A recent Supreme Court of Canada ruling exposed a legislative gap that could slow an expanded roll-out of urban 5G infrastructure.
The case (TELUS Communications Inc. v. Federation of Canadian Municipalities) involved determining whether the CRTC was correct when the Commission said it lacks the legislative power over telecom carrier access to municipally owned infrastructure.
In the proceeding leading to Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2021-130: Review of mobile wireless services, wireless carriers argued that having timely access to municipal rights of way and infrastructure are “critical to the success of 5G deployment.” Unfortunately, the CRTC determined that Sections 43 and 44 of the Telecommunications Act “do not provide the Commission with jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes involving mobile wireless transmission facilities”.
Supported by other wireless carriers, TELUS pursued appeals all the way to the Supreme Court that, in a majority decision, dismissed the appeal. However, there was a minority opinion that wrote:
The appeal should be allowed. There is disagreement with the majority that the installation of 5G small cells is outside the scope of the access regime in the Act. Properly interpreted, the term “transmission line” includes 5G small cells. This interpretation accords with the text and with the grammatical and ordinary meaning of the term “transmission line”. It is also the only interpretation that allows the Act and the Radiocommunication Act to operate together effectively, as Parliament intended, and that aligns with and respects Parliament’s desire for technological neutrality in light of rapid technological development.
The minority writes “According to the principle of technological neutrality, since 5G networks carry the exact same telecommunications and serve the exact same purpose as networks that consist of physical cables or wires, they are functionally equivalent and should be subject to the same treatment under the law.”
More than a dozen years ago, I wrote about technological neutrality in the context of a 2012 CRTC determination to treat wireless and wireline networks as peers. I have frequently written about the importance of government just getting out of the way of companies seeking to invest in infrastructure to power the digital economy.
Last week, I wrote about fixed wireless broadband as a more competitive option in the US for urban and suburban consumers, while in Canada, we see the technology primarily deployed in rural regions.
The CRTC’s lack of jurisdiction contributes to delays in small cell deployment, which ultimately reduces consumer choice.
There is clearly a legislative gap that led to this outcome. Will the new government make necessary amendments to the Telecom Act to plug the hole?