ARCHIVED - Decision CRTC 2001-364

Our File: 8622-C25-07/00

Decision CRTC 2001-364

Ottawa, 19 June 2001

By fax only

To: Interested Parties - CallNet Part VII
Interested Parties - PN 2000-124
Registered CLEC list

RE: Clarifications concerning access to in-building wire:
Call-Net Part VII applications of 30 June and 4 August 2000

Background

The current framework governing the provision of telecommunications services in standalone multi-dwelling units (MDUs) was established on 6 August 1999 by Telecom Decision CRTC 99-10, Location of demarcation point for inside wire in multi-dwelling units and associated issues. The Commission also issued related letter decisions on 5 June 2000 (Eastlink/Norigen: Access to in-building wire), 27 June 2000 (the framework applies to all copper facilities), 25 July 2000 (show cause to other LECs), and in a separate letter of today's date to extend the Eastlink/Norigen decision to all ILECs.

Call-Net's Part VII applications of 30 June and 4 August 2000

On 30 June 2000, Call-Net Enterprises Inc., on behalf of itself, AXXENT Inc., GT Group Telecom Inc. and Riptide Networks Inc. (the competitors) wrote to the Commission seeking clarifications regarding Decision 99-10 and the 4 June 2000 letter decision. In buildings where the service provider demarcation point has been relocated to the main terminal room (MTR), Call-Net sought to clarify the ILEC's responsibilities and demarcation points for unbundled loops.

In a subsequent letter on 4 August 2000, Call-Net reiterated its request for clarifications, expanding its original request to include three specific scenarios for which it requested Commission determinations. The competitors requested that the Commission confirm that unbundled loops obtained from Bell Canada should continue to terminate at the "customer demarcation point" in each of the following three scenarios:

Scenario 1: in-building wire is owned and controlled by the ILEC but pursuant to the 5 June 2000 letter decision, the service provider demarcation point has moved to the MTR;

Scenario 2: pursuant to Decision 99-10, the building owner has taken responsibility and control of the in-building wire but ownership remains with the ILEC; and

Scenario 3: a new building or other situations where the building owner owns and controls the in-building wire.

Summary of positions of parties

Referencing paragraph 29 of Decision 99-10, Bell Canada argued that the demarcation for local loops terminating in MDUs should be in the MTR. Bell Canada also argued that the competitors' position ignored the proper context of paragraph 40 of Decision 99-10.

TELUS Communications Inc. (TELUS) was generally supportive of Bell Canada's position with regard to demarcation points. It also emphasized that the issues put forward required a more comprehensive approach than that afforded by the procedures prescribed for Call-Net's applications.

Commission Analysis

With regard to TELUS' procedural comments, the Commission notes that Call-Net's applications only seek clarification of existing Commission rulings, namely Decision 99-10 and the letter decision of 5 June 2000. Thus, the Commission considers the record of this proceeding sufficient to address the Call-Net applications.

In support of their argument, the competitors quoted an extract from paragraph 40 of Decision 99-10: "A CLEC that does not wish to install its own in-building wire may resell another LEC's local loop, which will continue to be available to the customer demarcation point."

The Commission agrees that the proper context of paragraphs 39 and 40 must be borne in mind. Both paragraphs pertain to an "Exception Scenario", which maintained the service provider demarcation point coincident with the customer demarcation point (at or near the customer suite door in Bell Canada's territory) where the property owner did not take responsibility and control of the in-building wire.

The Commission agrees with Bell Canada that paragraph 29 of Decision 99-10 confirms that the demarcation point for local loops should be in the MTR, where the building owner controls the in-building wire and the service provider demarcation point has moved to the MTR. In such circumstances, the ILEC-provided local loops end at the service provider demarcation point located in the MTR.

In the 5 June 2000 ruling, the Commission established that the service provider demarcation point should move to the MTR to allow connectivity to in-building wire in the following specific circumstances:

• the building owner has NOT accepted responsibility and control of in-building wire;

• the building owner will not allow the CLEC to install its own in-building wire; and

• the building owner will permit CLEC access to the MTR.

Bell Canada's position is that in such a situation, the service provider demarcation point moves to the MTR and so all loops provided to collocated CLECs end at the MTR. Thus CLECs are responsible for the connection and maintenance of in-building wire.

However, in the Commission's view, the move of the demarcation point envisioned in the 5 June 2000 ruling must be taken in context. Norigen Communications Inc. had asked the Commission to establish a service provider demarcation point in the MTR so it, as a non-collocated CLEC, could connect its own facilities to in-building wire owned and controlled by Bell Canada.

Thus, in the 5 June 2000 ruling, the establishment of a service provider demarcation point was narrowly meant to accommodate non-collocated CLECs seeking access to in-building wire in the specific circumstances presented. The Commission did not, in the 5 June 2000 ruling, declare or envision that the service provider demarcation point should move for collocated CLECs that served customers using unbundled local loops.

This conclusion is consistent with paragraph 40 of Decision 99-10 that the service provider demarcation point should not move if the property owner does not assume responsibility and control of in-building wire.

Commission's Decision

In light of the above, the Commission confirms that the competitors' interpretation is incorrect for scenarios two and three. However their interpretation of demarcation points and ILEC obligations for scenario one is accurate.

Accordingly, where the owner of an existing building has accepted control and responsibility of in-building wire, or where the building is new, then pursuant to provisions of Decision 99-10, local loops end at the service provider demarcation point in the MTR. As a result, the ILEC is not required to connect these loops to the in-building wire, nor is it required to maintain the in-building wire.

By contrast, however, where the in-building wire is owned and controlled by the ILEC, and where a service provider demarcation point has been established in the MTR to accommodate a non-collocated CLEC pursuant to the 5 June 2000 ruling, collocated CLECs still obtain loops under Decision 99-10 conditions. That is, there is no service provider demarcation point in the MTR for loops provided to collocated CLECs. The ILEC provides the loops and controls the in-building wire, and therefore, loop provision must continue to include the in-building wire as part of the loop offering, including connection to, and maintenance of, in-building wire.

To minimize any service-provision disruptions that may arise from clarifications offered in this letter decision, the Commission invites ILECs to assist collocated CLECs in connecting to and maintaining in-building wire in buildings where CLECs do not currently have access or access to in-building facilities.

Further process

The Commission notes that Decision 99-10 was intended to support the development of facilities-based competition. However, the Commission may not have fully considered the operational and cost impact of changing the demarcation point for unbundled local loops used by collocated CLECs. The Commission notes that the relocation of the service provider demarcation under Decision 99-10 conditions (including under scenarios 2 and 3 of Call-Net's Part VII applications), could reduce end-user choice or modify the viability of services offered by collocated CLECs.

Accordingly, the Commission is re-opening the proceeding launched under Public Notice 2000-124 to seek comments on certain aspects of Decision 99-10. In particular, the Commission will seek 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 ILEC owned in-building wire?

• in existing buildings where the transfer of responsibility and control has not yet taken place, should the transfer of responsibility and control of existing ILEC owned and controlled in-building wire to building owners no longer be permitted?

A Public Notice will be issued to set the procedure for the consideration of these questions. In addition, it is noted that further interrogatories associated with the PN 2000-124 proceeding have been issued today. The public notice will be issued after the completion of this further round of interrogatories, and may raise additional issues for comment based on the responses to interrogatories.

Show cause

The Commission also directs all LECs to show cause by 8 July 2001, copying the interested parties to PN 2000-124, why they should not be directed to prevent further transfer of responsibility and control of ILEC owned in-building wire to building owners, on an interim basis, pending the final decision in this matter. All interested parties, including all LECs, may then file comments on the LECs' responses to this show cause proceeding by 15 July 2001. All material must be received, not merely sent, by these dates.

Yours sincerely,

Ursula Menke
Secretary General

cc: Louis LePage, CRTC - (819) 997-8097
Mike Walker, CRTC - (819) 994-4716

Date Modified: 2001-07-09