ARCHIVED - Order CRTC 2001-378

Order CRTC 2001-378

Ottawa, 11 May 2001

CRTC reduces co-location space restrictions - AT&T Canada complaint

Reference: 8670-A4-01/01

The Commission directs Bell Canada to allow a Type 1 co-locator which has exhausted the 20 square meter maximum to acquire additional Type 1 space, where available, in increments of one square meter. All other incumbent local exchange carriers are to provide comments on the appropriateness of applying this direction to their company.

1.

Since October 1999, AT&T Canada has been attempting to obtain from Bell Canada additional, and where possible, contiguous Type 1 co-location space in four sites in Toronto. Type 1 (physical) co-location provides an interconnecting carrier (IC), with segregated floor space and secure access to that space within a telephone company central office (CO).

2.

By letter dated 14 October 1999 to AT&T Canada, Bell Canada declined to make the additional co-location space available, stating that it was bound by its tariff, which clearly states:

3.

Bell Canada stated that it had been fully compliant on the subject of making the recommended and approved space available to AT&T Canada, and that the limitation of 20 square meters per CO had been fully explored and discussed during proceedings leading to the approval of the above tariff item.

4.

AT&T Canada and Bell Canada continued to negotiate the co-location request until June 2000. For example, various options were considered including Type 2 and virtual co-location in the four sites requested. Bell Canada suggested that it would entertain additional Type 1 co-location space above the 20 square meter limit per IC per CO, but was constrained by the tariff. On 9 November 2000, AT&T Canada sought Commission staff mediation in order to resolve the situation.

5.

In particular, AT&T Canada submitted the following:

• the current application of the tariff limiting co-locators to 20 square meters is inefficient and unfair to early entrants;
  

• unused Type 1 co-location space is sitting waiting for new co-locators that may never show up;
  

• parties that seek additional co-location space are required to locate in an entirely different area; and
  

• AT&T Canada, as an early entrant, continues to bear much of the common costs related to establishing Type 1 co-location space, but is unable to use any beyond 20 square meters.
  

6.

AT&T Canada submitted that, where additional Type 1 space exists in a particular CO, this space should be provided to applicants on a first-come first-served basis. The present situation of trying to obtain additional space through Type 2 or virtual co-location would impose an unnecessary burden where additional, but unavailable, spare Type 1 space exists. By way of argument and support for its position, AT&T Canada suggested:

• Type 1 co-location is the most efficient solution for expansion where the co-locator already has Type 1 space;
  

• trouble shooting of equipment malfunctions is simplified;
  

• addressing equipment troubles is expedited because the co-locator does not have to arrange for an escort as in the case of Type 2 or virtual co-location [Note: On 30 March 2001, in Decision CRTC 2001-204, the Commission directed the incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) to permit unescorted access to their central offices];
  

• equipment interconnection is simplified where the co-located space is near or contiguous; and
  

• additional Type 1 co-location space would allow for a reduction in monthly operating costs related to the need to obtain escorts [no longer applies] for Type 2, or maintenance expenses with respect to virtual.
  

7.

As an alternative to mediation, Commission staff suggested to AT&T Canada that it should discuss this issue with others in the industry to determine whether a consensus could be reached. On 19 December 2000, AT&T Canada submitted a letter to Bell Canada suggesting that it had done as advised by staff and obtained the concurrence of six other carriers agreeable to the principle of allocating additional Type 1 co-location space to an applicant in the event of exhaust of its existing space.

8.

Bell Canada responded to AT&T Canada's request by letter to the Commission, dated 2 February 2001. In its reply, Bell Canada noted:

• Bell Canada is essentially neutral as to how spare space is allocated in a particular CO among competitors;
  

• allowing AT&T Canada to take up space over the 20 square meter limit would effectively reduce the available spare capacity;
  

• the requirements of all competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) and digital subscriber line service providers in major urban centres are still unknown at this time;
  

• in urban locations, such as those requested by AT&T Canada, accommodating the AT&T Canada request may lead to other carriers being unable to obtain space in the future;
  

• AT&T Canada has gained the concurrence of six competitors, but cannot claim to speak for all competitors, including applicants such as TELUS or new applicants wishing to enter the market in the future;
  

• Bell Canada is unable to determine the public interest impact that granting AT&T Canada's request might have on all other applicants; and

• logistical details were based on the principle of 20 square meters, and new provisioning practices and procedures may need to be developed.
  

9.

Notwithstanding all of the above, Bell Canada stated that if the Commission were to determine that the public interest would be best served by changing the current policy on allocation of spare co-location space in COs, then Bell Canada would be prepared to proceed expeditiously with the required tariff changes and the resolution of associated operational issues.

Determination

10.

Bell Canada is correct in stating that it is constrained by the tariff and is unable to allocate more than 20 square meters of co-location space in any one CO to an IC.

11.

Bell Canada has confirmed that in certain COs, spare Type 1 co-location space exists and could be made available to an existing Type 1 co-locator.

12.

In Telecom Decision CRTC 94-19 Review of regulatory framework, dated 16 September 1994, the Commission expressed the view that the provision of co-location would facilitate competition and that generally, the telephone companies should provide co-location where requested. However, following a public process, the Commission approved tariffs for co-location which contained the following terms: ".where appropriate space and facilities are available as determined by the company." and ".Type 1 co-location would be available on a first-come, first-served basis to a maximum of 20 square meters.".

13.

In the opinion of the Commission, the request by AT&T Canada for additional Type 1 co-location space in a CO is a logical extension of facilitating the competitive process. The Commission has already approved a regulatory framework that determines that co-location is in the public interest, would foster competition and should be made available when requested. The Commission has also determined in Decision CRTC 2001-204 that, in addition to Type 1 co-location, the carrier has the option of Type 2 or virtual co-location.

14.

The Commission agrees with AT&T Canada that making additional Type 1 co-location space available to a co-locator that already has Type 1 co-location in a particular CO would be more efficient. The spare Type 1 co-location, at a particular CO may not be utilized in a timely fashion and may sit idle while potential users of that space cannot be accommodated. AT&T Canada continues to bear a significant percentage of the establishment costs to make Type 1 co-location available in the particular CO and should have an opportunity to reduce the burden of those costs. However, the Commission realizes that an IC may acquire strategic co-location space beyond its needs, thus tying up available space. If such activity arises, the Commission expects that entrants will identify such cases and apply to the Commission for relief. Given the above, the Commission is of the view that it would be in the public interest to limit requests for additional Type 1 co-location space to increments of one square meter.

15.

The Commission directs Bell Canada to issue tariff pages to allow an existing Type 1 co-locator that has exhausted the 20 square meter maximum to acquire, where space is available, additional Type 1 co-location space, in increments of one square meter. The Commission expects that any new processes or procedures required, as per the tariff revisions, will be forwarded to the CISC (CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee).

16.

The Commission directs the other ILECs to show cause within 30 days why the same regime applicable to Bell Canada should not apply in their respective territories. ILECs may file submissions, serving copies on other parties.

17.

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. The Commission email address is procedure@crtc.gc.ca. 

Secretary General

This document is available in alternative format upon request and may also be examined at the following Internet site: www.crtc.gc.ca