|
Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-14
|
|
Ottawa, 8 March 2002
|
|
Incumbent local exchange carrier service intervals for unbundled
local loop orders
|
|
Reference: 8622-A4-18/01
|
|
Summary
|
|
Since the release of Telecom Decision CRTC 97-8, the competitive
local exchange carriers (CLECs) have maintained that the timely
provision and installation of local service is a key customer
consideration when requesting service. The CLECs have asked the
incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) to provide CLECs with
unbundled loops within the same service intervals that ILECs apply
to themselves.
|
|
This decision addresses a continuing dispute regarding
service-interval issues. CLECs submitted that service intervals
proposed by ILECs misinterpreted the Commission's directives of 31
October 2000, and that the ILECs' proposed intervals would provide
ILECs with a competitive advantage.
|
|
The Commission directs that, as of 1 April 2002, the ILECs
provide CLECs, at least 90% of the time, with:
|
|
i) migrated unbundled type A and B loops, including all
sub-types, within two business days; and
|
|
ii) new unbundled type A and B loops, including all sub-types,
within five business days.
|
|
Background
|
1. |
In Telecom Decision CRTC 97-8, Local competition, dated 1
May 1997, the Commission directed incumbent local exchange carriers
(ILECs) to make unbundled local loops available to competitive local
exchange carriers (CLECs). Since the release of that decision, the
CLECs have maintained that the timely provision and installation of
local service is a key customer consideration when requesting
service. The CLECs have asked the ILECs to provide CLECs with
unbundled local loops within the same service intervals that ILECs
apply to themselves.
|
2. |
In a letter decision dated 31 October 2000 concerning service
intervals for the provision of new unbundled loops (the letter
decision), the Commission directed ILECs "to provide unbundled
loops to CLECs within service intervals no greater than those within
which they provide loops to themselves, at least 90 percent of the
time." The Commission also directed the ILECs to implement the
Commission's directives by 1 February 2001.
|
3. |
With the exception of Saskatchewan Telecommunications (SaskTel),
the ILECs submitted revised loop service intervals in January 2001
to the participants to the Business Process Working Group (BPWG) of
the CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee (CISC). Subsequently,
during meetings of the BPWG, CLEC representatives identified a
number of concerns with the revised service intervals.
|
4. |
The CLECs maintained that the intervals did not comply with the
Commission directives in the letter decision. At a BPWG meeting on
29-30 March 2001, the parties agreed that the issues dealing with
the service intervals for unbundled local loops would be submitted
to the Commission for a determination.
|
5. |
On 18 April 2001, the parties submitted their respective dispute
position papers to the Commission.
|
6. |
The CLEC position was represented in a position paper filed by
AT&T Canada Telecom Services Company, AXXENT Corp., Call-Net
Communications Inc., EastLink Limited, Gateway Telephone Limited and
GT Group Telecom Services Corp. (the Competitors).
|
7. |
The ILEC position was represented in two position papers filed by
TELUS Communications Inc. (TCI), and by Bell Canada on behalf of
itself, Aliant Telecom Inc., MTS Communications Inc. and SaskTel
(jointly, the Incumbents).
|
|
Position of the Competitors
|
8. |
In their position paper, the Competitors requested that the
Commission:
|
|
a) establish service intervals for unbundled local loops that
are no greater than the service intervals ILECs provide to
themselves, regardless of the manner in which the order is
submitted by the CLEC to an ILEC;
|
|
b) set forth standard service intervals for both migrated
unbundled local loop requests and new unbundled local loop
requests, for both type A and B loops, including all sub-types;
|
|
c) determine that service intervals include day zero;
|
|
d) set the same unbundled local loop service interval in both
rural and urban areas; and
|
|
e) direct ILECs to coincidentally reduce the CLECs' unbundled
local loop service intervals to match ILEC service intervals,
whenever the ILECs reduce their own service intervals.
|
9. |
The Competitors claimed that the ILECs had misinterpreted the
letter decision. The Competitors submitted that the letter decision
directed the ILECs to apply the service intervals they apply to
themselves rather than the service intervals they provide to their
retail service customers.
|
10. |
The Competitors submitted that the service intervals proposed by
the ILECs in early 2001 would provide the ILECs with a competitive
advantage because such intervals permit them to provide service to
their customers faster than to the Competitors. For example, the
Competitors submitted that, while the ILECs provide migrated
unbundled local loops to themselves within two days, they proposed
to take five business days to provide those loops to the CLECs.
|
11. |
Furthermore, while the ILECs proposed to provide new unbundled
local loops within five days, the Competitors stated that the ILECs
exclude day zero from the count. Day zero is the day on which an
ILEC receives a CLEC's request for an unbundled local loop.
|
12. |
The Competitors submitted that the ILECs proposed adding two days
to complete a loop selection report, over and above the five-day
service interval for the provision of certain loop sub-types. The
Competitors stated that this report is not required and is rarely
requested by the CLECs.
|
13. |
Regarding the ILECs' longer service intervals for rural areas
compared to urban areas, the Competitors submitted that the ILECs
classified towns and areas with reasonable population density as
rural, including a large portion of the Toronto area. Given this,
and the fact that CLECs will likely not provide local service in
sparsely populated areas, but will target reasonably populated
areas, the Competitors suggested that there should be no difference
in unbundled loop service intervals between urban and rural areas.
|
14. |
Finally, the Competitors submitted that the ILECs' service
intervals should be the same, regardless of the manner in which the
order is submitted by the CLEC to the ILEC. More specifically, the
Competitors objected to Bell Canada's proposal to take two
additional days to process loop requests Bell Canada receives by
fax. The Competitors submitted that electronic file transfer, which
is the industry's preferred method, is expensive and is not
warranted where the number of requests is low.
|
|
Position of the Incumbents
|
15. |
According to the Incumbents, the ILECs' service intervals comply
with the directives in the letter decision. They submitted that the
letter decision conclusively addressed the other issues raised by
the Competitors.
|
16. |
The Incumbents submitted that their service intervals find the
proper balance by providing the ILECs with the time required to
complete all the work to unbundle an end-user's existing loop
without jeopardizing the end-user's quality of service.
|
17. |
The Incumbents also submitted that, contrary to the Competitors'
assumption, experience has shown that migrating an existing loop
requires additional technical and administrative work on the ILEC's
part. For example, the Incumbents claimed that dispatching field
technicians on such occasions is required far more frequently than
originally anticipated. They also noted that this will increase as
CLECs deploy new technologies. The Incumbents further stated that
they must unbundle the loop prior to migration and co-ordinate the
administrative work associated with the disconnection to minimize
the disruption to the end-user's service.
|
18. |
Bell Canada specifically claimed it needs additional time to
process and respond to faxed loop requests because of the extra
manual work involved. Bell Canada submitted that its systems are
designed to receive electronic requests, which are now the industry
standard, and can thus deal with electronic transmissions more
effectively than orders it receives by fax.
|
|
Commission's determinations
|
|
Scope of the dispute
|
19. |
TCI questioned whether service intervals for migrated unbundled
local loops were within the scope of this dispute since the letter
decision specifically dealt with service intervals for new unbundled
local loops. The Commission notes that the current dispute deals
with both new and migrated unbundled local loops. The BPWG
participants, including TCI, briefly discussed this issue at the
29-30 March 2001 meeting and agreed that the question was immaterial
since the current dispute addresses both migrated and new unbundled
local loops. Furthermore, all parties explicitly addressed service
intervals for new and migrated loops in their position papers.
|
20. |
The Commission finds that, regardless of the issues dealt with in
its letter decision, the BPWG participants expanded the scope of the
current dispute to include migrated unbundled local loops. This
decision therefore deals with service intervals for migrated and new
unbundled local loops.
|
|
The loop service intervals
|
21. |
The Commission's directive in the letter decision clearly stated
that the ILECs had to provide the CLECs with the same service
intervals they provide to themselves in order to provision a local
loop. This was meant to afford both ILECs and CLECs an equal
opportunity to provide service to end-users in a timely manner. The
ILECs’ misinterpretation of the letter decision had the effect of
ignoring the plain meaning of the Commission's directive and thus
allowed the ILECs to maintain a competitive advantage over the
CLECs.
|
22. |
The evidence indicates that the ILECs provide new unbundled A and
B type loops (including loop sub-types) to themselves within five
business days. The ILECs provide migrated unbundled A and B type
loops (including loop sub-types) to themselves within two business
days. The ILECs must therefore provide the CLECs with new and
migrated unbundled A and B type loops (including loop sub-types)
within these same service intervals.
|
23. |
The Commission does not agree with the Incumbents that they need
the same service intervals to provide migrated unbundled local loops
and certain loop sub-types to CLECs as they do to provide new
unbundled local loops. The Commission notes that migrated loops or
loop sub-types are already in place and in working order when CLECs
request them. In the Commission's view, any additional technical and
administrative work should not delay service to the CLECs.
|
24. |
As for the ILECs' claim that they need two additional days to
complete loop selection reports for certain loop sub-types, the
Commission notes that CLECs rarely request such reports. NBTel Inc.
(NBTel) does not provide such reports unless requested by the CLEC.
In the Commission's view, the NBTel practice is the most appropriate
one. Therefore, the ILEC may only add two days to the service
intervals approved in this decision to complete a loop selection
report when a CLEC requests such a report. Where a CLEC does not
request a loop selection report, the ILEC must provision new and
migrated unbundled A and B type loops (including loop sub-types)
within the service intervals approved in this decision.
|
25. |
Accordingly, the Commission directs that the ILECs provide
unbundled local loops to the CLECs within two business days for
migrated type A and B loops, including all sub-types, and within
five business days for new type A and B loops, including all
sub-types, at least 90% of the time. The CLECs can continue to
obtain longer service intervals than those above upon request to the
ILEC.
|
|
The inclusion of day zero in service intervals
|
26. |
Currently, the ILEC starts counting the service intervals for
unbundled local loop orders the day after receiving a CLEC request.
In the Commission's view, the ILECs do not require an extra day to
process unbundled local loop requests.
|
27. |
The Commission directs that, when the unbundled local loop
request is received at or prior to noon, based on the time of day in
the serving territory where the ILEC provides service to a CLEC, the
ILEC counts that day as the first day of the service interval (day
one). Where the unbundled local loop request is received after noon,
based on the time of day in the serving territory, the ILEC will
start counting the service interval on the following business day.
|
|
Service intervals for rural and urban areas
|
28. |
The Commission is satisfied that service intervals to provide
unbundled local loops should be the same for both urban and rural
areas. The Commission notes that the Incumbents did not provide a
rationale to justify longer unbundled local loop service intervals
in rural areas. The Incumbents also did not demonstrate that they
have longer self-provisioning intervals in rural areas compared to
urban areas.
|
29. |
Since CLECs are not likely to offer local service in rural and
remote areas in the foreseeable future, the Commission does not
consider that having the same service intervals for urban and rural
areas will unduly burden the ILECs. Finally, the Commission
considers that having common service intervals for urban and rural
areas will foster competition in more densely populated areas close
to urban centres.
|
|
Faxed requests
|
30. |
The Commission considers that the additional work required to
process faxed requests is minimal. Allowing the ILECs longer service
intervals to process faxed requests or requiring that CLECs always
use electronic transmission when the costs of the volume of requests
do not warrant it would unduly disadvantage the CLECs. The
Commission thus directs the ILECs to process faxed requests for
unbundled local loops within the same time intervals as for
electronic requests.
|
|
Implementation of the decision
|
31. |
The ILECs are responsible for their own costs for upgrading or
creating systems and processes to implement the directives in this
decision.
|
32. |
The Commission finds that the ILECs have had ample time to modify
their processes and procedures in accordance with the letter
decision. Their misinterpretation delayed the timely implementation
of the Commission's 31 October 2000 directives and impeded the
CLECs' entry into the local market. |
33. |
The Commission thus considers that the service intervals for new
and migrated unbundled local loops must be put in place by 1 April
2002. The Commission also directs the ILECs to reflect the revised
service intervals in their quarterly Quality of Service report,
starting with the report for the months of April, May and
June 2002. |
|
Summary of the determinations
|
34. |
The Commission directs that:
|
|
a) the ILECs make service available to a
CLEC within two business days for migrated type A and B loops,
including all sub-types, and within five business days for new type
A and B loops, including all sub-types, at least 90% of the time; |
|
b) on the day when an ILEC receives a
request for an unbundled local loop, the ILEC will count that day as
day one, when the request is received at or before noon, based on
the time of day in the serving territory where the ILEC provisions
service to the CLEC. Where the ILEC receives the request for an
unbundled local loop after noon, the ILEC will count the following
business day as day one; |
|
c) service intervals will be identical
for both rural and urban loops; |
|
d) faxed requests for migrated and new
loops will be completed within the same time intervals as electronic
requests; |
|
e) ILECs assume sole responsibility for
the costs of implementing the new service intervals; and |
|
f) the ILECs implement the directives in
this decision by 1 April 2002. |
|
Secretary General
|
|
This document is available in alternative format upon request
and may also be examined at the following Internet site: http://www.crtc.gc.ca
|