Radiocommunication
and Broadcasting
Antenna Systems
LUA Deck
September 2014
Outline
Background
Consultation Process
- Infrastructure Sharing
- Requirement to contact the LUA
1
Why are Towers necessary?
Canadians appreciate the convenience
of keeping in touch by cell phones,
pagers and text messaging. We depend
on the many businesses, emergency
services and the air navigation systems
that communicate using radio.
2
No antenna, no service
The reality is that these services and
systems would not function without the
means of transmitting radio signals.
Effective and efficient radio
communication requires that antenna
systems, including towers, are located
in the right places.
3
The Right Place – or is it?
However, placement of antenna systems
is constrained to some degree by:
Acceptable coverage of the service area
Availability of sites
Technical limitations
Safety
4
Legislative Responsibility
regarding Antenna Supporting
Structures
Industry Canada
– Has exclusive jurisdiction over telecommunication in
Canada. This jurisdiction is contained in the Constitution
and supported by jurisprudence.
– The primary legislations influencing tower placement are
Telecommunication, Radiocommunication, and
Broadcasting Acts.
– This exclusive jurisdiction includes a Dispute Resolution
Process.
5
Consulting with Land-use Authorities
Industry Canada believes antenna systems
should be deployed in a manner that considers
local surroundings.
In 1990 the Department issued notice that landuse factors would be included in spectrum
management, to ensure that local views could
be balanced against radiocommunication
needs.
6
The Current Antenna Structure Policy
On July 15, 2014, CPC-2-0-03 came into effect after
public consultations.
In it, all proponents must:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Investigate sharing or using existing antenna supporting
structures before proposing new ones.
Contact the LUA to determine local requirements regarding
antenna systems*.
Notify the public and address relevant concerns, as is
required and appropriate.
Satisfy IC’s general and technical requirements.
Complete the construction within 3 years.
* Unless excluded by the document
7
Two Ways Proponents are Encouraged to
Share Infrastructure.
1. Within the CPC there is strong
encouragement for all licensees to
share existing infrastructure. This can
be reinforced through LUA
Protocols/Policies.
2. ‘Telecommunication Carriers’ are
required to allow other Carriers to use
their infrastructure when technically
feasable (CPC-2-0-17).
8
Towers & Sharing CPC 2-0-03
Before proposing a new structure proponents
are to:
Consider sharing an existing system,
modifying, or replacing if necessary
Locate, analyse and attempt to use any
feasible existing infrastructure (roof-tops,
water towers)
Proponent are expected to not build new
infrastructure where reasonable options
exist, unless a new structure is preferred by
the LUA
9
Mandatory Roaming & Sharing For
Carriers
March 2013, CPC-2-0-17 “Conditions of
Licence for Mandatory and Antenna Tower and
Site Sharing and to Prohibit Exclusive Site
Arrangements” was revised to reduce delays
in response to sharing requests.
Applies to all telecommunication carriers.
10
Consultation and Exclusion
LUA consultation and Public consultation
ensure that the LUA and the public can provide
input on the proposal
IC considers some installations to have
minimal impact and excludes them from LUA
and public consultation
LUAs are free to establish their own exclusion
criteria to exclude more installations (in
addition to the ones under IC criteria) as
appropriate for their communities
Excluded structures must still meet the general
requirements (section 7 of CPC-2-0-03).
11
Two Consultation Processes: Public and
Land-use
Direct Public consultation gives the
public a direct voice in influencing
proposed installations in their
neighbourhoods
Many LUAs have their own policy,
procedure, or protocol to process
antenna structure requests. For those
that don’t, proponent are to use the IC
Default Public Consultation Process.
12
The LUA Consultation process
The proponent is required to consult
with the LUA.
Based on the LUAs local knowledge
they have the opportunity to identify
amenities, cultural or environmental
sensitivities, planning priorities, and
other relevant characteristics of the
area.
13
Outcomes of LUA Consultation
Working together the parties can find
solutions that address reasonable and
relevant concerns or identify alternate
siting arrangements.
The process should take less than 120
days
– If the two parties cannot agree then we’re at
impasse and either party may approach IC to
make a decision
14
Public Consultation: Scenario A
There are two possible public consultation
scenarios:
The LUA, through its own existing protocol, can
set the format of the consultation. The protocol
could identify low impact areas where the public
doesn’t need to be notified, or where consultation
can be minimal
It can also identify areas where more intense
consultation is required, thus encouraging towers
in lower-impact areas.
15
Public Consultation: Scenario B
If an LUA does not have a documented public
consultation process, the proponent is
required to follow the IC Default Public
Consultation Process, provided the structure
is not excluded.
IC Default Public Consultation should be
complete within 111 days, including:
– Public Notification
– Responding to the public
– Public reply comments
If the parties are still negotiating and want
more time to work it out, this is permitted.
16
Reasonable and Relevant Concerns
Reasonable and relevant concerns are generally those
related to the requirements of the CPC and to the
particular amenities or important characteristics of the area
surrounding the proposed antenna system.
General examples of NOT relevant concerns:
• disputes with the public relating to the proponent’s
service, but unrelated to the antenna installations;
• potential effects that a proposed antenna system will
have on property values or municipal taxes;
• questions whether the Radiocommunication Act, the
CPC, Safety Code 6, locally established by-laws, or any
other legislation, procedures or processes are valid or
should be reformed in some manner.
17
Industry Canada’s
Protocol Development Guide
Guide to Assist Land-Use Authorities in Developing
Antenna Siting Protocols, issue 2, August 2014
This is a companion document to CPC-2-0-03
Intended to assist LUAs in dealing with antennas and
their supporting structures within their communities
LUAs are encouraged to develop written local
protocols to deal with the growing demand and local
pressure for wireless access
18
Industry Canada’s
Protocol Development Guide (cont.)
The guide addresses two areas:
– Participation Process
– The LUAs’ role in effectively participating and influencing
decisions on proposed antenna systems within their
communities
– How to work with the CPC and the benefits of developing
protocols
– Protocols developed jointly between proponents and LUAs can
supplement IC’s antenna siting process
– Local Protocol Development
– Elements that LUAs might wish to include when developing
protocols with proponents of antenna systems
– Industry Canada regards any written local guidelines, policies or
processes that address the issue of antenna siting as “protocols”
19
Consultation Impasse
If there is an impasse between an LUA
and a proponent, alternative dispute
resolution (ADR) may be used if both
parties agree to it.
Alternatively, Industry Canada may hear
both sides of the impasse and make a
final decision to permit tower/antenna
site, or not.
20
Why a Protocol ?
It is a formal document that:
balances community wireless
communications needs with land-use
interests.
According to Stats Canada data released in 2014, approximately one in
four British Columbians use wireless as their home phone. 85% of
households have at least one mobile phone.
manages the process of identifying the
concerns of residents regarding
antenna installations
21
A protocol can also…
Identify areas where multiple small sites
are preferable to larger multiuser sites.
encourage the development of new and
enhanced wireless services in a
community friendly manner
22
A protocol can also…
Identify the community acceptable
designs for specific types of
installations.
Provide incentives to encourage
aesthetically pleasing designs.
23
A protocol can also…
convey information identifying areas of
historic or environmental importance
and criteria for minimizing impact.
facilitate cooperation between the LUA
and the proponent by setting
expectations.
24
What We Would Like from You
Read our Guide and consider creating a
protocol that aligns with our CPC to
focus the deployment of
radiocommunication infrastructure in
your community.
Take a look at our Web site:
www.ic.gc.ca/antenna.
25
26