ARCHIVED - Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2002-7

Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2002-7

Ottawa, 6 December 2002

Cable modems for third-party Internet access

Reference: 8638-C12-43/00 and 8643-C12-08/02

The Cable High Speed Access CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee working group requested that the Commission resolve several issues regarding the use of cable modems for third-party Internet access. In this public notice, the Commission sets out its preliminary views on these unresolved issues, and initiates a proceeding inviting comments on its preliminary views and other related matters.

Background

1.

In Terms and rates approved for large cable carriers' higher speed access service, Telecom Order CRTC 2000-789, 21 August 2000 (Order 2000-789), the Commission, among other things, approved, either on a final or interim basis, certain rates, terms and conditions for third-party Internet access services (TPIA) for Rogers Communications Inc. (RCI), Vidéotron ltée (Vidéotron), Shaw Communications Inc. (Shaw) and Cogeco Cable Canada inc. (Cogeco) (collectively, the cable carriers). The cable carriers were also directed to issue revised tariff pages reflecting, among other things, the Commission's determinations with respect to proposed technical requirements relating to the Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification (DOCSIS), a specification that defines the interface requirements for cable modems involved in high-speed data distribution over cable networks.

2.

In Order 2000-789, the Commission noted that the cable carriers' proposed tariffs provided that the carriers would approve specific DOCSIS cable modems for TPIA, and required that TPIA be provided through DOCSIS compliant networks. The Commission also noted that a trial of the cable carriers' planned access services was being conducted at that time using cable modems that were designed according to the DOCSIS specifications. While the Commission agreed that a cable carrier should not be required to permit the use of modems that endanger the integrity and security of its network, it rejected the cable carriers' proposed approval process on the grounds that it effectively represented an additional certification procedure, and was overly broad. The Commission also stated that, given that not all cable carriers' systems were DOCSIS compliant, and that it was uncertain when they would be, the access tariffs should not foreclose the possibility of other workable, potentially transitional, non-DOCSIS solutions. The Commission concluded that each cable carrier's tariff should provide that an Internet service provider (ISP) was to use cable modems that were compatible with the cable carrier's network. The cable carriers were also required to remove, from their proposed tariffs, any references to their networks being "DOCSIS compliant".

3.

In Order 2000-789, the Commission also identified a number of issues raised by the proposed tariffs that remained unresolved. The Commission found that the implementation of TPIA would be facilitated if the industry addressed various technical, operational and business issues within the CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee (CISC) framework.

The CISC process

4.

Following the Commission's observations in Order 2000-789, the CISC established the Cable High Speed Access working group (HSWG). Participants in the HSWG included Commission staff, the cable carriers, the Canadian Cable Television Association (CCTA), the Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP), a number of parties from the ISP industry, a representative for a cable modem vendor and other interested parties.

5.

Regular meetings were held and submissions were made, also known as contributions, detailing the participants' positions on various issues. While the participants of the HSWG did reach consensus on many issues, they were unable to reach consensus on questions relating to the types of cable modems that ISPs could use to provide high-speed Internet services to their customers.

6.

Consequently, the HSWG submitted a report to the Commission entitled Unresolved Questions Concerning the Acceptance of Cable Modems, HSRE006, 19 June 2001 (the HSWG report) seeking a determination on the unresolved issues.

Cable modem technology

7.

The main issues surrounding cable modem technology relate to the hardware and software used in the cable modem termination system (CMTS) and in the cable modem. The CMTSs and cable modems were initially developed with proprietary, technology such that a particular vendor's CMTS could only function with that vendor's cable modems or modems designed to that vendor's specifications.

8.

The North American cable industry recognized the need to develop a standard or common set of specifications for cable modems in order to promote the interoperability of cable modems on different networks and ensure greater customer choice. Preliminary DOCSIS 1.0 specifications for cable modems were released in March 1997 by Multimedia Cable Network System, a limited partnership formed by North American cable television operators. A certification process for DOCSIS modems was issued in November 1997. Cable Television Laboratories Inc. (CableLabs), a non-profit research and development consortium, was made responsible for the certification and testing of cable modems as well as the further development of the DOCSIS specifications. The first upgrade to the specifications, DOCSIS 1.1, was released in April 1999. DOCSIS 2.0 specifications were announced on 16 January 2002.

