ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter - 8640-C12-200706351

Letter

Ottawa, 7 May 2007

File No. : 8640-C12-200706351

To:   Distribution List (attached)

Re:   Applications for local forbearance - Additional information and other related issues

The Commission is in receipt of requests for additional information and disclosure of information as well as letters supporting the requests from:

•   Amtelecom Cable Limited Partnership
•   Canadian Cable Systems Alliance Inc.
•   Execulink Telecom Inc.
•   Bragg Communications Inc., carrying on business as Eastlink
•   Cogeco Cable Inc., Rogers Communications Inc., Shaw Communications Inc. and Vidéotron Ltd (collectively)
•   MTS Allstream Inc. (MTS Allstream)
•   Primus Telecommunications Canada Inc.
•   Wightman Communications Ltd.
•   WTC Communications

In addition, a number of parties have addressed concerns with respect to timelines.   The Commission notes that MTS Allstream also requested that the Commission return all local forbearance applications received as of 25 April 2007 with leave to refile. MTS Allstream further requested that Bell Aliant be required to restate its Competitor Quality of Service results to include results for those areas of Ontario and Qu ébec that now form part of its operating territory .

The Commission is also in receipt of responses from Saskatchewan Telecommunications, Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership (Bell Aliant) and collectively from Bell Aliant and Bell Canada .

Requests for additional Information

Based on its review of the local forbearance applications and the record to date, the Commission considers that additional information is required both from the telephone companies and the competitors. For example, competitors must know the name of the competitor(s) offering services in the exchange on whose presence the applicant Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC) justifies its forbearance request. The Commission recognizes that there is also information required to complete its analysis that is not available to the ILECs.   Therefore, competitors will be required to provide some information to establish the extent of competitor presence in each exchange.

Accordingly, the Commission considers that it is important for clarity and efficiency that all parties are provided with a list of required information.   Appendix 1 outlines the information to be filed by the applicant ILEC for each application.   Appendices 2 to 4 outline the information to be filed by the various competitors.

Processing of local forbearance applications

The Commission notes that a large number of local forbearance applications have already been filed with the Commission.   Further, the Commission notes that the requirements for these applications are unfamiliar for all parties involved.   The Commission considers that since the applicant ILECs have not had the benefit of the list of required information prior to filing, it is more administratively efficient and fair to gather the additional information as interrogatories for these applications rather than returning them to the applicant ILEC.

Therefore, the applicant ILEC and competitors on whose presence the applicant ILEC justifies its forbearance request in an exchange are to file the information contained in the applicable appendices if not already filed.   Further, the applicant ILEC is to provide a copy of all competitor-specific information, for which it claims confidentiality, to each individual competitor to which the information relates.

For future local forbearance applications, applicant ILECs must file all the required information for the application to be considered complete.   The Commission notes that applications that are not complete will be returned to the applicant ILEC.

Further, for future local forbearance applications, competitor(s) offering services in an exchange on whose presence the applicant ILEC justifies its forbearance request must file the information contained in Appendices 2 to 4 together with their comments on the ILEC local forbearance application within 20 calendar days from the ILEC's application.

Processing of requests for disclosure of information

The Commission is in receipt of requests for disclosure for some, but not all, of the information to be filed. The Commission considers that it would be more efficient to consider as many requests for disclosure as possible at the same time.   As a result, the Commission has established the process and timelines below.

Process and Timelines

For local forbearance applications that have already been filed with the Commission:

1. Applicant ILECs are to file the requested information [1] , as set out in Part B section 1 of Appendix 1, if not already provided in the original application, serving a copy on all participating parties [2] , by 17 May 2007 .   Applicant ILECs are also to provide, unless they have already done so, a copy of all competitor-specific information, for which they claim confidentiality, to each individual competitor to which the information relates.
   
   The Commission notes that the application will be returned to the applicant ILEC as deficient if the information is not received by 17 May 2007 .
   
2. Where an applicant ILEC designates information filed with the Commission as confidential, it must provide the reasons for its claim of confidentiality at the time it files the information with the Commission.   Applicant ILECs are to resubmit all claims of confidentiality made in the original local forbearance application.   If they claim confidentiality, the other participating parties have two calendar days to make representations to the Commission, clearly stating why they consider that the disclosure of the information filed in confidence is in the public interest, serving a copy on the party claiming confidentiality.   The applicant ILEC will have two calendar days to file a reply, serving a copy on the participating parties.
   
3. Commission staff will issue a determination on the confidentiality requests shortly thereafter.
   
4. Competitors are to file the requested information [3] in Appendices 2 to 4, as applicable, serving a copy on all participating parties and the applicant ILEC, by 28 May 2007 .
   
5. Where a competitor designates information filed with the Commission as confidential, it must provide the reasons for its claim of confidentiality at the time it files the information with the Commission.   If they claim confidentiality the other participating parties and the applicant ILEC have two calendar days to make representations to the Commission, clearly stating why they consider that the disclosure of the information filed in confidence is in the public interest, serving a copy on the party claiming confidentiality.   The party claiming confidentiality will have two calendar days to file a reply, serving a copy on the participating parties and the applicant ILEC.
   
6. Commission staff will issue a determination on the confidentiality requests shortly thereafter.
   
7. Comments on the applications are to be filed, serving a copy on all participating parties and the applicant ILEC, by 6 June 2007 .
   
8. Reply comments on the applications are to be filed, serving a copy on all participating parties, by 11 June 2007 .

The Commission notes that some parties also requested that the timelines noted in paragraphs 4 and 6 of Telecom Circular 2007-13 be amended to permit parties other than the ILECs a full 30 days to comment.   In order to process applications as quickly as possible and in light of the clarifications provided in this letter, the Commission considers that maintaining the shorter comment process is reasonable.

Bell Aliant competitor quality of service results

The Commission also notes that MTS Allstream requested that Bell Aliant restate its Competitor Quality of Service results to include results for those areas of Ontario and Quebec that now form part of its operating territory.   The Commission considers that this matter is more appropriately addressed in the comments filed with respect to the specific application.

Yours sincerely,

Robert A. Morin
Secretary General

Attach.

cc:   Mario Bertrand, CRTC (819) 994-0294

[1]       When filing the information with the Commission, applicant ILECs are requested to indicate the Commission's file number corresponding to the original ILEC application as shown on the Commission's website.

[2]       Participating parties is defined in Timelines for submissions regarding local forbearance applications , Telecom Circular CRTC 2007-13, 19 April 2007 (Telecom Circular 2007-13).

[3]       When filing the information, competitors are requested to indicate the Commission's file number corresponding to the applicant ILEC original application as shown on the Commission's website.

APPENDIX 1

Application template for forbearance from the regulation of local exchange services
(for applications filed pursuant to paragraph 242 (ii) and 242 (iii) of Telecom Decision 2006-15, as varied by P.C. 2007-532)

Part A - Submission

In part A, the ILEC must include its submission as to why it believes it is entitled to forbearance in the relevant market applied for.

In part A, the ILEC must also include the following:

Relevant market

• The ILEC must identify whether the relevant product market is for residential or business local exchange services.
  
• The ILEC must list the relevant tariff items and numbers from which forbearance is being sought, for example, general tariffs, current promotions, all bundles, customer specific arrangements, Special Facilities Tariffs, etc.
  
• The ILEC must identify the specific exchange for which forbearance is requested.

Part B - Evidence

In part B, the ILEC must include the following evidence:

1)   Competitor Presence Test

• The name of the competitor(s) offering services in the exchange on whose presence the applicant ILEC justifies its forbearance request.
  
• The name of the competitor(s) co-located at each ILEC wire centre for each of the exchanges for which the ILEC is requesting forbearance.
  
• For each exchange, by wire centre and by remote, the total number of residential and business local access lines, as applicable, capable of being served with local exchange services by the applicant ILEC. The information should indicate the name and location of each remote and each wire centre.  
  
• A list of Forward Sortation Areas (FSAs) [1] assigned [2] to each wire centre in the exchange for which the ILEC is requesting forbearance and the number of household estimated by mapping FSAs onto local exchange boundaries.
  
• All evidence supporting the conclusions set out in the local forbearance application by exchange for each of the exchanges for which the applicant ILEC is requesting local forbearance.
  
• All assumptions made to demonstrate that the local forbearance criteria are met.

2)   Competitor Quality of Service

• Competitor quality of service information is to be filed with the same detail and in the same format as it is submitted in quarterly reports, including an abridged version for the public record showing the percentage results by competitor, as directed in Finalization of quality of service rate rebate plan for competitors , Telecom Decision 2005-20, 31 March 2005 .
  
• Consistent with the Commission's directive in a letter dated 15 January 2002 , applicant ILECs are to provide a copy of competitor-specific quality of service results, for which it claims confidentiality, to each individual competitor to which the information relates.

Part C - Communications plan

In part C, the ILEC must include a draft communications plan for Commission approval. The draft communications plan should include the following:

• information for customers, to be provided through billing inserts, marketing material and customer service representatives, that local exchange services have been forborne and what that will mean for customers, that is, what changes, if any, will occur to local exchange services, consumer rights, etc.;
  
• information on the ongoing availability of stand-alone PES at existing rates in the relevant market; and
  
• contact information, such as phone and fax numbers and web addresses, of the ILEC, the Commission and any other relevant bodies that can address customers' questions and concerns.

NOTE:

Information material provided in the communications plan should be clearly visible, readily accessible and written in a style that is simple and user-friendly.   The language used should reflect the circumstances in which the notification is provided.   Avoid unnecessary use of upper case letters, narrow spacing or anything else that may impede readability.   Written material must be in 12 point font or larger.

[1]       The FSAs are the first three digits of the postal code.   The number of households in each postal code is available from Canada Post.

[2]       FSAs that span more than one exchange should be assigned to the exchange containing the majority of the FSA's square footage.

APPENDIX 2

Information to be filed by Competitive Local Exchange Carriers using their own facilities to provide local exchange services 

Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs) using their own facilities to provide local exchange services, identified as a competitor on whose presence the applicant ILEC justifies its forbearance request in an exchange, are to file the following information.

1)    For each wire centre in each exchange, provide the total number of residential and business local access lines [1] , as applicable, capable of being served with local exchange services.   If this information is not available, provide:

a)   Residential local exchange services:   For each wire centre in the exchange, provide the total number of households capable of being served with local exchange services, based on the FSAs information provided by the ILEC in response to Appendix 1.

b)   Business local exchange services:   For each wire exchange in the exchange, provide the total number of business local access lines capable of being served with local exchange services, based on the FSAs information provided by the ILEC in response to Appendix 1.

2)    Provide all assumptions made and all evidence supporting your conclusions.

3)    If it is not possible to provide the information above, the Commission is considering using the following proxy methodology for residential competitor presence.   Provide your comments on the proposed proxy methodology.

Data Source:   The Commission will use the broadband Internet subscriber information collected for the period ending December 2006 for its annual monitoring process, by competitor, and will map subscriptions by six character postal code (FSALDU) to each specific ILEC exchange.

Proxy Methodology:   Where a CLEC using its own facilities to provide local exchange services reports one broadband subscription in an FSALDU, the Commission will deem that the CLEC is capable of serving all households in the FSALDU.   Under this methodology, households will be used as a proxy for residential local access lines.

[1]      Local access lines are measured by NAS. For this purpose, NAS is defined as a wireline connection from a customer location to the PSTN which includes 1) a telephone number, 2) a connection to the PSTN and 3) access from the customer location to the service provider's office.

APPENDIX 3

Information to be filed by Competitive Local Service Providers
who rely on Local Exchange Carrier's or third parties' leased local access transmission facilities to provide local exchange services

Competitive Local Service Providers who rely on Local Exchange Carriers' leased local access transmission facilities to provide local exchange services identified as a competitor on whose presence the applicant ILEC justifies its forbearance request in an exchange, are to file the following information.

1. For each exchange, identify each ILEC wire centre where you offer service.
   
2. Provide, by wire centre and by remote, the percentage of the total number of residential and business local access lines, as applicable, capable of being served with local exchange services.
   
3. Provide all assumptions made and all evidence supporting your conclusions.

APPENDIX 4

Information to be filed by Wireless Service Providers

Wireless service providers, identified as a competitor on whose presence the applicant ILEC justifies its forbearance request in an exchange, are to file the following information for each exchange.

1.    Confirm that your wireless service is capable of covering at least 75% of the exchange.

2.    In the event that your wireless service does not cover at least 75% of the exchange, provide an estimate of the percentage of the exchange capable of being served by your wireless services including all assumptions made and all evidence supporting your conclusions for each exchange for which the applicant ILEC is requesting local forbearance.

Distribution List :

smacdonald@mtt.ca ;  donald.woodford@bell.ca ;  pdowns@nexicom.net ;  rwi_gr@rci.rogers.com ;  reglementa@telebec.com ;  dmccaffrey@kenora.com ;  regulatory.matters@aliant.ca ;   drew.gordon@bell.ca ;  document.control@sasktel.sk.ca ;  sdrew@globalstar.ca ;  regulatory.affairs@telus.com ;  intervention@newnorth.ca ;  peter.diedrich@tbaytel.com ;  regulatory.aff@fidomobile.ca ;  alain.duhaime@sogetel.com ;  iworkstation@mtsallstream.com ;  andrew@isptelecom.net ;  regulatory@corporate.fcibroadband.com ;  brenda.stevens@rci.rogers.com ; JohnP@mountaincable.on.ca ;  Regulatory@sjrb.ca ;  regaffairs@quebecor.com ;  jesse@vianet.ca ;  regulatory.affairs@telus.com ;  david.watt@rci.rogers.com ;  regulr@bmts.com ; reglementaire@maskatel.qc.ca ;  steve@wtccommunications.ca ;  regulatory@distributel.ca ;  documents@accesscomm.ca ;  ataylor@personainc.ca ;  mlaurent@cooptel.qc.ca ;  lcouture@telwarwick.qc.ca ;   ian.stevens@execulink.com ;  pdowns@nexicom.net ;  natalie.macdonald@corp.eastlink.ca ;  jboutros@globility.ca ; reglementation@xittel.net ; bell.regulatory@bell.ca ; ken.engelhart@rci.rogers.com ;  cataylor@cyberus.ca ;  jeffrey.fan@ubs.com ;  dave.jarrett@sympatico.ca ;  taylor.richard@cb-bc.gc.ca ;  arthur.gottlieb@sympatico.ca ;  icollins@torontohydro.com ;  dmckeown@viewcom.ca ;  piac@piac.ca ;  stinsond@comnet.ca ;  Peter.Rhamey@bmonb.com ;  lefebvre@rogers.com ;  regulatory.affairs@alcatel.com ;  gordonp@lao.on.ca ;  stikeman@tactix.ca ;  kirsten.embree@fmc-law.com ;  pleblanc@iedm.org ;  crtc@mhgoldberg.com ;  antecol@phmlaw.com ;  reglementation@xittel.net ;  amedeo.bernardi@ontera.ca ;  abriggs@cogeco.ca ;  joe.parent@vonage.com ;  ghariton@sympatico.ca ;  regulatory@lya.com ;  calgaryregulatory@calgary.ca ;  reglementation@xittel.net ;  regulatoryca@aol.com ;  christian.tacit@cybersurf.com ;  lisangus@angustel.ca ;  regaffairs@quebecor.com ;  david.kidd@blakes.com ;  regulatory@primustel.ca ;  progers@osler.com ;  benrovet@rogers.com ;  sabray@satat.qc.ca ;  andre.labrie@mcc.gouv.qc.ca ;  rob.olenick@tbaytel.com ;  sdesy@actq.qc.ca ;  Regulatory@sjrb.ca ;  telecom.regulatory@cogeco.com  ; mandrews@amtelecom.ca ; info@ccsa.cable.ca; tsullivan@wightman.ca ; regmat@ntl.sympatico.ca ; regulatoryaffairs@nwtel.ca