|
|
Telecom Decision CRTC 2003-48
|
|
|
Ottawa, 18 July 2003
|
|
|
Incumbent local exchange carrier service intervals for various competitor services
|
|
|
Reference: 8638-C12-78/02
|
|
|
In this decision, the Commission establishes service intervals for services the incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) provide to competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs). The Commission also initiates a proceeding to determine whether or not service intervals are appropriate for other services the ILECs provide to CLECs, and if so, what service intervals should apply.
|
|
|
Background
|
|
1.
|
In Incumbent local exchange carrier service intervals for unbundled local loop orders, Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-14, 8 March 2002 (Decision 2002-14), the Commission directed, among other things, that the incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) provide unbundled local loops to competitive local exchange carriers (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.
|
|
2.
|
In Service intervals for the provision of unbundled loops, Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-68, 1 November 2002 (Decision 2002-68), the Commission specified that the service intervals established in Decision 2002-14 related to local service requests (LSRs) for up to 10 unbundled local loops. The Commission also considered that it was important to establish service intervals for CLEC LSRs that were not contemplated by the directives in Decision 2002-14, including LSRs for more than 10 loops and stand-alone ports. Accordingly, Decision 2002-68 invited parties to propose such service intervals.
|
|
|
The proceeding
|
|
3.
|
The Commission received proposals on 2 December 2002 from Futureway Communications Inc. (Futureway); TELUS Communications Inc. (TCI); Bell Canada on behalf of itself, Aliant Telecom Inc. (Aliant Telecom), MTS Communications Inc. and Saskatchewan Telecommunications (Bell Canada et al.); and Call-Net Enterprises Inc. (Call-Net). AT&T Canada Corp. on behalf of itself and AT&T Canada Telecom Services Company (AT&T Canada) filed its proposal on 5 December 2002. On 9 December 2002, Bell Canada et al. filed statistical data on actual service intervals provided to CLECs.
|
|
4.
|
On 11 December 2002, Bell Canada et al. requested clarification on the scope of the proceeding, submitting that AT&T Canada had addressed matters that Bell Canada et al. considered outside the scope.
|
|
5.
|
In a letter to parties dated 16 December 2002, Commission staff clarified that only submissions addressing service intervals for CLEC LSRs were within the scope of the proceeding.
|
|
6.
|
The Commission received comments from Call-Net and Futureway on 16 December 2002 and from Bell Canada et al. and TCI on 19 December 2002. Reply comments were received from AT&T Canada on 3 January 2003, from TCI on 8 January 2003, from Bell Canada et al. on 9 January 2003 and from Call-Net on 10 January 2003.
|
|
7.
|
For convenience, the service intervals addressed in this Decision are divided into two groups:
|
|
|
· service intervals for services that can be ordered through an LSR; and
|
|
|
· service intervals for services that cannot be ordered through an LSR.
|
|
|
Service intervals for services that can be ordered through an LSR
|
|
8.
|
The Canadian local ordering guidelines (C-LOG) state that the following services, among others, can be ordered through an LSR:
|
|
|
a) installation of over 10 new/migrated unbundled local loops;
|
|
|
b) stand-alone ports;
|
|
|
c) changes to Central office loop termination (COLT) assignments and
disconnects of existing unbundled loops (with or without porting the existing
customer's telephone number); and
|
|
|
d) type C loops.
|
|
|
a) Installation of over 10 new/migrated unbundled local loops
|
|
|
Positions of parties
|
|
9.
|
AT&T Canada, Call-Net and Futureway (collectively, the CLECs) generally agreed that binding service intervals for LSRs were necessary to eliminate negotiations between CLECs and ILECs that often left CLECs without the required service within the timeframe they desired.
|
|
10.
|
The CLECs submitted that LSRs for more than 10 loops occurred infrequently. Call-Net noted that the percentage of LSRs it placed for more than 10 loops amounted to only seven percent of its total LSRs, made over a recent four-month period. Futureway stated that it did not have any experience with respect to LSRs for more than 20 loops. AT&T Canada stated that LSRs for more than 20 loops were rare since, above a certain threshold, it was more economical to order DS-1 service, which is equivalent to 24 voice grade loops.
