ARCHIVÉ -  Télécom - Lettre du Conseil - Groupe de la co-implantation (GCI) : Éléments de consensus

Lettre

Traduction

Ottawa, le 25 mai 1999

À : Listes de distribution de l'AP 96-28 et de l'AP 95-13

Objet : Groupe de la co-implantation (GCI) : Éléments de consensus

Madame, Monsieur,

Le 2 décembre 1998, les membres de ces listes de distribution ont eu la possibilité de présenter leurs observations relatives au consensus du GCI sur les questions établies dans les documents ci-joints. Les éléments de consensus étaient les suivants :

• Permettre la co-implantation des raccordements de systèmes de distribution numérique;
• Permettre l'utilisation de sources d'alimentation particulières par les entreprises qui co-implantent dans les centraux des compagnies de téléphone titulaires;
• Accepter un processus de consultation pour la configuration de la co-implantation;
• Accepter la liste nationale de l'équipement co-implanté telle qu'elle est actuellement;
• Accepter le processus de révision de la liste nationale de l'équipement co-implanté; et
• Accepter un consensus sur les fournisseurs et l'équipement autorisé.

Le Conseil n'a reçu aucune observation.

Il approuve donc le consensus sur ces questions et il ordonne aux utilisateurs et aux fournisseurs de services de co-implantation de s'y conformer.

Veuillez agréer, Madame, Monsieur, l'expression de mes sentiments distingués.

Secrétaire général

p.j.

Rédigé par : C. Laidlaw, 997-4579

IMPLEMENTATION OF LOCAL COMPETITION

CONSENSUS REPORT

GROUP: Co-location Group

DATE SUBMITTED: October 30, 1998

REPORT #: CLRE001

TITLE: Co-location of DLC terminals

OUTCOME: CONSENSUS

At the CLG meeting of 17 April 1998, all attending members accepted the following position and agreed that it constitutes a consensus for purposes of co-locating DLC terminals.

Following industry discussions at the Co-location Group meeting of March 27, and April 17, 1998, and consideration of the CRTC staff comments made at that time with regard to traffic concentration, Stentor Resource Centre Inc. ("Stentor") on behalf of BC TEL, Bell Canada, The Island Telephone Company, Maritime Tel & Tel Limited, MTS Communications Inc., The New Brunswick Telephone Company, Limited, NewTel Communications Inc., and TELUS Communication Inc. (collectively, "the Companies") provided the following position for consideration:

The Companies will accept for co-location the remote terminals of systems defined by the manufacturers of such systems as Integrated Digital Loop Carrier systems (IDLC), given that:

a) at the time of the application to co-locate such equipment the application is accompanied by an affidavit, signed by an officer of the applicant company, which provides assurances that the co-located equipment will be configured for and used as a transport system only, more specifically, the system will not be configured for dual homing, multi-hosting, intra-IDLC switching, subtending of other remote devices, or stand alone operation; and

b) the applicant shall permit technical audits by the ILEC when requested at reasonable intervals or when some doubt exists as to compliance with the terms of the agreement.

This applies to the remote terminals of systems defined by the manufacturers of such systems as Universal Digital Loop Carrier systems (UDLC) and Integrated Digital Loop Carrier systems (IDLC), but specifically excludes the full range of remote terminals of systems referred to by the manufacturers of such systems as "switch remotes" or "switching remotes" e.g. DMS Remote Switching centre (RSC), DMS Remote Line Concentration Module (RLCM), GTD5 Remote Switching Unit (RSU), 5ESS Remote Switching Module (RSM), etc..

The Companies' agreement to allow UDLC/IDLC is made without prejudice to their position regarding acceptance of any other type of equipment for inclusion in the industry co-location equipment list.

IMPLEMENTATION OF LOCAL COMPETITION

CONSENSUS REPORT

GROUP: Co-location Group

DATE SUBMITTED: October 30, 1998

REPORT #: CLRE002

TITLE: Power Sources for Co-locating Companies

OUTCOME: CONSENSUS

The Co-location Group has reached consensus on the following points regarding power sources for co-locating carriers.

1. Input to co-located power inverters must be -48 VDC but there are no limitations on the output voltage (July 24/98 Minutes, paragraph 7).

2. Emergency power, where available, provided to co-locating carriers will be provided from the same generator(s) used by the telephone company (July 24/98 Minutes, paragraph 8).

3. Power cables are permitted for co-location in "National Co-location Equipment List" document, Release 1.0, August 1998, section 1.7, "Miscellaneous Equipment" (July 24/98 Minutes, paragraph 10).

4. The co-locating carrier may be required by the telephone company to install a power filtering or regulating device (July 24/98 Minutes, paragraph 9).

IMPLEMENTATION OF LOCAL COMPETITION

CONSENSUS REPORT

GROUP: Co-location Group

DATE SUBMITTED: October 30, 1998

REPORT #: CLRE003

TITLE: Consultation Process for Co-location Design

OUTCOME: CONSENSUS

The Co-location Group has reached a consensus on the following design consultation process:

1. The initial report that is issued by the ILEC to the IC will contain a line item for the IC to indicate if it requires a consultation process.

2. If a consultation process is requested, it is to occur after the initial report, but prior to the secondary report.

3. The consultation process is to provide the opportunity for the IC to discuss the design of the co-location with the ILEC, for the IC to raise any concerns regarding the design, and for the ILEC to consider any design changes or requests of the IC.

4. The consultation process is in addition to the 6-month timeframe for physical co-location. That is, the countdown is stopped upon initiation of the consultation process, and resumes upon the completion of the consultation process.

5. If a dispute during the consultation process arises, the co-location application process will continue, unless the CRTC directs that the process should not continue.

The group also agreed on the following additional consultation:

• Within 10 days of the issuance of the secondary report, the IC may raise concerns regarding costs to the ILEC, who will provide explanations and justification. If the IC still has concerns regarding costs, it may then approach the Commission for resolution.

IMPLEMENTATION OF LOCAL COMPETITION

CONSENSUS REPORT

GROUP: Co-location Group

DATE SUBMITTED: October 30, 1998

REPORT #: CLRE004

TITLE: National Co-location Equipment List

OUTCOME: CONSENSUS

The Co-location Group has reached a consensus on the attached "National Co-location Equipment List" document, Release 2.2, October 30, 1998. In a Consensus Report titled "National Co-location Equipment List Revision Process" (CLRE005), the Co-location group has adopted a process to revise the equipment list, as required after the CLG has completed its mandate.

NATIONAL CO-LOCATION EQUIPMENT LIST

October 30, 1998

RELEASE 2.2

REVISION HISTORY

CONTENTS:

This consensus report contains the National Co-location Equipment List, as developed by participants of the CISC Co-location Group, as of the last revision date.

This equipment list is open to on-going revisions, which may be made at any time, in accordance with the National Co-location Equipment List Revision Process once the CLG has completed its mandate.

This consensus report has been developed as directed by the Commission in Telecom Decision CRTC 97 15, and in Telecom Order CRTC 97 1926, paragraph 20:

"As stated in Decision 97 15, the SOCs must consult with the ICs to develop a list of appropriate equipment for co-location. The Commission considers the CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee (CISC) process to be appropriate for undertaking such consultation, accordingly, requests CISC to do so and to recommend to the Commission a list of appropriate equipment and a process for making ongoing revisions to the list."

1.0 Suitable Equipment for Co-location:

1.1 Network Access Systems

- Analog Loop Carrier Equipment
- CO loop repeaters (analog and digital)
- Digital Subscriber Line (DSL)
- Asymmetrical Digital Subscriber Line (ADSL) compliant with T1.413, Issue 2
- High Speed Digital Subscriber Line (HDSL) compliant with ITU G.991 proposed
- DLC terminals (in accordance with related CRTC Consensus Report)
- Rate Adaptive Digital Subscriber Line (RADSL) T1.413 or currently approved version
- Symmetric Digital Subscriber Line (SDSL) compliant with ITU G.991 proposed
- Pairgain devices (Added Main Line (AML) and Digital Added Main Line (DAML) that meet or exceeds the spectral density requirements of ANSI document T1.413, or currently approved version

1.2 Signal Processing Equipment

- Echo Cancellers
- Protocol and signaling converters
- Signaling receivers
- Amplifiers (DS0, DS1 and analog)
- Transcoder (2:1 DS1 compression. Not T-coder)
- Compression equipment

1.3 Multiplex / Multiplication Equipment

- Channel banks
- DS1/DS3 Multiplexer

1.4 Optical Systems

- Fibre Optics Terminals for linear systems (Sonet / Asynch)
- Optical Amplifiers (when not used as an optical repeater)
- Optical Wave Division Multiplexers (WDM) (when not used as an optical repeater)
- Optical Couplers (when not used as an optical repeater)
- Wave Shifters (when not used as an optical repeater)

1.5 Testing Maintenance Equipment

- Testing Equipment
- Diagnostic Equipment
- Protocol testers
- Signal/pattern generators

1.6 Monitoring and protection equipment

- Alarm generators
- Performance monitors
- Call recorders/analysers
- Monitoring equipment
- Modems (used for transmission surveillance only)

1.7 Misc. Equipment

- Clocking equipment
- Racks/cabinets in segregated Type 1 Co-location
- Distribution frame
- Terminal blocks
- DSX/Fibre panels / meetme bays
- Cable
- Ringing generator
- Cable tray/supports
- Power inverter (- 48 vdc )
- Fuse panels
- Fuses
- Breaker panels
- Breakers
- BDFB (battery distribution fuse bay)

IMPLEMENTATION OF LOCAL COMPETITION

CONSENSUS REPORT

GROUP: Co-location Group

DATE SUBMITTED: October 30, 1998

REPORT #: CLRE005

TITLE: National Co-location Equipment List Revision Process

OUTCOME: CONSENSUS

The Co-location Group has reached the following consensus on the equipment list revision process.

