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This page has been archived on the Web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, 9 December 2010

Our Reference:  8638-C12-201015207

BY E-MAIL

DISTRIBUTION

Dear Madam, Sir:

Re: Follow up to Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2010-632, Wholesale high-speed access services proceeding – (Show cause): Interrogatories

To assist the Commission in its determinations in this proceeding, relevant parties are to file responses to the attached interrogatories.  The appendix contains interrogatories to
Cogeco Cable Inc., Quebecor Media Inc., on behalf of its affiliate Videotron Ltd.,
Rogers Communications and Shaw Communications Inc. (collectively, the cable carriers), Canadian Network Operators Consortium (CNOC), Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP), Vaxination Informatique (Vaxination), and Telus Communications Company (TCC).

Process for interrogatory responses and comment is set out below:

Relevant parties are to file responses to the interrogatories by 22 December 2010;

Parties may file comments by 10 January 2011, which comments are to be restricted to the additional information provided in the interrogatory responses;

Parties may file reply comments by 17 January 2011.

The above material is to be filed with the Commission and served on all parties in accordance with the above-noted process.  Documents to be filed and served are to be received, not merely sent, by the dates indicated.

Yours sincerely,

Original signed by

Yvan Davidson,
Senior Manager
Costing and Competitive Services
Telecommunications

DISTRIBUTION LIST

regulatoryaffairs@nwtel.cabell.regulatory@bell.careglementa@telebec.comdocument.control@sasktel.sk.caiworkstation@mtsallstream.comregulatory@bell.aliant.caRegulatory.Matters@corp.eastlink.caRegulatory@sjrb.camarcel.mercia@cybersurf.comreglementation@xittel.net regulatory@distributel.calisagoetz@globalive.comregulatory@primustel.catelecom.regulatory@cogeco.comregaffairs@quebecor.comken.engelhart@rci.rogers.comregulatory.affairs@telus.comcrtc@mhgoldberg.comeric@rothschildco.comgfletcher@incentre.netberzins@nucleus.combabramson@mccarthy.caregulatory@execulink.comctacit@tacitlaw.comabriggs@cogeco.caslavalevin@ethnicchannels.comcrtc@les.netLBC_Consulting@live.caandre.labrie@mcccf.gouv.qc.cabob.Allen@abccomm.comghariton@sympatico.calefebvre@rogers.comkirsten.embree@fmc-law.combruce@brucebuchanan.netjonathan.holmes@ota.on.cacataylor@cyberus.cachris.allen@abccomm.comregulatory@vianet.capiac@piac.catom.copeland@caip.ca hemond@consommateur.qc.cablackwell@giganomics.cajhpratt@msn.comcrtc@paul.capris@pris.ca regulatory@lya.comregulatory@teksavvy.comdmckeown@viewcom.caDavid.Wilkie@tbaytel.comregulatory@fibernetics.cajfmezei@vaxination.castephen.scofich@tbaytel.comregulatory@bcba.cacrtcmail@gmail.comtelecom@gov.bc.ca; regulatory@cnoc.ca

APPENDIX

Interrogatories to Cogeco Cable Inc., Quebecor Media Inc., on behalf of its affiliate Videotron Ltd., Rogers Communications and Shaw Communications Inc.
(collectively, the cable carriers)

1. Provide the company’s current end-user demand for static IP addresses associated with the company’s retail services.

2. For the current TPIA service, describe the sequence of steps by which an IP address is associated with an end-user’s cable modem, beginning at the time that the end-user turns on the cable modem, and ending at the time the cable modem has been configured with an IP address, ready for use by an end-user.

