Hamilton remains dialed in against Bell Canada

News May 21, 2015 by Kevin Werner Hamilton Mountain News

Hamilton and Bell Canada are waiting for the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission for a decision on how to respond to the city’s appeal of a municipal access agreement against the telecommunications.

Solicitor Brian Duxbury, who is representing Hamilton before the CRTC, said he expects a decision within the next 30 days. A decision by the regulatory body could include a full hearing that may happen later this year, he told councillors at their May 20 general issues committee meeting.

Hamilton in January appealed to the CRTC over its municipal access agreement it had signed with Bell Canada. The agreement expired in 2012.

The city wants to have a new agreement to include performance standards, consequences for non-performance and authorization to charge the telecom company more for cost recovery.

MAA’s sets the guidelines for the city and telecoms when it comes to right-of-ways, street crossings and roads.

Hamilton officials claim that Bell has failed to follow city-approved locations and provide timely answers to requests for information. The city cites 69 incidents across the municipality where Bell has created problems, including a conduit system problem on the Kenilworth/Burlington project; Bell installing cabinets in a “non-approved” location on Amberwood Drive in front of St. Paul Elementary school in Stoney Creek; and Bell using duct tape to stick its wires to a city sidewalk at Bing Crescent.

City staff estimates Bell has cost taxpayers about $450,000 annually “due to performance and non-compliance issues.”

Duxbury said the outstanding problems he says Bell has caused are “liability issues” for the city.

Bell Canada spokesperson Jason Laszlo stated that the company “looks forward to resolving any remaining concerns the city may have and to move forward with our plans.”

City solicitor Janice Atwood-Petkovski said she has reached out to other municipalities for assistance. She said while most city officials agreed with Hamilton taking on Bell Canada, they would not provide any financial help, but only “morale support.”

Mountain councillor Terry Whitehead compared the city’s issue with Bell Canada to what the municipality is fighting Canada Post over the installation of super mailboxes.

“Who sets the standards on right of ways (and) who should pay the cost,” said Whitehead. “The issue is fundamental.”

Ward 3 councillor Matthew Green said with some of the incidents that have occurred in the city, especially Bell’s use of duct tape on a city sidewalk, Hamilton should continue to fight the company.

“It’s an embarrassing sight,” said Green. “It’s seems like negligence.”

 

Hamilton remains dialed in against Bell Canada

News May 21, 2015 by Kevin Werner Hamilton Mountain News

Hamilton and Bell Canada are waiting for the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission for a decision on how to respond to the city’s appeal of a municipal access agreement against the telecommunications.

Solicitor Brian Duxbury, who is representing Hamilton before the CRTC, said he expects a decision within the next 30 days. A decision by the regulatory body could include a full hearing that may happen later this year, he told councillors at their May 20 general issues committee meeting.

Hamilton in January appealed to the CRTC over its municipal access agreement it had signed with Bell Canada. The agreement expired in 2012.

The city wants to have a new agreement to include performance standards, consequences for non-performance and authorization to charge the telecom company more for cost recovery.

MAA’s sets the guidelines for the city and telecoms when it comes to right-of-ways, street crossings and roads.

Hamilton officials claim that Bell has failed to follow city-approved locations and provide timely answers to requests for information. The city cites 69 incidents across the municipality where Bell has created problems, including a conduit system problem on the Kenilworth/Burlington project; Bell installing cabinets in a “non-approved” location on Amberwood Drive in front of St. Paul Elementary school in Stoney Creek; and Bell using duct tape to stick its wires to a city sidewalk at Bing Crescent.

City staff estimates Bell has cost taxpayers about $450,000 annually “due to performance and non-compliance issues.”

Duxbury said the outstanding problems he says Bell has caused are “liability issues” for the city.

Bell Canada spokesperson Jason Laszlo stated that the company “looks forward to resolving any remaining concerns the city may have and to move forward with our plans.”

City solicitor Janice Atwood-Petkovski said she has reached out to other municipalities for assistance. She said while most city officials agreed with Hamilton taking on Bell Canada, they would not provide any financial help, but only “morale support.”

Mountain councillor Terry Whitehead compared the city’s issue with Bell Canada to what the municipality is fighting Canada Post over the installation of super mailboxes.

“Who sets the standards on right of ways (and) who should pay the cost,” said Whitehead. “The issue is fundamental.”

Ward 3 councillor Matthew Green said with some of the incidents that have occurred in the city, especially Bell’s use of duct tape on a city sidewalk, Hamilton should continue to fight the company.

“It’s an embarrassing sight,” said Green. “It’s seems like negligence.”

 

Hamilton remains dialed in against Bell Canada

News May 21, 2015 by Kevin Werner Hamilton Mountain News

Hamilton and Bell Canada are waiting for the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission for a decision on how to respond to the city’s appeal of a municipal access agreement against the telecommunications.

Solicitor Brian Duxbury, who is representing Hamilton before the CRTC, said he expects a decision within the next 30 days. A decision by the regulatory body could include a full hearing that may happen later this year, he told councillors at their May 20 general issues committee meeting.

Hamilton in January appealed to the CRTC over its municipal access agreement it had signed with Bell Canada. The agreement expired in 2012.

The city wants to have a new agreement to include performance standards, consequences for non-performance and authorization to charge the telecom company more for cost recovery.

MAA’s sets the guidelines for the city and telecoms when it comes to right-of-ways, street crossings and roads.

Hamilton officials claim that Bell has failed to follow city-approved locations and provide timely answers to requests for information. The city cites 69 incidents across the municipality where Bell has created problems, including a conduit system problem on the Kenilworth/Burlington project; Bell installing cabinets in a “non-approved” location on Amberwood Drive in front of St. Paul Elementary school in Stoney Creek; and Bell using duct tape to stick its wires to a city sidewalk at Bing Crescent.

City staff estimates Bell has cost taxpayers about $450,000 annually “due to performance and non-compliance issues.”

Duxbury said the outstanding problems he says Bell has caused are “liability issues” for the city.

Bell Canada spokesperson Jason Laszlo stated that the company “looks forward to resolving any remaining concerns the city may have and to move forward with our plans.”

City solicitor Janice Atwood-Petkovski said she has reached out to other municipalities for assistance. She said while most city officials agreed with Hamilton taking on Bell Canada, they would not provide any financial help, but only “morale support.”

Mountain councillor Terry Whitehead compared the city’s issue with Bell Canada to what the municipality is fighting Canada Post over the installation of super mailboxes.

“Who sets the standards on right of ways (and) who should pay the cost,” said Whitehead. “The issue is fundamental.”

Ward 3 councillor Matthew Green said with some of the incidents that have occurred in the city, especially Bell’s use of duct tape on a city sidewalk, Hamilton should continue to fight the company.

“It’s an embarrassing sight,” said Green. “It’s seems like negligence.”