ARCHIVED - Telecom Order CRTC 2002-43

Telecom Order CRTC 2002-43

Ottawa, 28 January 2002

Network planning information

On 23 August 2001, Bell Canada filed tariff notice 6610, proposing revisions to its Access Services Tariff Item 20 - General - Definition and Item 105 - Local Network Interconnection and Component Unbundling, regarding the provision of maps and geographic service coverage information related to remote switching, digital subscriber line access multiplexer (DSLAM) and asymmetric digital subscriber line (ADSL) services. These revisions were provided in response to an urgent request in a 24 July 2001 Part VII application filed by GT Group Telecom Services Corp., AT&T Canada Inc., Call-Net Enterprises Inc. and Futureway Communications Inc. (collectively, the coalition).

2.

Bell Canada stated that the proposed rates were based on a preliminary assessment of the company's costs plus a 25% mark-up and that a formal economic study would be provided to the Commission no later than 30 October 2001.

3.

The coalition filed comments in a letter dated 4 September 2001, stating that in view of TN 6610, they decided to discontinue their Part VII application against Bell Canada. The coalition urged the Commission to grant interim approval to TN 6610 on an expedited basis.

4.

TN 6610 was given interim approval in Order CRTC 2001-740, Network planning information, dated 25 September 2001.

5.

On 1 November 2001, Bell Canada filed TN 6626 proposing revisions to the rates set out in TN 6610. Bell Canada filed an economic study and an imputation test supporting tariff rate increases and decreases to various rate elements for remote switching, DSLAM and ADSL coverage information. The company stated that, as it had thoroughly assessed the costs for the provision of the service, the revised rates would reflect the result of this assessment. The company stated that it would implement the necessary billing adjustments for those customers who placed orders based on the original rates.

6.

On 29 November 2001, Futureway filed comments on TN 6626. Futureway submitted that the Commission should refrain from granting TN 6626 final approval due to the fact that the service offering will most likely have to be amended in the near term to reflect the resolution of an issue that is currently before the Co-location Working Group (CLG) of the CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee concerning competitor access to incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC) sub-loops from Access Network Interconnection Points (ANIPs).

7.

Futureway recommended that, if the Commission finds the proposed rates appropriate, it should grant interim approval only to the amended rates filed by Bell Canada in
TN 6626.

8.

On 11 December 2001, Bell Canada filed reply comments. Bell Canada stated that Futureway contends that the Commission should refrain from granting TN 6626 final approval due to the fact the service offering will most likely, in Futureway's view, have to be amended in the near term to reflect the resolution of the competitor access issue noted (in paragraph 6) that is currently before the CLG. Bell Canada stated that Futureway has mis-characterized its position with respect to this issue and the status of current discussions on related issues. Bell Canada stated that the ILECs have committed in the CLG to explore the feasibility of providing access to sub-loops at remotes. Until the results of the feasibility studies and the associated process evaluations have been completed, Bell Canada submitted that it should not be taken for granted that the concept under consideration is technically feasible or will be offered by ILECs.

9.

Bell Canada noted that TN 6610 was filed in response to an application by the members of the coalition and that Futureway itself expressed support for the tariff in question in its intervention.

10.

The Commission notes that Bell Canada filed both TN 6610, and TN 6626 amending the rates for TN 6610, for Remote Switching, DSLAM and ADSL Coverage Information Service, in response to a Part VII application by the coalition.

11.

Futureway raised concerns in the context of this application about competitor access to ILEC sub-loops from ANIPs. The Commission considers that, at this time, the issue of access to ILEC sub-loops from ANIPs is more appropriately considered in the CLG.

12.

The Commission considers it appropriate to grant TN 6626 approval without waiting for the results of the feasibility studies and the completion of the associated process evaluations. If there is a requirement for tariff changes following the conclusion of the studies and evaluations, such changes can be made as necessary.

13.

The Commission approves TN 6626 and approves, on a final basis, TN 6610 as amended by TN 6626.

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