| |
Telecom Public Notice CRTC 98-35
|
| |
Ottawa, 2 December 1998 |
| |
LOCATION OF DEMARCATION POINT FOR INSIDE WIRE IN MULTI-TENANT BUILDINGS
AND ASSOCIATED ISSUES
|
| |
File No.: 8644-C12-01/98 |
| |
I BACKGROUND |
| |
1. With the release of Local Competition,
Telecom Decision CRTC 97-8, 1
May 1997 (Decision 97-8), the Commission established a framework for the
implementation of competition in local exchange services. Further to
Decision 97-8, the Commission
established a sub-working group of the CRTC Interconnection Steering
Committee (CISC) to deal with building access and inside wire issues. One
of the key issues that has been discussed in the context of the Building
Access and Inside Wire Sub-Working Group of CISC (BA&IW SWG) is the
location of the demarcation point for inside wire in multi-tenant
buildings. This issue is important to local exchange carriers (LECs),
building owners and consumers, since it will largely determine the manner
in which LECs access customers in multi-tenant buildings. |
| |
2. The demarcation point is generally defined
as the point where the local loop (which is the responsibility of the LEC)
ends and the inside wire (which is the responsibility of the customer)
begins. Where responsibility for inside wire has been transferred from the
incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC) to the customer, the demarcation
point in multi-tenant buildings is generally at the entrance to the
customer's suite (this is the case in the territories of Bell Canada
(Bell), Maritime Tel & Tel Limited (MT&T) and MTS Communications Inc.
(MTS)). In the case of TELUS Communications Inc. (TCI), the demarcation
point is in the main terminal (or meter) room in the basement of each
multi-tenant building. In BC TEL territory, the demarcation point is either
in the main terminal room or in a telephone closet on each floor of the
building (typically the latter). The demarcation point for those ILECs that
have not transferred responsibility for inside wire to the customer (NBTel
Inc. (NBTel), Island Telecom Inc. (Island Tel) and NewTel Communications
Inc. (NewTel)) is currently at the point where the local loop terminates at
the customer's terminal equipment. |
| |
3. On 14 September 1998, Stentor Resource
Centre Inc. (Stentor) on behalf of BC TEL, Bell, Island Tel, MT&T, MTS,
NBTel, NewTel and TCI, made a proposal in the context of the BA&IW SWG
relating to the location of the demarcation point (the details of this
proposal, which were further modified in a submission dated 9 October 1998,
are set out below). At the same time, Stentor withdrew its earlier
submission in a dispute relating to the location of the demarcation point,
which had been referred to the Commission by the BA&IW SWG in September
1997. |
| |
4. Comments on the initial dispute were
received from AT&T Canada Long Distance Services Company (AT&T Canada LDS),
Building Owners and Managers Association Canada (BOMA), Call-Net
Enterprises Inc., Clearnet Communications Inc. (Clearnet), Industry Canada,
the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), Stentor and Telco Plus Services
Inc. A group comprised of fONOROLA Inc., MetroNet Communications Corp.,
Rogers Network Services and Vidéotron Télécom ltée (collectively, "the
Competitors") submitted joint comments. |
| |
5. Reply comments were received from AT&T
Canada LDS, Clearnet, the Competitors and Stentor. |
| |
6. After filing submissions, parties continued
to discuss issues associated with the dispute in the context of the BA&IW
SWG, ultimately resulting in Stentor's withdrawal, on 14 September 1998, of
its position in the dispute. |
| |
1. Parties' Positions in the Original
Dispute |
| |
7. Stentor initially proposed no changes to
existing demarcation points between ILEC plant and inside wire. Stentor
maintained that changing the demarcation point would be unnecessary,
disruptive and costly for all parties. Moreover, Stentor submitted that
moving the demarcation point to the main terminal room would not guarantee
access to in-building facilities and may in fact make it more difficult and
expensive for all LECs to obtain access to such facilities. Under the
current regime, stated Stentor, CLECs have access to the ILEC's local loops
without having to negotiate access from building owners. |
| |
8. The Competitors, Call-Net, AT&T Canada LDS
and Clearnet submitted that the demarcation point should be located in the
main terminal room. These parties submitted that locating the demarcation
point in the main terminal room would minimize CLEC reliance on ILEC
controlled facilities and would minimize unnecessary costs and delays
associated with competitive entry. They also suggested that it would reduce
the likelihood of disputes with landlords and other LECs concerning access
to building and riser space by maximizing the use of existing facilities
and minimizing the intrusion into building common areas associated with
CLEC entry. In addition, these parties argued that a demarcation point in
the main terminal room would eliminate the need to unbundle the ILECs'
in-building wiring and would be consistent with the policy emphasis in
Decision 97-8 on developing
facilities-based competition. |
| |
9. PIAC expressed concerns about the ability
of customers to access the service provider of choice. PIAC suggested that
the Commission unbundle access to entrance facilities and in-building
wiring where there is already an established demarcation point. For new
installations, PIAC supported setting the demarcation point in the main
terminal room, or as close as possible to the point of entry to the
building. |
| |
10. BOMA submitted that the demarcation point
should be in the main terminal room or at such other place as the owner may
determine that is consistent with Commission policy goals. |
| |
2. Stentor's Revised Position |
| |
11. As noted above, on 14 September 1998,
Stentor withdrew its earlier submission in the dispute and replaced it with
a new position, which was subsequently modified further on 9 October 1998.
In its revised submission, Stentor proposed that, for all Stentor companies
except BC TEL and TCI, the demarcation point for copper voice grade wire in
multi-tenant buildings be re-located to the main terminal room in response
to market demand. In the case of BC TEL, it was proposed that the
demarcation point be moved to the main terminal room in all multi-tenant
buildings, regardless of market demand. In the case of TCI, the demarcation
point is already located in the main terminal room. |
| |
12. Stentor's revised proposal essentially
consisted of the following: |
| |
The demarcation point would be market driven
and would move to the main terminal room in the following circumstances: 1)
more than one LEC has installed feeder transmission facilities into the
building to the main terminal room and any LEC wishes to use the existing
in-building wiring; 2) a written notice for transfer of responsibility and
control of in-building wiring has been made to the serving LEC by the
building owner; or 3) all new buildings. |
| |
In these cases, the ILEC's responsibility
would end at the main terminal room and control and responsibility for the
in-building wiring would be transferred to the building owner/landlord. |
| |
In existing buildings where an additional LEC
wants to install transmission facilities into the building main terminal
room and the landlord does not want to assume control and responsibility
for the existing in-building wire but is willing to allow the new LEC to
install its own in-building wire, the demarcation point would not move from
its current location. The original LEC in the building would continue to
have control and responsibility for its own in-building wire and the new
LEC would have control and responsibility for the in-building wire that it
installs. The original LEC would not make any of its in-building wire
available for the use of any other party. |
| |
In existing buildings (where only one LEC has
installed feeder cable) in which the building owner does not want to assume
responsibility for the management and operation of in-building cabling, the
status quo (i.e. the demarcation points in place today) would be
maintained. |
| |
The timing of the transfer of control and
responsibility to building owners would be dependent on Commission approval
and the need for an orderly transition. |
| |
The transition going forward would be based on
market demand. |
| |
13. Stentor's revised position did not address
the concerns that it had earlier expressed with respect to the location of
the demarcation point in the main terminal room. |
| |
3. Parties' Reactions to Stentor's Revised
Proposal |
| |
14. Representatives of CLECs and of building
owners/landlords generally supported Stentor's revised proposal. |
| |
15. The Consumers' Association of Canada/
Fédération nationale des associations de consommateurs du Québec/National
Anti-Poverty Organization (CAC/FNACQ/NAPO) and the B.C. Old Age Pensioners'
Organization et al. (BCOAPO et al.), in separate written submissions,
argued that the wholesale transfer of responsibility for in-building wiring
from telephone companies to landlords and/or tenants is inappropriate and
unnecessary for the achievement of end-user choice. If anything, these
parties argued, re-location of the demarcation point as proposed by Stentor
might enhance the right and ability of landlords and building owners to
deny access to inside wire on the part of CLECs. Both CAC/FNACQ/NAPO and
BCOAPO et al. submitted that, given the potentially broad impact of this
issue on Canadian tenants and landlords, no changes to the existing regime
should be made until representatives of these interested parties have been
informed of the issue and provided with an opportunity to comment. |
| |
II ISSUES |
| |
16. In paragraphs 205 and 206 of Decision
97-8, the Commission
established a policy of end-user choice for LECs. In that Decision, the
Commission stated the following: |
| |
"The Commission is of the view that an
important objective of local competition is to increase consumer choice.
The Commission considers that, in order to facilitate such choice, it is in
the public interest that end-users have the right and the means to have
access to the LEC of their choice in all situations. The Commission notes
that the nature of the local exchange network allows LECs to use another
LEC's existing facilities to access end-users served by that LEC. |
| |
To ensure that these principles are served,
the Commission requires that, as a condition of providing service, a LEC
ensure that the end-users that it serves are able to have direct access,
under reasonable terms and conditions, to services provided by any other
LEC serving in that area." |
| |
17. It is apparent that the location of the
demarcation point in multi-tenant buildings may have implications for the
application and implementation of this policy. |
| |
18. Moreover, the potential impact on
end-users of transferring responsibility for in-building wiring to building
owners/landlords is unclear. |
| |
19. In light of the above, the Commission
invites comments on issues relating to the location of the demarcation
point in multi-tenant buildings (business and residential) and the transfer
of responsibility for in-building wiring to building owners/landlords. In
addition to any general comments, parties are asked to address the
following issues: |
| |
(1) What is the most appropriate location for
the demarcation point in multi-tenant buildings, having regard to the
Commission's policy of end-user choice set out in Decision
97-8? |
| |
(2) What are the implications, if any, for the
Commission's ability to apply and enforce its end-user choice policy if the
demarcation point is located in the main terminal room? |
| |
(3) With respect to the demarcation points
that currently exist and that are being proposed for multi-tenant
buildings, provide details as to the appropriate mechanism(s) to implement
and enforce the Commission's policy of end-user choice, with reference to
specific sections of the Telecommunications Act. |
| |
(4) What are the implications, if any, of
having different demarcation points in different ILEC serving territories? |
| |
(5) If the demarcation point is not
established in the main terminal room, should LECs that own or control
in-building wiring be required to interconnect with another LEC's
facilities at the main terminal room, with the corresponding obligation to
unbundle their in-building wiring from the main terminal room to the
demarcation point and to provide tariffed access to in-building wiring? |
| |
(6) What would be the potential impact on
end-users of the transfer of responsibility for in-building wiring to
building owners/landlords? |
| |
III PROCEDURE |
| |
20. BC TEL, Bell, Island Tel, MT&T, MTS,
NBTel, NewTel and TCI are made parties to this proceeding. Other persons
wishing to participate in this proceeding must notify the Commission of
their intention to do so by writing to the Secretary General, CRTC, Ottawa,
Ontario, K1A 0N2, fax: 819-953-0795, by 4 January 1999. Parties are to
indicate in their notice their Internet email address, where available. If
parties do not have access to the Internet, they are to indicate in their
notice whether they wish to receive disk versions of hard copy filings. The
Commission will issue a complete list of parties and their mailing
addresses (including Internet email addresses, if available), identifying
those parties who wish to receive disk versions. |
| |
21. All parties may file comments with the
Commission, serving copies on all other parties, by 18 January 1999. |
| |
22. All parties may file comments in reply
with the Commission, serving copies on all other parties, by 1 February
1999. |
| |
23. Where a document is to be filed or served
by a specific date, the document must be actually received, not merely
sent, by that date. |
| |
24. The record of this proceeding may be
examined, or will be made available promptly upon request, at the
Commission's offices at the following locations: |
| |
Central Building
Les Terasses 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 |
| |
55 St. Clair Avenue East
Suite 624
Toronto, Ontario |
| |
275 Portage Avenue
Suite 1810
Winnipeg, Manitoba |
| |
580 Hornby Street
Suite 530
Vancouver, British Columbia |
| |
25. In addition to hard copy filings, parties
are encouraged to file with the Commission electronic versions of their
submissions in accordance with the Commission's Interim Telecom
Guidelines for the Handling of Machine-Readable Files, dated
30 November 1995. The Commission's Internet email address for
electronically filed documents is
public.telecom@crtc.gc.ca accessed at the Commission's Internet
site at www.crtc.gc.ca.
|
| |
Secretary General |
| |
This document is available in alternative
format upon request. |