ARCHIVED - Telecom - Commission Letter - 8638-C12-200309840 - 8660-C12-200315095 - Follow-up to Telecom Decision 2003-48

Ottawa, 19 December 2003

File numbers: 8638-C12-200309840 and
8660-C12-200315095

To: Parties to Follow-up to Decision 2003-48
PN 2003-9 interested parties

Re: Follow-up to Telecom Decision 2003-48

In Incumbent local exchange carrier service intervals for various competitor services, Telecom Decision CRTC 2003-48, 18 July 2003 (Decision 2003-48), the Commission initiated a proceeding to examine the appropriateness of establishing provisioning intervals and mean time to repair (MTTR) intervals for a specific list of services included in an appendix to the above noted decision.

The Commission received comments, for the above noted proceeding, on 17 September 2003 from Aliant Telecom Inc., Bell Canada, MTS Communications Inc.and Saskatchewan Telecommunications (collectively Bell et al.), Allstream Corp. (Allstream) (formerly AT&T Canada), Call-Net Enterprises Inc. (Call-Net), FCI Broadband, a division of Futureway Communications Inc. (FCI Broadband), Microcell Solutions Inc. (Microcell), Primus Telecommunications Canada Inc. (Primus), and TCI. The Commission received reply comments from the parties noted above on 17 October 2003, with the exception of Primus who did not file reply comments.

Staff notes that in addition to commenting on the appropriateness of establishing provisioning intervals and MTTR intervals for the services included in the appendix to Decision 2003-48, Allstream, Call-Net, and FCI Broadband proposed the establishment of provisioning intervals and mean time to repair (MTTR) intervals for other services such as ADSL access, Ethernet access, OC-3, OC-12, and various speeds of Competitor Digital Network Access (CDNA), among others.

Bell Canada et al. and TCI (the ILECs) were of the view that the introduction of new matters constituted an abuse of the Commission's process and should not be allowed. The ILECs therefore did not comment further on these matters.

Staff is of the view that the process initiated by Decision 2003-48 was to specifically address the provisioning intervals and MTTR intervals for the services set out in the appendix to the decision. In order for the Commission to consider any new issues that are not in the appendix to Decision 2003-48 as part of this proceeding, at a minimum, additional process would have to be run in order to gather as complete a record as possible.

Staff notes that in Finalization of Quality of Service rate adjustment plan for competitors, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2003-9, 30 October 2003 (PN 2003-9), the Commission established a process to consider issues relating to the finalization of the Quality of Service (Q o S) rate adjustment plan (RAP). Among other things, in paragraph 9(e) of PN 2003-9 the Commission requested comments on whether new indicators need to be defined or existing indicators be modified to take into account services provided to competitors such as CDNA, co-location space delivery, or any other service for which a measure of quality of service may be required (emphasis added).

Staff is therefore of the view that the PN 2003-9 process is broad enough and would be a more appropriate vehicle for parties to discuss services filed in this proceeding but that were not included in the appendix to Decision 2003-48.

Staff notes that PN 2003-9 requires that parties file their evidence on all matters within the scope of the proceeding by 29 December 2003. Given the above, staff is concerned that under the current time constraints, parties may not have an appropriate opportunity to include all services for which they believe a measure of quality of service may be required. Accordingly, the timetable for filing documentation in the PN 2003-9 proceeding is modified as follows:

Parties may file with the Commission, serving copies on all other parties, their evidence on all matters within the scope of this proceeding by 29 January 2004.

The Commission will issue interrogatories to parties by 1 March 2004.

Parties may also address interrogatories to parties that file evidence. Any such interrogatories must be filed with the Commission and served on the party or parties in question by 1 March 2004.

Responses to interrogatories are to be filed with the Commission and served on all parties by 26 March 2004.

Requests by parties for further responses to their interrogatories, specifying in each case why a further response is both relevant and necessary, and requests for public disclosure of information for which confidentiality has been claimed, setting out in each case the reasons for disclosure, must be filed with the Commission and served on the party or parties in question by 5 April 2004.

Written responses to requests for further responses to interrogatories and for public disclosure must be filed with the Commission and served on the party or parties who made the request by 13 April 2004.

A determination with respect to requests for further information and for public disclosure will be issued as soon as possible. Any information to be provided pursuant to that determination must be filed with the Commission and served on all parties by 26 April 2004.

All parties may file argument with the Commission on any matters within the scope of this proceeding, serving copies on all parties by 17 May 2004.

All parties may file reply argument with the Commission, serving a copy on all parties by 1 June 2004.

Yours sincerely,


Paul Godin
Director, Competition and Technology

c.c. Claude Brault (819) 953-3662

Date modified:

2003-12-19