9.

In its 13 March 2001 submission HSWG0035A, the CCTA provided, as background material to the discussions relating to cable modems, a description of the elements required in providing high-speed Internet access service over a cable network. The key elements were as follows:

· a personal computer equipped with an Ethernet card or a universal serial bus port to link the computer to a cable modem;

· a cable modem connected to the standard coaxial cable network jack at the customer's premises;

· a cable network equipped for two-way transmission;

· a CMTS usually located at the head end; and

· telecommunications facilities to carry the customer's Internet traffic from the CMTS to the ISP.

Unresolved questions submitted by the CISC working group

10.

The specific questions identified for the Commission's consideration in the HSWG report were as follows:

a) Clarify the Commission's intent in paragraph 17 of Order 2000-789 when it required that modems be compatible with cable networks for third-party access.

b) Is DOCSIS certification required for all modems accepted for third-party access to cable networks?

c) If the answer to Question b) is yes, is CableLabs an acceptable body to perform modem certification at this time?

d) Is DOCSIS 1.0, 1.1 or any other version a specific requirement for modems to be used for third-party access to cable networks?

e) Is it acceptable for cable carriers to require testing, in addition to CableLabs' certification, to ensure compatibility with specific cable networks?

f) If the answer to Question e) is yes, should there be guidelines for certification and testing that indicate the specific criteria for acceptance of modems (specifying tests, timing, cost recovery, etc.)? Should the guidelines be national or specific to cable networks?

11.

The Commission hired a consulting firm, Imagineering Telecom Inc., to assist it in dealing with these questions. Imagineering Telecom Inc. submitted its report, entitled Report on Third-party ISP Access to Major Canadian Cable Systems (the consultant's report), 2 January 2002. The consultant's report provided an assessment of the status of cable modem technology and the different compatibility scenarios that have arisen as a result of technical changes to cable modems.

12.

Based on the submissions filed with the HSWG and the consultant's report, the Commission has arrived at preliminary views on the questions raised by the HSWG as set out below. The submissions filed with the HSWG, the HSWG report and the consultant's report are available on the Commission's website.

Question a) Clarify the Commission's intent in paragraph 17 of Order 2000-789 when it required that modems be compatible with cable networks for third-party access.

Positions of the parties

13.

Vidéotron, Cogeco and RCI, in submission HSCO010, proposed that DOCSIS 1.1 modems that are certified by CableLabs and tested by the cable carriers be deemed to be compatible modems. In submission HSCO013, Ericsson Canada Inc. (Ericsson) submitted that DOCSIS 1.0 and 1.1 modems were compatible modems.

14.

In submission HSCO033, the CCTA submitted that, in order to be compatible with a cable carrier's network, a cable modem should satisfy the following 10 requirements:

i) the modem operates at the technical service levels specified by the cable carrier;

ii) the modem does not cause physical damage to the cable carrier's facilities or physical injury to persons operating, maintaining or using those facilities;

iii) the modem does not cause either the cable carrier's facilities or the facilities of other persons connected to the carrier's network to malfunction;

iv) the modem properly implements the functions used by the cable carrier to monitor its network for operational and/or billing purposes;

v) the modem does not enable an end-user to circumvent cable carrier mechanisms intended to protect the security or integrity of the network;

vi) the modem properly implements the functions used by the cable carrier to maintain the privacy and security of transmissions over the cable carrier's facilities and does not otherwise operate in a manner which would compromise privacy or security;

vii) the modem properly implements the functions used by the cable carrier to maintain the quality of its services at the level it considers appropriate;

viii) the modem properly implements the functions used by the cable carrier to ensure that all end-users receive fair and proportionate use of the cable carrier's facilities;

ix) the modem does not cause degradation of service to persons other than the end-user of the modem; and

x) the modem does not interfere with the normal functioning of the cable carrier's facilities or the provision of services, either broadcasting or telecommunications, by the cable carrier.

15.

In submission HSCO053, Mr. François Ménard (Mr. Ménard) stated that it was not clear that the use of DOCSIS modems was necessary for TPIA service. Mr. Ménard argued that the DOCSIS requirement was discriminatory, given that CableLabs, an entity representing the cable industry, had developed it and there had been no opportunity for other parties to provide input into that process.

The Commission's preliminary view

16.

The Commission notes that, at paragraph 17 of Order 2000-789, it determined that each carrier's tariff should provide that an ISP is to use cable modems that are compatible with the carrier's network. In reaching this conclusion, the Commission stated that a cable carrier should not be required to permit the use of modems that endanger the integrity and security of its network. The Commission also noted with approval that certain cable carriers had proposed a tariff item prohibiting the attachment of equipment causing network harm.

17.

Consistent with Order 2000-789, the Commission considers that a cable modem that is compatible with a cable carrier's network is one that, at a minimum, does not present any risk of network harm for the cable carrier. In this regard, the Commission considers that the 10 requirements listed by the CCTA in submission HSCO033 represent basic conditions to attain this objective.

18.

The Commission notes that, in rejecting the proposed DOCSIS requirements in the cable carriers' tariffs in Order 2000-789, the Commission had regard to the fact that DOCSIS modems were the subject of a trial, that not all cable carriers were DOCSIS compliant and that it was uncertain when they would be. The Commission notes that the DOCSIS specifications were developed in response to a need to adopt a common set of specifications to ensure the interoperability of cable modems on different networks. Given the ongoing technological developments in this area and the benefits derived in applying a common set of specifications, the Commission considers that the question of compatible cable modems must be examined in light of the current technological environment for TPIA, including the general acceptance of DOCSIS specifications and the availability of DOCSIS modems.

19.

The Commission notes that most of the HSWG participants have accepted DOCSIS modems as the standard for TPIA. The Commission also notes that DOCSIS certified modems are becoming increasingly available. According to information available on CableLabs' website, there were, as of the twenty third Certificate Wave issued on 20 September 2002, 224 cable modem models certified under DOCSIS 1.0 specifications, and 42 models under DOCSIS 1.1 specifications. Given the wide availability of DOCSIS modems and the acceptance of DOCSIS as a de facto standard, the Commission now considers that requiring the use of DOCSIS cable modems would no longer constitute a barrier to entry for ISPs into the retail Internet market. In the Commission's view, the concerns expressed in Order 2000-789 are no longer relevant in the present circumstances.

20.

The Commission notes that, according to the consultant's report, TPIA could be implemented using proprietary modems. The Commission notes, however, that the accommodation of proprietary modems in a cable network in order to provide TPIA may represent a complicated and expensive process for cable carriers, which may not be justified given the increasing availability of DOCSIS modems. The Commission further notes that there is no evidence that the use of proprietary modems would provide any cost savings to end-users of TPIA. The Commission does not, therefore, consider it appropriate to require cable carriers to accommodate proprietary modems to provide TPIA services.

21.

In light of the above, the Commission is of the preliminary view that a cable modem that is compatible with the cable carriers' networks should, at a minimum, satisfy the 10 requirements listed by the CCTA in submission HSCO033. The Commission is also of the preliminary view that it is appropriate for cable carriers to require that ISPs use cable modems meeting DOCSIS specifications for TPIA to their networks. This does not preclude any cable carrier from making special arrangements to provide TPIA using proprietary modems as long as this option is provided on a non-discriminatory basis to all ISPs requesting TPIA.

Question b) Is DOCSIS certification required for all modems accepted for third-party access to cable networks?

Positions of the parties

22.

