|
Public Notice CRTC 2000-124-2
|
|
Ottawa, 15 October 2001
|
|
Seeking public input on access to multi-dwelling units, in-building wiring and riser space
|
|
Reference: 8644-C12-03/00
|
|
The Commission is re-opening the proceeding launched by Public Notice CRTC 2000-124, Seeking public input on access to multi-dwelling units, in-building wiring and riser space, dated 25 August 2000.
|
|
1.
|
As stated in Decision CRTC 2001-364, Clarifications concerning access to in-building wire: Call-Net Part VII applications of 30 June and 4 August 2000, dated 19 June 2001, the Commission is re-opening the proceeding to seek comments on, among other things, certain aspects of Telecom Decision CRTC 99-10, Location of demarcation point for inside wire in multi-dwelling units and associated issues, dated 6 August 1999.
|
|
Transfer of in-building wire and demarcation points
|
|
2.
|
The Commission seeks comments on the following questions:
|
|
. in buildings where the transfer of responsibility and control of in-building wire has not yet taken place, should the Commission modify the demarcation points for unbundled local loops to maintain the service-provider demarcation point at the customer demarcation point in the event that building owners assume responsibility and control of incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC) owned in-building wire?
|
|
. in existing buildings where the transfer of responsibility and control has not yet taken place, should local exchange carriers (LECs) be required to retain responsibility and control of their in-building wire?
|
|
Unbundled loops
|
|
3.
|
The Commission seeks comment on issues relating to the provision of unbundled loops including the case where loops may be provided by fibre/copper hybrid wiring. Issues include:
|
|
. the required characteristics of an unbundled loop including bandwidth, signalling and copper continuity;
|
|
. suitability and cost of wireless loops;
|
|
. responsibility of the loop provider to provide loops with copper continuity when required by the service provider requesting the loop; and
|
|
. methods to provide loops with copper continuity in hybrid networks, the incremental costs of such loops and how any additional costs should be recovered.
|
|
End-user choice
|
|
4.
|
In Telecom Decision CRTC 97-8, Local competition, dated 8 May 1997, the Commission was of the view that an important objective of local competition is to increase consumer choice. The Commission considered 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 noted 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 required 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.
|
|
5.
|
The Commission seeks comment on the method to achieve end-user choice as it applies in multiple-dwelling units (MDUs), giving consideration to the following issues and scenarios:
|
|
. the extent to which competitor access to unbundled loops (copper or derived channel) would satisfy end-user choice where direct access to an MDU may not be available;
|
|
. whether the first LEC serving an MDU should be required to provide unbundled loops to any other LEC wishing to serve the building;
|
|
. conditions under which preferred MDU access arrangements would be consistent with the objective of achieving end-user choice. For example, preferred arrangements could encourage competitive entry in MDUs where there is only one service provider at present;
|
|
. the circumstances, if any, under which in-building wire controlled by LECs or building owners would be considered an essential facility as defined in paragraph 74 of Decision 97-8; and
|
|
. whether end-user choice can be achieved by providing a limited choice of facilities-based service providers in an MDU and, if so, what criteria should apply to determine which service providers have access. How many service providers constitutes adequate choice? Would this number vary depending on the type and size of building?
|
|
In-building wire framework
|
|
6.
|
In addition to the above, the Commission seeks comment on two framework scenarios for access by competitive service providers to end-users in MDUs. Comments should address issues related to the implementation of each scenario as well as the likelihood that each framework will lead to the achievement of the objective of end-user choice, and other objectives of the Telecommunications Act.
|
|
7.
|
Scenario 1:
|
|
. service-provider demarcation is located in the main terminal room (MTR) under the terms of Decision 99-10, but an unbundled loop would be a service that connects all the way to the end-customer using the access arrangements of the loop provider in the MDU;
|
|
. access agreements are required for all service providers where a competitive service provider serves an MDU;
|
|
. access charges are justified on the basis of incremental costs plus a reasonable mark-up or in relation to existing rates for similar access, space or services in the MDU, and recovered from all service providers operating in the MDU on the basis of the number of active access lines, customers served or revenues generated in the MDU;
|
|
. use of existing in-building copper wire at no charge for all service providers;
|
|
. service fees for in-building wire security and maintenance are justified on the basis of incremental costs plus a reasonable mark-up or in relation to rates for other similar building services;
|
|
. ILECs, competitive service providers and builder owners must assume liability, respectively, for their own negligence with respect to facilities or services provided in an MDU;
|
|
. a model access agreement developed through CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee (CISC);
|
|
. implementation of some or all aspects of this scenario as conditions on the provision of local service by all LECs; and
|
|
. a review of the framework after three to five years.
|
|
8.
|
Scenario 2:
|
|
. building owners or agents negotiate the terms of building access with service providers;
|
|
. service-provider demarcation is located in the MTR under the terms of Decision 99-10, but an unbundled loop would be a service that connects all the way to the end-customer using the access arrangements of the loop provider in the MDU;
|
|
. guidelines developed in CISC to identify building services and establish rating principles;
|
|
. ILECs, competitive service providers and builder owners must assume liability, respectively, for their own negligence with respect to facilities or services provided in an MDU;
|
|
. the ILEC's obligation to serve applies in an MDU only where access is available and charges for such access and for in-building wire and related functions are cost-based and justified;
|
|
. guidelines developed in CISC for building owners to deal with issues between providers in MDUs;
|
|
. a model access agreement developed through CISC;
|
|
. implementation of some or all aspects of this scenario as conditions on the provision of local service by all LECs; and
|
|
. a review of the framework after three to five years.
|
|
Filing schedule
|
|
9.
|
Persons on the list of parties Re: PN 2000-124, as revised from time to time, are made interested parties to this proceeding. The list is available on the Commission's web site at http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/public/lplists/PN00-124.htm.
|
|
10.
|
Parties may file comments with the Commission by writing to the Secretary General, CRTC, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0N2; by fax at (819) 953-0795; or by email at procedure@crtc.gc.ca, serving copies on each other, by 14 November 2001.
|
|
11.
|
All parties may file reply comments with the Commission, serving copies on all other parties, by 29 November 2001.
|
|
12.
|
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.
|
|
13.
|
The electronic version should be in the HTML format. As an alternative, those making submissions may use "Microsoft Word" for text and "Microsoft Excel" for spreadsheets.
|
|
14.
|
Please number each paragraph of your submission. In addition, please enter the line ***End of document*** following the last paragraph. This will help the Commission verify that the document has not been damaged during transmission.
|
|
15.
|
The Commission will make submissions filed in electronic form available on its web site at www.crtc.gc.ca in the official language and format in which they are submitted. This will make it easier for members of the public to consult the documents.
|
|
16.
|
The Commission also encourages interested parties to monitor the record of this proceeding (and/or the Commission's web site) for additional information that they may find useful when preparing their submissions.
|
|
Location of CRTC offices
|
|
17.
|
Submissions may be examined or will be made available promptly upon request at the Commission offices during normal business hours:
|
|
Central Building
Les Terrasses de la Chaudière
1 Promenade du Portage, Room G-5
Hull, Quebec K1A 0N2
Tel: (819) 997-2429 - TDD: 994-0423
Fax: (819) 994-0218
|
|
Bank of Commerce Building
1809 Barrington Street
Suite 1007
Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 3K8
Tel: (902) 426-7997 - TDD: 426-6997
Fax: (902) 426-2721
|
|
405 de Maisonneuve Blvd. East
2nd Floor, Suite B2300
Montréal, Quebec H2L 4J5
Tel: (514) 283-6607 - TDD: 283-8316
Fax: (514) 283-3689
|
|
55 St. Clair Avenue East
Suite 624
Toronto, Ontario M4T 1M2
Tel: (416) 952-9096
Fax: (416) 954-6343
|
|
Kensington Building
275 Portage Avenue
Suite 1810
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2B3
Tel: (204) 983-6306 - TDD: 983-8274
Fax: (204) 983-6317
|
|
Cornwall Professional Building
2125 - 11th Avenue
Room 103
Regina, Saskatchewan S4P 3X3
Tel: (306) 780-3422
Fax: (306) 780-3319
|
|
Suite 520 - 10405 Jasper Avenue
Edmonton, Alberta T5J 3N4
Tel: (780) 495-3224
Fax: (780) 495-3214
|
|
530-580 Hornby Street
Vancouver, British Columbia V6C 3B6
Tel: (604) 666-2111 - TDD: 666-0778
Fax: (604) 666-8322
|
|
Secretary General
|
|
This document is available in alternative format upon request and may also be examined at the following Internet site: http://www.crtc.gc.ca
|
Date Modified: 2001-10-15