Conditions of Licence for Mandatory Roaming and Antenna Tower
and Site Sharing and to Prohibit Exclusive Site Arrangements
(PDF - 70 KB - 10 pages)
Issue 1
November 2008
Spectrum Management and Telecommunications
Client Procedures Circular
Client Procedures Circulars describe the various procedures or processes to be followed by the public when dealing with Industry Canada. The information contained in these circulars is subject to change without notice. It is therefore suggested that interested persons consult the nearest district office of Industry Canada for additional details. While every reasonable effort has been made to ensure accuracy, no warranty is expressed or implied. As well, these circulars have no status in law.
Comments and suggestions may be directed to the following address:
Industry Canada
Radiocommunications and
Broadcasting Regulatory Branch
300 Slater Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0C8
Attention: Spectrum Management Operations
Email: spectrum_pubs@ic.gc.ca
All Spectrum Management and Telecommunications publications are available on the following website: http://www.ic.gc.ca/spectrum.
In Canada Gazette Notice No. DGRB-010-07, published on November 28, 2007, Industry Canada initiated a public consultation on proposed conditions of licence to mandate roaming and antenna tower and site sharing and to prohibit exclusive site arrangements. Industry Canada invited interested parties to submit comments and also provided a reply comment period.
Industry Canada is now releasing CPC-2-0-17, which adopts the licence conditions as set out in DGRB 002-08 Conditions of Licence for Mandatory Roaming and Antenna Tower and Site Sharing and to Prohibit Exclusive Site Arrangements.
It should be noted that the conditions of licence that require licensees to follow Client Procedures Circular, Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems (CPC-2-0-03), will remain in effect. Licensees are now also required to follow the conditions of licence noted below.
As originally proposed, the licence conditions were to apply to all licensees for all services including broadcasting certificate holders. The only exclusions provided for were situations involving sites having national security considerations or sites used for personal enjoyment (e.g. amateur radio operators). Responses to the consultation document identified other legitimate considerations that bear on the services to which these licence conditions should apply. Public utilities noted that their sites are generally located within the confines of enclosures around utility installations (e.g. hydroelectric transformers and switching facilities). Admission to such enclosures is highly restricted and requires specialized training, equipment and procedures to protect personnel and could compromise the integrity of critical utility infrastructure. Public safety agencies expressed similar concerns to those applicable to national security sites requiring highly restricted access. It was also submitted that broadcast sites already tend to be the subject of extensive sharing among broadcasters for technical and economic reasons, while generally being poorly suited for other radiocommunication system architectures.
Upon review and analysis, Industry Canada concurs with these observations. Furthermore, of the small number of antenna installations across Canada that become the subject of heightened public concern, the vast majority are used in the provision of commercial wireless telecommunications services such as those currently provided by the cellular and PCS licensees and to be provided by AWS new entrant licensees. This suggests that the two policy objectives that were the drivers for the proposed licence conditions (i.e. to limit the social impacts of a proliferation of new towers and to facilitate new competitive entry into the provision of wireless services) can be realized for the most part by applying these provisions solely to radiocommunication carriers. Accordingly, the amendments to licence conditions regarding tower sharing will apply to radiocommunication carriers in all bands.
The antenna tower and site-sharing process will have the characteristics outlined below.
Preliminary Information and Analysis: After having identified a potential site for sharing, the party that wishes to share (Requesting Operator) may contact the site owner/operator who is subject to the conditions of licence that require sharing (Responding Licensee) in order to obtain preliminary information for a technical analysis of the site and in order to prepare a proposal for antenna tower and/or site sharing (Proposal to Share). When asked, the Responding Licensee must provide its available technical data on the site in a timely manner and must allow the Requesting Operator to access the site in a timely manner. The Requesting Operator is responsible for carrying out its own technical analysis.
Submitting a Proposal to Share: After reviewing and analyzing the preliminary information, the Requesting Operator may then submit a Proposal to Share to the Responding Licensee to share the site, including any identification of technical requirements and modifications that the Requesting Operator anticipates are required to permit sharing. The time frames in the conditions of licence commence on the date that the Responding Licensee receives the Proposal to Share. The Responding Licensee is responsible for conducting its own technical analysis, if required, and shall respond within the stipulated time with a draft offer to share in every case where sharing is technically feasible.
Sharing a Site: The operation of a Requesting Operator's radiocommunication system relies on more than just mechanical access to an antenna-supporting structure. 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. Such access and services shall therefore be part of the preliminary information exchange, the negotiations and eventual arbitration, if required.
Site Exclusivity: This condition of licence remains essentially the same except that it has been redrafted for greater clarity. Some submissions expressed concern that this was an attempt to bind third parties. That is not the case. Licence conditions do not apply to independent landlords. However, exclusivity provisions may be waived by either party to a lease, including either or both the Licensee and an independent landlord.
The AWS Policy Framework of November 2007 and the Responses to Questions for Clarification on the AWS Policy and Licensing Frameworks provide the scope of mandatory roaming. The intent of the policy is to encourage the deployment of advanced networks that provide the greatest choice of basic and advanced services available at competitive prices to the greatest number of Canadians.
Requests for mandatory roaming on cellular, PCS and AWS licensees' networks will follow the process outlined below.
Preliminary Information and Analysis: The party that wishes to roam (Requesting Operator) may contact the cellular, PCS or AWS licensee who is subject to conditions of licence for mandatory roaming (Responding Licensee) to obtain preliminary information in order to prepare a proposal to enter into a roaming agreement (Roaming Proposal). Upon request, the Responding Licensee must provide available technical information for the roaming services requested in a timely manner.
Submitting a Mandatory Roaming Proposal: The Requesting Operator may submit a Roaming Proposal to the Responding Licensee. This must be clearly identified as a proposal to enter into a mandatory roaming agreement. The timelines for negotiations and arbitration, if required, are set out in the conditions of licence outlined below.
Costs incurred at each step in the process will generally be borne by the party carrying out the step. For instance, the cost of technical analyses in the preliminary information stage or carried out in order to prepare or respond to a Proposal to Share or Roaming Proposal will be borne by the parties conducting the analyses. The Requesting Operator would not have to compensate the Responding Licensee for costs associated with providing the existing technical information about the site, including the Responding Licensee's review of such requests and technical analysis. Furthermore, the Requesting Operator would not have to compensate the Responding Licensee for costs associated with providing existing technical information related to the mandatory roaming arrangement requested. However, other costs arising as a result of a request will be subject to negotiation, with any disputes settled through the arbitration process, if necessary.
Although it is anticipated that, in general, costs associated with the arbitration process will be apportioned equally between the party requesting sharing and the responding party, the final arbitration rules will allow the arbitrator the discretion to allocate costs.
Costs associated with any public consultation or land-use consultation will be the responsibility of the Requesting Operator.
Responding Licensees must respond to requests for information and Proposals to Share or Roaming Proposals received from a provisional licence winner during the period of time that the Minister is in the process of determining eligibility.
If a Responding Licensee, after conducting its technical assessment, considers a Roaming Proposal or a Proposal to Share not to be technically feasible, then the Responding Licensee must inform the Requesting Operator of this as soon as possible and provide the appropriate technical rationale. If the Requesting Operator disagrees with this assessment, it may ask Industry Canada to render a decision on technical feasibility.
As stated in Industry Canada's document entitled Responses to Questions for Clarification on the AWS Policy and Licensing Frameworks, the Department expects that roaming and sharing will be technically feasible in the vast majority of cases. Where disagreement exists over other issues, it can be dealt with through either commercial negotiations or the binding arbitration process, if necessary.
Industry Canada will assess issues relating to technical feasibility. Unless otherwise directed, a technical feasibility review will not alter the timelines to complete negotiations or proceed to arbitration, if required.
Negotiations to be completed within a stipulated time: Within the process outlined above, the Requesting Operator and Responding Licensees may choose to negotiate or use any agreed upon arbitration or mediation process in order to finalize the negotiation process within the timelines set out in the conditions below. Note that, by agreement, the parties may choose to extend their own negotiation process. However, should the timelines outlined in the conditions below expire, then, in the absence of any final or interim agreement, either party may initiate the arbitration process and both parties will be compelled to follow that process and the arbitration rules that will be established by Industry Canada as set out below.
Industry Canada's Arbitration Rules and Procedures are being released separately as CPC-2-0-18.
These conditions of licence will apply to all licensees in all bands who are radiocommunication carriers under the Radiocommunication Act.
The conditions of licence described below will apply to all licensees in the cellular, PCS and AWS bands.
Where the conditions of licence refer to "A new entrant" or "A national new entrant," definitions can be found in the AWS Policy Framework of November 2007 and the subsequent Responses to Questions for Clarification on the AWS Policy and Licensing Frameworks of February 2008.
To access the Portable Document Format (PDF) version, you must have a PDF reader installed. If you do not already have such a reader, there are numerous PDF readers available for free download or for purchase on the Internet: