure owners and licensees.

Call for comments

  1. The Commission hereby invites parties to comment on the issues identified above, as well as the specific questions outlined below.
  2. When responding, parties should include all necessary rationale and supporting evidence. The Commission will review the matters raised in this proceeding in light of the policy objectives set out in section 7 of the Act and will take into consideration the 2023 Policy Direction.Footnote 8 Parties should take the policy objectives and the Policy Direction into account and address their relevant aspects, as applicable.
  3. The Commission invites parties to comment on the following specific questions:

Q1. Describe the types of wireless facilities or technologies (e.g. Distributed Antenna Systems [DAS], Micro cells, Pico cells and Femto cells)Footnote 9 that are currently, and will be, deployed on ILEC-owned or -controlled support structures to support wireless networks.

(i) Include all wireless facilities required to implement each of these types of technologies, such as any necessary additional equipment required to power the equipment or related to backhaul connectivity.

(ii) Specify whether the wireless facilities required to implement each of these technologies will be installed on strand, poles, or both.

(iii) Specify how these types of wireless facilities compare with existing facilities on ILEC-owned or -controlled support structures regarding relative size, weight, deployment requirements, and capacity used.

Q2. Explain whether the deployment of wireless facilities on ILEC-owned or -controlled support structures raises any new considerations that differ from existing facilities, such as Wi-Fi equipment, with respect to spare capacity or construction standards.

(i) If so, indicate the specific differences associated with the placement of third-party wireless equipment on ILEC-owned or -controlled support structures; reference any applicable safety codes, construction standards, or other procedures that must be complied with; and provide details of whether any standards, industry practices, or guidelines have been developed to address or mitigate these differences.

Q3. Would the deployment of multiple wireless facilities (e.g. small cells), including third-party equipment, on the same support structures cause interference with similar equipment installed by competitors in close proximity? If you own support structures,

(i) do you make any effort to coordinate the deployment of wireless facilities on your support structures (e.g. by requiring wireless equipment to be a certain distance apart) to minimize interference issues?

(ii) what industry standards or guidelines have been developed to mitigate interference?

(iii) what actions do you intend to take in the future if you encounter interference as small cells are deployed?

Q4. Are there any other technical considerations (e.g. related to backhaul connectivity, radiofrequency exposure, the provision of power, etc.) that apply to wireless facilities, such as small cells or DAS equipment, but not to Wi-Fi equipment? Provide details of the applicable technical standards and whether technical standards, industry practices, or guidelines have been developed to address or mitigate these differences.

Q5. Explain whether modifications to the ILEC support structure tariff terms and conditions are necessary in order to address the deployment of wireless networks, including 5G-capable networks, making reference to the specific changes required in your view.

(i) Do the different types of facilities require different terms and conditions?

(ii) Should the terms and conditions vary based on the specific support structure(s) on which the wireless facilities are deployed (e.g. strand versus pole)?

Q6. Comment on the Commission’s jurisdiction over the deployment of wireless facilities on ILEC-owned or -controlled support structures.

(i) Does the fact that wireless facilities use licensed spectrum, as compared to the unlicensed spectrum used by Wi-Fi equipment, have any implications for the Commission’s jurisdiction?

Q7. Should permits be required for the installation of wireless facilities on ILEC-owned or -controlled support structures? If so, should this requirement apply to all types of wireless facilities in all situations or could some be exempted, such as a licensee’s own strand equipment on an already leased ILEC strand? Describe the factors that you consider warrant a permit and factors that could lead to waiving this requirement. Provide evidence to support your view.

Q8. Are there ways that the Commission could administratively streamline the deployment of wireless facilities, such as small cells, to make them more efficient, while recognizing the needs of support structure owners and licensees?

Q9. Are there any other Commission rules and frameworks that would affect or be affected by the deployment of small cells?

Procedure

  1. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure (the Rules of Procedure) apply to this proceeding. The Rules of Procedure set out, among other things, the rules for the content, format, filing, and service of interventions, answers, replies, and requests for information; the procedure for filing confidential information and requesting its disclosure; and the conduct of public hearings. Accordingly, the procedure set out below must be read in conjunction with the Rules of Procedure and related documents, which can be found on the Commission’s website at www.crtc.gc.ca, under “Statutes and regulations.” The guidelines set out in Broadcasting and Telecom Information Bulletin 2010-959 provide information to help interested persons and parties understand the Rules of Procedure so that they can more effectively participate in Commission proceedings.
  2. All ILECs are made parties to this proceeding and may file interventions with the Commission by 5 April 2024.
  3. Interested persons who wish to become parties to this proceeding must file an intervention with the Commission regarding the above-noted issues by 5 April 2024. The intervention must be filed in accordance with section 26 of the Rules of Procedure.
  4. Parties are permitted to coordinate, organize, and file, in a single submission, interventions by other interested persons who share their position. Information on how to file this type of submission, known as a joint supporting intervention, as well as a template for the accompanying cover letter to be filed by parties, can be found in Telecom Information Bulletin 2011-693.
  5. All documents required to be served on parties to the proceeding must be served using the contact information contained in the interventions.
  6. All parties may file replies to interventions with the Commission by 6 May 2024.
  7. The Commission encourages interested persons and parties to monitor the record of this proceeding, available on the Commission’s website at www.crtc.gc.ca, for additional information that they may find useful when preparing their submissions.
  8. Submissions longer than five pages should include a summary. Each paragraph of all submissions should be numbered, and the line ***End of document*** should follow the last paragraph. This will help the Commission verify that the document has not been damaged during electronic transmission.
  9. Pursuant to Broadcasting and Telecom Information Bulletin 2015-242, the Commission expects incorporated entities and associations, and encourages all Canadians, to file submissions for Commission proceedings in accessible formats (for example, text-based file formats that enable text to be enlarged or modified, or read by screen readers). To provide assistance in this regard, the Commission has posted on its website guidelines for preparing documents in accessible formats.
  10. Submissions must be filed by sending them to the Secretary General of the Commission using only one of the following means:


    by completing the
    [Intervention form]

    or

    by mail to
    CRTC, Ottawa, Ontario  K1A 0N2

    or

    by fax to
    819-994-0218

  11. Parties who send documents electronically must ensure that they will be able to prove, upon Commission request, that filing, or where required, service of a particular document was completed. Accordingly, parties must keep proof of the sending and receipt of each document for 180 days after the date on which the document is filed or served. The Commission advises parties who file or serve documents by electronic means to exercise caution when using email for the service of documents, as it may be difficult to establish that service has occurred.
  12. In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, a document must be received by the Commission and all relevant parties by 5 p.m. Vancouver time (8 p.m. Ottawa time) on the date it is due. Parties are responsible for ensuring the timely delivery of their submissions and will not be notified if their submissions are received after the deadline. Late submissions, including those due to postal delays, will not be considered by the Commission and will not be made part of the public record.
  13. The Commission will not formally acknowledge submissions. It will, however, fully consider all submissions, which will form part of the public record of the proceeding, provided that the procedure for filing set out above has been followed.

Important notice

  1. All information that parties provide as part of this public process, except information designated confidential, whether sent by postal mail, fax, email, or through the Commission’s website at www.crtc.gc.ca, becomes part of a publicly accessible file and will be posted on the Commission’s website. This includes all personal information, such as full names, email addresses, postal/street addresses, and telephone and fax numbers.
  2. The personal information that parties provide will be used and may be disclosed for the purpose for which the information was obtained or compiled by the Commission, or for a use consistent with that purpose.
  3. Documents received electronically or otherwise will be posted on the Commission’s website in their entirety exactly as received, including any personal information contained therein, in the official language and format in which they are received. Documents not received electronically will be available in PDF format.
  4. The information that parties provide to the Commission as part of this public process is entered into an unsearchable database dedicated to this specific public process. This database is accessible only from the web page of this particular public process. As a result, a general search of the Commission’s website with the help of either its search engine or a third-party search engine will not provide access to the information that was provided as part of this public process.

Availability of documents

  1. Electronic versions of the interventions and other documents referred to in this notice are available on the Commission’s website at www.crtc.gc.ca by using the public record number provided at the beginning of this notice or by visiting the “Consultations and hearings – Have your say!” section, then selecting “our applications and processes that are open for comment.” Documents can then be accessed by clicking on the links in the “Subject” and “Related Documents” columns associated with this particular notice.
  2. Documents are also available at the following address, upon request, during normal business hours.


    Les Terrasses de la Chaudière
    Central Building
    1 Promenade du Portage
    Gatineau, Quebec
    J8X 4B1
    Tel.: 819-997-2429
    Fax: 819-994-0218

    Toll-free telephone: 1-877-249-2782
    Toll-free TTY: 1-877-909-2782

Secretary General

Related documents

Date modified: