ARCHIVED - Decision CRTC 2001-362

This page has been archived on the Web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.

Our File: 8644-N31-01/99

Decision CRTC 2001-362

Ottawa, 19 June 2001

By fax only

To: Registered CLEC list
Interested parties - PN 98-35
Interested parties - PN 96-28

RE: The Commission extends determinations on the EastLink/Norigen application (access to in-building wire) to all local exchange carriers

Dear Madam or Sir:

1. In its 5 June 2000 letter, pursuant to a Part VII application by EastLink Telephone and Norigen Communications Inc., the Commission found, on a final basis, that competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) that are not co-located in the central offices (COs) of Bell Canada or Maritime Tel & Tel (MTT) could connect to in-building wire in a multiple-dwelling unit (MDU) controlled by these incumbents. The Commission also determined that where a CLEC is given access to the main terminal room (MTR) in an MDU by the building owner and Bell Canada continues to own the in-building wire, the service provider demarcation point must move to the MTR. The Commission also directed MTT to show cause as to why this same finding should not apply to it.

2.  The Commission also set an interim rate of $1 per month for each such in-building wire connection to Bell Canada- and MTT-controlled in-building wire.

3.  Finally, the Commission directed several companies to show cause within 30 days why the same regime applicable to Bell Canada should not apply in their respecive territories. These companies comprised:

  • TELUS Communications Inc. (TCI), for its territories in Alberta, including Edmonton;
  • TELUS Communications (B.C.) Inc. (TCBC), for its territories in British Columbia;
  • MTS Communications Inc., for Manitoba; and
  • the Aliant Telecom Inc. companies (with the exception of MTT) - Island Telecom Inc., NBTel Inc. and NewTel Communications Inc.

The Commission further directed all CLECs to show cause within 30 days why the same determinations should not apply to any CLEC that owns or controls in-building wire in an MDU under the same circumstances.

4.  In its 27 June 2000 letter, resulting from a 15 June 2000 ex parte application filed by Bell Canada, the Commission determined that the location of the service provider demarcation point at the MTR applies to all copper facilities in the building, not just those used to provide single-line local telephone service. It also determined that, in the case of new MDUs, the demarcation point is to be located in the MTR for all copper in-building wire regardless of the type of service it is used to provide. The Commission then extended by ten days the previous 30-day deadline for comments to allow the local exchange carriers (LECs) to incorporate these determinations in their show-cause submissions.

5.  Comments were received from Bell Canada, Vidéotron Communications Inc., Futureway Communications Inc., MaxLink Communications Inc., MTS and, collectively, NewTel, Island Tel, MTT, NBTel (NewTel et al., or, the companies). The Commission notes that no comments were received from TCI. In a telephone conversation with Commission staff, TCI stated that it had not replied to the Commission's request to show cause because it accepted that the regime set out in the 5 June 2000 letter should apply in its territories. In light of this and, as TCI has not submitted any cause as to why the regime should not apply to it, the Commission considers that its determinations in this instance should be extended to TCI's territories as applicable.

6.  All parties agreed that LECs should be able to connect to in-building wire that is owned and controlled by other LECs in the circumstances set out in the 5 June 2000 letter, as amended on 27 June 2000, where the LEC that requires access is not co-located in the CO of the LEC that controls the in-building wire.

7.  The Commission notes both Futureway's and MaxLink's concern that a rate of $1 per month per connection to CLEC owned and controlled in-building wire may not be appropriate.

8.  The Commission also notes that neither company proposed a specific rate, or provided any costing or tangible information, to justify any departure from the current rate. It also notes that the rate of $1 per connection per month is set on an interim basis only. The Commission issued Public Notice CRTC 2000-124, Seeking public input on access to multi-dwelling units, in-building wiring and riser space, dated 25 August 2000, to examine, among other things, issues surrounding fees, terms and conditions, as well as recovery of costs for connection to in-building wire. Therefore, the Commission considers that there is no reason in this instance to depart from the interim rate set in its 5 June 2000 decision.

9.  For the purposes of inside wire, the Commission notes that in its letter decision of 25 July 2000, which was issued as a follow-up to Telecom Decision CRTC 99-10, it determined that MTT repair rates would be a reasonable proxy for repair rates that NewTel, NBTel, Island Tel, TCI for Edmonton and TCBC would charge, and that the same rate would be appropriate for these companies' maintenance and repair charges.

10.  Furthermore, on 3 August 2000, the Commission determined that, in order to co-ordinate filing requirements, these companies could delay filing the tariffs and draft customer notices required by the 25 July 2000 letter decision until after the completion of this show-cause proceeding.

11.  Therefore, coincident with the Commission's decision in this instance, the companies referred to in paragraph 9 that have not already done so are directed to file all required tariffs and customer notices to give effect to its 25 July 2000 letter decision within 30 days of the date of this decision.

12.  The Commission applies, on a final basis, its determinations made on 5 June 2000, and as amended on 27 June 2000, to all LECs. This includes the requirement that the LEC controlling the in-building wire establish in the MTR a service provider demarcation point to accommodate the connection by a non co-located LEC to the in-building wire and, on an interim basis, the rate of $1 per connection per month.

Yours sincerely,

Ursula Menke
Secretary General

cc: Tanya Rofani, CRTC (819)953-0434

Date Modified: 2001-06-19

Date modified: