The opinions expressed in this editorial are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Decima Reports. The CRTC’s contentious Ledcor decision (Decision 2001-23) was supposed to help end the ever-present municipal access war. But the principle-setting document’s prime legacy is confusion and major municipal access arrangement disputes continue to this day.  Ledcor, according to the CRTC, should help cities and telcos come to terms on municipal access – terms acceptable to both parties – but the commission hardly stands by its seminal decision. In 2003 the CRTC said it would judge access issues on a case-by-case basis, as if Ledcor hadn’t happened. Earlier this year the commission refused to align MTS Allstream Inc.’s access deals the company has in Calgary and Toronto with Ledcor’s principles.  Then in September the CRTC changed its tune, strongly hinting that Vancouver should get with the Ledcor program (see story on pages 3 and 7 in this issue).  The commission also noted that if the city and the telco can’t sign an arrangement satisfactory to both parties, the CRTC might step in, as it’s allowed to do, according to the Telecommunications Act section 43(4). Some view Ledcor as the letter of the law: it stipulates cities can’t charge too much for municipal access, period. But others say it’s merely a set of guidelines intended to steer cities and carriers towards mutually beneficial relationships. Still others argue Ledcor impinges a city’s legal duty to impose suitable access levies. Ledcor is confusing – not quite a precedent, not quite a set of principals, but it applies sometimes, in some cases, depending, it seems, on the direction of the wind that day at the commission’s Gatineau QC headquarters.  Until the CRTC figures out how to apply the decision in a fair and consistent manner, Ledcor will be more of a bane than a boon for carriers, cities and government overseers.