In submission HSWG0029, Mr. Ménard argued that uncertified cable modems should be allowed as these would not cause any network harm and would have no effect on the service provided to other end-users of the cable network. Mr. Ménard also argued that cable modems that were derivatives of DOCSIS 1.0 cable modems certified by CableLabs should be allowed for TPIA service.

23.

In submissions HSWG0053 and HSWG0053A, Mr. Ménard noted that, at this time, there was no certification authority outside of CableLabs. Mr. Ménard submitted that it would be contrary to the policy objectives of the Telecommunications Act for the Commission to require DOCSIS certification by a body representing the cable industry such as

CableLabs, as this would clearly confer an undue advantage upon cable carriers. Mr. Ménard further stated that he would reconsider his position if CableLabs and the DOCSIS certification board were open to membership from the rest of the industry.

24.

The cable carriers, the CCTA, AOL Canada Inc. (AOL) and Ericsson submitted that the CableLabs certification process was necessary for all cable modems used for TPIA. These parties were of the view that certification ensured a certain level of performance for both manufacturers and end-users. The cable carriers submitted that the DOCSIS specifications covered a large number of different design parameters for cable modem hardware and software in order to deal with all the conditions that could be encountered on a cable system. They argued, therefore, that while a particular modem could have been designed to meet the DOCSIS specifications, there would be no certainty that the specifications had been properly implemented until the modem had been thoroughly tested. In this regard, the cable carriers noted the initial difficulty in the certification of DOCSIS 1.1 cable modems, despite the fact that large well-established companies with considerable experience with cable modems had manufactured these modems.

25.

In submission HSCO045, the CCTA stated that cable carriers considered certification to be essential in order to ensure that no catastrophic network failure would occur when the modem was attached to their cable network. The CCTA submitted that a prospective modem that could not pass CableLabs' certification testing would fail to meet the most basic requirements for connection.

26.

The CCTA explained that the modem certification process required that a modem vendor submit a complete set of test results pursuant to the full Acceptance Test Plan (ATP) as well as an affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the test results. The CCTA stated that CableLabs had found many instances of errors in these test results when it performed its certification testing. The CCTA submitted that the cable carriers could not, therefore, rely on these test results without certification.

The Commission's preliminary view

27.

The Commission notes that U.S. Federal Communications Commission rules (the FCC rules) deal with network harm caused by the attachment of terminal equipment to the public switched telephone network. In particular, Part 68 of the FCC rules lists the following indicators of network harm:

· electrical hazards to telephone company personnel;

· damage to telephone company equipment;

· malfunctioning of telephone company billing equipment; and

· degradation of service to persons other than the user of the terminal equipment, his calling or called party.

28.

The Commission considers it appropriate that similar indicators of network harm be applied in Canada with respect to the attachment of cable modems to the cable carriers' networks. The Commission also considers that the risk of degradation of service to other end-users is of particular relevance to cable networks, given that these networks are shared networks.

29.

The Commission further considers that, under the current circumstances, certification testing represents the only means by which cable carriers can be assured that modems meet the DOCSIS specifications, that particular DOCSIS designs are suitable for their networks, and that no network harm will occur. Accordingly, the Commission is of the preliminary view that all cable modems used for TPIA should be required to be certified in accordance with DOCSIS specifications by an appropriate certifying body.

Question c) If the answer to Question b) is yes, is CableLabs an acceptable body to perform modem certification at this time?

Positions of the parties

30.

The HSWG report identified a number of U.S. laboratories that would likely have the capability to carry out the certification. The HSWG report also noted that many of these laboratories offered pre-certification testing of both DOCSIS 1.0 and 1.1 modems. The HSWG did not, however, reach a consensus on alternate bodies that would be acceptable to perform modem certification.

31.

Mr. Ménard questioned, among other things, the suitability of CableLabs as the certifying body, and re-iterated his concerns with respect to the membership of the CableLabs certification board.

The Commission's preliminary view

32.

The Commission notes that, although the question of an alternate certifying body to CableLabs was extensively discussed by the HSWG, there was no consensus reached on this issue. The Commission considers that an alternate certifying body remains an option, but that selection of such a body should not delay the implementation of TPIA.

33.

The Commission notes that CableLabs has been active in the development of the DOCSIS specifications since 1997 and is acknowledged by the cable industry as the authoritative body with respect to DOCSIS technology.

34.

Accordingly, the Commission is of the preliminary view that, until the HSWG reaches consensus on an alternate certifying body, CableLabs should be the sole body responsible for certification at this time.

Question d) Is DOCSIS 1.0, 1.1 or any other version a specific requirement for modems to be used for third-party access to cable networks?

Positions of the parties

35.

In submission HSCO010, RCI, Vidéotron and Cogeco submitted that DOCSIS 1.1 hardware compliant cable modems certified by CableLabs should be considered acceptable for TPIA service, provided that these modems passed an additional set of recognized acceptance tests. In their view, allowing these modems for TPIA service would permit a wider choice of compatible cable modems for ISPs and their end-users, and ensure a low probability of service disruption as well as the optimal operation of the cable networks. AOL, in submission HSCO054, and EastLink Telephone, in submission HSCO062, also submitted that DOCSIS 1.0 modems that are DOCSIS 1.1 hardware compliant should be considered acceptable.

36.

The cable carriers submitted that all end-users, including those of ISPs, would benefit from the new features of DOCSIS 1.1. RCI and Shaw stated that they intended to complete their overlay of DOCSIS 1.1 by late 2001. Vidéotron stated that its plans depended on the availability of DOCSIS 1.1 cable modems. Cogeco stated that it would start implementing DOCSIS 1.1 modems six months after these became generally available.

37.

Mr. Ménard submitted that if the DOCSIS specifications were required for TPIA, then DOCSIS 1.0 should be sufficient. In submission HSCO053, Mr. Ménard acknowledged that the DOCSIS 1.0 specification did not provide the billing interface mechanisms needed by cable carriers to control their network more effectively. He suggested that it should be possible to release a DOCSIS 1.01 specification with those features and that, in light of the delays for the approval of DOCSIS 1.1 modems, it might be appropriate for cable carriers to instruct CableLabs to amend the DOCSIS 1.0 specifications to make it more user friendly for TPIA service.

38.

Ericsson submitted that, while the DOCSIS 1.1 specifications were an improvement over the DOCSIS 1.0 specifications, the features of DOCSIS 1.1 were intended to allow cable carriers to provide new services on their networks that were unrelated to TPIA. Ericsson stated that key enhancements to the original standard, such as improved quality of service and hardware-based packet fragmentation capabilities, were designed to support Internet Protocol (IP) telephony and other constant bit-rate services. Ericsson submitted that DOCSIS 1.1 would not be an advantage for ISPs since the TPIA service does not include voice telephony.

The Commission's preliminary view

39.

The Commission notes that there were no DOCSIS 1.1 cable modems certified by CableLabs until September 2001. The Commission also notes that, although the DOCSIS 1.1 specifications have been available since April 1999, modems have been manufactured with all the hardware necessary to run DOCSIS 1.1 but lacked the appropriate software to be certified as DOCSIS 1.1. The Commission further notes that DOCSIS 1.1 modems can be certified as DOCSIS 1.0 and be used as DOCSIS 1.0 modems pending completion of the DOCSIS 1.1 certification process. These modems can be upgraded remotely by loading software updates over the cable network and are usually referred to as being "DOCSIS 1.1 hardware-ready". However, since the spring of 2002 additional modems have been certified as DOCSIS 1.1 and CMTSs have qualified as DOCSIS 1.1 compliant.

40.

The Commission notes that all end-users, including those of ISPs, stand to benefit from the advanced features of DOCSIS 1.1, such as its enhanced security features.

41.

The Commission is of the view that it would not be realistic to require that a modified version of DOCSIS 1.0 be developed for TPIA, as suggested by Mr. Ménard. The Commission also notes that allowing the use of both DOCSIS 1.0 and DOCSIS 1.1 modems on the same system limits the enhanced capabilities of DOCSIS 1.1 modems.

42.

The Commission is of the view that the availability of DOCSIS 1.1 modems that are either certified as DOCSIS 1.1, or as DOCSIS 1.0, will no longer be an issue by the time all the rates, terms and conditions of the tariffs for TPIA are finalised. In the Commission's view, given that the modems that are currently being released are either DOCSIS 1.1 compliant or hardware-ready, there appears to be no advantage for ISPs or end-users in setting the minimum modem requirement below this level. Accordingly, the Commission is of the preliminary view that the minimum requirement for TPIA should be either DOCSIS 1.1 certified modems, or DOCSIS 1.1 hardware-ready modems certified as DOCSIS 1.0.

43.

The Commission notes that there will be a period during which both proprietary and DOCSIS modems will be in use on the cable systems as there will be a gradual conversion to DOCSIS modems. The Commission also recognizes that there are a number of factors that may influence the rate at which the conversion to DOCSIS takes place. However, regardless of the cable carriers' planned rate of conversion to DOCSIS for their own existing customers, the Commission expects the cable carriers to implement sufficient DOCSIS capacity to meet the demand for TPIA.

Question e) Is it acceptable for cable carriers to require testing, in addition to CableLabs' certification, to ensure compatibility with specific cable networks?

Positions of the parties

44.

In submission HSCO010, RCI, Vidéotron and Cogeco submitted that cable modems should be required to pass network specific tests (second-level testing), in addition to DOCSIS certification, in order to be deemed compatible with their respective networks.

45.

The cable carriers submitted that each cable network was designed differently and that its operation was linked to the features and the settings of the cable modems. The cable carriers argued that it was important to ensure that all hardware and software settings complied with the settings used for their own end-users. Vidéotron stated that it had previously encountered problems with cable modems certified by CableLabs.

46.

In submission HSCO026, Vidéotron noted that CableLabs' own procedures indicated that its tests were not complete. In submission HSCO045, the CCTA stated that, for cost and efficiency reasons, the certification testing performed by CableLabs typically involved testing only the most critical aspects of basic device interoperability, representing less than 15% of the ATP requirements. In submission HSCO048, Shaw stated that cable carriers in the U.S. conducted additional field tests of DOCSIS certified modems, often with the assistance of modem vendors.

47.

In HSCO024, AOL supported the need for further testing. It stated second-level testing was appropriate in that it provided protection and assurance for its own end-users and network operations, as well as those of the cable carriers.

48.

In HSCO053, Mr. Ménard submitted that requiring second-level testing would restrict the ISPs' ability to add new modems with innovative features. Mr. Ménard submitted that cable carriers should be required to demonstrate that the CableLabs testing process could not be amended to reflect the cable carriers' needs for additional tests. Mr. Ménard further submitted that end-users should be able to attach a modem of their choice and that the cable carriers should have the capability to shut down any modem that adversely affected other users.

49.

In HSCO024, Ericsson submitted that a third-party testing program for modems would be useful to address any concerns relating to network harm and operational difficulties during the initial phases of implementation of TPIA. In HSCO029, Ericsson stated that, given the complexity and immaturity of the DOCSIS specifications, cable carriers had, in some instances, asked manufacturers to demonstrate product performance characteristics over and above those specified or tested by CableLabs.

50.

In submission HSCO025, the CCTA submitted that the need for the second-level testing was driven in part by the relative immaturity of the technology and that such testing might no longer be required once certification testing encompassed more parameters. In submission HSCO010, the cable carriers agreed that second-level testing should not be required for a modem that is the same model as that used by the cable carriers for their own customers. In submission HSCO025, the CCTA also provided a list of modems that each of the cable carriers has found to be compatible with their systems.

51.

In HSCO010, the cable carriers submitted that they should carry out the second-level testing. Ericsson submitted that an experienced independent Canadian laboratory with no affiliation with modem vendors or cable carriers should conduct the second-level testing to ensure consistency in the process.