|
|
11.
|
While AT&T Canada accepted that the completion of some LSRs might take longer than the intervals specified in Decision 2002-14, it submitted that the applicable 90% Quality of service (QoS) target established in CISC recommended competition-related Quality of Service indicators - Follow up to Decision 2001-217, Decision CRTC 2001-366, 20 June 2001 (Decision 2001-366), left the ILECs with sufficient flexibility to accommodate completions that failed to meet the indicators.
|
|
12.
|
AT&T Canada argued that, based on its experience, the incremental work associated with LSRs for more than 10 loops was not significantly greater than LSRs for 10 loops or less. AT&T Canada proposed that the service intervals approved in Decision 2002-14, that applied to LSRs for 10 loops or less, should also apply to LSRs for more than 10 loops.
|
|
13.
|
Call-Net submitted that in order to provide certainty to its end-customers, it generally requested LSRs with intervals longer than the approved service intervals, to allow for its own internal provisioning processes and for any possible rework delays.
|
|
14.
|
Call-Net was of the view that the service intervals for the provision of unbundled loops should not be based on the number of loops in an LSR but rather on the complexity of the work involved in completing the LSR. Call-Net proposed that the service interval for LSRs for more than 10 loops that included switch translations be the longer of either 10 days, or the customer requested due date. However, Call-Net submitted that LSRs for more than 10 loops, which did not include switch translations, should be completed within the service intervals specified in Decision 2002-14, regardless of the number of loops in the LSR.
|
|
15.
|
Futureway submitted that Bell Canada's current completion time for LSRs for more than 10 loops was unacceptable given that the amount of additional work required over and above that required to provision the first 10 loops was marginal. Futureway proposed that the service interval for LSRs for 11 to 20 loops be set at three days for migrations and seven days for new loops. Futureway proposed that LSRs for more than 20 loop migrations be set at four days.
|
|
16.
|
Bell Canada et al. and TCI (collectively, the ILECs) were of the view that the practice of negotiated intervals for the provision of LSRs for more than 10 loops, which they characterized as long-standing, should be maintained. The ILECs submitted that the CLECs did not request that LSRs for more than 10 loops be completed within a set service interval, but rather, the CLECs scheduled delivery by taking into consideration the nature of the other orders they were handling at the time. The ILECs submitted that, similarly, they must also assess workflow in order to process a large number of unbundled loops that need to be installed within a single timeframe. The ILECs argued that using a standard service interval to measure service quality did not permit them to assess their workflow at the point in time at which an LSR was received, and to adjust, manage and co-ordinate their workflow in the most efficient manner possible to complete a large LSR.
|
|
17.
|
Bell Canada et al. submitted that if the Commission found that negotiated service intervals for LSRs with more than 10 loops were unacceptable, service intervals should be five days for LSRs for 11 to 20 simple loop migrations and 10 days for new loops and migrations associated with complex services. Bell Canada et al. further proposed that negotiated service intervals be maintained for LSRs for more than 20 new/migrated loops.
|
|
18.
|
TCI submitted that in the event the Commission found negotiated service intervals unacceptable, it supported Call-Net's proposal of a service interval of 10 days for LSRs for more than 10 loops that included switch translations. TCI also agreed with Bell Canada et al.'s proposal that the service intervals for LSRs for more than 20 loops should be negotiated.
|
|
|
Commission analysis and determination
|
|
19.
|
The Commission is of the view that the competitive framework should give CLECs the opportunity to make service available to their customers with, at a minimum, the same quality and within the same timeframes as an ILEC provides service to its own customers.
|
|
20.
|
The Commission considers that negotiations between an ILEC and a CLEC to determine a service interval applicable to a particular LSR allow the ILEC to exercise an undue influence over the way the CLEC does business. Accordingly, the Commission is of the view that negotiations of service intervals are not in the best interest of sustainable competition.
|
|
21.
|
Based on the record of this proceeding, the Commission considers that little additional work is required to complete LSRs for more than 10 loops. For example, since an LSR can only be created for one address, one truck roll to that address would most likely be sufficient, whether the LSR was for one loop or for more than 10 loops.
