The CRTC determined that lighting dark fibre does not make you a carrier.
It was the proceeding that I referred to in Monday’s post. The decision is consistent with determinations from the late 90’s [such as here and here]. In effect, the CRTC decided that the optical equipment at each end of the fibre isn’t a “transmission facility” under the Telecom Act and further, a service provider that attaches the optical equipment is not operating a transmission facility; they are operating “exempt transmission apparatus” (ETA).
In the Commission’s view, a service provider that attaches ETA equipment to leased dark fibre operates the ETA equipment, not a transmission facility. Indeed, the Commission notes that several parties submitted that the carrier that owns the leased dark fibre retains operational responsibility of the fibre to the extent that it remains responsible for access to, and the maintenance, repair, and replacement of, the fibre.
So this raises an interesting question: what if the owner of the dark fibre isn’t a carrier? At what point does fibre get transformed from being a construction material (or a deformed drinking glass) into a transmission facility? Is the issue really the operation of the medium or the devices doing the radiating and receiving?
Can a construction company plant fibre in the ground and provide maintenance services without ever becoming a carrier? Can there be a fibre facility without any associated telecommunications carrier? Would it still make a sound?
The net effect is that the CRTC has clarified that there are very few restrictions remaining for non-Canadian service providers: purchasing spectrum; and, acquiring phone numbers as a CLEC.
As I suggested on Monday, this decision may have been moot had the decision on foreign direct investment not been delayed.