Revised Frameworks for Mandatory Roaming and Antenna Tower and Site Sharing (sf10547)

Part B

6. Mandatory Tower and Site Sharing

6.1 Application of the Conditions of Licence

77. Currently, the conditions apply to radiocommunication carriers, which are a subset of service providers. Industry Canada proposed to expand the application of the conditions of licence to all radiocommunication service providers. Both of these terms are defined in the Radiocommunication Regulations.^Footnote2

Summary of Comments

78. Respondents were divided on this issue. SSi, MTS, Mobilicity, Shaw, Public Mobile, WIND, Terrestar, Rogers and Bell supported the proposal, whereas the BTCC, TELUS, Videotron, SaskTel and seven public safety entities^Footnote3 were opposed.

79. Many of those which supported the proposal indicated that it made sense to have more towers available for sharing and that the proposal would promote the tower and site sharing policy objectives.

80. All of the public safety entities that provided comments in the consultation expressed concern with the proposal. In particular, they highlighted security risks associated with their towers’ information being made public and with granting access to their protected sites to multiple licensees’ subcontractors.

81. Other parties that were opposed to the proposal expressed concern that requiring carriers to share their towers with all service providers could reduce or eliminate opportunities for carriers to share certain towers or sites.

82. No comments were received from those radiocommunication service providers that would be newly impacted by the proposed change.^Footnote4

Discussion

83. The mandatory tower sharing condition of licence was originally applied to radiocommunication carriers in order to promote competition in the commercial mobile market while also reducing tower proliferation.

84. Most issues with tower sharing have been raised by carriers — in particular, by AWS new entrants. No comments were received from the subset of radiocommunication service providers that would be newly impacted by the proposed expansion of this condition of licence. In addition, the majority of towers subject to heightened public concern continue to be those used by carriers to provide commercial wireless telecommunications services.

85. Because the majority of broadcasters and public safety entities are not service providers or carriers, the mandatory tower sharing provisions of CPC-2-0-17 would generally not apply to them under the existing condition or the proposed revision. However, stakeholders should note that before building a new antenna-supporting structure, Industry Canada requires that all proponents first consider sharing, modifying or replacing an existing antenna system as outlined in the tower siting policy, CPC-2-0-03, Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems.^Footnote5 CPC-2-0-03, which applies to all authorized users, directs owners and operators of existing antenna systems to respond to a request to share in a timely fashion and to negotiate in good faith to facilitate sharing where feasible.

86. In consideration of the above, expanding mandatory tower and site sharing to all service providers is unlikely to have a significant impact on advancing the policy objectives. Therefore, an expansion to cover all service providers will not be implemented.

87. However, a minor change is being made. The term "radiocommunication carrier" is being replaced with "telecommunications common carrier" to ensure consistency with the Telecommunications Act and related regulations. Industry Canada notes that both terms have a similar definition.

Decision

6.2 Increased Monitoring and Accountability of the Tower Sharing Conditions of Licence

88. In Section 5.8 of the consultation paper, Industry Canada proposed the establishment of semi-annual reporting on the tower sharing agreements that had been reached and on the progress of ongoing negotiations. This reporting, using a standardized format, would permit Industry Canada to accurately monitor and assess the effectiveness of tower sharing negotiations.

89. Industry Canada also proposed, in Section 5.6 of the consultation paper, that all licensees be required to make detailed tower information available so that those looking to share could quickly find a tower. In addition to specific details regarding the tower (such as location, type and height, etc.), the proposed data elements included a tower loading profile indicating spaces reserved for imminent future use as well as the date each space was identified as such.

Summary of Comments

90. SSi, Mobilicity, Shaw, Videotron, Public Mobile, WIND, Terrestar and Rogers supported the proposal for semi-annual reporting. Many noted that the proposal would add an element of accountability to the process and would be a useful tool for Industry Canada to encourage ongoing compliance of the conditions of licence. WIND and Videotron suggested that the proposed list of data elements would not be a significant burden, as many licensees already track this information. Shaw wanted assurances that the information collected would not be made public, given that it contains competitively sensitive information. In contrast, Rogers suggested that it should be made public so that other parties could be aware of the licensees that are not complying with the conditions of licence.

91. Public Mobile suggested that rate data be added to the reporting requirement, whereas Mobilicity and WIND requested that future use information be collected — specifically, all future use reservation dates as well as confirmation of whether the equipment was, in fact, installed by the appropriate date. Both Public Mobile and Mobilicity suggested that the timelines for future use reservations were too long. Rogers, however, disagreed and noted that a period of less than 18 months is not consistent with capital planning and deployment.

92. SaskTel, TELUS, MTS, Eastlink and Bell were opposed to the proposed semi-annual report, citing concerns regarding the sensitive nature of the information, the increased administrative requirements and the limited commensurate benefits. In addition, some respondents indicated that they do not, and cannot, track all of the information proposed. TELUS asked for six months’ notice prior to the requirement taking effect. A number of respondents also requested further guidance on standardized terms.

93. Views were mixed on the frequency for the submission of the report, ranging from quarterly to annually.

94. In response to Industry Canada’s proposal that all licensees make detailed tower information available, some respondents were generally supportive but many raised concerns. Public Mobile, Mobilicity and WIND suggested that the proposal did not include enough information to be collected. TELUS, Rogers, Bell, Videotron and SaskTel suggested reducing the required elements, as they believe some information is commercially sensitive and confidential (such as future use reservations and third party leases). Public safety entities were concerned by the potential security risk a database could introduce.^Footnote6

95. MTS, SaskTel, Rogers, TELUS and Eastlink commented that much of the tower information that is proposed to be captured in the database is not currently maintained by all of the licensees. WIND, however, suggested that collecting less data than was included in the proposal would not be as useful, nor would it remove the need to submit a preliminary information package (PIP) request.

96. TELUS, Rogers, Eastlink and SaskTel were opposed to making information available, arguing that doing so for all their towers and updating this information monthly would be onerous and expensive for those with hundreds of sites. It was also noted that this initiative would have only a limited effect on response times, and that many sites never receive a request for sharing.

Discussion

97. The consultation noted that requiring licensees to report on certain key data points could allow Industry Canada to monitor negotiations and may encourage efficiencies in the process, as licensees would be tracking the same information and reporting in a standardized format. Industry Canada has requested similar data in the past. This data was valuable in developing proposals to improve the current process. The consultation proposed that carriers be required to submit the following data elements:

• the unique site identifier;
• site location details (latitude/longitude and civic address);
• name of tower owner or licensee requesting to share;
• the date that the preliminary information package (PIP) request was sent or received;
• the date that a Proposal to Share was sent or received;
• the date that an Offer to Share was sent or received; and
• the date that an agreement was reached or the date and reason why the request was withdrawn/denied.

98. By standardizing and collecting data on a regular basis, Industry Canada will be in a position to assess the ongoing effectiveness of the tower sharing policy and to determine whether tower sharing negotiations continue to improve as well as whether the intended policy objectives continue to be advanced. Based on this information, adjustments can be considered in the future if necessary. Therefore, consistent with the proposed elements indicated above, licensees will be required to regularly report on specific data elements. A standardized template, along with instructions, will be sent to licensees shortly after the release of this decision paper. These documents will also be posted on Industry Canada’s Spectrum Management and Telecommunications website.^Footnote7 Regular reports will initially be required on a semi-annual basis. A report will not be required if there has been no change to the requested data since the previous reporting period. Industry Canada will notify licensees in advance of any changes to these reporting requirements.

99. With respect to comments raised regarding future use reservations, there is still no consensus as to the time frame for imminent future use, and no new evidence was provided as to why the current timelines should be changed.^Footnote8 The current timelines will therefore remain unchanged.

100. However, in order to address concerns raised regarding future use reservations and to increase licensees’ accountability, a new requirement is being introduced. Effective immediately, each time a licensee’s response to a Requesting Operator includes a reservation for imminent future use, the licensee will be required to submit a copy of the PIP to Industry Canada. This requirement will also apply to any subsequent modifications made during the negotiation process. Not only will this new requirement improve licensees’ accountability to accurately identify future use reservations, but it will also provide Industry Canada with the ability to review relevant material should concerns be raised. It is not anticipated that this change will significantly increase the administrative requirement on licensees, given that the information is already being collected and provided to Requesting Operators.

101. At this time, making information public regarding future use is not considered necessary in order to advance the stated policy objectives; however, this decision may be revisited if Industry Canada determines such action is needed to increase the effectiveness of the policy.

102. The data collected by Industry Canada thus far shows that the timelines continue to improve and that the number of agreements signed is also increasing. In addition, internal processes have been implemented, and those seeking to share have begun prioritizing requests. Furthermore, it is recognized that some information included in the database, at the network level, could disclose commercially sensitive information regarding deployment and network upgrades. As a result, the proposal to make information available on all towers will not be implemented at this time; however, carriers will be required to report on the number of towers and sites in their network and the degree of sharing in their network. As is the case with the reporting on tower sharing requests noted above, a standardized template, along with instructions, will be sent to licensees shortly after the release of this decision paper. The documents will also be posted on Industry Canada’s Spectrum Management and Telecommunications website. ^Footnote9 This information will provide Industry Canada with valuable data to assess whether tower sharing continues to improve.

103. The mandatory tower and site sharing requirements, in conjunction with the requirements to consider existing infrastructure as set out in CPC-2-0-03, are expected to continue to contribute to significant levels of sharing. Industry Canada will reconsider the implementation of a tower sharing database and pursue additional action if acceptable improvements to the levels and time frames for sharing do not continue to be shown.

Decision

6.3 Responding to Requests for Information

104. The consultation proposed to incorporate text that clarifies the phrase "in a timely manner" directly from GL-06 into the conditions of licence in order to indicate that licensees are required to respond to a tower sharing request within two weeks of receiving it. Additional text proposed to be incorporated from GL-06 would specify that "a preliminary request for technical information will be considered complete if it contains, at a minimum, two of the following: (1) the licensee’s site reference number (2) the site address (3) geographical coordinates."

Summary of Comments

105. The majority of respondents that commented on this issue supported the proposal (SSi, MTS, Mobilicity, Shaw, Public Mobile, WIND, Terrestar, Rogers, Videotron and Bell), whereas SaskTel and TELUS disagreed.

106. Those that supported the proposal agreed that clarifying the text could speed up the process and would be consistent with Industry Canada’s tower sharing objectives. MTS generally supported the two-week response time; however, it was concerned that requests could be delayed if sites are not correctly identified.

107. SaskTel opposed the proposal, suggesting instead that four weeks would be a more appropriate time frame in which to provide a PIP response. However, SaskTel noted that it has only received one such request since the condition of licence came into effect and that the request was subsequently withdrawn.

108. TELUS raised concerns about meeting the timelines when a large number of requests are received. In these situations, TELUS requests that parties agree on prioritized sites and that the highest-priority sites could be responded to within the required two-week response time. Bell supported TELUS’ comments. Public Mobile also supported the emphasis that TELUS placed on prioritization; however, it noted that this is something that carriers should already be doing to facilitate sharing.

Discussion

109. The proposals described above incorporate decisions from GL-06 directly into the conditions of licence in order to clarify the process and to have relevant decisions and guidance contained within one document going forward. The proposal did not introduce any new requirements, and most respondents supported the clarification.

110. As noted above, some concerns were raised regarding prioritization. Some parties have already addressed the issue of multiple requests on their own by prioritizing sites, and others are encouraged to do so. Regarding the concerns raised by MTS in relation to the identification of sites, Industry Canada notes that it is in the best interest of both parties to quickly and accurately identify the site under consideration, and that a Responding Licensee should immediately inform a Requesting Operator if it is unable to identify the site requested by the information submitted.

Decision

6.4 Tower Sharing Rates and Technical Feasibility

111. No changes were proposed to the text regarding tower sharing rates or technical feasibility.

112. Comments regarding tower sharing rates were received, which are addressed in Section 7.3. No comments were received suggesting changes to the wording of the section on technical feasibility.

6.5 Good Faith Negotiations

113. In the consultation, Industry Canada proposed an editorial change to incorporate text from the background section of CPC-2-0-17 directly into the conditions of licence.

"In order to be considered to be negotiating in good faith, Responding Licensees must offer access to ancillary equipment and services at reasonable commercial rates."

114. No new text was proposed.

Summary of Comments

115. Respondents did not raise significant concerns regarding this section. Mobilicity did, however, note that the requirement for good faith negotiations should not apply solely to concluding a Site Sharing Agreement in a timely manner, but also to any additional matters associated with the performance obligations under the conditions of licence once the agreement is in place.

Discussion

116. The proposal that expands upon the phrase "good faith negotiations" is editorial in nature and does not introduce any new requirements.

117. With respect to Mobilicity’s comment, Industry Canada finds that the existing conditions of licence clearly state that "Licensees must negotiate with a Requesting Operator in good faith, with a view to concluding a Site Sharing Agreement in a timely manner." Once a commercial agreement is reached, it is expected that contractual obligations will be enforced between the parties. Licensees may choose to include specific clauses in their agreements to address any issues that they anticipate encountering during the term of their contract.

Decision

6.6 Timelines for Tower Sharing Negotiations

118. Given the experience that many stakeholders have with the negotiation process, Industry Canada noted in the consultation that 60 days should now be sufficient to determine whether a negotiated settlement is likely or whether arbitration will be required. Industry Canada therefore proposed to modify the conditions of licence to allow arbitration to be initiated after 60 days instead of the currently specified 90 days, noting that parties may agree to continue negotiations beyond these timelines.

Summary of Comments

119. Most respondents supported the revised timeline; however, SaskTel and MTS were opposed and Rogers proposed slight modifications to certain steps in the timelines. Specifically, Rogers suggested extending the deadline for responses to a Proposal to Share from 30 days to 45 days, but retaining the 60-day timeline to complete the negotiation. According to Rogers, this extension would give Responding Licensees additional time, whereas Requesting Operators can still move to arbitration after a total of 60 days if they feel an agreement is not close.

120. SaskTel noted that a 60-day deadline is only reasonable to meet with licensees that it already has another arrangement with, and 90 days is needed for a new party. MTS is opposed to having a shorter timeline because, in its experience, proposals are often incomplete. MTS also suggested revising the current wording to specifically list, within the conditions of licence, all items that should be required in a Proposal to Share before it is considered complete: all anticipated hydro, shelter and fibre/cabling requirements. In the reply comments, TELUS agreed with MTS.

Discussion

121. Industry Canada notes that, in practice, it may take longer than 60 days to reach a tower sharing agreement in certain cases. It is anticipated that reducing the amount of time before arbitration can be triggered from 90 to 60 days, along with reducing timelines for the arbitration process itself (see Part C), could further expedite tower sharing agreements without negatively affecting negotiations, as parties are likely to agree to extend their negotiations if they believe progress is being made and some additional time is required to reach an agreement.

122. While Rogers’ suggested edit would not increase the proposed timelines, it may reduce the amount of time that the Requesting Operator has to consider the Offer. Rogers’ proposal will therefore not be implemented.

Decision

6.7 Outstanding Offers to Share

123. In the consultation, Industry Canada proposed a new condition of licence to address the issue of outstanding Offers to Share as follows:

"If within 60 days, the Licensee has not received a response from the Requesting Operator to an Offer to Share, the Licensee may treat the Offer to Share as withdrawn with no further obligations."

Summary of Comments

124. The majority of respondents supported the proposal; however, WIND requested assurances that the proposed wording not be interpreted as an automatic acceptance of the Offer by the Requesting Operator.

125. Eastlink suggested that this issue does not require Industry Canada’s intervention and that it should be left up to licensees to enforce.

Discussion

126. The data received from licensees during the initial phase of the review supports claims that many Offers to Share remain outstanding for an extended period, as a large percentage of all outstanding offers had been pending for more than six months.

127. Outstanding offers can delay negotiations with other parties, as licensees may hold space on the tower unnecessarily. These outstanding offers may also be limiting the effectiveness of the framework. As such, allowing the Responding Licensees to cancel outstanding offers could improve the effectiveness of the framework by encouraging continued dialogue and/or by releasing tower space for other parties.

128. The new condition of licence was proposed in order to improve the efficiency of the tower sharing process by not having spaces on a tower unnecessarily reserved for extended periods of time. This condition only requires a Requesting Operator to confirm its continued interest in a site within 60 days of receiving an Offer to Share so as not to unnecessarily block access by another party.

129. Text will be added to CPC-2-0-17 to indicate that a response may simply be an acknowledgement by the Requesting Operator that additional time is required to consider the Offer. It does not require that the Offer be accepted within 60 days.

Decision

6.8 Other Issues Relating to the Mandatory Tower and Site Sharing Process

130. Stakeholders were invited to submit other suggestions for changes that could help further facilitate tower and site sharing. A number of these issues were beyond the scope of this consultation, whereas others dealt with specific operational concerns between two licensees — issues which are already adequately addressed in the conditions of licence. Parties are encouraged to contact Industry Canada directly for clarification on such issues.

Processing Fees

131. In the comments received, Rogers requested that tower owners be permitted to charge processing fees in order to discourage frivolous requests.

132. In 2009, Industry Canada addressed the issue of whether a licensee could require a “one-time document preparation charge” as per the conditions of licence. At that time, Industry Canada responded to all AWS licensees, highlighting that the default expectation of the conditions of licence is that parties are responsible for their own costs at each step of the process. Therefore, tower owners may not charge fees for the application or processing prior to the acceptance of an Offer to Share.

Part C

7. Arbitration

7.1 Arbitration Timelines

133. CPC-2-0-18 outlines approximate timelines for a variety of steps in the procedures so that arbitration does not unnecessarily delay a final agreement. In total, up to 98 days is allotted to complete an oral hearing, and up to 80 days is allotted for a written hearing.

134. In the consultation, Industry Canada proposed to reduce the total approximate time required to complete both types of hearings: from up to 98 days to up to 85 days for an oral hearing, and from up to 80 days to up to 65 days for a written hearing.

Table 1: Proposed Revised Arbitration Timelines

	Approximate Timelines (calendar days)
	Current	Proposed
1. Notice served to Party
2. Appointment of tribunal where no agreement (includes obtaining list, selecting Arbitrator and tribunal)	Up to 20 days	Up to 10 days
3. Procedural hearing	Up to 15 days	Up to 15 days
4. (a) In the case of an oral hearing:	Up to 48 days	Up to 45 days
4. (b) In the case of a written hearing:	Up to 30 days	Up to 25 days
5. Award rendered	Up to 15 days	Up to 15 days
Approximate total time if oral hearing	Up to 98 days	Up to 85 days
Approximate total time if written hearing	Up to 80 days	Up to 65 days

Summary of Comments

135. The majority of the respondents that commented on this issue were in favour of the proposed changes to reduce the timelines, whereas a few respondents were opposed.

136. WIND supported the proposal; however, it requested a more detailed breakdown of how the timeline reductions will affect the individual arbitration steps. It noted that the proposed revised timelines only provided totals, without any further breakdown, while the Arbitration Rules originally specified timelines for sub-steps (e.g. three business days to obtain the list from ADR Chambers, another seven days to consider the list, etc.).

137. Public Mobile and Videotron both agreed with the proposal, but indicated that the timelines could be reduced even further.

138. TELUS and Bell did not support reducing the timelines, suggesting that the proposal is based on comments from licensees who have yet to test the current process. TELUS also believes that the timelines are already tight given that these are such complex issues. SaskTel, which noted it does not have experience with the arbitration process, believes that the timeline reductions might be aggressive.

139. In its reply comments, Videotron noted that the Arbitrator would still have the power to extend deadlines, if necessary, and cited the large number of stakeholders that supported the reduction in timelines as justification for why it is needed.

Discussion

140. The proposed changes to the approximate timelines set out in the Arbitration Rules are intended to improve the effectiveness of the arbitration process. Industry Canada continues to believe that the proposed timelines would still allow sufficient time for the Arbitrator to make a well-considered ruling. Furthermore, the key reduction is in the appointment of the tribunal, hence reduced time for the actual process is minimal.

141. As noted by WIND in its comments, Industry Canada did not provide a breakdown in the consultation of timelines for each sub-step within the process (e.g. obtaining the list of arbitrators, considering the list, selecting an arbitrator). Changes have now been made to the sub-steps and have been broken down as follows:

Table 2

Appointment of tribunal where no agreement exists	Approximate Timelines	Approximate Timeline
* Denotes business days
Obtain list from ADR Chambers	3 2 days*	Up to 10 calendar days
Consider list	7 3 days*
Select Arbitrator	1 day*
Complete selection of Arbitral Tribunal	2 1 day*

142. Licensees are reminded that the timelines outlined in the Arbitration Rules in CPC-2-0-18 are all approximate. Each step of the process should generally be completed within the totals specified. Furthermore, at the discretion of the Arbitrator, adjustments can be made depending on the specific circumstances as per Rule 2.5: "Any procedures or time period under these rules may be modified by the written consent of both Parties or by the Arbitral Tribunal or Appointing Committee in their respective sole discretion."^Footnote10

Decision

7.2 Arbitration Rules

143. The consultation proposed the following changes to the Arbitration Rules:

Rule 2.1:

"The Rules apply to disputes (other than disputes regarding technical feasibility) between Parties preventing them from agreeing upon the final terms and conditions of a Site Sharing Agreement or Roaming Agreement. The Arbitration Tribunal may hear together and consolidate disputes relating to more than one Site Sharing Agreement or Roaming Agreement."

Rule 11.8:

"At any time during the arbitration process, the Arbitral Tribunal may require any Party to provide further evidence or submissions, including information on comparable terms and rates, in such a manner as it determines."

Rule 12.5 (new rule):

"An award under these rules does not create a binding precedent in relation to other disputes."

Summary of Comments

Rule 2.1 – Consolidating Disputes

144. All respondents that commented on this issue were in favour of the proposed change.

145. Rogers, Mobilicity, Eastlink, Videotron, MTS and TELUS requested that Industry Canada provide further clarification regarding the conditions under which disputes involving more than one agreement would be consolidated.

Rule 11.8 – Provide Information on Comparable Rates and Terms

146. Most respondents supported the proposed clarification.

147. However, some respondents (Bell and TELUS) raised concerns about the confidential nature of the information. Others (WIND, Eastlink, Videotron and Rogers) noted that the information is critical to the process and supported the release of some or all of the information to parties in the proceeding.

New Rule 12.5 – No Binding Precedent

148. The majority of respondents supported this proposal, but some clarification was requested as to whether or not past arbitrations will become available for parties to use as guidelines or comparables.

149. TELUS opposed the proposed text, suggesting that this text would undermine Rule 6.5 which states that "summaries or extracts from final decisions will be recorded and retained." TELUS believed it would be inefficient not to use these decisions as binding precedents, as awards can form the basis of agreements for similar future sites with other parties. In the reply comments, Eastlink supported this comment from TELUS.

Discussion

150. The changes proposed in this section do not introduce new requirements; they simply clarify the existing requirements.

151. The majority of respondents supported all three proposals, and Industry Canada notes that the Arbitration Rules provide the Arbitrator with the discretion to address a range of issues and questions that may arise. Although the results are not binding, they may continue to be taken into consideration in another hearing when the Arbitral Tribunal deems it relevant.

Decision

7.3 Rates

152. The consultation did not propose any changes to the conditions of licence that require roaming and tower sharing agreements to be offered at commercial rates that are reasonably comparable to rates currently charged to others for similar access. When parties cannot agree on rates or terms contained in agreements, they have recourse to arbitration.

Summary of Comments

Roaming

153. Rogers, Bell, TELUS and Videotron supported Industry Canada’s proposal to maintain the status quo on rates, noting that rate negotiation has been successful given that all new entrants that have launched services have roaming agreements in place. They feel that offering rates lower than what was negotiated would deter new entrants from extending their own networks.

154. Rogers stated that it has entered into a number of one-way domestic agreements with new entrants which demonstrates that roaming is being provided at commercial rates. They further stated that because roaming is to be offered at commercial rates instead of at artificially low rates, licensees have an incentive to invest in and build networks in order to avoid roaming charges.

155. SaskTel asked that Industry Canada clarify that all roaming agreements must take into consideration that the cost of providing service to rural versus urban areas should be different due to the additional cost of serving rural areas. Both SaskTel and MTS believe that higher rates should be charged for in-territory roaming in order to help recover the costs of their infrastructure.

156. WIND, Mobilicity, Public Mobile and Eastlink all emphasized that rate regulation is needed since rates are too high and since there is only one key roaming service provider for most new entrants, due to limitations in technology and coverage.

157. A number of respondents also raised concerns regarding Section 2.4 of the Arbitration Rules:

"In applying the Rules, the Arbitral Tribunal shall have regard to market information and relevant economic data in Canada and may consider market information and relevant economic data in other countries in cases where a domestic market for services and equipment does not exist in Canada."

158. These respondents argued that the Arbitration Rules should allow the Arbitrator to include all relevant market information and economic data, both in Canada and from other countries, primarily because international evidence can be used as comparables for domestic roaming rates. Other respondents suggested that since domestic market information and data are most relevant, international benchmarks should not be considered.

159. WIND, Eastlink and Public Mobile suggested either that Industry Canada establish rules for wholesale roaming rates or that a request be made to the CRTC in order to establish rate regulation.

160. SaskTel suggested that the CRTC act as an Arbitrator on rates and commercial issues, noting that the CRTC has experience in dealing with high-cost service areas and in conducting transparent public dispute resolutions.

Tower Sharing

161. Public Mobile and WIND both indicated that the rates they are being offered are not commercially reasonable. Public Mobile added that, at the time of the consultation, it was collocated on only two incumbent towers, which it attributes to delays and rates that are "uneconomic" for its business. WIND noted that although the conditions of licence require that commercial rates be offered, this "continues to be problematic and inconsistent with the costing principles applied to other support structures."

162. According to WIND, the CRTC should become involved in tower sharing rates. It proposed that Industry Canada "acknowledge that disputes as to rates and conditions for tower sharing can also be dealt with by the CRTC, who maintains concurrent jurisdiction over access to support structures." Rogers disagreed with WIND, stating in its reply comments that "there is no reason why the CRTC needs to become involved in setting tower sharing rates based on costing models. Carriers, landlords and subtenants have been negotiating and coming to agreement on tower sharing terms for over 25 years. It is clear that the reliance on market-based rates remains prudent and comments to the contrary should be dismissed."

163. Videotron, Mobilicity, TELUS, Bell, Rogers and SaskTel supported maintaining the status quo on rates. Mobilicity acknowledged that tower sharing rates are less of an issue than roaming rates are, as carriers generally enter into more tower sharing agreements than roaming agreements.

164. TELUS indicated that it disagrees with comments made by WIND, Public Mobile and Eastlink, stating that "all are advocating for rate regulation to some degree, violating the fundamental tenet that mandatory tower and site sharing agreements are to be the product of commercial negotiation, with recourse to arbitration should any disputes arise." Rogers argued that "there is no basis for any of these complaints or changes. While commercial negotiations have at times been vigorous, tower sharing arrangements have overwhelmingly been successfully negotiated. In fact, other licensees are offered the same basic terms Rogers itself pays when it is the tenant." Bell was also opposed to rate regulation.

Discussion

165. Industry Canada notes that roaming agreements have been successfully negotiated by licensees since CPC-2-0-17 has been established. Nonetheless, parties continue to have recourse to arbitration during negotiations if disagreements arise regarding rates or commercial terms.

166. A number of respondents suggested that Industry Canada or the CRTC be directly involved in arbitration and rate setting, arguing that rates are unreasonable and that the arbitration process is costly, lengthy and cumbersome. Other respondents called for no changes in this regard, stating that rates and terms should be set commercially based on market forces.

167. The CRTC has the authority to set rates and conditions for the provision of telecommunications services within the jurisdiction of the Telecommunications Act. Therefore, the CRTC may consider applications relating to rates and terms for matters such as roaming and tower sharing.

168. In regard to comments related to Rule 2.4, Industry Canada concludes that the Arbitration Rules should not prevent an arbitrator from considering all evidence that the arbitrator believes to be relevant. Accordingly, Industry Canada is amending Rule 2.4 to the following:

"In applying the Rules, the Arbitral Tribunal shall have regard to market information and relevant economic data in Canada and begin strikethroughmay consider market information and relevant economic dataend strikethrough in other countries begin strikethroughin cases where a domestic market for services and equipment does not exist in Canada.end strikethrough"

Decision

7.4 Other Issues Relating to the Arbitration Process

169. In the consultation paper, stakeholders were invited to submit recommendations for other changes that could further facilitate the arbitration process.

Number of Arbitrators

170. Rule 9.2 currently states that "the Arbitral Tribunal shall consist of one arbitrator unless both Parties agree to a three-arbitrator tribunal or the Appointing Committee, at the request of one of the Parties and after hearing submissions from the Parties determines, in its discretion, that three arbitrators should be appointed as the Arbitral Tribunal." Bell suggested that this rule should be changed from the current default of one arbitrator to three arbitrators. According to Bell, "a three-member panel, working on the basis of a simple majority, brings a greater scope of experience to the matter and diminishes the risk of an unreasonable final ruling."

171. This issue was considered during the public consultation process when the Arbitration Rules were initially being drafted. During that consultation process, there was no consensus on this issue. At the time, it was noted that many critical and complex arbitrations are decided by a single arbitrator. There are also significant efficiencies to be gained by using one arbitrator, such as cost savings and ease of scheduling.

172. No compelling argument has been provided to change the current rule. The current default of one arbitrator remains.

Alternate Dispute Resolution Mechanism

173. Eastlink suggested that Industry Canada should establish a dispute resolution mechanism similar to processes established by the CRTC. It argued that this would be a less expensive process and that it would place the responsibility for gathering evidence on the incumbent wireless carrier, which has access to its own agreements and would be better positioned to provide such details.

174. Eastlink also suggested that Industry Canada adopt a provision similar to the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) data roaming order, which provided the FCC the authority to require that roaming service providers offer data roaming on their proffered terms during the dispute process, subject to possible true-up once the roaming agreement is in place.

175. Industry Canada notes that the arbitration process already provides opportunities for parties to pursue any other dispute resolution mechanism when both parties agree to do so. It also provides latitude to the arbitrator to pursue other means for an agreement, such as mediation and interim awards, before moving to Final Offer Arbitration. As previously mentioned, Industry Canada does not impose commercial terms on parties.

176. In consideration that these alternate approaches are either already available to parties or do not fit within the approach taken by the conditions of licence, changes will not be made to mandate other dispute resolution mechanisms.

Footnotes

Footnote 1

Various terms are used in other jurisdictions todescribe the ability to provide seamless communications hand-off.

Return to footnote 1referrer

Footnote 2

The Radiocommunication Regulations (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-96-484/)define a radiocommunication carrier as "a person who operates an interconnectedradio-based transmission facility used by that person or another person to provideradiocommunication services for compensation," whereas a radiocommunicationservice provider is defined as "a person, including a radiocommunicationcarrier, who operates radio apparatus used by that person or another person toprovide radiocommunication services for compensation."

Return to footnote 2referrer

Footnote 3

The seven public safety entities who were opposed tothe proposal included E-Comm 9-1-1, the Province of Nova Scotia (Public Safety & Field Communications Office of Department of Transportation& Infrastructure Renewal), the Province ofOntario, Public Safety Canada and the Centre for Security Science, the RoyalCanadian Mounted Police and York Regional Police.

Return to footnote 3referrer

Footnote 4

These licensees generally offer dispatch or 2-wayradio services and usually require fewer towers than carriers.

Return to footnote 4referrer

Footnote 5

See CPC-2-0-03,Radiocommunicationand Broadcasting Antenna Systems(http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf08777.html).

Return to footnote 5referrer

Footnote 6

As described in Section 6.1, the majority of public safety entities are not licensed as carriers; therefore,this condition of licence would generally not apply to those licensees.

Return to footnote 6referrer

Footnote 7

Refer to the Framework for Mandatory Roaming and Antenna Tower and Site Sharing website (http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/h_sf10290.html).

Return to footnote 7referrer

Footnote 8

The current timelines for future use reservations were the subject of much discussion when the conditions of licence were first being developed.

Return to footnote 8referrer

Footnote 9

Refer to the Framework for Mandatory Roaming and Antenna Tower and Site Sharing website (http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/h_sf10290.html).

Return to footnote 9referrer

Footnote 10

See Industry Canada’s Arbitration Rules and Procedures (http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf09079.html).

Return to footnote 10referrer