Microcell stands alone in calling for mandated tower site co-location

Microcell Telecommunications Inc. has renewed its call for mandated antenna tower site co-location in the wake of what it says is a failure by the industry to self-regulate fair access (RoW, March 31/03). The country’s smallest mobile wireless operator says in comments to the National Antenna Tower Policy Review that after years of anti-competitive tower practices by its competitors, Industry Canada is left with no choice but to regulate. Referring to the June 30, 2003 CRTC Telecom Decision 2003-45 on access to multi-dwelling units (MDUs), Microcell highlights the commission’s ruling that exclusive or preferred arrangements between local exchange carriers (LECs) and MDUs are unjustly discriminatory and not consistent with section 7 of the Telecommunications Act. The commission deemed at the time that regulatory intervention was required. In the ruling, the commission writes that it had rendered several decisions in recent years with the goal of ensuring reasonable and equitable access to MDUs. "It appears clear, however, that agreement on a number of important access issues has not yet been reached; that adherence to the Voluntary Code of Conduct adopted by the SWG has not been widespread; and that barriers to LEC entry into MDUs continue to exist." Microcell contends that the same situation exists in the wireless sector. The Montreal-based wireless operator points to one-for-one site swapping or site banking and the signing of exclusive leasing arrangements with other facilities owners as two key aspects of the anti-competitive nature of the current antenna tower-siting process. "The practices followed by certain incumbents harm our industry and hamper our collective relations with communities. There is absolutely no consumer benefit from antenna siting being used as an anti-competitive tool. The failure of the wireless industry to develop a comprehensive, self-imposed policy regarding site co-location calls for regulatory intervention from the department," Microcell writes. The company wants Industry Canada to impose the following conditions on wireless operators: Impose a ban on exclusive leasing arrangements that provide one wireless operator with sole access to rooftop properties belonging to third parties; Impose a ban on the practice of site banking, which requires wireless operators to trade access to antenna sites in order to gain access to other sites; and Impose an obligation on wireless network operators to offer site co-location upon demand from another operator where this is technically feasible and on commercially reasonable terms. Microcell also recommends that the department act as final arbitrator in cases where the two parties are unable to reach an agreement regarding site co-location in a timely manner. While Microcell is the only national wireless operator calling for mandated site sharing, the company shares the same opinion as the other national players that the current department process examining antenna siting has been generally effective. In reference to community concerns about the siting of towers in residential areas, Microcell notes that participation from local land-use authorities is important, but the consultation process doesn’t transfer "any federal decision-making authority, nor does it confer a right of veto on the location of an antenna structure." The full slate of comments to the e-town hall is no longer available online since it closed on October 24. You can find Microcell’s submission here.

Microcell stands alone in calling for mandated tower site co-location

News | November 5, 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