ARCHIVED - Letter
This page has been archived on the Web
Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. Archived Decisions, Notices and Orders (DNOs) remain in effect except to the extent they are amended or reversed by the Commission, a court, or the government. The text of archived information has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Changes to DNOs are published as “dashes” to the original DNO number. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats by contacting us.
Ottawa, 15 January 2009
File: 8660-M59-200816994
By email
Distribution
Subject: MTS Allstream Inc. - Part VII application concerning the provisioning of competitor digital network services in accordance with competitor quality of service standards
On 18 December 2008, the Commission received a Part VII application from MTS Allstream Inc. (MTS Allstream) alleging that Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs) are incorrectly claiming that facilities are not available when processing requests for Competitor Digital Network (CDN) from competitors. MTS Allstream requested that the Commission direct the ILECs to:
- adhere to the approved standard service intervals in all situations where provisioning is completely within the control of the ILEC;
- measure service delivery accordingly for competitive quality of service (C QofS) indicator 1.19[1]; and
- cease and desist incorrectly classifying as “no facilities”, any request for CDN DS1 accesses where:
- Line transfers are required in the outside plant;
- Loop conditioning is required which does not involve underground plant;
- Line cards are required in the serving central office; and
- Additional common equipment is required in growth serving central offices.
In addition, MTS Allstream requested that the ILECs be directed to identify the specific basis of a “no facilities” claim when responding to a CDN request.
Commission staff notes that the principle underlying the provision of CDN services is that competitors’ requests be treated the same as requests from the ILECs’ retail customers for comparable services.
Further, in paragraph 59 of Follow-up to Finalization of quality of service rate rebate plan for competitors, Telecom Decision CRTC 2005-20 - Service intervals for provisioning CDN services and Type C loops, Telecom Decision CRTC 2006 34, 26 May 2006 (Telecom Decision 2006-34), the Commission stated:
“The Commission notes that where facilities required for CDN service or Type C loops are not available, ILECs need to conduct economic studies before deciding to invest in a network extension. They also need to design work plans, secure rights of way and permits, and order equipment before building, testing, and putting the new network into service. The Commission notes that many of these steps are not completely within the ILECs' control. The Commission considers that this supports the need for the ILECs and their customers to negotiate the in-service date.”
Commission staff considers that in the above paragraph, the Commission clearly contemplated that claims that facilities were not available were limited to circumstances where network extensions were required, involving, among other things, the need for economic studies, the securing of rights of way and of permits, and the design of work plans.
To the extent that ILECs are claiming that there are no facilities in the specific circumstances or similar circumstances to those, identified by MTS Allstream in its application, Commission staff considers that those circumstances are clearly inconsistent with the Commission’s criteria and do not justify the “no facilities” claim. To the extent that the competitors’ requests for CDN services involve the specific circumstances, or similar circumstances to those identified by MTS Allstream, and the ILECs are invoking the “no facilities” claim, they are to immediately stop from doing so and provision the requested CDN services in accordance with the established relevant C QofS standards, consistent with the interpretation in this letter.
Further, the ILECs are to inform the competitor in question as to the specific basis of a “no facilities” claim when responding to a CDN request.
ILECs that have filed C QofS indicator 1.19 performance results with the Commission in support of pending forbearance applications based on an interpretation of the “no facilities” claim that is inconsistent with the interpretation set out in this letter are to file revised results for this item that reflect the interpretation set out in this letter. No further action will be taken to dispose of the forbearance applications until the ILEC in question has submitted revised results or advises and satisfies the Commission that revised results are not required to comply with the interpretation set out in this letter.
Commission staff considers that this letter addresses MTS Allstream’s application and will close the file accordingly.
The remaining issues pertaining to the CDN process submitted in CDN DS1 Process – follow-up to Decision 2008-68 non-consensus report BPRE069a dated 12 December 2008, will be disposed of separately.
Sincerely,
Original signed by
Paul Godin
Director General
Competition, Costing and Tariffs
Telecommunications
cc: Okacha Merabet (819) 997-3348
Distribution List
Bell Aliant regulatory@bell.aliant.ca
Bell Canada bell.regulatory@bell.ca
Cybersurf marcel.mercia@cybersurf.com
MTS Allstream iworkstation@mtsallstream.com
Persona dean@personainc.ca
Primus regulatory@primustel.ca
Rogers david.watt@rci.rogers.com
SaskTel document.control@sasktel.sk.ca
Shaw Regulatory@sjrb.ca
Télébec reglementa@telebec.com
TCC regulatory.affairs@telus.com
Vidéotron regaffairs@quebecor.com
Eastlink Regulatory.Matters@corp.eastlink.ca
Distributel regulatory@distributel.ca
[1] 1.19 – Requested Due Dates Met – CDN Services
- Date modified: