CRTC weighs in over what role, if any, it should take to regulate building owners

Telcos, so long the opponents of government regulation, are supporting the idea of the CRTC having at least some jurisdiction over multi-dwelling units (MDUs) when it comes to telecom access. As expected, the owners of the MDUs prefer a free market approach. Those diametrically opposed opinions are being argued in a forest of submissions to the commission. Comments are being filed in response to CRTC PN 2000-124 and PN 2000-124-1 on regulation of telco and cableco access to MDUs. Two groups representing building owners are challenging the process itself, saying it puts them at a disadvantage. "We are concerned that the wording of seems to imply that ‘providing’ LEC access to MDUs is a foregone conclusion, and that it is only the how of government intervention left to discuss," the Canadian Institute of Public and Private Real Estate Companies (CIPPREC) and the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) state in a joint submission Feb. 5. Having a government agency keep an eye on building owners is exactly what’s needed, according to one ILEC. Telus Corp says telcos have an obligation to guarantee customer service and quality assurance levels. But if building owners have their way, the western telco warns that such agreements would no longer be subject to CRTC scrutiny. "These actions and building owner-imposed terms and conditions, if left unchecked, will impair the Canadian telecommunications policy objectives and the competitive environment that the commission has worked so hard to achieve," Telus writes in its intervention. A Feb. 5 submission filed by Bell Canada on behalf of it, the Aliant companies, MTS Communications Inc and SaskTel, agree with Telus in principle, but stops short of calling for direct regulation of building owners. "The companies’ model calls for the issuance of directives to Canadian carriers to ensure that the commission’s policies concerning end-user choice and the promotion of a viable competitive marketplace are realized rather than for the commission to attempt to directly regulate building owners or their agents," the telcos state. "The companies continue to have substantial doubts that direct regulation by the commission of building owners or their agents would be feasible." Power lies with landlords Large residential buildings are a lucrative market for both incumbents and new competitors. In the past, it was common place to have so-called "sweetheart deals" that gave one communications service provider exclusive access to all tenants in a building. The CRTC is now grappling with how to ensure competitive access for all suppliers and choice for consumers, without unduly burdening building owners. Throughout this proceeding, all the telcos maintain that power lies with the building owners rather than the tenants themselves. Telus says the owners are demanding excessive fees and placing onerous terms on phone companies, thus increasing rates. Bell suggests that CIPPREC/BOMA’s proposal would result in no end-user choice, "only building owner choice." That point of view is endorsed by Toronto consultant Sheila Kimmel. She filed a five-paragraph submission, complaining about the lack of competition in her building. "My condo committee, which is unknowledgeable in telecom matters, limited the building to the dominant cable carrier and does not permit dishes on balconies," she writes. Being too far from the CO, she cannot get proper ADSL service. CLECs and wireless carriers are denied entry to the building and tenants are forbidden to install dishes that would ease the problem. Kimmel urges the CRTC to adopt a rule similar to an FCC regulation that prevents building owners from banning dishes. She notes the ultimate irony of her situation. "I can see the CN Tower from my balcony but I can’t get any of that bandwidth," she writes. But according to Futureway Communications Inc Kimmel is the exception. "Futureway submits that a great deal of the push for competition in the local market came not from residential end-users…but from sources such as service providers, the clear policy goals in the new Telecommunications Act and the commission itself," the Ontario CLEC writes. "Futureway submits that this lack of demand relates in large part to the existence of the historical cross-subsidy between local and long distance rates." Dispute over access Futureway says it endorses the concept of free access, but says this isn’t always possible, particularly in older buildings where questions of property rights abound. The company supports CIPPREC/BOMA, which are promoting a "food court" approach. Just as it is not in the interest of a landlord to have only restaurants serving Mexican food, the lobbyists argue it is not wise to leave telecommunications to just one carrier. That claim has led to bureaucratic heartburn for Futureway and Bell. In its submission, the CLEC charges, "On one occasion Bell Canada has actually commandeered Futureway’s access facilities and used them without the consent of the building owner to enter the building. Bell Canada then proceeded to install these facilities in what can only be described as a haphazard and unsafe manner in the complete absence of consultation with and input from the building owner." The incumbent calls that "highly misleading" and says it is the aggrieved party. "Bell Canada continues to be unable to provide service to end-users in Futureway’s MDUs," the telco writes. "End-users continue to be advised by MDU management personnel in these MDUs that service is only available from Futureway and Bell Canada continues to be refused access to provision entrance facilities or to use in-building wire in such MDUs." It cites an example, with no names or places, where a developer refused to allow anyone other than Futureway to provide telecom services. "The reason provided by the developer is that if the new home purchaser chooses a supplier other than Futureway, additional landscaping costs may be incurred," Bell complains. Other interventions were filed by CLECs, telecom companies and lobby groups. All the documentation is now being reviewed by the commission, which is expected to make a ruling later this year.

CRTC weighs in over what role, if any, it should take to regulate building owners

News | 03/12/2001 5:00 am EST

To keep reading, get a free trial.

Already a Subscriber?

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us