Rogers criticizes overlap of requirements, but wants only minor changes to tower policy

Rogers Communications Inc. wants current broadcasting procedures changed to allow prospective broadcasters to hold off on notifying local land use authorities of their intention to set up towers until they have actually been granted a CRTC licence. Rogers notes in its response to Industry Canada’s consultation on its antenna tower policy that the current overlap in CRTC and Industry Canada requirements "invites local confusion, and requires unnecessary local consultations." Current policy requires anyone seeking a broadcast licence to meet the technical clearance requirements of Industry Canada prior to the start of a CRTC public hearing on the granting of new licences. Broadcast licensing processes are typically highly competitive with many applicants vying for the right to operate a broadcasting operation in a particular market. "The unfortunate and undoubtedly unintended result of this overlap in Industry Canada and CRTC procedures is that numerous applicants will notify local land use authorities of proposed installations well in advance of being granted permission to operate a broadcasting operation in the locality," Rogers tells a committee headed by University of New Brunswick professor David Townsend that is reviewing the department’s antenna tower policy and siting procedures (CCR, Sept. 18/03). "In fact, most will not be granted a license by the CRTC. Nevertheless, local authorities can be inundated with notices of proposed installations in spite of the fact that most likely only one of the proponents will be successful." The TV and radio broadcaster and wireless phone carrier further notes, "In addition, with multiple proponents providing notification within a locality the workload of the local authority is needlessly increased and the process for handling them, if one exists, is slowed." Overall though, Rogers advocates little change to the existing antenna policy as it believes that it is in the best interests of all stakeholders in most instances. But it does recommend that Industry Canada ensure greater compliance to the timelines in those guidelines. The guidelines call on a land use authority to present its views on a potential tower site within 60 days of being contacted, and for the consultation process to be completed within 120 days. Rogers also wants the federal government’s role as the final arbitrator of radiocommunications structures reaffirmed, and not delegated to other levels of government. It also suggests that Industry Canada take a more direct and educative role in the consultation process with local land use authorities. "…It would be preferable and constructive if Industry Canada devoted greater effort and resources to an educative role outside the consultation process that would assist municipalities and land use authorities in understanding both the jurisdictional authority for radiocommunications and their legitimate role in the antenna tower siting process," Rogers writes. Not surprisingly, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM), an organization representing local governments across the country, doesn’t see eye-to-eye with Rogers. "Telecommunications firms have argued, but it doesn’t necessarily follow, that only minor changes should result from this review. We do not agree," the FCM writes in its submission. "Industry Canada’s current policy is outdated and takes no account of local variations in policy and familiarity with the process. This was demonstrated by developments in Colwood BC, and is reason enough to undertake meaningful change." The city of Colwood wants massive changes to the antenna policy that more clearly take into account the legitimate interests of citizens, following construction without consultation of some broadcast transmission towers on Triangle Mountain, near a quiet residential area of the city. The FCM tells Industry Canada not to infringe on municipal government jurisdiction, including authority to enforce zoning bylaws and other requirements for antenna towers within the municipality. It also recommends that resolution of disputes over antenna locations "must" be conducted in a transparent manner, consider citizen input, and respect the constitutionally valid processes of municipal governments. Also, it suggests, "Given the proliferation of antenna towers, Industry Canada must ensure that the government of Canada update its policies with respect to the (sic) monitoring the intensity of radio frequency and electromagnetic fields and controlling harmful health and interference effects on those fields." On the other hand, Rogers contends that Health Canada’s existing Safety Code 6 established safe exposure limits for individuals working on sources of radiofrequency fields, and that wireless carriers and broadcasters adhere to those codes. It notes that questions or issues regarding the safety code are typically raised by those who wish to stop an antenna tower installation. Rogers states that individual site approvals should not be delayed due to issues raised regarding the adequacy of the standard itself. Any concerns with the standard itself should be addressed in a process specifically dealing with that issue, Rogers notes.

Rogers criticizes overlap of requirements, but wants only minor changes to tower policy

Broadcast | October 16, 2003

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us