ARCHIVED - Letter

Ottawa, 6 November 2009

Our Reference:  8663-C12-200907321

BY E-MAIL

Distribution

Re:  Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2009-261, Proceeding to consider the appropriateness of mandating certain wholesale high-speed access services 

Dear Madams, Sirs:

 Pursuant to the procedures specified at paragraph 28 of Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2009-261-6, attached are the Commission interrogatories associated with this proceeding.

Relevant parties are to file their responses with the Commission, serving a copy on all other parties, by 23 November 2009.

These responses are to be received, and not merely sent, by this date.

Appendix 1 contains the distribution list.

Appendix 2 contains interrogatories to designated incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs), cable carriers and competitors (including competitors that have made submissions and ILECs and cable carriers operating outside of their territories).

Yours sincerely,

Paul Godin

Original signed by

Director General

Competition, Costing and Tariffs

Appendix 1

Distribution List

regulatoryaffairs@nwtel.ca;  bell.regulatory@bell.ca;  reglementa@telebec.com;  document.control@sasktel.sk.ca;  iworkstation@mtsallstream.com;  regulatory@bell.aliant.ca;  Regulatory.Matters@corp.eastlink.ca;  Regulatory@sjrb.ca;  marcel.mercia@cybersurf.com;  reglementation@xittel.net ;  regulatory@distributel.ca;  lisagoetz@globalive.com;  regulatory@primustel.ca;  telecom.regulatory@cogeco.com;  regaffairs@quebecor.com;  ken.engelhart@rci.rogers.com;  regulatory.affairs@telus.com;  crtc@mhgoldberg.com;  eric@rothschildco.com;  gfletcher@incentre.net;  berzins@nucleus.com;  babramson@mccarthy.ca;  regulatory@execulink.com;  ctacit@tacitlaw.com;  abriggs@cogeco.ca;  slavalevin@ethnicchannels.com;  crtc@les.net;  LBC_Consulting@live.ca;  andre.labrie@mcccf.gouv.qc.ca;  bob.Allen@abccomm.com;  ghariton@sympatico.ca;  lefebvre@rogers.com;  kirsten.embree@fmc-law.com;  bruce@brucebuchanan.net;  jonathan.holmes@ota.on.ca;  cataylor@cyberus.ca;  chris.allen@abccomm.com;  regulatory@vianet.ca;  piac@piac.ca;  tom.copeland@caip.ca ;  hemond@consommateur.qc.ca;  blackwell@giganomics.ca;  jhpratt@msn.com;  crtc@paul.ca;  pris@pris.ca ;  regulatory@lya.com;  Rocky@TekSavvy.com ;  dmckeown@viewcom.ca;  David.Wilkie@tbaytel.com; elysabeth.aguila@quebecor.com 

Appendix 2

Interrogatories

Interrogatories to the following incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs):

1.  In paragraph 37 of Decision 2008-17, an essential wholesale service was defined as follows:

To be essential, a facility, function, or service must satisfy all of the following conditions:

(i)  The facility is required as an input by competitors to provide telecommunications services in a relevant downstream market;

(ii)  The facility is controlled by a firm that possesses upstream market power such that denying access to the facility would likely result in a substantial lessening or prevention of competition in the relevant downstream market; and

(iii)  It is not practical or feasible for competitors to duplicate the functionality of the facility.

Further, in Decision 2008-17, the Commission stated that the essential service definition would be assessed with regard to a reasonably efficient competitor. With respect to the residential market, the Commission noted that, in applying its standard of a reasonably efficient competitor, it would take into account conditions faced by competing firms, other than the in-territory ILEC or cable carrier that, acting in a reasonably efficient manner, could enter under prevailing market conditions using self-supplied or third-party supplied facilities.

With respect to the definition of an essential service set out in Decision 2008-17, assume that a reasonably efficient competitor is co-located at an ILEC CO and wishes to offer high-speed internet services:

a.  Refer to criteria i) of the definition of an essential service. Explain whether or not, with supporting rationale, such a competitor would require the access functionality between the ILEC serving CO and the end-customer, in order to provide retail residential high-speed internet service.

b.  In relation to the response to part a) above, identify the wholesale service alternatives available to competitors from the company, limited to the access functionality (i.e., excluding transport), that enable a competitor that is co-located at the ILEC serving CO, to provide retail residential high-speed internet service to its end-customers.

c.  In relation to the response to part a) above:

i.  Identify any other access alternatives, including self-supplied facilities, that are available to the competitors to compete in the retail residential high-speed internet market.

ii.  Identify the advantages and disadvantages, if any, associated with each of the alternatives identified by the company in the response to part c) i) above. 

d.  Refer to criteria ii) of the definition of an essential service. Explain whether or not, with supporting rationale, absent the availability to competitors of the access functionality between the ILEC serving CO and the end-customer, there would be a substantial lessening or prevention of competition in the retail residential high-speed internet market. Justify the company’s position in light of, among other things, the percentage of high-speed-capable lines accessible by competitors that are co-located at the ILEC serving CO in its serving territory, as of July 2009.

e.  Refer to criteria iii) of the definition of an essential service. Explain whether or not, with supporting rationale, it is not practical or feasible for competitors to duplicate the access functionality between the ILEC serving CO and the end-customer.

f.  Answer questions a) through e) above as it applies to the retail business high-speed internet market.

 

2.        a. For the total COs identified in __(CRTC)17July09-3, provide separately, the total number of ATM DSLAMs and Ethernet DSLAMs.

b. For the total COs identified in __(CRTC)17July09-3, provide the percentage of DSL capable NAS served by ATM DSLAMs and Ethernet DSLAMs in the company’s operating territory.

c. For COs identified in __(CRTC)17July09-3, for each of 2009, 2010, and 2011, provide the total number of ATM DSLAMs that are forecast:

i.  To be upgraded to Ethernet DSLAMs;

ii. For migration of uplink traffic to an Ethernet layer 2 switch for traffic congestion reasons.

d. With respect to c) above, provide revised start-up costs filed in __(CRTC)17July09-5, assuming that these costs are to be limited to the costs of advancing the planned migration rollout of ATM DSLAMs (that are forecast to be migrated regardless of the outcome of this proceeding).

e. Provide the estimated timeframe and associated costs to migrate an ATM DSLAM uplink.

f. If migrating ATM DSLAM traffic to Ethernet layer 2 switch or concentrators is not practical or feasible, provide a detailed discussion of the company’s reasons and an alternate proposal, within the access network, that would allow for terminating all ATM and Ethernet DSLAM traffic at a single Ethernet interconnection port for competitors at each CO.

3.        The competitors submitted that the high cost of co-location could be a significant economic barrier, which could dampen competitor demand for a wholesale ADSL-CO service.

Provide the company’s views on a possible interconnection solution at a fibre enclosure outside the serving central office as an alternative to co-location, similar to the TPIA interconnection arrangement. The response should include:

a.  The technical configuration, including diagrams.

b.  Any technical concerns foreseen.

c.  The start-up costs by CO, with rationale.

d.  Expected service charges by CO, with rationale.

4.        Provide, in a table format, a complete list of the company’s COs. For each CO identified:

a.  Indicate whether the CO is high-speed DSL capable;

b.  Provide the number of wireline NAS, broken down by business and residential;

c.  Provide the number of DSL capable NAS; and

d.  Identify the rate band of the CO.

5.        a.  Provide the demand forecast for FTTN DSLAM-provisioned wholesale

     aggregated ADSL access service for 2009, 2010 and 2011.

b.  Identify whether the ILEC would continue to offer the wholesale aggregated ADSL access service provisioned on a FTTN DSLAM, upon contract renewal.

c.  Identify whether the ILEC will offer the wholesale aggregated ADSL access service provisioned on a FTTN DSLAM for new demand.

d.  Explain whether the company currently limits the maximum downstream speed for the aggregated ADSL access service offered to competitor end-customers provisioned on a FTTN DSLAM.

e.  Explain whether the company plans to implement a downstream speed limitation for competitor end-customers provisioned on a FTTN DSLAM in the future, provide details.

f.  If speed limitations as noted in d) above are applied, describe the process by which the company limits the maximum downstream speed offered to the competitors’ end-customers.

6.        If the company is required to provide a CO-based ADSL access service, for competitor end-customers migrating from the aggregated ADSL access service provisioned on a FTTN DSLAM to the CO-based ADSL access service, explain whether these customers would continue to be provisioned on the FTTN DSLAM.

7.        The Companies and Telus have submitted that ILEC investments in next-generation access networks would diminish if competitors are provided with mandated access to the ILECs’ retail ADSL service capability. In this context, both The Companies and Telus have proposed measures to limit the capability of their wholesale aggregated ADSL access services relative to the retail high-speed internet access services offered to their end-customers.

a.  Identify and discuss any specific service limitation (e.g. next-generation access speeds not matched, next-generation access configuration excluded), the company would propose to apply to the CO-based ADSL access service.

b.  Assume that the CO-based ADSL access service is mandated and the service is required to be introduced at COs where a total competitor access demand threshold of 100 is met, and is implemented in the following scenarios: i) with service limitations identified in a) above; and ii) without the service limitations identified in a) above. For each of these scenarios, for 2009, 2010 and 2011 provide the total competitor access demand, broken down by new demand and demand migrating from existing wholesale services. Further, identify the list of COs where the CO-based ADSL access service would be initially rolled out; and the total start-up costs broken down between common costs and CO-specific costs.

Interrogatories to TELUS, SaskTel and MTS Allstream

8.        In response to The Companies(CRTC)17Jul09-9, The Companies submitted that in order for Bell Canada and Bell Aliant to be able to offer IPTV service with the wholesale CO-based ADSL access service, both services would be required to share the DSL modem that would be located at the end-customer’s location.

a.  If a CO-based ADSL access service is mandated, discuss how the company would provide the wholesale CO-based ADSL access service to competitors in conjunction with its retail IPTV service.

i.  Identify the provisioning steps and start-up costs associated with provisioning wholesale CO-based ADSL access service in conjunction with the company’s retail IPTV service.

ii.  Identify any service limitations that would apply to the wholesale CO-based ADSL access service.

iii.  If the company plans to offer retail IPTV service and retail high-speed internet service over the same copper loop, identify the maximum downstream speed that would be available to the retail high-speed internet service when the IPTV service is in use.

b.  Indicate how the company plans to offer its IPTV services to end-customers who also purchase high-speed internet access services from a competitor using the company’s wholesale aggregated ADSL access service.

 

Interrogatories to The Companies

8.        In response to The Companies(CRTC)17Jul09-9, The Companies submitted that in order for Bell Canada and Bell Aliant to be able to offer IPTV service with the wholesale CO-based ADSL access service, both services would be required to share the DSL modem that would be located at the end-customer’s location.

a.  Provide The Companies’ views, with rationale, on an efficient provisioning process that would address this requirement; the response should identify who should provide, configure, and manage the end-user modem (ILEC or competitor).

b.  If the customer modem is integral to The Companies’ wholesale CO-based ADSL access service, comment on the applicable costing and pricing principles, with rationale, that should apply to this component.

c.  If the end-customer requesting retail high-speed internet access service from the competitor is not an ILEC IPTV customer, identify the differences in the provisioning processes with those identified in response to a) above.

d.  Identify the maximum downstream speed that would be available to high-speed internet service end-users when the IPTV service is in use.

e.  Confirm that the start-up costs submitted by The Companies in response to __(CRTC)17July09-5 include the costs associated with modifying the processes as set-out in response to a) above; if not provide an estimate of the start-up costs associated with these processes.

f.  Indicate how the company plans to offer its IPTV services to end-customers who also purchase high-speed internet access services from a competitor using the company’s wholesale aggregated ADSL access service.

Interrogatories to the following Cable Carriers:

1.        In paragraph 37 of Decision 2008-17, an essential wholesale service was defined as follows:

     To be essential, a facility, function, or service must satisfy all of the following conditions:

i.  The facility is required as an input by competitors to provide telecommunications services in a relevant downstream market;

ii.  The facility is controlled by a firm that possesses upstream market power such that denying access to the facility would likely result in a substantial lessening or prevention of competition in the relevant downstream market; and

iii.  It is not practical or feasible for competitors to duplicate the functionality of the facility.

Further, in Decision 2008-17, the Commission stated that the essential service definition would be assessed with regard to a reasonably efficient competitor. With respect to the residential market, the Commission noted that, in applying its standard of a reasonably efficient competitor, it would take into account conditions faced by competing firms, other than the in-territory ILEC or cable carrier, that acting in a reasonably efficient manner, could enter under prevailing market conditions using self-supplied or third-party supplied facilities.

With respect to the definition of an essential service set out in Decision 2008-17, assume that a reasonably efficient competitor is interconnected at the company’s local head-end and wishes to offer high-speed internet services.

a.  Refer to criteria i) of the definition of an essential service. Explain whether or not, with supporting rationale, such a competitor would require the access functionality between the company’s local head-end and the end-customer, in order to provide retail residential high-speed internet service.

 

b.  In relation to the response to part a) above, identify the wholesale service alternatives available to competitors from the company, limited to the access functionality (i.e., excluding transport), that enable a competitor that is interconnected at the company’s local head-end, to provide retail residential high-speed internet service to its end-customers.

c.  In relation to the response to part a) above:

i.  Identify any other access alternatives, including self-supplied facilities that, are available to the competitors to compete in the retail residential high-speed internet market;

ii.  Identify the advantages and disadvantages, if any, associated with each of the alternatives identified by the company in the response to part c) i) above. 

d.  Refer to criteria ii) of the definition of an essential service. Explain whether or not, with supporting rationale, absent the availability to competitors of the access functionality between the company’s local head-end and the end-customer, there would be a substantial lessening or prevention of competition in the retail residential high-speed internet market. Justify the company’s position in light of, among other things, the percentage of high-speed-capable lines accessible by competitors that are interconnected at local head-ends in its serving territory, as of July 2009.

e.  Refer to criteria iii) of the definition of an essential service. Explain whether or not, with supporting rationale, it is not practical or feasible for competitors to duplicate the access functionality between the company’s local head-end and the end-customer.

f.  Answer questions a) through e) above as it applies to the retail business high-speed internet market.

2.        If the company is required to provide a local head-end based high-speed internet access service to competitors, provide the company’s views, with supporting rationale, regarding:

a.  The need for the competitors to obtain as an alternative to interconnection at the local head-end, an interconnection at a fibre node served by the local head-end.

b.  The classification and associated pricing principle that should apply to the alternative in part a) above.

c.  Provide a network configuration diagram for the alternative identified in part a) above.

3.        A.  Provide the company’s views as to whether or not, with supporting rationale, there is a need to manage the upstream bandwidth of end-users served by the local head-end based high-speed access service, given that the service would not include the company's transport network.

a.  If there is a need to manage upstream bandwidth, identify and discuss the traffic management policies that would apply to the end-users of the competitor as well as the company.

b.  Provide the company’s views as to whether or not, with supporting rationale, there is a need to manage the downstream bandwidth of end-users served by the local head-end based high-speed access service, given that the service would not include the company's transport network.

c.  If there is a need to manage downstream bandwidth, identify and discuss the traffic management policies that would apply to the end-users of the competitor as well as the company.

d.  Regardless of whether the company agrees with the appropriateness of such an approach, provide an access configuration where the downstream bandwidth for end-users served by the local head-end based high-speed access service is provided to the competitor without the company imposing any traffic management policies.

e.  Identify and discuss, with supporting rationale, the advantages and disadvantages of the access configuration submitted in response to e) above.

Interrogatories to Shaw

4.        For each of the company’s TPIA designated POIs provided in response to __(CRTC)17July2009-02, identify the associated local head-end or hub site.

Interrogatories to:

• Competitors who filed submissions (including those represented by CAIP, QCISP, and Open Source Solutions); and
• Incumbent ILECs and cable carriers outside their territory of incumbency.

1.        In paragraph 37 of Decision 2008-17, an essential wholesale service was defined as follows:

      To be essential, a facility, function, or service must satisfy all of the following conditions:

i.   The facility is required as an input by competitors to provide telecommunications services in a relevant downstream market;

ii.  The facility is controlled by a firm that possesses upstream market power such that denying access to the facility would likely result in a substantial lessening or prevention of competition in the relevant downstream market; and

iii.  It is not practical or feasible for competitors to duplicate the functionality of the facility.

Further, in Decision 2008-17, the Commission stated that the essential service definition would be assessed with regard to a reasonably efficient competitor. With respect to the residential market, the Commission noted that, in applying its standard of a reasonably efficient competitor, it would take into account conditions faced by competing firms, other than the in-territory ILEC or cable carrier, that acting in a reasonably efficient manner, could enter under prevailing market conditions using self-supplied or third-party supplied facilities.
 
With respect to the definition of an essential service set out in Decision 2008-17, assume that a reasonably efficient competitor wishes to co-locate at an ILEC CO or interconnect at a local cable carrier head-end, to offer high-speed internet services.

a.  Refer to criteria i) of the definition of an essential service. Explain whether, or not, with supporting rationale, such a competitor would require the access functionality between the ILEC serving CO or local (serving) cable carrier head-end and the end-customer, in order to provide retail residential high-speed internet service.

b.  In relation to the response to part a) above:

i.   Identify the wholesale service alternatives available from incumbent carriers, limited to the access functionality (i.e., excluding transport), that enable a competitor that is co-located at the ILEC serving CO or local (serving) cable carrier head-end, to provide retail residential high-speed internet service to its end-customer.

ii.   Identify the drawbacks and market limitations, if any, associated with each of the wholesale alternatives identified by the company in b) i) above.

iii.   Provide the number of the company’s retail residential high-speed internet customers that are served using each wholesale access functionality listed in part i) above for the month of July 2009.

c.  In relation to the response to part a) above:

i.  Identify any other access alternatives, including self-supplied facilities, that are available to the company to compete in the retail residential high-speed internet market.

ii.  Identify the advantages and disadvantages, if any, associated with each of the alternatives identified by the company in the response to part c) i) above. 

 

iii.  Provide the number of the company’s retail residential high-speed internet customers that are served by each alternative access functionality listed in part i) above for the month of July 2009.

d.  Refer to criteria ii) of the definition of an essential service. Explain whether or not, with supporting rationale, absent the availability to competitors of the access functionality between the ILEC serving CO or local (serving) cable carrier head-end and the end-customer, there would be a substantial lessening or prevention of competition in the retail residential high-speed internet market.

e.  Refer to criteria iii) of the definition of an essential service. Explain whether or note, with supporting rationale, it is not practical or feasible for competitors to duplicate the access functionality between the ILEC serving CO or local (serving) cable carrier head-end and the end-customer.

f.  Answer questions a) through e) above as it applies to the retail business high-speed internet market.

2.        If the CO-based ADSL access service is mandated and offered at a price of i) 10%, and ii) 30% less than the aggregated ADSL access service price, for each of these two price points, provide the company’s retail high-speed Internet service total demand forecast in the areas served by ILEC COs where the company is currently co-located, for each of 2010, 2011, and 2012.  The response should further identify, separately, the number of ADSL-CO accesses stemming from: i) migration from aggregated ADSL access based customers, with supporting rationale, ii) migration from copper loop based services, with supporting rationale, iii) new demand from existing co-locations, and iv) demand from new co-locations. With respect to iv), discuss, with supporting rationale, the extent to which, if at all, such demand would be impacted by matters such as internet traffic management initiatives.

3.        If the local head-end cable carrier high-speed access service is mandated and offered at a price of i) 10%, and ii) 30% less than the TPIA service price, for each of these two price points, provide the company’s retail high-speed Internet service total demand forecast in the areas served by cable carrier local head-ends where the company is currently interconnected, for each of 2010, 2011, and 2012. The response should further identify, separately, the number of local head-end cable carrier high-speed accesses stemming from: i) migration from TPIA service customers, with supporting rationale, ii) new demand from existing POIs, and iii) demand from new POIs.

4.        In response to The Companies(CRTC)17Jul09-9, The Companies submitted that where both high-speed internet access service and IPTV service are provisioned over the same line, IPTV service would take priority and the high-speed internet access service would be restricted to the remaining access bandwidth. Assume that such a restriction is implemented by the relevant ILEC:

a.  Provide the company’s views on the impact this service limitation would have on the company’s ability to offer a retail high-speed internet service using the ILECs’ ADSL access network.

b.  Provide the company’s views on steps that could be implemented, either by the company or the ILEC, to minimize and/or manage the impact of IPTV service on the high-speed internet service.

5.        In response to The Companies(CRTC)17Jul09-9, The Companies submitted that in order for Bell Canada and Bell Aliant to be able to offer IPTV service and the CO-based ADSL access service defined as universal ADSL-CO service by The Companies, both services would be required to share the DSL modem that would be located at the end-customers location.

a.  Provide the company’s views, with rationale, on an efficient provisioning process that would address this requirement; the response should identify who should provide, configure, and manage the end-user modem (ILEC or competitor).

b.  If the customer modem is integral to the ILEC’s wholesale CO-based ADSL access service, comment on the applicable costing and pricing principles, with rationale, that should apply to this component.

6.        In ___(CRTC)17July09-1 iv) each competitor was asked to indicate whether the transport facilities to the co-location space is self-supplied. Update the company’s response to that interrogatory by identifying whether the transport facility to each co-located CO identified is self-supplied, third-party supplied or leased from the ILEC. If transport facilities are leased from the ILEC, provide rationale for doing so.

7.        Many competitors indicated that they favour the aggregated ADSL access service over TPIA service and cited various reasons for their choice of wholesale high-speed access service, two of which were:  (i) supplier responsiveness, including provisioning delays and associated costs; and (ii) difficulty in obtaining transport facilities to the designated POI locations.

For each of the following two cases:  i) where the competitor has already established a POI and requests TPIA service for an additional end-user, and ii) the competitor’s TPIA end-user service request additionally includes the request to establish a POI, provide:

a.  The detailed service order information that the company is required to provide the cable carrier to initiate a TPIA service request.

b.  A description of the steps and associated timelines, once an end-user service request is made.

8.        If cable carriers were required to provide a local head-end based high-speed internet access service to competitors, provide the company’s views regarding:

a.  The need for cable carriers to offer as an alternative to interconnection at the local head-end, interconnection at a fibre node served by the local head-end.

b.  The classification and associated pricing principle that should apply to the alternative in part a) above.

9.        Provide the rationale whereby the company would select the wholesale high-speed access service of one incumbent (ILEC or cable carrier) over the other, in the case where the following conditions apply:

a.  The high-speed access services are comparably priced;

b.  The maximum downstream access speeds are similar; and

c.  The accessibility and price of the interconnection arrangement is similar.

10.        The competitors submitted that the high cost of co-location could be a significant economic barrier to gaining access to the CO-based ADSL access service, which could dampen competitor demand for the contemplated wholesale ADSL-CO service.
 

a.  Provide the expected start-up costs for co-location on a per CO basis, broken down between tariffed services and the company’s other costs.

b.  While cable carriers’ TPIA service permits interconnection at a fibre enclosure just outside the local head-end, the ILECs require co-location in the CO. Provide the company’s views on a possible interconnection solution at a fibre enclosure outside the serving central office as an alternative to co-location in the CO. Provide any technical concerns foreseen.
 

Additional Interrogatory to The Companies outside their territory of incumbency

11.        The Commission in __(CRTC)17Jul09-1 requested that each incumbent carrier, outside its serving territory, provide the number of end-customers served using an ILEC’s aggregated ADSL service, by serving CO, specifying whether the Company has established co-location at that serving CO.

The Companies in their response indicated that the requested information is not readily available at the level of detail being requested. For each of Bell Aliant and Bell Canada:

a.  Provide the number of end-customers served outside The Companies’ serving territory that are provisioned using the ILECs’ wholesale aggregated ADSL access service. Provide the information by province for each ILEC.

b.  Identify the circumstances under which the company would choose to serve an end-customer using the aggregated ADSL access service, where it has already established a co-location and has its own DSLAM equipment.

Date modified:

2009-11-16