Nice work Bill, thanks for clarifying these decisions. H On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Bill Sandiford < [email protected]> wrote:
> 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 > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > 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. > > > -- *Henry L. Coleman* *http://dragnetics.com* <http://dragnetics.com>
