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This page has been archived on the Web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.
Our reference:
8662-C182-201208002
BY EMAIL
To: Distribution list
Re: Application by Canadian Network Operators Consortium Inc. to review and vary Telecom Decision CRTC 2012-209 – Interrogatories
On 3 July 2012, the Canadian Network Operators Consortium Inc. (CNOC) filed a Part 1 Application requesting that the Commission review and vary Telecom Decision CRTC 2012-209.
Commission staff request that Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership and Bell Canada (collectively, the Bell companies); CNOC; Globility Communications Corporation (Globility); MTS Inc. (MTS); and TELUS Communications Company (TCC) respond to the attached interrogatories associated with CNOC’s aforementioned application.
Responses to these interrogatories are to be filed with the Commission and served on all parties to the proceeding, as set out in the distribution list below, by 18 October 2012.
Commission staff notes that, in paragraph 21 of CNOC’s reply comments, CNOC amended its relief requested of the Commission. Parties may file comments on the amended relief requested, and on the responses to these interrogatories, serving copies on all other parties, by 25 October 2012.
CNOC may respond to those comments by 1 November 2012.
Parties that wish to designate some or all of their answers as confidential must do so in accordance with the CRTC Rules of Practice and Procedure.
The Commission requires that your responses be submitted electronically by using the secured service “My CRTC Account” (Partner Log In or GCKey) and filling the “Telecom Cover page” or the “Broadcasting Online Form and Cover Page” located on this web page. Also on this web page you will find information on the submission of applications to the Commission “Submitting applications and other documents to the CRTC using My CRTC Account”.
Documents to be filed and served by specific dates are to be received, not merely sent, by the dates indicated.
All documents should also be sent to kevin.pickell@crtc.gc.ca.
Yours sincerely,
Original signed by
Mario Bertrand
Director, Dispute resolution and Decisions
Telecommunications
c.c.: Kevin Pickell, CRTC kevin.pickell@crtc.gc.ca
Distribution List
Mr. Denis E. Henry
Vice-President - Regulatory, Government Affairs and Public Law
Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership
160 Elgin Street, Floor 19
Ottawa, ON K2P 2C4
regulatory@bell.aliant.ca
Mr. Philippe Gauvin
Senior Counsel - Regulatory Law & Policy
Bell Canada
160 Elgin Street, Floor 19
Ottawa, ON K2P 2C4
bell.regulatory@bell.ca
Mr. Bill Sandiford
Chair of the Board and President
Canadian Network Operators Consortium Inc.
107-85 Curlew Drive
Toronto, ON M3A 2P8
regulatory@cnoc.ca
Mr. Joe Boutros
President
Globility Communications Company
5343 Dundas Street West, Suite 500
Toronto, ON M9B 6K5
jboutros@globility.ca
Ms. Teresa Griffin-Muir
Vice President, Regulatory Affairs
MTS Inc.
45 O’Connor Street, Suite 1400
Ottawa, ON K1P 1A4
iworkstation@mtsallstream.com
Mr. Ted Woodhead
Vice-president Telecom Policy & Regulatory Affairs
TELUS Communications Company
215 Slater Street, Floor 8
Ottawa, ON K1P 0A6
regulatory.affairs@telus.com
ATTACHMENT
Interrogatories addressed to CNOC
1. In CNOC’s application, CNOC states that a co-located competitor would not be able to obtain sufficient connectivity to meet long term expectations and their retail customers’ needs because:
- the use of average peak usage for high-speed-access-enabled loops means that it will not actually be possible for a co-located competitor to qualify to order loops with a peak usage higher than the average1, and
- some COs will, by definition, have higher peak use than the average peak across all COs2.
Provide specific examples when CNOC members were unable to obtain sufficient connectivity to meet their long term expectations and/or retail customers’ needs as a result of the average peak period usage methodology introduced by the Commission in Telecom Decision CRTC 2012-209.
2. In CNOC’s application, CNOC states in paragraph 20:
“The reality today is that efficient connectivity purchases are made using 100 Mbps, 1 Gbps, or 10 Gbps links. To require a co-locator to purchase capacity in other types of increments so they do not exceed a peak usage imposed for regulatory reasons would create an inordinate expense and inefficiency in the co-located process, as co-located competitors cobble together capacity from multiple smaller increments that are more expensive to provision.”
Provide specific examples when CNOC members were required to purchase capacity in smaller increments as a result of the primary purpose rule (PPR) that resulted in additional expense and inefficiency. Provide sufficient rate information to detail the additional expense incurred.
Interrogatory addressed to all parties
3. In CNOC’s application, CNOC submits that the average peak period usage methodology introduced by the Commission in Telecom Decision CRTC 2012-209 is unworkable and would lead to an undue lessening of competition.3 CNOC therefore initially proposed replacing that methodology with a different rule, whereby there not be any exchange of data between co-locators in an ILEC CO that does not originate or is not destined for at least one of those co-locator’s unbundled loops leased from the ILEC. 4
The parties to the proceeding were generally of the view that CNOC’s proposed rule was unworkable. 5
Given the issues that CNOC identified in 1a and 1b above, comment on the following alternatives:
a. Provide your views on modifying the average peak period usage methodology introduced by the Commission in Telecom Decision CRTC 2012-209 so that the co-located carrier would use the average peak usage of its high-speed-access-enabled loops averaged for each co-located CO.
b. Provide your views on modifying the average peak period usage methodology introduced by the Commission in Telecom Decision CRTC 2012-209 so that a co-located carrier could purchase excess capacity for a specified time period, but where failure to meet the PPR requirements at the conclusion of that specified time period would result in financial penalties applied to that co-located carrier by the ILEC.
c. Provide any other alternatives that you think would be appropriate.
In your discussion of the alternatives, provide your assessment of the impact that each alternative would have on the primary purpose of co-location, the issues raised by CNOC, and the ease of implementation and administration.
[1] Paragraph 17 of CNOC’s application.
[2] Paragraph 18 of CNOC’s application.
[3] Paragraph 15 of CNOC’s application.
[4] Paragraph 23 of CNOC’s application.
[5] See paragraph 8 of the Bell companies’ intervention, paragraphs 26-28 of Globility’s intervention, paragraph 23 of MTS’s intervention, and paragraphs 20-21 of TCC’s intervention.
- Date modified: