ARCHIVED -  Telecom Public Notice CRTC 98-35

This page has been archived on the Web

Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. Archived Decisions, Notices and Orders (DNOs) remain in effect except to the extent they are amended or reversed by the Commission, a court, or the government. The text of archived information has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Changes to DNOs are published as “dashes” to the original DNO number. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats by contacting us.

 

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.
Date modified: