| |
Telecom Order CRTC 2006-286
|
| |
Ottawa, 27 October 2006 |
| |
Persona Communications Corp.
|
| |
Reference: Tariff Notice 3 |
| |
Third-party Internet access - Introduction of Lite Speed and
Extreme Speed service levels
|
| |
In this Order, the Commission
approves on an interim basis with changes Persona Communications
Corp.'s proposed revisions to its General Tariff to introduce Lite
Speed and Extreme Speed service levels for third-party Internet
access. |
| |
Background
|
|
1. |
In Regulation under the Telecommunications
Act of cable carriers' access services, Telecom Decision CRTC
99-8, 6 July 1999 (Decision
99-8), the Commission
gave smaller cable carriers the option of filing for approval of their
own third-party Internet access (TPIA) rates based on their incremental
costs. As an alternative, the Commission determined that smaller cable
carriers could base their TPIA rates on the costs and rates approved
for larger cable carriers. |
|
2. |
In Shaw Cablesystems G.P. – Third Party
Internet Access service, Telecom Order CRTC 2006-55,
20 March 2006 (Order 2006-55), the Commission
granted interim approval, with modifications, to Shaw Cablesystems
G.P.'s (Shaw) proposed revisions to the rates for its TPIA service,
which consisted of TPIA Transport-Lite, TPIA Transport-Regular, and
TPIA Transport-Xtreme. |
|
3. |
In Persona Communications Corp. – Third-party
Internet access and related issues, Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-36,
2 June 2006 (Decision 2006-36),
the Commission directed Persona Communications Corp. (Persona)
to file proposed tariffs for the provision of services such as TPIA
Transport-Lite and TPIA Transport-Xtreme approved for Shaw in Order 2006-55. |
| |
The application
|
|
4. |
Persona filed an application, dated 4
July 2006, in which it proposed revisions to its General Tariff for
TPIA. Specifically, Persona proposed to introduce rates for Lite Speed
(Lite) and Extreme Speed (Extreme) service levels for TPIA. Persona
indicated that its proposed rates were the same as those approved on
an interim basis for Shaw in Order 2006-55. |
| |
Process
|
|
5. |
Vianet Internet Solutions (Vianet) and
Unitz Online (Unitz), two Internet service providers (ISPs) operating
their high-speed Internet service over Persona's network, jointly
filed comments dated 2 August 2006. Persona filed reply comments dated
7 September 2006. |
| |
Positions of parties
|
|
6. |
Vianet and Unitz submitted that the
proposed rates were unwarranted. In support of their position, Vianet
and Unitz compared the proposed rates to those that were currently
being paid by independent ISPs in the regions being served by Vianet
and Unitz. In their view, approval of the proposed rates would either
result in corresponding consumer price increases or a price squeeze on
competing ISPs to the point that they would be forced to exit the
market. |
|
7. |
Vianet and Unitz submitted that Persona
had provided no justification for the proposed rates, and noted that
the rates proposed by Persona simply mirrored those approved for Shaw
in Order 2006-55. Further, Vianet and Unitz
argued that Decision 2006-36
did not direct Persona to adopt the rates approved in Order 2006-55,
but rather to offer additional TPIA speeds similar to those approved
for Shaw in Order 2006-55. Vianet and Unitz
were of the view that the proposed rates should reflect Persona's
underlying costs of providing the services. |
|
8. |
Vianet and Unitz also submitted that
Persona did not indicate the upstream and downstream transmission
speeds for the proposed service levels, and requested that the
Commission direct Persona to publish those speeds in its tariff. |
|
9. |
Vianet and Unitz objected to the
six gigabyte (GB) usage limit in Persona's tariff.
Vianet and Unitz were of the view that this outdated item should be
removed from Persona's tariff. |
|
10. |
Vianet and Unitz also noted that a restriction
pertaining to the use of TPIA to provide voice over Internet Protocol
(VoIP) services remained in Persona's tariff. Vianet and Unitz requested
that Persona be directed to comply with Regulatory framework for
voice communication services using Internet Protocol, Telecom
Decision CRTC 2005-28,
12 May 2005, as amended by Telecom Decision CRTC 2005-28-1
dated 30 June 2005 (Decision 2005-28),
by deleting the restriction. |
|
11. |
In its reply, Persona noted that it was
asked by the Commission to file rates for the Lite and Extreme service
levels. Persona further noted that, to date, Shaw was the only large
cable carrier with approved tariffs for these levels of service, and
argued that its only option was to file the same rates as Shaw for
approval. |
|
12. |
Persona submitted that the upstream and
downstream transmission speeds were not specified in the tariffs
currently approved for other cable carriers and that it had only
included the specifications that were already approved for Shaw.
Persona also submitted that these were best-efforts services and that
the speeds were subject to change. Persona indicated that TPIA
customers would receive the same level of service as its retail
Internet access customers. |
|
13. |
With regard to restrictions pertaining
to the use of TPIA to provide VoIP services, Persona indicated that
it had already issued revised tariff pages to remove such restrictions
pursuant to the Commission's direction in Decision 2005-28. |
| |
Commission's analysis and determinations
|
|
14. |
The Commission notes that, in Decision
99-8, it determined
that smaller cable carriers could base their TPIA tariffs on the rates
approved for larger cable carriers. The Commission further notes that,
in Decision 2006-36,
it directed Persona to file proposed tariffs for the provision of
services such as TPIA Transport-Lite and TPIA Transport-Xtreme approved
for Shaw in Order 2006-55. |
|
15. |
The Commission considers that Persona's
proposal to introduce rates based on Shaw's approved rates for the
Lite and Extreme service levels is consistent with both Decisions
99-8 and 2006-36. |
|
16. |
With regard to the publication of the
maximum upstream and downstream transmission speeds, the Commission
notes that the maximum upstream and downstream transmission speeds are
not specified in any of the TPIA tariffs currently approved for the
other cable carriers, and that these speeds may be subject to change.
However, the Commission notes that the maximum upstream and downstream
transmission speeds offered to Persona's retail customers are
identified on Persona's website. |
|
17. |
The Commission considers that information
regarding the maximum upstream and downstream transmission speeds
available for TPIA service is important to competitors, in that they
rely upon the availability of the advertised speeds to ensure that
TPIA service meets their requirements. The Commission also considers
that, given the sensitivity of competitors' business plans to speed
availability, the tariff publication of such data with respect to
competitor services is more critical than it is with respect to retail
services. |
|
18. |
The Commission further considers that
approval of the tariff as proposed by Persona would offer no recourse
pursuant to the company's tariffs, should service complaints arise if
Persona did not deliver the proposed speeds. |
|
19. |
Accordingly, the Commission considers
that Persona should be required to publish, in its tariff, the maximum
upstream and downstream transmission speeds available for each of the
TPIA service levels it provides. |
|
20. |
The Commission notes Persona's statement
that its TPIA customers would receive the same level of service as its
retail Internet access customers. However, with regard to the six GB
usage limit in Persona's TPIA tariff, the Commission notes that, as
indicated on Persona's website, such a usage limit is not imposed on
Persona's own retail customers. |
|
21. |
In the Commission's view, Persona's TPIA
tariff is unjustly discriminatory in that it imposes a six GB usage
limit on its TPIA customers that it does not impose on its own retail
Internet access customers. The Commission finds that the same usage
limit must apply to Persona's TPIA customers as to its retail
customers. |
|
22. |
In light of the above, the Commission
approves on an interim basis Tariff Notice 3, with the changes
noted below, effective the date of this Order: |
| |
- Persona is directed to specify in its TPIA tariff the maximum
upstream and downstream transmission speeds associated with each of
its TPIA service levels;
|
| |
- Persona is directed to either remove the six GB usage limit from
its TPIA tariff, or to impose the same six GB usage limit on its own
retail Internet access service; and
|
| |
- Persona is directed to issue revised tariff pages forthwith.
|
|
23. |
The Commission notes that, consistent with
its determinations in Decision 2006-36,
the application of Persona's TPIA tariff is suspended for existing
ISPs pending the disposition of the matter of the point of interconnection
location or for a six-month period, whichever is later. |
| |
Secretary General |
| |
This document is available in alternative
format upon request, and may also be examined in PDF
format or in HTML at the following Internet site: http://www.crtc.gc.ca
|