|
|
22.
|
The Commission notes that LSRs for more than 10 loops are relatively infrequent. The Commission also notes that the established QoS standards for the provision of loops require that ILECs provide loops to CLECs within a specific service interval 90% of the time. The Commission is of the view that the 10% margin of flexibility left to the ILECs, and the infrequent demand for LSRs for more than 10 loops, afford the ILECs with sufficient flexibility to manage and adjust their workflow. The Commission therefore considers that, for the provision of LSRs for more than 10 loops, by requiring ILECs to comply with the service intervals established in Decision 2002-14, CLECs will be in a position to compete for customers on a more equitable basis.
|
|
23.
|
Accordingly, the Commission directs that, effective 30 days after the date of this decision, the service intervals specified in Decision 2002-14 that apply to LSRs for no more than 10 unbundled local loops, shall also apply to LSRs for more than 10 unbundled local loops. Consistent with Decision 2002-14, CLECs may continue to obtain longer service intervals, if they so wish, by advising the relevant ILEC(s) accordingly.
|
|
24.
|
In Decision 2001-366, the Commission set out a QoS regime that requires ILECs to file reports with respect to their compliance with various indicators that measure quarterly competition-related intervals and standards. Among these are indicators that measure QoS for the provisioning of local unbundled loops: 1.8 - "New Unbundled Type A and B Loop Order Service Intervals Met", 1.9 - "Migrated Unbundled Type A and B Loop Order Service Intervals Met" and 1.12 - "Local Service Request Confirmed Due Dates Met". The Commission notes that indicators 1.8 and 1.9 capture LSRs for unbundled local loops, while indicator 1.12 captures LSRs requesting a different date than the approved service interval.
|
|
25.
|
The Commission directs the ILECs to begin reporting LSRs for more than 10 unbundled local loops under indicators 1.8, 1.9 and 1.12, as appropriate, starting with the quarter following the release of this decision.
|
|
|
b) Stand-alone ports
|
|
|
Positions of parties
|
|
26.
|
The CLECs submitted that because the ILECs were able to complete a migration, including a port, within a two-day service interval, they should be mandated to provide stand-alone ports within the same service interval.
|
|
27.
|
The ILECs agreed to reduce the service interval for stand-alone ports of primary exchange service to two days. Aliant Telecom added that it should be given six months to train additional staff before the implementation of the two-day service interval for stand-alone ports.
|
|
28.
|
Bell Canada et al. proposed longer service intervals for stand-alone ports where the numbers to be ported were associated with what Bell Canada et al. defined as "complex services". The ILECs argued that porting of numbers associated with complex services required additional technical and administrative work, such as the rearrangement of trunk groups and/or hunt groups.
|
|
29.
|
The CLECs argued that porting was a relatively simple operation that did not increase in complexity regardless of whether the number being ported was associated with any of the complex services identified by Bell Canada et al. in this proceeding.
|
|
|
Commission analysis and determination
|
|
30.
|
The Commission notes that pursuant to Decision 2002-14, the ILECs are required to provide a migrated loop to CLECs within a two-day service interval, which can include porting of the telephone number.
|
|
31.
|
The Commission considers that porting of a telephone number occurs most frequently in combination with the migration of a local loop. A stand-alone port only occurs when a customer switches to a local loop provided by another local service provider and wishes to keep the same telephone number, or when a customer subscribes to calling features that require that more than one telephone number be associated with a particular local loop.
|
|
32.
|
The Commission notes that because very few CLECs have their own facilities to the customer premises, there are few requests for stand-alone ports, and even fewer for stand-alone ports of numbers associated with complex services. In Decision 2001-366, the Commission established QoS indicator 1.10 - "Local Number Portability Order (Stand-Alone) Service Interval[s] Met" by which the ILECs are required to provide stand-alone ports within a specific service interval at least 90% of the time. The Commission considers that the 10% margin of flexibility within that indicator affords the ILECs reasonable flexibility to manage and adjust their workflow for stand-alone ports, whether the number being ported is associated with primary exchange service or not.
