ARCHIVED - Letter
This page has been archived on the Web
Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. Archived Decisions, Notices and Orders (DNOs) remain in effect except to the extent they are amended or reversed by the Commission, a court, or the government. The text of archived information has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Changes to DNOs are published as “dashes” to the original DNO number. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats by contacting us.
Our Reference: 8622-S9-201311100
By email
To: Distribution list
Re: Procedures for authorized and unauthorized attachments pursuant to incumbent carriers’ support structure tariffs
Dear Madam, Sir:
On 10 July 2013, Shaw Communications Inc. (Shaw) filed an application with the Commission for an expedited hearing to address concerns regarding the interpretation of TELUS Communications Company’s (TCC) support structure tariff.
By way of Commission letter dated 30 July 2013, the Commission denied Shaw’s request for an expedited hearing, and determined that the issues raised in the application would be better addressed as a Part I process pursuant to the CRTC Rules of Practice and Procedure.
In order to develop a more complete record, parties named in this proceeding are requested to provide responses to the Commission's request for information attached to this letter by 16 August 2013.
Any interested party may file comments with respect to the responses to the attached request for information by 21 August 2013. All parties may file reply comments, serving copies on all other parties, by 26 August 2013.
As set out in Broadcasting and Telecom Information Bulletin 2010-961, Procedures for filing confidential information and requesting its disclosure in Commission proceedings, 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.
All submissions are to be made in accordance with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure, SOR/2010-277.
Sincerely,
Original signed by:
Mario Bertrand
Director, Dispute Resolution
Telecommunications
c.c: Jesslyn Mullaney, CRTC, jesslyn.mullaney@crtc.gc.ca
Distribution List:
regulatory@bell.aliant.ca; bell.regulatory@bell.ca; iworkstation@mtsallstream.com; regulatoryaffairs@nwtel.ca; document.control@sasktel.sk.ca; reglementa@telebec.com; Regulatory.Matters@corp.eastlink.ca; brooke@brooktel.com; regulatory@brucetelecom.com; heather.bishop@cwct.ca; admin@cochranetel.ca; pallard@cooptel.qc.ca; jsalina@dryden.ca; jonathan.scott@execulink.com; regulatory@gosfieldtel.ca; a.schneider@hay.net; grubb@hurontel.on.ca; jpatry@telcourcelles.qc.ca; tellambton@tellambton.net; telvic@telvic.net; j-fmathieu@telupton.qc.ca; wagrier@1000island.net; rbanks@mornington.ca; pdowns@nexicomgroup.net; nfrontenac@kw.igs.net; steve@wtccommunications.ca; mjboivin@telebec.com; tracy.cant@ontera.ca; barry.stone@quadro.net; roxboro@ontarioeast.net; sophie.houde@sogetel.com; rob.olenick@tbaytel.com; telstep@telstep.net; gcordeau@maskatel.qc.ca; Paul.frappier@sogetel.com; carlo.dondero@wtccommunications.ca; regulatory@tcc.on.ca; tsullivan@wightman.ca; regulatory.affairs@telus.com; Regulatory@sjrb.ca
Attachment
Request for information - Interpretation of unauthorized attachments pursuant to incumbent support structure tariffs
Incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs)
1. Identify your company’s practice with respect to requiring applications for third-party attachments to its support structures (e.g. strands). Does the company apply the same practice for all third-party equipment types (e.g. Wi-Fi equipment, amplifiers, repeaters)?
2. If the company applies varying practices for the requirement of third parties to file for applications when attaching their various equipment on the company’s facilities, justify why these practices differ. The company’s answer should address the terms set out in its support structure tariff.
3. Identify any safety concerns associated with the placement of third party equipment, and in particular Wi-Fi equipment, on the company’s support structures, for example weight concerns associated with the cumulative placement of various equipment. Specify any safety codes, construction standards or other procedures that the attachment of such equipment must adhere to.
4. Indicate whether your company attaches its own Wi-Fi equipment on its facilities, and whether this equipment must adhere to the same codes, standards and procedures applied to third-party equipment.
5. Identify and explain any concerns regarding interference with radio frequency spectrum associated with the installation and operation of third party Wi-Fi equipment on the company’s support structures. Do these interference concerns differ in the case of the installation and operation of Wi-Fi equipment on nearby support structures of non-ILECs (i.e. municipalities, hydro) and if so, how?
Shaw
1. Identify the terms and conditions associated with the company’s attachment of facilities, including Wi-Fi equipment, to the support structures of non-ILECs (i.e. municipalities, hydro), and explain how Shaw’s practice in attaching its equipment to these entities differs, if at all, from when the company attaches equipment to the support structure of the ILECs.
2. Provide the total number of Wi-Fi devices that the company has installed (to date) on ILEC support structures across its service territories, as well as the projected additional total number of Wi-Fi installations on ILEC support structures that Shaw expects will be needed over the next three years.
- Date modified: