ARCHIVED - Order CRTC 2001-838

Order CRTC 2001-838

Ottawa, 21 November 2001

Reference: 8622-P34-01/01

CRTC makes recommendations regarding the repair and maintenance of connecting links

Summary

When a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) uses an unbundled loop of an incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC) to provide services to a customer, the connection generally involves three components, two of which are controlled or owned by the ILEC; the CLEC controls the third. If there is trouble on a loop, both parties must co-operate on resolution if the trouble cannot be located.

In this order, the Commission issues recommendations to resolve two issues regarding the repair and maintenance of connecting links that remained unresolved following a lengthy CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee (CISC) review process. The issues were the responsibility of CLECs and ILECs regarding the repair and/or maintenance of a leased connecting link, and the application of charges related to connecting-link repair processes.

The Commission directs TELUS, Bell Canada, MTS, Aliant Telecom and SaskTel (the ILECs) to implement the recommendations in this order within 60 days. The CISC's Business Process Working Group (BPWG) is directed to make the appropriate changes to the guidelines for the installation, testing and maintenance of unbundled loops, and submit the revised guidelines for Commission approval within 45 days.

In addition, the BPWG is also directed to re-examine the process of testing, maintaining and repairing connecting links and report back to the Commission within a year if further changes are required.

Background

1.

As part of the local competition framework established by the Commission in paragraphs 82 to 87, inclusively, of Telecom Decision CRTC 97-8, Local competition, dated 1 May 1997, competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) have been able to acquire unbundled loops and other required components at tariffed rates from incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) in order to offer local service to consumers. Procedures to acquire those elements have been developed by the Network Operations Working Group (NOWG) of the CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee (CISC) and, more recently, the CISC's Business Process Working Group (BPWG). Significant progress has been made to resolve many connectivity and CLEC-ILEC operational issues. However, issues surrounding connecting links have been before the working groups since June 1997 and, specifically with respect to the test and repair of connecting links, since November 2000.

2.

A connecting link is defined in the ILEC tariff as: "A transmission path which connects an incumbent telephone company provided unbundled network component (local loop) located or terminated within an incumbent telephone company central office (CO) building or equivalent to a CLEC's or DSLSP's [digital subscriber line service provider's] co-located transmission equipment within an incumbent telephone company CO or equivalent."

3.

When a CLEC uses an ILEC unbundled loop to offer local service to a consumer, the service is basically divided into three components. The first component, which is controlled by the ILEC, includes the main distribution frame (MDF), unbundled loop and the ILEC end of the connecting link. The second component, which is controlled by the CLEC, includes the CLEC network, the CLEC co-located transmission equipment and the CLEC end of the connecting link. The third component, which is owned by the ILEC, is the physical pathway in the CO of the connecting link.

4.

The connecting link is a tariffed item provisioned in bundles of 100 links and is leased by CLECs from ILECs under CRTC approved recurring monthly fees and one-time service charges. The rates for connecting links were determined in Telecom Decision CRTC 98-22, Final rates for unbundled local network components, dated 30 November 1998. The Commission determined that rates would be similar across all ILEC territories and the monthly rate would recover the ongoing maintenance costs of the ILEC.

5.

A connecting link is required to connect unbundled local loops from an ILEC MDF or cross-connect panel, to a CLEC's co-located transmission equipment. A connecting link is a cable pair operating at a DS-0 rate and is used for both Type A and B local loops.

6.

The BPWG has been unable to reach consensus on two issues at dispute between the CLECs and the ILECs:

7.

Dispute Identification Form BPDI005 was issued on 8 August 2001by Gord Potter of GP Consultants to the BPWG. Parties to the dispute filed position papers on 29 August 2001. The parties were:

8.

The dispute was formally placed before the Commission for resolution on 30 August 2001.

Discussion and submissions by the parties

9.

If a trouble affects an unbundled loop, CISC consensus report NORE010a, Installation, testing and maintenance guidelines for unbundled loops, dated 5 November 1999, states the procedures to be followed with respect to locating the trouble. The CLEC is responsible for finding the location of the trouble within its own network, and the ILEC is responsible for finding the location of the trouble within its own network. Both LECs have access to both ends of the facilities that are within their control and each can assess the integrity of any given facility.

10.

With respect to the connecting link joining the ILEC and CLEC facilities, each LEC only has access to one end of the connecting-link facility and is therefore unable to assess the integrity of the entire facility. The only way to test the integrity of a connecting link is for both LECs to perform a co-operative test of the connecting link. The practical aspects of scheduling both LEC technicians to perform a co-operative test is exacerbated by the fact that most CLEC co-location sites are unstaffed and many ILEC COs are also unstaffed.

11.

In the absence of a co-operative test, to the CLEC, a trouble in the connecting link will look like a trouble in the ILEC-controlled facility since the location of the trouble cannot be identified. To the ILEC, a trouble in the connecting link will consequently look like a trouble in the CLEC-controlled facility for the same reason. Neither LEC can test the integrity of the connecting link on its own. The ILEC can access the CLEC co-location area after reasonable notice is given only to perform inspections of installation of equipment and facilities for compliance. The CLEC is restricted to pathways in the CO that lead directly to its co-location area.

12.

The CLECs submitted that when they determine that a trouble may exist in the ILEC network and an ILEC test subsequently determines that the trouble may exist in the CLEC network, the ILEC assumes the trouble exists within the CLEC network and not the connecting link. The CLECs claim that the ILEC will not request a co-operative test at that time to determine the integrity of the connecting link. The onus then falls on the CLEC to request a co-operative test.

13.

In the absence of a co-operative test, a CLEC can request a connecting link change to resolve a fault. Since the ILEC states that the CLEC has the responsibility to ask for the co-operative test in any situation, then the CLEC will incur charges if a co-operative test is not requested when the CLEC determines that the trouble is in the ILEC network. Then a connecting link change is requested.

14.

The ILECs submitted that a CLEC should request a co-operative test to isolate the trouble condition. The connecting links are tested when they are installed; the incidence of troubles occurring on the links is low. The ILECs stated that the CLECs are trying to use the ILEC technician to resolve problems that occur in the CLEC network and thus reduce their costs. The ILECs further stated that instead of requesting a co-operative test of the connecting link, the CLECs request a connecting link change. This causes the link to be switched to another piece of CLEC hardware, which in turn fixes the problem.

Determinations

Issue 1 - Connecting link responsibilities

15.

Except for the portion of the connecting link terminating in the CLEC co-location space, the link runs within the ILEC CO through the ILEC runways and risers, and terminates on the ILEC MDF or other appropriate device. Again, except for the portion in the CLEC co-location space, all these locations within the CO are out of bounds to the CLEC. The ILEC installs connecting links in the CO. At that time, these links are co-operatively tested by the ILEC and the CLEC.

16.

The Unbundled loop - Installation, testing and maintenance guidelines, dated August 2001, states that where the ILEC and CLEC facilities meet, that point shall be called the point of termination (POT). The POT is to be used as an interface for testing and maintenance of the facilities, and is the division of operational responsibility. In the past, the POT has been determined to be the ILEC end of the connecting link. The Commission considers that if a CLEC is unable to access the POT in order to perform any testing, operational responsibility cannot be allocated to the CLEC at that point. Operational responsibility with respect to the connecting link must be shared between the CLEC and the ILEC because neither party can accept responsibility for the integrity of the link.

17.

If the ILEC and the CLEC identify the location of a trouble in the other's network, then either a co-operative test must take place immediately, or a connecting link change must be effected until the trouble can be isolated. If, after a later co-operative test, the connecting link proves to have no fault, then any charges pursuant to the test are allocated to the network where the trouble is finally isolated. The ILEC should not assume that a trouble exists only within the CLEC network if the location of the trouble is identified to either the CLEC network or the connecting link. A co-operative test request can be made by either party and should not be refused if the location of a trouble has been tentatively identified in each LEC's network.

18.

Neither party to the dispute provided any data with respect to the number of instances where this dispute has arisen. However, the ILECs stated that the frequency of troubles in a connecting link is extremely low. For the resolution of this dispute, the Commission is of the view that the ILECs must be responsible for the connecting link. The monthly fee paid by the CLEC to the ILEC to use the connecting link covers the cost of link maintenance. Repairs, in the event of a link failure, shall also be the responsibility of the ILEC, since the CLEC cannot access the link pathway other than at the CLEC end of the link.

19.

If both the ILEC and the CLEC tentatively prove a fault to exist in the other's network, then it must be assumed that the connecting link is at fault and a mandatory co-operative test must be conducted. If a co-operative test can be scheduled in a timely fashion, then the test should be undertaken to isolate the fault. If a co-operative test cannot be scheduled in a timely fashion, then a connecting link change should be implemented and followed by a mandatory co-operative test of the perceived faulty connecting link.

Issue 2 - Application of charges

20.

The CLECs stated that there is no specific ILEC tariff for a co-operative test or a connecting link pair change. Charges from the ILEC General Tariff are applied. The CLECs asked for a Commission determination regarding the application of the charge, not the appropriateness of the charge. In the Commission's view, a co-operative test request or lack of test request should not be the determinant for the application of any charges. Neither the CLEC nor the ILEC should have to request a co-operative test if a fault is tentatively determined by each LEC to be in the other LEC's network. A co-operative test should be undertaken to determine the location of the fault. Charges for the co-operative test should be based on the location of the fault. For example, if a CLEC requests a connecting link change to resolve a fault and an ensuing co-operative test determines that the fault is in the CLEC network, then the CLEC will pay for the test and the change.

Conclusion

21.

The Commission determines that:

· to a CLEC if a co-operative test is performed and a trouble is determined to be in the CLEC network; or

· to an ILEC if a co-operative test is performed and a trouble is determined to be in the ILEC network or the connecting link.

22.

The determinations made in this order will be re-examined after one year of operations to determine if further modifications are required to the process of testing, maintaining and repairing connecting links.

23.

The ILECs are required to implement these determinations within 60 days of the date of this order. The BPWG is also directed to make the appropriate changes to the Unbundled loops - Installation, testing and maintenance guidelines, dated 20 August 2001,and submit the revised guidelines for Commission approval within 45 days of the date of this order.

24.

In addition, the BPWG is directed to re-examine the process of testing, maintaining and repairing connecting links, and report back to the Commission within 12 months of the date of this order if further changes are required.

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