The Commission's preliminary view

52.

As noted above, in Order 2000-789, the Commission found that the cable carriers' proposed terms, whereby they would approve specific DOCSIS modem models, represented an additional certification procedure and was overly broad. While the Commission remains of the view that this is a valid concern, it also notes that the detailed knowledge and working experience with DOCSIS modems that is currently available was not available at that time.

53.

The Commission notes that the consultant's report concluded that additional testing by the cable carriers would be justified during the initial phases of the rollout of TPIA. While the consultant's report did not identify specific tests as such, it did identify broad areas that could be the subject of additional testing. The consultant's report also identified a number of factors that cannot be reasonably duplicated in a laboratory setting.

54.

The Commission also notes that U.S. cable modem manufacturers require second-level testing of cable modems and that there is no evidence suggesting that this additional testing has created any difficulties.

55.

The Commission is of the view that the DOCSIS certification process alone may not be sufficient since it may not assess all of the parameters that could affect the operation of a modem on a particular cable carrier's network. Given the risks of allowing modems that could cause network harm, the Commission is of the preliminary view that second-level testing is warranted at this time.

56.

The Commission acknowledges, however, that without careful monitoring, second-level testing could create barriers to entry for ISPs based on the ISPs' choice of cable modems. Nonetheless, the Commission is of the preliminary view, that this concern would be mitigated, if a set of comprehensive guidelines, with strict time limits and well-defined testing parameters, were put in place. The Commission also expects that second-level testing would only be a temporary measure since the need for additional testing requirements should eventually be reduced or be eliminated entirely because of likely improvements in the DOCSIS certification process after the initial phases of implementation of TPIA.

57.

The Commission considers that, while it may be useful to have a neutral third-party perform the second-level testing, it is uncertain when the parties will agree on such a body. The Commission is, therefore, of the preliminary view that the second-level testing should be carried out by the cable carriers until a consensus can be reached by the HSWG on some other acceptable body.

Question f) If the answer to Question e) is yes, should there be guidelines for certification and testing that indicate the specific criteria for acceptance of modems (specifying tests, timing, cost recovery, etc.)? Should the guidelines be national or specific to cable networks?

Positions of the parties

58.

In submission HSCO010, the cable carriers proposed that a national set of guidelines for testing cable modems be established. However, the cable carriers also submitted that cable modems should be tested for compatibility with their own particular networks. The cable carriers and Ericsson submitted that specific tests should be identified by the cable carriers and made available to ISPs and modem vendors. In submission HSCO010, Vidéotron listed some pre-screening questions that should be answered by the modem vendor before committing resources to verify a modem's compatibility with a particular cable network. Vidéotron also provided examples of tests that could be used to ensure the compatibility of modems with its network.

59.

In submission HSCO010, the cable carriers suggested that 60 days might be an appropriate period of time to complete second-level testing.

60.

In submission HSCO027, Ericsson submitted that if testing was required over and above the CableLabs certification process, then a number of safeguards should be built into the process to ensure fairness. In this regard, Ericsson submitted that the process of developing the testing guidelines should be open to all industry players, and that one set of well-defined tests should be developed. Ericsson submitted that a careful review would be required to develop a test plan acceptable to the modem vendor, the ISP and the cable carrier with the approval of all parties involved.

The Commission's preliminary view

61.

The Commission is of the preliminary view that a set of guidelines for second-level testing should be established. The Commission is also of the preliminary view that these guidelines should apply on a national basis.

62.

The Commission also recognizes that there is a need to establish specific tests for cable modems to address the particular technical requirements of specific cable networks. Based on the record of the HSWG proceeding, it is the Commission's preliminary view that the guidelines should address a number of specific tests, testing criteria, and pre-screening questions as proposed by Vidéotron in submission HSCO010. The Commission also considers that it would be appropriate to include in the guidelines the 10 requirements that were provided by the CCTA in submission HSCO033, as noted above.

63.

In addition, it is the Commission's preliminary view that the guidelines should, at a minimum, include the following:

· No second-level testing is required for a cable modem that was previously found to be compatible with the cable carrier's network or that is the same model as that used by the cable carrier for its customers.

· Modems submitted to a cable carrier for second-level testing must be DOCSIS certified.

· There is no charge for second-level testing.

· The second-level testing must be completed within 28 calendar days in order to provide ISPs sufficient time to revise their implementation plan, should any problems arise during the testing period.

· Where a particular modem fails the second-level testing, the cable carrier must provide a detailed explanation of the results of the tests.

Scope of proceeding

64.

The Commission initiates a proceeding to examine its preliminary views, as set out in this public notice, on the questions raised in the HSWG report.

65.

The cable carriers are made parties to this proceeding. Other parties wishing to participate in this proceeding must notify the Commission of their intention to do so, by 10 January 2003. They should contact the Secretary General by mail at CRTC, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0N2; by fax at (819) 953-0795; or by email at procedure@crtc.gc.ca. They are to indicate in the notice their email address, where available. If parties do not have access to the Internet, they are to indicate in their notice whether they wish to receive disk versions of hard copy filings.

66.

The Commission will issue, as soon as possible after the registration date, a complete list of parties and their mailing address (including their email address, if available), identifying those parties who wish to receive disk versions.

67.

Parties wishing to propose second-level testing guidelines are to file their proposals with the Commission, serving copies on all other parties, by 24 January 2003.

68.

Parties may file with the Commission, serving a copy on all other parties, by 21 February 2003, comments on the Commission's preliminary views and the proposed second-level testing guidelines filed pursuant to paragraph 67.

69.

Parties may file reply comments with the Commission, serving a copy on all other parties, by 14 March 2003.

70.

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.

71.

Parties can file their submissions electronically or on paper. Submissions longer than five pages should include a summary.

72.

Where the submission is filed by electronic means, the line ***End of document*** should be entered following the last paragraph of the document, as an indication that the document has not been damaged during electronic transmission.

73.

Please note that only those submissions electronically filed will be available on the Commission's web site and only in the official language and format in which they are submitted.

74.

Each paragraph of your submission should be numbered.

75.

The Commission also encourages parties to monitor the public record of this proceeding (and/or the Commission's web site) for additional information that they may find useful when preparing their submissions.

Location of CRTC offices

76.

Submissions may be examined or will be made available promptly upon request at the Commission offices during normal business hours:

Central Building
Les Terrasses de la Chaudière
1 Promenade du Portage, Room G-5
Hull, Quebec K1A 0N2
Tel: (819) 997-2429 - TDD: 994-0423
Fax: (819) 994-0218

Metropolitan Place
99 Wyse Road
Suite 1410
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia B3A 4S5
Tel: (902) 426-7997 - TDD: 426-6997
Fax: (902) 426-2721

405 de Maisonneuve Blvd. East
2^nd Floor, Suite B2300
Montréal, Quebec H2L 4J5
Tel: (514) 283-6607 - TDD: 283-8316
Fax: (514) 283-3689

55 St. Clair Avenue East
Suite 624
Toronto, Ontario M4T 1M2
Tel: (416) 952-9096
Fax: (416) 954-6343

Kensington Building
275 Portage Avenue
Suite 1810
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2B3
Tel: (204) 983-6306 - TDD: 983-8274
Fax: (204) 983-6317

Cornwall Professional Building
2125 - 11^th Avenue
Room 103
Regina, Saskatchewan S4P 3X3
Tel: (306) 780-3422
Fax: (306) 780-3319

10405 Jasper Avenue, Suite 520
Edmonton, Alberta T5J 3N4
Tel: (780) 495-3224
Fax: (780) 495-3214

530-580 Hornby Street
Vancouver, British Columbia V6C 3B6
Tel: (604) 666-2111 - TDD: 666-0778
Fax: (604) 666-8322

Secretary General

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