|
|
33.
|
The Commission is not persuaded by Aliant Telecom's argument that a six-month delay is necessary before implementing a two-day service interval for stand-alone ports given that number porting is a fairly simple operation and there is relatively little competition in Aliant Telecom's territory. Accordingly, the Commission denies Aliant Telecom's request for six months to train staff.
|
|
34.
|
Based on the above, the Commission directs that the service interval for the provision of all stand-alone ports be two days, effective 30 days after the date of this decision. Consequently, the ILECs are to report the results of the appropriate QoS indicator starting with the quarter following the release of this decision.
|
|
|
c) Changes to COLT assignments and disconnects of existing
unbundled loops
|
|
|
Positions of parties
|
|
35.
|
Futureway submitted that even though ILECs currently apply a two-day service interval for changes in COLT assignments and disconnects, the service intervals for these two activities should, nonetheless, be the subject of a Commission direction. The majority of parties (except for AT&T Canada, that was silent on this issue) agreed to have a service interval of two days for changes to COLT assignments and disconnects.
|
|
|
Commission analysis and determination
|
|
36.
|
The Commission notes that the ILECs already provide the changes for COLT assignments and disconnects within a two-day service interval. Accordingly, the Commission directs that the service interval for changes to COLT assignments and disconnects of existing unbundled loops be two days.
|
|
|
d) Type C loops
|
|
|
Positions of parties
|
|
37.
|
AT&T Canada and Call-Net proposed the establishment of service intervals for the provision of type C loops. AT&T Canada stated that both Bell Canada et al. and TCI confirmed that type C loops could be ordered through an LSR. AT&T Canada argued, therefore, that type C loop service intervals were within the scope of this proceeding.
|
|
38.
|
The ILECs submitted that type C loops are used to provision digital network access (DNA) services and as such, it would be counter-productive to develop service intervals for type C loops outside of discussions concerning competitor DNA services. The ILECs noted that in Regulatory framework for second price cap period, Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-34, 30 May 2002 (Decision 2002-34), the Commission requested that the CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee Business Process Working Group (BPWG) develop a service interval to measure the quality of ILEC provisioning of new competitor DNA services. As such, the ILECs were of the view that service intervals for type C loops should continue to be discussed at the BPWG and not be the subject of a determination in this proceeding.
|
|
|
Commission analysis and determination
|
|
39.
|
The Commission notes that type C loops are used to provide a digital transmission path between a subscriber and a telephone company central office, and that the primary purpose for the use of type C loops is to provide DNA service. Although type C loops are ordered through an LSR, the Commission is of the view that it would be more appropriate that service intervals for this type of loop be examined in the proceeding to consider service intervals for competitor DNA services, initiated in this decision, the details of which are set out below.
|
|
|
Service intervals for services that cannot be ordered through an LSR
|
|
|
a) CLEC loop forecasts
|
|
|
Position of parties
|
|
40.
|
The ILECs submitted that the accuracy of CLECs' forecasts of unbundled loop orders is an important factor in their ability to meet their service interval obligations. Bell Canada et al. noted that in Decision 2002-34, the Commission announced it would be initiating a follow-up proceeding to review the rate adjustment mechanism associated with QoS indicators (the rate adjustment mechanism proceeding). Bell Canada et al. recommended that the issue of CLEC forecasts for unbundled loops be included in that proceeding.
|
|
|
Commission analysis and determination
|
|
41.
|
In CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee - Consensus items, Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-77, 12 December 2002, the Commission approved a BPWG consensus report that developed the type of forecast loop information that CLECs must provide to the ILECs. Among other things, CLECs agreed to provide an 18-month forecast by month, on a quarterly basis. The forecast would report the number of new and migrated loops expected to be ordered broken down by city and, where possible, by wire centre for each loop type (A, B and C) and sub-loop type.
|
|
42.
|
The Commission considers that the level of detail contained in the quarterly reports is sufficient for the ILECs to determine appropriate staffing levels to meet the competitor QoS requirements. However, the Commission notes it is open to the ILECs to raise this issue in the upcoming rate adjustment mechanism proceeding.
|
|
|
b) Five percent annual productivity improvement to competitor-related
QoS standards
|
|
|
Positions of parties
|
|
43.
|
AT&T Canada submitted that the establishment of standard service intervals should not preclude the ILECs from having to continuously improve on the established service standards. AT&T Canada proposed that a five percent annual productivity improvement be applied to all competitor-related QoS standards.
|
|
44.
|
The ILECs submitted that this issue was outside the scope of this proceeding.
|
|
|
Commission analysis and determination
|
|
45.
|
In CRTC creates new quality of service indicators for telephone companies, Decision CRTC 2001-217, 9 April 2001, the Commission established a competitor QoS regime pursuant to which, among other things, the ILECs' performance in the provisioning of various services to CLECs are tracked on a monthly basis.
|
|
46.
|
The Commission further notes that the QoS regime for competitor services is not yet complete. For example, the Commission has not approved all the QoS indicators on a final basis, and as noted earlier in this decision, the Commission will be initiating the rate adjustment mechanism proceeding.
|
|
47.
|
The Commission is of the view that it would be premature at this time to examine whether the QoS regime established for competitor services should be subject to an annual productivity improvement factor. Accordingly, the Commission denies AT&T Canada's request.
|
|
|
c) Other service intervals proposed by AT&T Canada
|
|
|
Positions of parties
|
|
48.
|
AT&T Canada proposed service intervals and associated mean time to repair (MTTR) intervals for many services, which are listed in the appendices to this decision. These service intervals are for services other than those that can be ordered through an LSR, that CLECs order from ILECs. AT&T Canada submitted that CLECs utilize many more services than unbundled loops when providing local service to their customers. AT&T Canada argued that service intervals were necessary in order for CLECs to have an equal opportunity to provide local service to a customer in a timely manner.
|
|
49.
|
The ILECs submitted that these issues were outside the scope of this proceeding.
|
|
|
Commission analysis and determination
|
|
50.
|
The Commission notes that CLECs may use all the services identified in the appendices to provide services to their local customers.
|
|
51.
|
The Commission notes that CLECs depend significantly on the use of ILECs' services in order to provide service to their own customers. In order for CLECs to be in a position to effectively compete for local customers, the Commission considers that CLECs must have the opportunity to offer a range of services equivalent to those offered by the ILECs, in a timely manner. Since the CLECs use the ILECs' services set out in the appendices to provision services to their local customers, the Commission is of the view that there is merit in examining the appropriateness of AT&T Canada's proposed service intervals.
|
|
52.
|
Accordingly, the Commission initiates a proceeding to examine the appropriateness of establishing service intervals and MTTR intervals for the services set out in the appendices.
|
|
|
Call for comments
|
|
53.
|
The Commission invites all interested parties to provide their views, with supporting rationale, on:
|
|
|
a) whether service intervals and MTTR intervals should be established for each
of the services listed in the appendices;
|
|
|
b) whether the intervals proposed by AT&T Canada in the appendices are
appropriate; and
|
|
|
c) whether QoS indicators and associated standards should be established for
each of the services listed in the appendices, and if so, what those QoS
indicators should be. Each proposed QoS indicator should include
(i) a definition of the indicator, (ii) how the indicator should be measured,
(iii) an appropriate service standard, (iv) a definition of the numerator,
(v) a definition of the denominator, and (vi) the applicable business rules.
|
|
|
Procedure
|
|
54.
|
All interested parties may file comments with the Commission on the issues raised above, serving copies on all parties to the proceeding that led to this decision, by 18 August 2003.
|
|
55.
|
Parties may file reply comments with the Commission, serving copies on all parties to the proceeding that led to this decision and other parties that provided comments by 17 September 2003.
|
|
56.
|
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.
|
|
57.
|
Parties can file their submissions electronically or on paper. Submissions longer than five pages should include a summary.
|
|
58.
|
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.
|
|
59.
|
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.
|
|
60.
|
Each paragraph of your submission should be numbered.
|
|
|
Location of CRTC offices
|
|
61.
|
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
Gatineau, 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
2nd 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 - 11th 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
|
Date Modified: 2003-07-18