ARCHIVED -  Telecom Public Notice CRTC 95-13

Telecom Public Notice

Ottawa, 20 March 1995

Telecom Public Notice CRTC 95-13

IMPLEMENTATION OF REGULATORY FRAMEWORK - CO-LOCATION

References:

AGT Tariff Notice 584

Stentor Tariff Notices 100 and 100A

I BACKGROUND

Co-location refers to an arrangement whereby customers of the telephone company can terminate their own transmission facilities in the telephone company's central office. Physical co-location allows competitors to physically terminate transmission facilities in the telephone company's central office. Virtual co-location allows competitors to terminate facilities at a point outside the central office, but in all material aspects provides the same service at the same rate as would physical co-location.

In Review of Regulatory Framework, Telecom Decision CRTC 94-19, 16 September 1994 (Decision 94-19), the Commission stated the view that the provision of co-location would facilitate competition by providing competitors with the option of delivering their traffic to local switches over either leased or owned facilities, based on cost and efficiency considerations. The Commission added that co-location may foster increased entry by creating an additional source of supply of local channels to end-users and to resellers.

In Decision 94-19, the Commission was of the view that, generally, the telephone companies should provide co-location where requested. As an initial step in the implementation of co-location, the Commission directed the telephone companies to file proposed co-location tariffs within 120 days of Decision 94-19.

II THE APPLICATIONS

In response to the Commission's direction, on 16 January 1995, Stentor Resource Centre Inc. (Stentor) filed Tariff Notice 100, providing for two types of physical co-location, on behalf of BC TEL, Bell Canada, The Island Telephone Company Limited, Manitoba Telephone System, Maritime Tel & Tel Limited, The New Brunswick Telephone Company Limited and Newfoundland Telephone Company Limited (the telephone companies).

Stentor stated that, in electing to provide co-location as proposed, the telephone companies are consenting to the acquisition, by interconnecting carriers, of certain interests or rights in their real property, and that they do so on condition that they be adequately and fairly compensated, as reflected in the rates and other arrangements proposed in Stentor's filing.

Stentor Tariff Notice 100 did not include the proposed rates and charges associated with the proposed co-location arrangements, as they had not yet been finalized. On 30 January 1995, Stentor filed Tariff Notice 100A, setting out the proposed rates, along with a supporting cost study. On 10 February 1995, Stentor filed the associated proposed Central Office License Agreement.

In Tariff Notice 584, also filed on 16 January 1995, AGT Limited (AGT) proposes virtual co-location as its standard offering. In its application, AGT states that, although the Commission directed the telephone companies to file proposed co-location tariffs, it did not rule out negotiations as a means of developing co-location arrangements. AGT recommended negotiated solutions as the preferred approach, and stated that, although it was not filing a tariff for physical co-location, it was prepared to consider requests for physical co-location on a case-by-case negotiated basis. AGT added that, if negotiations should prove unsuccessful, the Commission should not mandate physical co-location.

By letter dated 16 February 1995, the Commission directed AGT to file revised economic studies and a copy of the Co-location Lease Agreement referred to in its proposed tariffs. The company was also asked to provide its views as to whether that agreement requires Commission approval. AGT filed its response to the Commission's letter on 3 March 1995.By letter dated 19 January 1995, Sprint Canada Inc. (Sprint) requested that the Commission direct Stentor to file a virtual co-location tariff. By letter dated 24 January 1995, Sprint requested that the Commission direct AGT to file a physical co-location tariff.

By letter dated 19 January 1995, Sprint Canada Inc. (Sprint) requested that the Commission direct Stentor to file a virtual co-location tariff. By letter dated 24 January 1995, Sprint requested that the Commission direct AGT to file a physical co-location tariff.

By letter dated 27 February 1995, the Commission advised Sprint that it intended to issue a public notice calling for comment on the proposed co-location tariffs. In its letter, the Commission reiterated that, as noted in Decision 94-19, virtual co-location in all material respects provides the same service at the same rate as would physical co-location. The Commission stated that, while it found in Decision 94-19 that, generally, the telephone companies should provide co-location where requested, there was no specific requirement for the telephone companies to file proposed tariffs providing for both virtual and physical co-location, nor was there a specific finding that one or the other form of co-location was preferable. Consequently, the question of whether, and under what conditions, both virtual and physical co-location tariffs may be appropriate was an issue that could be addressed in the proceeding to be initiated with respect to the proposed tariffs.

Consistent with its letter of 27 February 1995, the Commission hereby initiates a proceeding to consider the applications filed by AGT and Stentor, and related issues.

III PROCEDURE

1. AGT's application may be examined at any of its business offices. Stentor's application may be examined at its office at the address noted in paragraph 2, below. Both applications may be examined at the offices of the CRTC in the following locations:

Central Building
Les Terrasses de la Chaudière
1 Promenade du Portage
Room 201
Hull, Quebec

Bank of Commerce Building
1809 Barrington Street
Suite 1007
Halifax, Nova Scotia

Place Montréal Trust
1800 McGill College Avenue
Suite 1920
Montréal, Quebec

Standard Life Centre
121 King Street West
Suite 820
Toronto, Ontario

275 Portage Avenue
Suite 1810
Winnipeg, Manitoba

800 Burrard Street
Suite 1380
Vancouver, British Columbia

Copies of the applications may be obtained by any interested person upon request directed to AGT and Stentor at the addresses noted in paragraph 2, below.

2. The mailing addresses to be used in this proceeding are:

Mr. Allan J. Darling
Secretary General CRTC
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0N2
Fax: 819-953-0795

Mr. Bohdan S. Romaniuk
Vice President
Regulatory Affairs
AGT Limited
Floor 31, 10020 - 100 Street
Edmonton, Alberta
T5J 0N5
Fax: 403-493-6519

Mrs. Catherine R. Cooper
Director, Tariffs
Stentor Resource Centre Inc.
Document Control & Distribution
Centre
Floor 22 - 160 Elgin Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1G 3J4
Fax: 613-781-3514

3. Persons wishing to participate in this proceeding must file a notice of intention to participate with the Commission at the address noted above by 10 April 1995. The Commission will issue a complete list of parties and their mailing addresses.

4. Parties may address interrogatories to AGT and Stentor. Any such interrogatories must be filed with the Commission and served on AGT and Stentor by 1 May 1995.

5. AGT and Stentor are to file responses to interrogatories, serving copies on all parties, by 29 May 1995.

6. Parties may file comments with the Commission, serving copies on AGT and Stentor, by 27 June 1995.

7. AGT and Stentor may file replies to any comments, serving copies on all parties, by 10 July 1995.

8. Where a document is to be filed or served by a specific date, the document must be actually received, not merely mailed, by that date.

In light of the procedure set out in this Public Notice, the Commission expects to issue a ruling with respect to the applications in the fourth quarter of 1995.

Allan J. Darling
Secretary General