Telecom Order CRTC 2011-223

PDF version

Ottawa, 1 April 2011

Shaw Cablesystems G.P. – Modifications to third-party Internet access tariffs pursuant to Telecom Regulatory Policy 2010-632

File numbers: Tariff Notices 13 and 14


1.         The Commission received applications by Shaw Cablesystems G.P. (Shaw), dated 27 September 2010, proposing to modify its wholesale third-party Internet access (TPIA) tariff to reflect the determinations set out in Telecom Regulatory Policy 2010-632 regarding interconnection types[1] as well as restrictions on use of TPIA services.

2.         Shaw proposed to revise its TPIA tariff to remove wording regarding restrictions on local area network (LAN) connection services and virtual private network (VPN) services. It also proposed to amend its TPIA tariff to allow for gigabit Ethernet (GigE) interconnection. Shaw submitted that its proposals are consistent with the determinations in Telecom Regulatory Policy 2010-632.

3.         In addition, Shaw indicated that GigE interconnection will replace ATM[2] and OCS[3] Packet over SONET[4] interconnection types, which are not supported by its new routers. Shaw added that no Internet service provider has requested interconnection based on ATM or OCS Packet over SONET technologies.

4.         The Commission approved Shaw’s applications on an interim basis in Telecom Order 2010-758.

5.         The Commission received comments on the applications from the Canadian Network Operators Consortium (CNOC). The public record of this proceeding, which closed on 8 November 2010, is available on the Commission’s website at under “Public Proceedings” or by using the file numbers provided above.

6.         The Commission has identified the following issues to be addressed in this order:

I.       Should Shaw be required to amend its standard-form TPIA agreement to reflect the amendments made to its TPIA tariff?

II.    When should Shaw implement GigE interconnection?

III.  Should Shaw be allowed to withdraw ATM and OCS Packet over SONET interconnections?

I.        Should Shaw be required to amend its standard-form TPIA agreement?

7.         CNOC submitted that, in addition to providing GigE interconnection as directed by the Commission, Shaw should amend its standard-form TPIA agreement, which references TPIA interconnection methods, to incorporate references to GigE interconnection.

8.         The Commission considers that, because Shaw’s standard-form TPIA agreement references existing available interconnection service types such as DS-3 and Fast Ethernet 100 Base-FX, it should be amended to reflect the availability of GigE interconnection. Therefore, the Commission directs Shaw to amend its standard-form TPIA agreement to reflect the availability of GigE interconnection within 15 days of the date of this order, providing a copy to the Commission.

II.     When should Shaw implement GigE interconnection?

9.         CNOC submitted that, while Shaw had proposed to implement its GigE interconnection service effective 1 April 2011, Cogeco Cable Inc., Rogers Communications Partnership, and Videotron Ltd. were not proposing to delay GigE implementation in their networks. CNOC submitted that Shaw should therefore be required to implement its GigE interconnection type no later than 1 February 2011.

10.     Shaw submitted that, in order to meet CNOC’s proposed 1 February 2011 implementation date, it would be required to forego priority migration of existing TPIA customer interconnections and begin accepting new applications immediately upon the installation of the new routers. Shaw submitted that this would cause a delay in upgrading services for all existing TPIA customers and would force it to operate the older routers for a longer period of time.

11.     The Commission considers it appropriate to allow Shaw to migrate its existing TPIA customers to its GigE interconnection type before accepting applications from new end-users.

12.     Accordingly, the Commission approves Shaw’s proposal to implement its GigE interconnection type, effective 1 April 2011.

III.     Should Shaw be allowed to withdraw ATM and OCS Packet over SONET interconnections?

13.     The Commission notes that no comments were received regarding Shaw’s proposal to withdraw ATM and OCS Packet over SONET interconnections from its list of TPIA interconnection types. Accordingly, the Commission approves this proposal.


14.     In light of all the above, the Commission approves on a final basis Shaw’s applications. Given that this order is dated 1 April 2011, Shaw’s proposed effective date, the Commission finds that Shaw must implement GigE interconnection effective the date of this order.

Secretary General

Related documents


[1]     Physical interconnection between the competitors’ networks and the cable carriers’ networks, which are typically available at different speeds and protocols

[2]     Asynchronous transfer mode

[3]     Optical carrier system

[4]     Synchronous optical network

Date modified: