|
Public Notice CRTC 2000-124-2
|
|
Ottawa, 15 October 2001
|
|
Seeking public input on access to multi-dwelling units, in-building
wiring and riser space
|
|
Reference: 8644-C12-03/00
|
|
The Commission is re-opening the proceeding launched by Public Notice
CRTC 2000-124, Seeking public input on
access to multi-dwelling units, in-building wiring and riser space, dated
25 August 2000. |
1. |
As stated in Decision CRTC 2001-364,
Clarifications concerning access to in-building wire: Call-Net Part
VII applications of 30 June and 4 August 2000, dated 19 June 2001,
the Commission is re-opening the proceeding to seek comments on, among
other things, certain aspects of Telecom Decision CRTC 99-10,
Location of demarcation point for inside wire in multi-dwelling units
and associated issues, dated 6 August 1999.
|
|
Transfer of in-building wire and demarcation points
|
2. |
The Commission seeks comments on the following questions:
|
|
in buildings where the transfer of
responsibility and control of in-building wire has not yet taken place,
should the Commission modify the demarcation points for unbundled local
loops to maintain the service-provider demarcation point at the customer
demarcation point in the event that building owners assume responsibility
and control of incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC) owned in-building
wire? |
|
in existing buildings where the transfer
of responsibility and control has not yet taken place, should local
exchange carriers (LECs) be required to retain responsibility and control
of their in-building wire? |
|
Unbundled loops
|
3. |
The Commission seeks comment on issues relating to the provision of
unbundled loops including the case where loops may be provided by
fibre/copper hybrid wiring. Issues include:
|
|
the required characteristics of an
unbundled loop including bandwidth, signalling and copper continuity; |
|
suitability and cost of wireless loops; |
|
responsibility of the loop provider to
provide loops with copper continuity when required by the service
provider requesting the loop; and |
|
methods to provide loops with copper
continuity in hybrid networks, the incremental costs of such loops and
how any additional costs should be recovered. |
|
End-user choice
|
4. |
In Telecom Decision CRTC 97-8,
Local competition, dated 8 May 1997, the Commission was of the
view that an important objective of local competition is to increase
consumer choice. The Commission considered that, in order to facilitate
such choice, it is in the public interest that end-users have the right
and the means to have access to the LEC of their choice in all
situations. The Commission noted that the nature of the local exchange
network allows LECs to use another LEC's existing facilities to access
end-users served by that LEC. To ensure that these principles are served,
the Commission required that, as a condition of providing service, a LEC
ensure that the end-users that it serves are able to have direct access,
under reasonable terms and conditions, to services provided by any other
LEC serving in that area.
|
5. |
The Commission seeks comment on the method to achieve end-user choice
as it applies in multiple-dwelling units (MDUs), giving consideration to
the following issues and scenarios:
|
|
the extent to which competitor access to
unbundled loops (copper or derived channel) would satisfy end-user choice
where direct access to an MDU may not be available; |
|
whether the first LEC serving an MDU
should be required to provide unbundled loops to any other LEC wishing to
serve the building; |
|
conditions under which preferred MDU
access arrangements would be consistent with the objective of achieving
end-user choice. For example, preferred arrangements could encourage
competitive entry in MDUs where there is only one service provider at
present; |
|
the circumstances, if any, under which
in-building wire controlled by LECs or building owners would be
considered an essential facility as defined in paragraph 74 of Decision 97-8;
and |
|
whether end-user choice can be achieved by
providing a limited choice of facilities-based service providers in an
MDU and, if so, what criteria should apply to determine which service
providers have access. How many service providers constitutes adequate
choice? Would this number vary depending on the type and size of
building? |
|
In-building wire framework
|
6. |
In addition to the above, the Commission seeks comment on two
framework scenarios for access by competitive service providers to
end-users in MDUs. Comments should address issues related to the
implementation of each scenario as well as the likelihood that each
framework will lead to the achievement of the objective of end-user
choice, and other objectives of the Telecommunications Act.
