ARCHIVED - Letter

Ottawa, 27 April 2009 

Reference: 8660-M59-200816994

To: Distribution list

Re: The Commission is re-opening the proceeding initiated by MTS Allstream's Part VII application dated 18 December 2008, inviting parties to provide comments on issues set out in paragraph 10 and setting timeframes for the proceeding

1. The Commission received an application by MTS Allstream Inc. (MTS Allstream), dated 18 December 2008, requesting that the Commission direct incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) to adhere to standard service intervals in all situations where provisioning is completely within the control of the ILEC, and to measure service delivery accordingly for competitor quality of service (CQofS) indicator 1.19 (Requested Due Date Met – CDN Services).
    
2. In its application, MTS Allstream requested, among other things, that at a minimum, the Commission direct the ILECs to cease and desist incorrectly classifying as “no facilities” any orders for competitor digital network at DS-1 rate (CDN DS-1) 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;
   Additional common equipment is required in growth serving central offices.
   
   
3. MTS Allstream also requested that the Commission direct the ILECs to identify the nature of the facilities shortage whenever the ILEC claims a valid “no facilities” situation.
   
   
4. In a letter dated 15 January 2009, Commission staff clarified that, consistent with the Commission's findings in 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 (Decision 2006-34), it considered that the circumstances identified by MTS Allstream in its application or circumstances similar in nature do not justify the “no facilities” claim and that no further process was required.
   
   
5. On 11 February 2009, TELUS Communications Company (TCC) submitted that the four circumstances identified in MTS Allstream's Part VII application describe the last step in a process to ultimately provide CDN DS-1 access and do not take into account the work that needs to be done to get to the final step in the process.   TCC set out, in support of its claim, two examples of work required to get to that final step.   TCC requested that Commission staff re-open the MTS Allstream Part VII proceeding and allow for parties to comment on the substantive part of the application.
   
   
6.  In a letter dated 18 February 2009, Commission staff addressed whether each example described by TCC in its letter would justify a “no facilities available” claim pursuant to the Commission's findings in Decision 2006-34.
   
   
7. On 9 March 2009, TCC submitted to the Commission that, following an internal review, TCC's treatment of retail customers is similar to the treatment of wholesale customers and therefore, TCC's interpretation of the applicability of the no facilities exception remains valid.
   
   
8. In a letter to the Commission dated 19 March 2009, Saskatchewan Telecommunications (SaskTel) submitted that in order to provide useful guidance to the industry, the definition of “no facilities available” situations should resolve certain ambiguities and listed some in support of its submission.
   
   
9. On 22 April 2009, TCC filed a letter requesting that a process be established to allow for resolution of the issue related to the “no facilities available” situation which would include either re-opening the process initiated by the MTS Allstream's application or initiating an entirely new proceeding to examine the calculation of CQofS indicator 1.19.
   
   
10. Given the different suggested interpretations of a “no facilities available” situation, Commission staff is re-opening the process initiated by the MTS Allstream application dated 18 December 2008.  Accordingly, parties are invited to provide comments on the MTS Allstream's application and also:
    
    a)   propose a clear definition, with supporting rationale, of a “no facilities available” situation that is consistent with the Commission's findings in paragraph 59 of Decision 2006-34 which reads as follows:
    
    “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.
    
    ”b)   provide in support of the proposed definition in a) above a list of activities/circumstances that would and would not justify a “no facilities available” claim by an ILEC in response to a request for CDN service.
    
    
11. All correspondence filed with the Commission in relation to this issue is made part of the record of this proceeding and can be found on the Commission website at www.crtc.gc.ca under “Public Proceeding” or at the following direct website link http://www.crtc.gc.ca/PartVII/eng/2008/8660/m59_ 200816994. htm.   As well, the section dealing with the “no facilities available” situation in the CISC non consensus report, dated 12 December 2008, entitled CDN DS1 Process – follow-up to Decision 2008-68 (BPRE069a report) is also made part of this proceeding.   The BPRE069a report can also be found on the Commission's website at the following direct website link: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/cisc/eng/cisf3e0e.htm.
    
    
12. Given the uncertainty surrounding the “no facilities available” issue, it is unclear whether CQofS indicator 1.19 has been met by those companies that filed CQofS indicator 1.19 performance results with the Commission in support of forbearance applications for retail local exchange services.   Accordingly, the Commission will not dispose of existing and future forbearance applications that must be supported by CQofS indicator 1.19 performance results until the Commission has made a determination concerning the “no facilities available” issue in this proceeding.
    
    Procedure
    
    
13. All parties may file comments with the Commission, serving copies on all other parties, by 12 May 2009.
    
    
14. Parties may file reply comments with the Commission, serving copies on all other parties, on the submissions filed pursuant to paragraph 12 by 22 May 2009.
    
    
15. 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.

Yours truly,

Original signed by

John Traversy
Executive Director 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

Date modified:

2009-04-27