ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter - 8638-S1-01/98 - Semi-annual reports of interexchange private line routes pursuant to Order 99-434

Letter

Via E-Mail

Our File: 8638-S1-01/98

Ottawa, 15 September 2004

To: Distribution List

Subject:  Semi-annual reports of interexchange private line routes pursuant to Order 99-434

This letter provides direction to providers of interexchange private line (IXPL) services related to the filing of the semi-annual report due 1 October 2004 pursuant to Follow-up proceeding to Telecom Decision 97-20: Establishment of criterion and process for considering further forbearance for High Capacity/DDS interexchange private line services , Telecom Order CRTC 99-434, 12 May 1999 (Order 99-434).

In Order 99-434, the Commission directed each competitor to identify the high capacity and digital data service IXPL routes where it provides, or offers to provide, IXPL services, at DS-3 or greater bandwidth, using terrestrial facilities from a company other than the incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC) or an affiliate of the ILEC.

Recently, MTS Communications Inc. acquired Allstream Inc., and Bell Canada acquired 360 networks, after 360 networks had acquired GT Group Telecom.

Further, on 15 May 2004 , Québécor Média inc. informed the Commission that it was exiting the market for IXPL services in the territories of Bell Canada , Telus Communication (Québec) Inc. and Société en commandite Té lébec.

These developments imply that on some IXPL routes where the Commission has forborne from the regulation of the provision of IXPL services, there may be no IXPL capacity available from a source other than the incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC), or the only alternate capacity available is provided by an in-territory affiliate of the ILEC.

The Commission established the following IXPL forbearance criterion in Order 99-434:

"The Companies' domestic High Capacity/DDS services on a particular route will be granted forbearance upon the Commission being satisfied that one or more competitors of a Company are offering or providing, on that route, the equivalent of DS-3 bandwidth (or greater) on a private line basis to at least one customer, using terrestrial facilities from a company other than the Company in question or an affiliate of that company."

Further, the "Commission direct[ed] all competitors of a Company, including broadcast distribution undertakings (BDUs) and BDU affiliates, that provide telecommunications services, to file with the Commission, within 90 days of this Order [99-434], serving copies on the relevant Companies, a report identifying all IXPL routes for which they provide or offer IXPL service that meet the criterion established in this Order."

Thereafter, all competitors were to file the reports semi-annually, on 1 April and 1 October.

In their semi-annual filings pursuant to Order 99-434, some competitors have reported all their routes, while others have reported only their new routes, and some may only have reported IXPL routes not already forborne from.

However, in view of the developments indicated above, and considering the Commission's directives in Order 99-434, it is important to have a complete listing of all competitors' IXPL routes that satisfy the forbearance criterion established in Order 99-434.

Accordingly, Commission staff requests that, in their filings of 1 October 2004 , all competitors, including out-of-territory affiliates of the ILECs, BDUs and BDU affiliates, file all their IXPL routes that comply with the forbearance criterion established in Order 99-434, including all routes that a competitor may have previously reported as part of the semi-annual filings pursuant to Order 99-434.

For a route between two exchanges, for example exchange A and exchange B, that complies with the forbearance criterion of Order 99-434, or a route between an exchange and a border crossing, for example exchange A and border crossing B, that complies with the forbearance criterion of Order 99-434, competitors are requested to report:

1.  the name of the competitor reporting the IXPL route;

2.  the name of ILEC in whose territory exchange A is located;

3.  the name of exchange A as shown in the tariffs of the ILEC indicated in the response to (2);

4.  the name of ILEC in whose territory exchange B is located; and

5.  the name of exchange B as shown in the tariffs of the ILEC indicated in the response to (4), or the usual name of the border crossing B;

6.  whether the route begins or terminates at a Central Office at one end or at both ends;

7. whether the route begins or terminates on customer premises equipment at one end or at both ends; and

8. whether the route was reported previously to the Commission as part of the semi-annual filings, whether the route was not previously reported, because it was already forborne from, or whether it is a new route.

Service providers are encouraged to submit the above information electronically on an Excel spreadsheet.   However, service providers may submit paper copies if they find it more convenient.

Sincerely yours,

Paul Godin
Director,
Competition Implementation and Technology

Attachment: Distribution list

Distribution list

Date modified: 2004-09-15