|
7. |
Scenario 1:
|
|
service-provider demarcation is located in
the main terminal room (MTR) under the terms of Decision 99-10,
but an unbundled loop would be a service that connects all the way to the
end-customer using the access arrangements of the loop provider in the
MDU; |
|
access agreements are required for all
service providers where a competitive service provider serves an MDU; |
|
access charges are justified on the basis
of incremental costs plus a reasonable mark-up or in relation to existing
rates for similar access, space or services in the MDU, and recovered
from all service providers operating in the MDU on the basis of the
number of active access lines, customers served or revenues generated in
the MDU; |
|
use of existing in-building copper wire at
no charge for all service providers; |
|
service fees for in-building wire security
and maintenance are justified on the basis of incremental costs plus a
reasonable mark-up or in relation to rates for other similar building
services; |
|
ILECs, competitive service providers and
builder owners must assume liability, respectively, for their own
negligence with respect to facilities or services provided in an MDU; |
|
a model access agreement developed through
CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee (CISC); |
|
implementation of some or all aspects of
this scenario as conditions on the provision of local service by all
LECs; and |
|
a review of the framework after three to
five years. |
8. |
Scenario 2:
|
|
building owners or agents negotiate the
terms of building access with service providers; |
|
service-provider demarcation is located in
the MTR under the terms of Decision 99-10,
but an unbundled loop would be a service that connects all the way to the
end-customer using the access arrangements of the loop provider in the
MDU; |
|
guidelines developed in CISC to identify
building services and establish rating principles; |
|
ILECs, competitive service providers and
builder owners must assume liability, respectively, for their own
negligence with respect to facilities or services provided in an MDU; |
|
the ILEC's obligation to serve applies in
an MDU only where access is available and charges for such access and for
in-building wire and related functions are cost-based and justified; |
|
guidelines developed in CISC for building
owners to deal with issues between providers in MDUs; |
|
a model access agreement developed through
CISC; |
|
implementation of some or all aspects of
this scenario as conditions on the provision of local service by all
LECs; and |
|
a review of the framework after three to
five years. |
|
Filing schedule
|
9. |
Persons on the list of parties Re: PN 2000-124,
as revised from time to time, are made interested parties to this
proceeding. The list is available on the Commission's web site at http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/public/lplists/PN00-124.htm. |
10. |
Parties may file comments with the Commission by writing to the
Secretary General, CRTC, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0N2; by fax at (819)
953-0795; or by email at procedure@crtc.gc.ca, serving copies on each
other, by 14 November 2001.
|
11. |
All parties may file reply comments with the Commission, serving
copies on all other parties, by 29 November 2001.
|
12. |
Where a document is to be filed or served by a specific date, the
document must be actually received, not merely mailed, by that date.
|
13. |
The electronic version should be in the HTML format. As an
alternative, those making submissions may use "Microsoft Word"
for text and "Microsoft Excel" for spreadsheets.
|
14. |
Please number each paragraph of your submission. In addition, please
enter the line ***End of document*** following the last paragraph. This
will help the Commission verify that the document has not been damaged
during transmission.
|
15. |
The Commission will make submissions filed in electronic form
available on its web site at www.crtc.gc.ca
in the official language and format in which they are submitted. This
will make it easier for members of the public to consult the documents.
|
16. |
The Commission also encourages interested parties to monitor the
record of this proceeding (and/or the Commission's web site) for
additional information that they may find useful when preparing their
submissions.
|
|
Location of CRTC offices
|
17. |
Submissions may be examined or will be made available promptly upon
request at the Commission offices during normal business hours: |
|
Central Building
Les Terrasses de la Chaudiθre
1 Promenade du Portage, Room G-5
Hull, Quebec K1A 0N2
Tel: (819) 997-2429 - TDD: 994-0423
Fax: (819) 994-0218 |
|
Bank of Commerce Building
1809 Barrington Street
Suite 1007
Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 3K8
Tel: (902) 426-7997 - TDD: 426-6997
Fax: (902) 426-2721 |
|
405 de Maisonneuve Blvd. East
2nd Floor, Suite B2300
Montrιal, Quebec H2L 4J5
Tel: (514) 283-6607 - TDD: 283-8316
Fax: (514) 283-3689 |
|
55 St. Clair Avenue East
Suite 624
Toronto, Ontario M4T 1M2
Tel: (416) 952-9096
Fax: (416) 954-6343 |
|
Kensington Building
275 Portage Avenue
Suite 1810
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2B3
Tel: (204) 983-6306 - TDD: 983-8274
Fax: (204) 983-6317 |
|
Cornwall Professional Building
2125 - 11th Avenue
Room 103
Regina, Saskatchewan S4P 3X3
Tel: (306) 780-3422
Fax: (306) 780-3319 |
|
Suite 520 - 10405 Jasper Avenue
Edmonton, Alberta T5J 3N4
Tel: (780) 495-3224
Fax: (780) 495-3214 |
|
530-580 Hornby Street
Vancouver, British Columbia V6C 3B6
Tel: (604) 666-2111 - TDD: 666-0778
Fax: (604) 666-8322
|
|
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 |