Search

Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-68

Ottawa, 1 November 2002

Service intervals for the provision of unbundled loops

Reference: 8622-A4-19/02

In this decision, the Commission clarifies the directives set out in Incumbent local exchange carrier service intervals for unbundled local loop orders, Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-14, 8 March 2002 (Decision 2002-14), with regard to service intervals within which incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) must provide competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) with unbundled local loops.

The Commission also invites the parties to submit proposals relating to the service intervals where the local service request is for more than 10 loops or for services that were not considered in Decision 2002-14.

In addition, the Commission directs the CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee to study the technical feasibility of providing CLECs with access to the operational support systems of ILECs.

1. The Commission received an application by AT&T Canada Corp. and AT&T Canada Telecom Services Company (AT&T Canada), dated 30 April 2002, pursuant to Part VII of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure, requesting that the Commission order the incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) to comply with the directives set out in Incumbent local exchange carrier service intervals for unbundled local loop orders, Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-14, 8 March 2002 (Decision 2002-14).

2. In its application, AT&T Canada requested, among other things, that the Commission direct the ILECs to:

3. The Commission received comments from Bell Canada on behalf of itself, Aliant Telecom Inc., MTS Communications Inc. and Saskatchewan Telecommunications (Bell Canada et al.); TELUS Communications Inc. (TELUS); Call-Net Enterprises Inc. (Call-Net); and GT Group Telecom Services Corp. (Group Telecom). AT&T Canada provided reply comments.

Position of the parties

Service intervals set out in Decision 2002-14

4. In its application, AT&T Canada requested that the Commission order the ILECs to comply with the service intervals within which they must provide CLECs with unbundled local loops, as directed in Decision 2002-14.

5. In particular, AT&T Canada alleged that Bell Canada and TELUS had introduced exceptions to the service intervals within which unbundled local loops were provided, contrary to the Commission's directives. In this regard, AT&T Canada noted that, in Decision 2002-14, the Commission had not specified whether the service intervals applied to all LSRs regardless of the number of loops or types of services included in the request. AT&T Canada argued that it was the Commission's intent that the service intervals set out in Decision 2002-14 apply to all LSRs.

6. AT&T Canada stated that the parties involved were obliged to negotiate the service intervals for LSRs submitted to Bell Canada for 10 unbundled loops or more, as well as those submitted to TELUS for four loops or more. In addition, AT&T Canada indicated that CLECs were obliged to negotiate the service intervals for LSRs that involved services designated by the ILECs as "complex".

7. AT&T Canada further stated that it disagreed with a principle raised at the Business Process Working Group (BPWG) of the CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee (CISC) that, if an LSR for migrated loops was received by twelve noon, a local service confirmation (LSC) would be returned by the ILEC by midnight on the same day. AT&T Canada submitted that an LSC should be returned to the requesting CLEC within normal business operating hours on the same day.

8. In comments filed in response to the application, Bell Canada et al. and TELUS submitted that Decision 2002-14 did not apply to all types of requests for unbundled local loops. They argued that LSRs for more than 10 local loops, or any LSRs that involved complex service offerings, had not been an issue in the proceeding leading to Decision 2002-14 and, therefore, were not subject to the directives in that decision. In this regard, they noted that the CLECs' position paper in that proceeding related to standardized service intervals applicable to requests for up to 10 unbundled loops.

9. With regard to LSCs, Bell Canada et al. submitted that all industry participants, with the exception of AT&T Canada had agreed, at the BPWG, to adopt the principle that, if an LSR for the migration of an unbundled local loop was received by twelve noon, the LSC would be returned by midnight on the same day.

10. TELUS submitted that a distinction between requests that included fewer than 10 loops and those that included 10 or more loops would be useful in assisting ILECs to manage their service interval commitments.

11. Group Telecom submitted that ILECs must comply with regulatory requirements in order to allow CLECs who are dependent on ILECs for their facilities, to offer service in a timely and cost-effective manner. Call-Net emphasized that the timeframe within which CLECs can provide local service was a key consideration for potential customers.

Processes related to the provision of unbundled local loops

12. AT&T Canada requested that the Commission order the ILECs to align all of the processes related to the provision of unbundled local loops in order to ensure that the service intervals set out in Decision 2002-14 were met and that CLECs were able to provide local service to their subscribers within a competitive timeframe. In this regard, AT&T Canada noted that Bell Canada et al. had indicated that the service intervals set out in Decision 2002-14 would not apply to requests for unbundled local loops that also involved the migration of the end-customer's telephone number (number porting).

13. Bell Canada et al. stated that AT&T Canada's contention that ILECs were applying a longer service interval for requests that involved number porting was incorrect. Bell Canada et al. confirmed that the service intervals set out in Decision 2002-14 would apply to migrations of unbundled local loops that also involved number porting.

14. TELUS submitted that, in Decision 2002-14, the Commission did not make a distinction between the service intervals that applied to migrated unbundled loops that involved number porting and those that involved stand-alone ports. In this regard, TELUS stated that it applied a longer service interval to requests that involved stand-alone ports. TELUS indicated that, should the Commission define the service interval for requests for unbundled local loops that also involved stand-alone ports, it would adjust its process accordingly.

15. In its reply comments, AT&T Canada reiterated that the ILECs had confirmed that a longer service interval would apply to requests for unbundled local loops that involved a stand-alone port. AT&T Canada stated that there were a number of situations where a migration with port combined with a stand-alone port was required. AT&T Canada argued that the ILECs' decision to include porting within the service intervals for the migration of unbundled local loops specified in Decision 2002-14, was proof that porting could be done in two days. AT&T Canada submitted that the service interval for stand-alone ports should, therefore, be reduced to two days.

Quality of service reports

16. AT&T Canada noted that the ILECs had stated they would be unable to apply the service intervals, as of 1 April 2002, in order to provide QoS reports, as directed in Decision 2002-14. AT&T Canada also noted that the ILECs had indicated they would exclude from the unbundled local loop indicators included in their QoS reports, those unbundled local loop requests that, in their view, fell outside the scope of Decision 2002-14.

17. Bell Canada et al. and TELUS indicated that their QoS reports would be provided on time and in accordance with the Decision 2002-14 directives.

18. In its reply comments, AT&T Canada expressed its concern that the QoS reports would be undermined if the ILECs were allowed to arbitrarily define the types of requests that could be excluded from particular indicators in the QoS reports.

Commission analysis and determination

Directives set out in Decision 2002-14

19. The Commission notes that issues relating to the service intervals for the provision of unbundled local loops to CLECs have been the subject of previous debates and disputes. In a letter decision entitled Commission decision regarding CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee dispute on ILEC service intervals associated with the provision of new unbundled loops (Type A& B), 31 October 2000 (the letter decision), the Commission directed the ILECs to provide unbundled local loops to CLECs within the same service intervals that they provided unbundled local loops to themselves, at least 90% of the time.

20. In January 2001, the ILECs submitted their revised loop service intervals to the participants of the BPWG. The CLEC representatives identified a number of concerns with the revised service intervals during meetings of the BPWG. The CLECs maintained that the service intervals did not comply with the Commission's directives in the letter decision. The participants of the BPWG subsequently agreed to submit the issues relating to the service intervals for unbundled local loops to the Commission for a determination.

21. In Decision 2002-14, the Commission noted that the letter decision clearly stated that the ILECs had to provide the CLECs with the same service intervals they provide to themselves in order to provision a local loop. The Commission stated that this was meant to afford both ILECs and CLECs an equal opportunity to provide service to end-users in a timely manner. The Commission found that the ILECs' misinterpretation of the letter decision had the effect of ignoring the plain meaning of the Commission's directive and thus allowed the ILECs to maintain a competitive advantage over the CLECs. The Commission therefore directed the ILECs to make service available to CLECs within two business days for migrated type A and B loops, including all sub-types, and within five business days for new type A and B loops, including all sub-types, at least 90% of the time.

22. The Commission considers that many of the issues raised by AT&T Canada's application were clearly addressed by the directives set out in Decision 2002-14. However, in light of the comments generated by this application, the Commission considers that it is appropriate to clarify the scope of the directives set out in Decision 2002-14.

23. The Commission agrees that the CLECs' position paper submitted in the proceeding leading to Decision 2002-14 was limited to standardized service intervals applicable to requests involving up to 10 unbundled local loops. The Commission therefore finds that the service intervals specified in Decision 2002-14 related to LSRs for up to 10 unbundled local loops.

24. The Commission notes that, in Decision 2002-14, it stated that any additional technical and administrative work associated with the provision of unbundled local loops should not delay service to the CLECs. Consistent with this view, the Commission considers that number porting forms an inherent part of a request for a migrated local loop.

25. The Commission acknowledges, however, there was no distinction made, in the proceeding leading to Decision 2002-14, between the service intervals that applied to migrated unbundled loops that involved number porting and those that involved stand-alone ports. The Commission concludes, therefore, that the service intervals set out in Decision 2002-14 do not apply to stand-alone ports.

26. Accordingly, the Commission directs ILECs, in responding to LSRs from CLECs for up to 10 unbundled loops, to provide the unbundled local loops and complete any related technical and administrative work, including number porting, within the service intervals specified in Decision 2002-14.

27. The Commission notes that AT&T Canada has requested that the ILECs be directed to provide an LSC on the same day, within normal business operating hours, where an LSR for migrated loops has been submitted before noon. The Commission notes, however, that the ILECs have already shortened the timeframes for the provision of LSCs for migrated local loops by returning LSCs by midnight on the same day. The Commission therefore concludes that it would not be reasonable, at this time, to further shorten the period within which ILECs are to return an LSC.

28. With regard to QoS reports, the Commission notes that the ILECs have confirmed that they will provide their QoS reports in accordance with the directives set out in Decision 2002-14. Accordingly, the Commission finds that there is no need to address the issues relating to the QoS reports, as raised by AT&T Canada in its application. The Commission also notes that, in Regulatory framework for second price cap period, Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-34, 30 May 2002, it indicated that it would consider an audit process in the context of a follow-up proceeding to establish a final competitor QoS regime. Accordingly, the Commission considers that any questions on the accuracy of QoS data reported by the ILECs should be addressed in that follow-up proceeding.

Service intervals that fall outside the scope of Decision 2002-14

29. The Commission considers that it is important to establish service intervals for CLEC LSRs that were not contemplated by the directives in Decision 2002-14, in order to afford CLECs an equal opportunity to provide service to their subscribers in a timely manner.

30. Accordingly, the Commission invites all parties to file proposals for service intervals applicable to:

  1. LSRs for more than 10 unbundled local loops;
  2. stand-alone ports; and
  3. any other services that fall outside the scope of Decision 2002-14.

31. Parties are expected to file historical data in support of their service interval proposals.

32. Bell Canada et al., TELUS, AT&T Canada, Call-Net and Group Telecom are made parties to this proceeding. Parties may file their proposals with the Commission, serving a copy on all other parties, by 2 December 2002. Parties may file comments with the Commission, serving copies on all other parties, by 16 December 2002. Parties may file reply comments with the Commission, serving copies on all other parties, by 3 January 2003. 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.

Other matters

33. As noted in past Commission determinations and in this decision, it is the Commission's objective that CLECs have an equal opportunity to provide local service to a customer in a timely manner. While the service interval requirements seek to achieve this objective, the Commission considers that there is merit in examining other alternatives to further this objective.

34. The Commission notes that the Federal Communications Commission (the FCC) considers that non-discriminatory access by CLECs to ILECs' operational support systems (OSS) is a prerequisite to the development of meaningful local competition. The FCC considers that without access to the ILECs' OSS, competitors would not be able to provide their customers with comparable, competitive service and, hence, would operate at a material disadvantage. The FCC has found, for example, that new entrants benefit from accessing the functions performed by the incumbent's OSS in order to formulate and place orders for network elements or resale services, to access loop qualification information, to install service to their customers, to maintain and repair network facilities, and to bill customers.

35. The Commission considers that access by CLECs to the ILECs' OSS functions may be an important factor in achieving its objective to provide CLECs with an equal opportunity to provide local service to customers in a timely manner. Accordingly, the Commission directs the CISC to study the issue and provide, within six months of the date of this decision, a report to the Commission describing the various OSS functions that could be of use to CLECs as well as the measures that could be implemented to permit CLECs to access those functions.

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

Date modified: