For those that may have missed it elsewhere, this decision has voip impacts.
Bill Sent from iPad Begin forwarded message: Telecom Regulatory Policy 2010-632 I had the opportunity to take part in the lock-up for the decision on the CRTC’s 2009-261 proceeding today. For those who aren’t aware this proceeding mainly had to deal with ADSL Speed Matching, ADSL CO based services, and changes to the cable TPIA framework. We have just been released from the lock-up and the decision should be hitting the wire any minute now. As such you will soon have a chance to read it, but for those of you that are anxious here is my summary. To avoid having my own opinion leak in (which it is bound to anyways) I will plagiarize as much as possible. SPEED MATCHING The Commission has, once again agreed that speed matching is required. They have ordered the ILECs to file tariffs within 90 days of today with supporting Phase II cost studies. The commission notes that for the purposes of this decision references to ADSL include ALL technologies that can be supported on FTTN facilities including ADSL, ADSL2+, VDSL, and VDSL2. They have broken the speed matching discussions down into 4 parts: 1. The effect of the speed-matching requirement on incentives to invest in new network infrastructure. The Commission has found that the investment risk associated with the construction of new facilities to serve residential and business markets is greater than the risk associated with other ILEC facilities. They believe that it is reasonable for rates for higher speed ADSL service options to include a cost of capital that recognizes that risk. As such the ILECs are allowed to add a 10% mark-up to their phase II cost studies to compensate them for this risk. The Commission noted that the ILECs did not demonstrate that the effect of a speed-matching requirement would vary by market location or size and therefore applies this section of the decision to all of the ILEC’s in-territory markets regardless of the size. 2. Sufficiency of competition in the absence of speed matching. The Commission has dismissed the ILEC and cable company’s opinions that wireless and satellite communications are a reasonable alternative based on price and capacity among other things. It has found that these services can only complement, not substitute for, services provisioned over wireline facilities. Most importantly the Commission has found that without speed matching, it is likely that competition in retail Internet service markets would suffer. The Commission is of the opinion that an ILEC / Cable Company duopoly would likely occur and competition would be reduced substantially and as such the level of competition remaining would not protect consumers interests. 3. Equity of the speed-matching requirement of ILECs and cable carriers. The Commission notes that speed matching already exists in the TPIA regime and that implementing speed matching for ADSL would not represent a competitive advantage to the ILECs or the cable carriers. 4. The effect of speed matching on the ILEC’s abilities to offer new converged services, such as IPTV. The Commission has found that consumers should have the right, if they choose, to split their services between multiple carriers. The Commission has dismissed the delusion of the ILEC’s that it is not “technically” possible to facilitate this. The Commission has specifically stated that services could be installed on a second loop, where a second loop is available. The Commission has even go so far as to say it considers this a rare circumstance as most consumers will likely choose to receive their services from one company. Nonetheless, the Commission has found that speed-matching will not impair the ILEC’s abilities to offer their own converged services such as IPTV. In conclusion, the CRTC has found that speed matching is appropriate and has ordered the ILEC’s to file tariffs within 90 days. In consideration for their risk to capital, the ILECs are allowed mark-up their phase II costs by an additional 10% for the higher speeds. These tariffs are to include services provided over ILEC FTTN facilities. REGULATORY PARITY The Commission has tackled the issue of regulatory parity in 4 parts: 1. Levels of Aggregation. The Commission notes that there are significant differences in the level of aggregation of the wholesale services of the ILECs compared to the cable carriers. The Commission notes that TPIA was classified as conditional mandated essential, with transport included. As such, the Commission concludes that the cable carriers should modify their TPIA services to provide competitors with access through as few points of interconnection as possible. 2. Interconnection types and speeds. The Commission notes that the cable carriers have not expressed concerns about providing different interconnection options. Cables carriers are ordered to make GigE interconnections available to competitors. The Commission has also determined that as higher speed options become available (presumably 10G, 40G and 100G), the incumbents should make them available to competitors. 3. Restrictions on use. Commission has instructed the cable carriers to remove the working regarding LAN connection services and VPN services from their tariffs. (it is interesting to note that there is no mention of VoIP or IPTV in this section of the decision). The Commission has also found that ILECs and cable carriers do NOT have to make multi-casting functionality available at a wholesale level. With regards to static IP’s on cable, the Commission has noted that the cable carriers have claimed that they cannot provide static IPs to TPIA customers, however static IPs are available to their own cable customers and also static IPs are available to ILEC ADSL customers. In light of this, the Commission has ordered the cable carriers to show cause within 30 days from today as to why they cannot provide IP addresses to TPIA customers. 4. ITMP for aggregated ADSL and TPIA. The commission finds that is premature to decide on this matter at this time and instead will do so as part of Bell Canada’s applications to review and vary the UBB decision. ACCESS TO NEW INFRASTRUCTURE The Commission has decided that it is not going to get caught up in word games about what is Next Generation Networks (NGN) or not. They have determined that the facilities that are subject to wholesale obligations include FTTN and DOCSIS 3.0 facilities. When newer technologies are deployed it will assess them on a case-by-case basis, consistent with the requirements of the Telecommunications Act, the Policy Direction, and the principles set out in the Order in Council. CO-based ADSL access service from the ILECs and local head-end based cable access service from the cable carriers. In a nutshell, the Commission has denied the implementation of CO-based ADSL services, and refused to force the cable carriers to unbundle their networks. They have done so, in part, on the believe that only 2 of 5 ISPs would take advantage of such a service and as such there would not be a sufficient lessening or prevention of competition without these services. It is interesting to note that Commissioner Tim Denton dissented with regards to this portion of the decision and his excellent 5 page dissent is attached and may provide us with adequate grounds for appeal should we decide to go that way. So, that’s it for me from Gatineau. I hope you have found this summary helpful. Bill Sandiford Telnet Communications w: 905-674-2000 x100 f: 905-728-7918 b...@telnetcommunications.com<mailto:b...@telnetcommunications.com> IMPORTANT NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by email and delete the message. Thank you.