Abstract

1. This consensus identifies a process for managing revisions to the National Co-location Equipment List consistent with the directives of the Commission specified in Telecom Decision CRTC 97 15 (Decision 97 15) and Telecom Order CRTC 97 1926 (Order 97 1926).

Procedure

2. A list of equipment eligible for co-location (Version 1.0, August 1998) pursuant to Stentor National Services Tariff Item CRTC 7400-E, Item 636 and Telus Tariff CRTC 18008, Item 210 and 211 for Virtual and Physical respectively (collectively "the Co-location Tariffs") was developed by the CLG (CLRE004). This list constitutes the National Co-location Equipment List which will be maintained by Stentor on behalf of the Companies. The National Co-location Equipment list will be made available from the Companies' Carrier Services Groups ("CSGs") and on the World Wide Web at (www.Stentor.ca/disclosure) with Email advisory to respective participants. Requests for modifications to the list will be addressed to the Companies' respective CSGs.

3. A request for addition to or modification of the National Co-location Equipment List may be addressed to the local CSG on behalf of any entity eligible for co-location pursuant to the Co-location Tariffs ("an Applicant"). A form to accompany the request is available for download from the above referenced World Wide Web location.

4. In order to facilitate the evaluation of requests by the Companies, a completed request for the addition of an equipment type or model must be made by the Applicant in writing to a CSG and must include:
" detailed technical and functional specifications of the equipment; and
" a vendor's name, contact, telephone number, e-mail and web site address.

Following receipt by a CSG of a request, in order to enable Stentor and the Companies to expeditiously evaluate the request, an Applicant may be requested to provide additional information.

5. When a request is received by a CSG, the request will be evaluated by the Companies collectively on a national basis. Stentor and the Companies will strive to provide a determination in respect of a request within 20 business days from receipt by a CSG of the request recognizing, however, that additional time may be necessary in instances in which additional information is required from the Applicant or from elsewhere in order to process the request.

6. If the request is accepted in whole or in part, the Applicant will be notified in writing by the CSG to which the request was addressed. In addition, the National Co-location Equipment List will be updated. An up to date National Co-location Equipment List will be maintained by Stentor on the World Wide Web at the address specified in para. 2 above.

7. If the request is rejected, the Applicant will be notified in writing with reasons, by the CSG to which the request was addressed.

8. The National Co-location Equipment List constitutes a minimum list of equipment eligible for co-location in the Central Offices of the Companies pursuant to the Co-location Tariffs. An Applicant may request and an individual Company CSG may accept additional types or models of equipment for co-location pursuant to the Co-location Tariffs in Central Offices located in its operating territory provided, however, that no such case of acceptance of equipment not included in the National Co-location Equipment List shall be binding with respect to any other Company.

9. In the event Stentor determines that a type or model of equipment should be removed from the list, Stentor on behalf of the Companies shall provide 6 months advance notification, in writing and with reasons. Such notification shall be provided in the form of a dated notice to appear at the above referenced World Wide Web location with Email advisory to respective participants. The removal from the list shall take effect 6 months from original date of posting on the World Wide Web address specified above unless the Commission orders otherwise.

Appeals

10. Once an Applicant has received the determination of the Companies in respect to such Applicant's request for an addition to the National Co-location Equipment List, the Applicant may appeal the determination by addressing a request to the CSG to which the original request was made with such additional information as the Applicant may consider appropriate. Alternatively, the Applicant may make its request to the Commission which will then determine the process to follow with respect to the request.

11. Once notification of the removal of an equipment type or model has been issued in accordance with para. 9, above, an Applicant may register its opposition to the removal at least 3 months prior to the end of the 6 months period specified in para. 9. The Applicant shall notify the Commission of its opposition with copy to at least one of the Company CSGs. The Commission will determine the process to follow.

IMPLEMENTATION OF LOCAL COMPETITION

CONSENSUS REPORT

GROUP: Co-location Group

DATE SUBMITTED: October 30, 1998

REPORT #: CLRE006

TITLE: Vendors and Permitted Equipment

OUTCOME: CONSENSUS

The Co-location Group has reached the following consensus on vendors and permitted equipment.

An ILEC may refuse equipment for co-location if the equipment is not included in the National Co-location Equipment List or does not meet industry standards. Equipment cannot be prohibited for co-location on the basis of the equipment vendor (May 22, 1998 Minutes, Item 3).

Mise à jour : 2003-05-25