3. In its submission dated 27 October 2010, Vaxination Informatique (Vaxination) proposed three approaches for providing end-users of the TPIA service with fixed IP addresses as summarized below:

i. Approach One: Dynamic host configuration protocol (DHCP)-based dynamic allocation of IP addresses utilizing two groups of addresses per ISP per CMTS, with one group having a short lease length and the other group with long lease length; the ISP’s cable modems would be configured to receive parameters from one of the two groups (see paragraphs 15 to 17 of Vaxination’s submission for a detailed explanation)

ii. Approach Two: IP address allocation utilizing two groups of addresses per ISP per CMTS, with one group of addresses assigned on a dynamic basis and the second group assigned on a static basis; the ISP would advise the cable carrier to set up an end-user’s modem with static assignment to a selected IP address ( see paragraphs 18 and 19 of Vaxination’s submission for a detailed explanation)

iii. Approach Three: The ISP sets up its end customer as if he were dynamic.  The ISP gives the end customer an IP address and the customer creates a static configuration with the fixed IP address and does not use DHCP.  The ISP provides the customer with all parameters and advises him of any changes (see paragraph 20 to 22 of Vaxination’s submission for a detailed explanation)

For each of the three above approaches, each company is to provide its responses to the following questions:

 

a) Explain whether the company currently makes use of this approach (or a similar approach) for providing fixed IP addresses to some end-users of its retail internet access service?  If so, describe the approach, and explain whether the proposed approach would be an acceptable approach for providing fixed IP addresses to end-users of the wholesale TPIA service, with supporting rationale.

b) If in response to part a) the company indicates that it does not currently make use of this approach (or a similar approach) for providing fixed IP addresses, explain whether the approach for providing fixed IP addresses is technically feasible to implement.  If so, describe the modifications required, identifying the resources and activities required; further, provide an estimate of the costs to implement the proposed approach for the wholesale TPIA service; and comment on the economic feasibility of implementing the approach.

c) If in response to part b), the company indicates that the proposed approach is not technically feasible, explain why not.

4. With reference to paragraph 15 of the cable carriers’ reply comments, the cable carriers submitted that “over the top” technologies such as VLANs and Point-to-Point Protocol over Ethernet (PPPoE) were potential alternatives for providing static IP addresses that ISPs could deploy themselves.  Describe how ISPs that make use of the TPIA service could deploy these technologies to provide static IP addresses to
end-users.

5. In their comments, the cable carriers indicated that there were significant costs to providing static IP addresses to TPIA service end-users through the proposed Managed Router solution.  Provide an estimate of the development costs expected to be incurred by the company for implementation of the proposed Managed Router solution for the TPIA service.  Identify the resources and activities required to implement this solution.

6. If the Commission directs each cable carrier to provide static IP addressing for its TPIA service, describe the tariff structure the company would propose to use to charge competitors for the static IP address capability.  The response should identify, with supporting rationale, if the company would propose to provide the service separately or as part of the monthly TPIA service rate.

Interrogatories to the Canadian Network Operators Consortium (CNOC), Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP), Vaxination Informatique (Vaxination)

1. With reference to paragraph 15 of the cable carriers’ reply comments, the cable carriers submitted that “over the top” technologies such as VLANs and Point-to-Point Protocol over Ethernet (PPPoE) were potential alternatives for providing static IP addresses that ISPs could deploy themselves.  Describe how ISPs that make use of the TPIA service could deploy these technologies to provide static IP addresses to end-users.

Interrogatories to Telus Communications Company (TCC)

1. In paragraph 11 of their comments, the cable carriers indicated that TCC, on its web site, noted that “For service plans with static IP addresses, a computer or device will have a
Long Lease IP address; however it must be requested via DHCP”.  Describe the IP address allocation mechanism used by TCC to provide such IP addresses to end-users using DHCP. Provide the company’s rationale for using this approach, identifying any advantages over other potential approaches for “service plans with static IP addresses”.

2. In paragraph 13 of its comments, TCC submitted that “there should be less complex solutions available to the Cable Carriers to enable the wholesale ISPs to provide their solutions to their end-customers”.  Identify and comment on “less complex solutions” that could be available to the cable carriers to enable the wholesale ISPs to provide their solutions to their end-customers.

Date modified: