Telecom Procedural Letter Addressed to distribution list

Ottawa, 8 September 2016

Our reference: 8663-M4-201601881

By Email

Distribution List

Subject:  Plan to implement local competition (Sogetel Inc.) in the Nantes constituency - Abridged – 08 Sept 2016

Dear Madam and Sirs:

On June 30, 2016, the Commission received Sogetel Inc. (Sogetel)’s plan to implement local competition in response to the application filed by CoopTel, on behalf of Câble Axion Digitel Inc. (Axion), to provide local services as a competitive local service in the Nantes constituency.

The Commission requires additional information in order to complete its evaluation of Sogetel’s plan to implement local competition in the Nantes constituency.

Sogetel must submit its responses to the Commission’s request for information attached to this letter, no later than September 19, 2016, and copy the parties on the distribution list.

Any other party may file observations regarding Sogetel’s responses to the attached request for information no later than September 27, 2016, and copy Sogetel on their responses. Sogetel will have until October 4, 2016, to submit its final reply.

In accordance with Broadcasting and Telecom Information Bulletin CRTC 2010-961, Procedures for filing confidential information and requesting its disclosure in Commission proceedings, any party may designate certain information as confidential. The firm must then submit an abridged version of the document in question, along with a note that explains how the deleted information is confidential.

All documents must be submitted in accordance with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure (SOR/2010-277).

If you have any questions about this letter, please contact Imen Arfaoui at 819-997-4663 or by email at imen.arfaoui@crtc.gc.ca.

Sincerely,

Original signed by

Michel Murray
Director, Dispute Resolution and Regulatory Implementation
Telecommunications Sector

Attachment (1)

Distribution List

Roger Choquette, consultant and authorized representative, choquette@comgate.com
Isis Thiago de Souza, Sogetel, isis.tdesouza@sogetel.com
Sylvain Bellerive, Sogetel, sylvain.bellerive@sogetel.com
Pierre Allard, CoopTel, pallard@cooptel.coop
Jean-Vincent Dorais, Câble-Axion, jeanvincent.dorais@derytelecom.ca
Marc Pilon, CRTC, marc.pilon@crtc.gc.ca
Imen Arfaoui, CRTC, imen.arfaoui@crtc.gc.ca

Request for information – Sogetel plan for implementing local competition for CoopTel, on behalf of Axion

Questions for Sogetel

  1. In its letter dated April 29, 2016, Sogetel stated that its DCO-brand switch at Nantes is at the end of its service life and that no software development is possible on this platform. Consequently, number portability cannot be handled by this equipment. Sogetel therefore proposes to replace its DCO with a media gateway and install a new fibre network between Nantes and Beauceville.
    1. Staff notes that, as of May 25, 2016, a change to Sogetel’s access rate in section 2.9, entitled “interconnection of local networks” came into force and indicates that a new Local Interconnection Region (LIR) and a new Point of Interconnection (POI) were put in place in Nantes.
      1. Please confirm the existence of an LIR and a POI in Nantes.
    2. If there is currently no LIR or POI in Nantes, and if Sogetel chooses to install a POI in Nantes rather than the solution proposed in its plan to implement local competition, please provide the costs of installing a new switch in Nantes, including labour and capital, as well as annual maintenance costs.
  2. In its letter dated April 29, 2016, Sogetel stated that the Positron AEX-200 optical equipment that provides transport between Nantes and Lac-Etchemin is at the end of its service life and no more software development is possible on this platform. Sogetel also stated that the spare capacity is reserved for Sogetel’s future needs. Sogetel therefore proposed to construct a new 200 km redundant optical transport network between Nantes and Beauceville, because it states that it will not use the spare capacity between these two sites. Sogetel also stated that the optical network between Beauceville and Lac-Etchemin has spare fibre.  
    1. Explain how the existing fibre capacity network cannot transport ## additional subscribers.
    2. Indicate what spare capacity Sogetel is reserving for its future needs and for what services. In addition, specify the timeline for Sogetel to use this spare capacity.
    3. Please provide the cost, including capital and labour, of replacing the Positron AEX-200 optical data transmission equipment that is at the end of its service life, so that the transport of ## subscribers can be handled by the existing fibre network.
    4. Indicate all other services that use the existing capacity of the optical network between Nantes and Lac-Etchemin, including the Positron optical data transmission equipment, and the fibre optic connection. In addition, please provide:
      1. The number of clients that use these services; and
      2. The total capacity of the Positron optical data transmission equipment and the capacity of the existing fibre optic cable between Nantes and Lac-Etchemin.
    5. Please provide a detailed capital expenditure breakdown for constructing a new optical transport network between Nantes and Beauceville including cost of equipment, labour and others.
    6. Describe the existing optical network between Beauceville and Lac-Etchemin, including the type of equipment, brand and capacity (electronic and fibre equipment).
  3. In reference to Diagram 2, submitted on April 29, 2016, and paragraph 2 of the implementation plan, submitted on June 30, 2016, the company proposes to replace its Genband DCO switch with a Metaswitch media gateway (UMG).
    1. Explain why the Nantes diagram shows a DCO and a UMG, while the implementation plan proposes to replace the DCO with a UMG.
    2. If the DCO is still indispensable, will it still be used for existing Sogetel clients? le
    3. Will the use of the UMG be shared between Sogetel clients and CoopTel clients? If so, in what proportion?
  4. In reference to paragraph 17 of the implementation plan, please provide a detailed breakdown of expenditures related to replacing the shared-cost circuits at Lac Etchemin toward the CoopTel point of presence.
  5. In reference to the cost schedule attached to the implementation plan, the tab “Implementation costs,” cell 20, please provide a description and detailed cost breakdown of parts and installation (P.I.) expenses.
  6. In its implementation plan dated June 30, 2016, Sogetel stated in paragraph 5 that the company’s standardized transmission technology had a minimum of an OC-3 for such an interconnection. CoopTel, in its reply dated July 13, 2016, stated that it could rent capacity on an existing OC-3 between Vidéotron and Sogetel for local competition, because this link is greatly underused. CoopTel also stated that it had broached this subject with Vidéotron and had even received a service proposal dated June 20, 2016. CoopTel also stated that it had asked Sogetel three times to consider allowing it to use the existing link, and this was refused each time on the pretext that the OC-3 is the minimum required.
    1. Explain, from a technical and regulatory standpoint, why CoopTel cannot use Vidéotron’s existing OC-3, considering especially that it serves a maximum of ## subscribers in Nantes.
    2. If CoopTel must use a new dedicated OC-3, what is the expected percentage of use for this interconnection?
Date modified: