Bell Canada's answer to ADSL/LDDS mishmash..
NNTP User
Ms. Ursula Menke
Secretary General
Canadian Radio-television and
Telecommunications Commission
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A0N2
Dear Ms. Menke:
Subject: Canadian Association of Internet Providers Part VII
Application Relating to Bell Canada's Withdrawal of LDDS Circuits from
Service
1. Attached is Bell Canada's answer to an application filed pursuant to
Part VII of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure by the Canadian
Association of Internet Providers.
2. Pursuant to section 39 of the Telecommunications Act the Company is
providing certain information in confidence to the Commission for the
reasons set out therein. An abridged version is provided is provided for
the public record.
3. Bell Canada is sending a machine-readable file copy of the abridged
version via Internet email to the Commission. The confidential portion is
provided to the Commission on an IBM formatted disk.
Yours truly,
Attachment
c.c.: CRTC Regional Offices (Montréal, Ottawa)
F. Gibbons, Running Tide Inc.
A. Morrison, Windigo First Nations Council
M. Garbe, Northgrove Communications Inc.
L. Salzman, McCarthy Tétrault (Counsel to Wiznet Inc.)
J. Thomson, Canadian Association of Internet Providers
G. Lane, Path Communication Management
P. Adams, The City of Windsor
N. Slater, Zeuter Development Corporation
1. Bell Canada (or the Company) is in receipt of an application, dated and
received 10 February 2000 (the application), filed further to Part VII of
the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure by the Independent members of
the Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP) (collectively, the
ISPs or the Applicants) seeking certain orders from the Commission on an
expedited basis.
2. More specifically, the ISPs are seeking the following orders, as set out
in paragraphs 1 through 4 of their application:
"Šthat the Commission direct the Respondent, Bell Canada, to immediately
cease and desist from engaging in a practice that it has engaged in since at
least January 17, 2000 of refusing to provision requests for Limited
Distance Data Service ("LDDS") circuits for Internet Service Providers Š and
other persons that have been permitted to order these circuits in the past"
"Šthat a Bell Canada policy Š which was posted on the Respondent's web site
on an unspecified date in January and provides details on the Respondent's
newly adopted practice of refusing to provision requests for LDDS circuits,
is without force and effect", and
"Šthat the Commission register each of the orders requested in paragraphs 1
and 2 above with the Federal Court of Appeal pursuant to the procedures set
out in section 63 of the [Telecommunications] Act".
3. Further, the Applicants have requested that "Šthere is a need to obtain
the orders requested in paragraphs 1 and 2 [i.e., items 1 and 2, above] on
an urgent and expedited basis". Accordingly, the Applicants requested that
the Commission abridge the time periods for filing the Respondent's answer
and the Applicants' reply comments.
4. The application appears to arise from the Company's decision that,
effective 17 January 2000, on a going forward basis, it would no longer
facilitate the permissive use of voice grade local channels for the
attachment of certain Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) such as Limited
Distance Data Service (LDDS) and xDSL modems in light of the serious and
growing concerns regarding network interference.
5. With reference to the Applicants' request for an expedited process,
while the Company does not share the Applicants' views regarding the alleged
harm they claim to be suffering, and does not consider the application and
the relief sought to be either necessary or appropriate, the Company does
believe that the matter which is the subject of the ISPs' application should
be expeditiously resolved and is therefore filing its answer within the
timeframes set out in the application.
6. Failure by the Company to address any point made by CAIP in its
application should not be taken as agreement or concurrence where such
agreement or concurrence is contrary to the Company's interests.
7. In addition, pursuant to section 39 of the Telecommunications Act, the
Company is providing this response to the Commission in confidence.
Disclosure of the service specific demand data contained herein would
provide the Company's existing and potential competitors with valuable
market data with which they could develop more effective competitive
business strategies thereby causing the Company specific direct harm. An
abridged version is provided for the public record.
8. Prior to the issuance of the application, the Company invited the
ISPs, through the auspices of CAIP, to meet to discuss the reasons for the
Company's decision and to explore alternatives that would enable ISPs to
offer to their customers xDSL based high speed Internet access. In response
to the invitation, CAIP representatives indicated that they preferred to
launch an application to the Commission prior to entering into discussions
with the Company. In the Company's view, CAIP has it backwards. As further
discussed below, the Company also believes strongly that the application
reflects a number of misunderstandings.
9. In paragraph 24 of their application, the ISPs set out the basis of
their requested orders. They state that the Company:
"Šis in violation of the Telecommunications Act and the Terms of Service
contained in its General Tariff for the following reasons:
a) the Respondent has failed to fulfill its obligation pursuant to its Terms
of Service as stated in its General Tariff Item 20 as well as pursuant to
paragraph 5 of the standard form MCC contract that applies to LDDS channels
under Tariff Item 4660, to advise customers in advance of any problems, such
as interference, and to resolve these problems directly with the customer
prior to terminating or withdrawing the LDDS option from the service;
b) the Respondent has refused to provide a tariffed service, contrary to its
obligation to do so pursuant to sections 24 and 25 of the Act;
c) the Respondent has failed, to the extent that it intends to withdraw the
LDDS option from service altogether, to apply for and obtain the
Commission's approval for the withdrawal of the service contrary to sections
24 and 25 of the Act."
10. With reference to contention a), to the best of the Company's
knowledge none of CAIP's members have in fact actually taken service
pursuant to this contract. In any event, even if they have, CAIP's comment
is irrelevant as the terms of the contract referenced are clearly only
applicable to local channels already in service and the Company has not
attempted to terminate any such channels. Rather, the Company's decision
only applies on a going forward basis.
11. With reference to contentions b) and c), CAIP is simply wrong. The
Company has neither refused to provide nor sought to withdraw any tariffed
service. The ISPs make reference to Bell Canada General Tariff (GT) Items
950.3(a)(1)a, 4550.8(b) and 4660. Based on these tariff items, the ISPs
state in paragraph 9 of the application that they "Šhave assembled their own
high speed xDSL services by leasing dedicated, point-to-point, unloaded,
metallic (i.e. copper) loops or circuits" from the Company:
"Šthe Applicants under [the above referenced tariff items] have been able to
obtain metallic loop facilities from the Respondent and have combined these
facilities with their own xDSL equipment as a means of providing high speed
Internet access services to their end-user customers."
12. In paragraphs 35 and following of their application, the ISPs contend
that "the provision of LDDS circuits is an existing telecommunications
service that has been tariffed and approved by the Commission, and as such,
the Respondent is under an obligation, pursuant to section 24 and subsection
25(1) of the Act to provide the telecommunications services it offers
pursuant to tariff."
13. A reading of the application and of the Company tariffs referenced by
the Applicants reveals that nowhere in the Company's GT is an "LDDS option"
mentioned.
14. In fact, the "LDDS option" or "LDDS service" is not a service and it
is incorrect to characterize the Company's announcement that it is no longer
offering LDDS as the withdrawal of a telecommunications service.
15. Under the tariffs referenced in the application ( i.e., GT Items 950,
4550 and 4660), the Company provides voice grade local channels. These
channels are for low speed transmission. Such channels have traditionally
been used for such applications as the transmission of voice, the
transmission of data to/from highway traffic signals and low speed data
transmission between devices in customer locations such as bank branches and
offices, all such applications utilizing that portion of the frequency
spectrum utilized for analogue voice purposes (i.e., 300hz to approximately
3400hz).
16. LDDS datasets refers to certain equipment, now manufacturer
discontinued, that is provided by the customer and located on customer
premises (customer provided equipment or CPE). It does not refer to the
service provided by the Company. Nor has the Company ever provided such
equipment. For such equipment to function, when attached to local voice
grade channels, it is first necessary that the channel provide metallic
continuity. Such channels have been available, subject to certain
restrictions as set out in the tariff, for some time. This remains
unchanged. Secondly, it is necessary that the repeaters, loading coils and
other line conditioning, which would typically be used on such channels to
ensure voice transmission quality, are removed (or not installed). When
LDDS dataset compatibility was introduced in the 1970s, the transmission
speed on LDDS dataset compatible channels was 9.6kbps and, over very short
distances in campus type environments, speeds of 19.2kbps could be achieved,
depending on actual circuit length and customer equipment. Given the low
speed, low frequency, and low power characteristics of the LDDS dataset
devices, no particular network interference issues arose and the Company was
thus prepared to permit, and to facilitate where necessary, the permissive
use by the customer of such CPE. Since the adoption of the Hayes standard
for dial-access modems, LDDS dataset manufacturers have discontinued many of
these devices, making it more and more difficult for customers to obtain
support from the manufacturers who originally supplied the CPE. Thus,
customer use of LDDS datasets with local channels has declined.
17. The Company notes in this respect that GT Item 950.1(b)(1), which the
Applicants have reproduced in paragraph 10 of their application, states
that: "[v]oice-grade channels are those with the bandwidth to carry
telephone speech or its equivalent." Item 4550.1 and .2, also reproduced in
paragraph 10 of the application state that:
"Channels are leased for the transmission of sound (voice) and/or electrical
impulses (signals) between two or more points of the lesseeŠ"
"The Company does not provide any form of service when it leases a channel."
18. The channels in question were not provided for high-speed data
transmission. Moreover, when it provided these channels, the Company made
no representations that the channels were suitable for any specific
application other than transmission at speeds of 9.6kbps. The Company was
not a supplier of LDDS datasets and the Company did not ensure or represent
that its voice grade channels were compatible with any specific type or
model of such LDDS CPE or any other CPE.
19. After the initial introduction of Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line
(ADSL) equipment in the marketplace, certain xDSL equipment
manufacturers/suppliers may have seen the use of such equipment on low speed
channels as a means of "demonstrating" the robustness and performance of
their equipment and consequently as a means of promoting sales of such
equipment. By touting the use of such equipment with relatively inexpensive
voice grade local channels, the attractiveness of the equipment to potential
buyers (or lessees) was further enhanced. In any event, it now appears that
such suppliers began to promote the use of low cost low speed channels as a
vehicle to offer high speed xDSL-based Internet access. The attachment
provides a recent example of material provided by an equipment supplier on
its Web page promoting the use of such channels. In recent years, the
Company began receiving requests for channels from users intending to use
such xDSL equipment rather than LDDS datasets. Initially, the number of
such requests was limited. In 1999, however, such use of voice grade
channels increased #. The Company believes that, if left unchecked, this
rate of increase will be matched or surpassed in 2000. The Company notes
that the use of voice grade channels for LDDS had been steadily declining
in light of the discontinuation, as noted above, of LDDS dataset support by
manufacturers.
20. As noted in the application, xDSL technologies are being used by some
ISPs in conjunction with voice grade channels in order to offer high speed
data transmission (equal to or greater than T1 speeds). The xDSL
technologies are designed to operate on unloaded copper facilities, but use
much higher frequencies and thus require higher power levels than devices
normally used in conjunction with standard voice grade channels. As the
copper loops in the network are not shielded, the higher frequencies used
for xDSL transmission require the use of higher power levels to achieve high
speed data transmission. This gives rise to near-end and far-end Cross Talk
Interference, causing a degradation of service on other transmission
facilities within the same cable structure. Interference results especially
when a "Reverse Feed" situation is created on a voice grade channel used in
conjunction with xDSL equipment which utilizes high power levels. Network
interference is caused by opposing high speed data streams within the same
cable structure (i.e., down stream on the customer premises side and
upstream on the ISP side). The service problems do not typically affect the
ISP originating the problem and that ISP's xDSL customer would typically not
be aware that it is the source of problems for other Company customers. The
service problems resulting from use of voice grade local channels for
xDSL-based high speed applications affect other customers using channels
located within the same transmission cables. In addition to the fact that
such use is causing degradation of service for other customers,
investigation of the problem is technically complex and labour intensive.
21. The resulting service calls typically require visits by Company
personnel at both ends of the circuit and require investigation of all
circuits sharing a facility. Furthermore, since CPE used by ISPs to deliver
high speed transmission services is located on customer premises and is not
owned or operated by the Company, the Company has no control over the usage,
configuration or performance of the equipment utilized by the ISP. With the
increase in such use of voice grade local channels for high speed
applications, the number and frequency of service calls received by the
Company from other customers arising from the use of these channels for high
speed xDSL service has also increased substantially.
# Filed in confidence with the CRTC.
Addressing service problems arising from this use of local channels with
xDSL equipment is thus rendered more complex. Moreover, since the Company
is not able to monitor the operation of the channels or to prevent the
occurrence of the service problems on a "real time" basis as part of its
network management activities, the Company finds itself in the position of
having to respond to service problem calls.
22. Since local channels have been used to support xDSL service, the
Company has also experienced a substantial increase in the number of service
calls associated with the voice grade channels themselves. As the channels
are from customer premise to customer premise, performance of remote testing
by the Company is not possible. As a result, trouble reports associated
with these channels are both difficult to address and require considerably
more time to address. The Company's Mean Time to Repair (MTTR) commitment
for Data Services (including those channels being used with CPE such as LDDS
and xDSL) is 4 hours. This means that the interval from the time a trouble
call is received by the Company to the time the service is restored should
not exceed an average of 4 hours. However, for local channels being
utilized with CPE such as LDDS and xDSL, each trouble call requires a Bell
Canada technician to be dispatched to each end of the channel. This is both
costly and time consuming, and defeats the Company's ability to meet the 4
hour MTTR. Table 1 shows a comparison of 1999 maintenance statistics
associated with voice grade channels being used with LDDS/xDSL devices
compared to other Schedule 4 Type 4 (S4T4) data channels:
Table 1
1999 Number of Channels (Ontario)
Number of Calls (Ontario) Ratio: 1 trouble to XX channels installed
Average MTTR
LDDS/xDSL # # 7 8.7 hours
S4T4 # # 77 3.8 hours
23. The ratio of trouble calls to number of channels installed, as shown
above, for voice grade channels with LDDS/xDSL devices is substantially
greater than for other comparable voice grade channels. For such channels,
the Company received on average, 1 trouble call for every 7 channels
installed. Whereas for other voice grade channels, the Company received,
on average, 1 trouble call for every 77 channels installed.
# Filed in confidence with the CRTC.
24. Over approximately the last two years, the Company has become
increasingly aware that use of voice grade channels for the delivery of
xDSL-based high transmission speed services may both generate network
problems for the provider of the underlying channels and create service
problems for other customers utilizing facilities within the same cables.
As well, these network problems have recently been recognized in a number of
industry fora and have been documented in working papers and contributions
to industry bodies . The service problems associated with the use of xDSL
equipment have also been recognized in the CRTC Industry Steering Committee
and have resulted in a number of industry consensus documents and
restrictions on the use of incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC)
facilities in conjunction with xDSL equipment . Other than to quote U.S.
Federal Communications Commission determinations out of context and in a
misleading manner , the ISPs in their application make virtually no mention
of the extensively documented problems associated with the use of xDSL
equipment in conjunction with local channels.
25. Faced with the above considerations, the Company decided that it
would no longer facilitate the permissive use of voice grade channels with
LDDS and xDSL devices.
26. The ISPs' application makes extensive reference to "metallic
continuity" and the commitment entered into by the Company in 1997,
following negotiations with a number of ISPs, alternative providers of long
distance services and other service providers to make available, on a
contracted basis, "metallic continuity". In paragraph 12 of the
application, the ISPs state that:
"However, the right to obtain raw, unloaded or unconditioned metallic
facilities, or "metallic continuity", to use the words of the tariff, is
contained in Item 4550 of the Respondent's General Tariff."
27. Contrary to the implication left by the above referenced passage,
metallic continuity is not synonymous nor does it imply or include the
provision of unloaded or unconditioned facilities. Loading coils, repeaters
and line conditioning are distinct from the provisioning of metallic
continuity. The use of LDDS datasets, and xDSL would require, for example,
the removal, if present, of loading coils. The GT items and the contract
referenced in the application make no mention of loading coils and the
Company is not prepared to remove them from voice grade channels in light of
the network interference impact of permissive use of xDSL devices. This has
no impact whatsoever on the tariffs or the contract.
28. As the Company understands the ISPs' submission, the ISPs contend
that the Company's decision constitutes a withdrawal of metallic
continuity..
This is not correct. The Metallic Continuity Channels Contract and the
provisions regarding the availability of metallic continuity in GT Item 4550
continue in force unaffected. For example, tariffed facilities continue to
be available and could be obtained in conjunction with a Metallic Continuity
Channels Contract, should the customer so request, subject to the
availability of suitable facilities at the location(s) requested. However,
voice grade local channels with metallic continuity will not be suitable for
use with xDSL. In this regard, the Company notes that only Type A, Class 5
unbundled loops are available to CLECs for use with xDSL equipment.
29. There is also no basis for the ISPs' contention that section 5 of the
Metallic Continuity Channels Contract has any application here. Although
the ISPs rely upon the Metallic Continuity Channels Contract, as noted
earlier, a review of the Company's records indicates that no ISP has in fact
chosen to execute a Metallic Continuity Channels Contract since this
contract became available.
30. Furthermore, in their application, the ISPs seem to contend that
approval by the Commission of the Metallic Continuity Channels Contract in
1997 provided the basis of an expectation that the Company would effectively
make metallic continuity available on demand. This is not the case. The
filing for Commission approval of the contract followed discussions which
took place with a number of service providers following the Commission's
issuance of Order 92-979 in which the Commission approved the
destandardization of metallic continuity in the Company's network.
Throughout the discussions, the service providers indicated that what they
were seeking was a mechanism which would enable them to gain some certainty,
once they obtained a facility with metallic continuity that, as a result of
the Company's network evolution, the metallic continuity would not be
withdrawn without notice. In response to the service providers' service
concerns, the Company developed the contract and agreed that in instances in
which the service provider executed a Metallic Continuity Channels Contract,
the metallic continuity of the facility in question would not be withdrawn
other than in accordance with the terms of the contract. The Company and
the service providers also agreed that if during the duration of the
contract the Company experienced service problems, the Company and the
customer would consult towards the resolution of the service problem.
Nevertheless, as noted above, the Company's records indicate that none of
the Applicants have in fact actually opted to execute Metallic Continuity
Channels Contracts with the Company.
31. In paragraph 16 of their application, the ISPs assert that the
removal of LDDS compatability constitutes a "serious blow" to the
independent ISPs. The ISPs state that they have established their service
offerings and have provisioned their networks on the basis of the continued
availability of LDDS compatable voice grade local channels.
32. In response, the Company reiterates that the use of voice grade
channels to offer high speed data services is inappropriate from a network
integrity and from a customer service standpoint. The use of channels to
support high speed xDSL-based services is also inconsistent with the
purposes for which the channels were originally offered.
33. Until the Company was in a position to assess with reasonable
certainty the service quality problem resulting from the use of local
channels for high speed Internet access services, the Company did not
consider that it was in a position to make the decision announced on 17
January 2000. However, ISPs offering or planning to offer high speed
Internet access services using xDSL technologies and their equipment
suppliers have access to the same industry fora information as does the
Company. Thus, they have been or should have been aware of the service
problems associated with the use of voice grade channels for the purpose of
offering such services and of the risks associated with this choice of
service delivery. As noted earlier, concerns regarding spectrum use and
interference associated with xDSL have been widely documented in a number of
industry bodies. To the Company's knowledge, no industry developed or
proposed standard supports the use of customer location to customer location
voice grade channels for the provision of high speed Internet access.
34. It is also incorrect to assert, as the Applicants have done, that the
inability for ISPs to use voice grade channels in this way denies them the
opportunity to offer high speed Internet access services. A number of
options are available to ISPs that should have no undue impact on the
network infrastructure and plant of ISPs.
35. In their application, the ISPs enumerate some of the options and
dismiss them out of hand (see, for example, paragraphs 19 and 46). The
Company notes, however, that from the outset of ADSL access service
availability, the Company has made available wholesale serving arrangements
to enable ISPs to offer their own ADSL high speed Internet access services.
In its ADSL access service, the Company specifically provided for use by
ISPs of Bell Canada local loops in conjunction with the primary exchange
service provided to the end-user, by establishing the ADSL loop
administration and support element . The Company further established an
ADSL Service Provider Central Office License Agreement similar to that for
virtual co-location offered to Canadian carriers and has stated that it is
also prepared to provide a physical co-location arrangement for the
provision of ADSL service by ISPs. The Company would further be prepared to
investigate additional arrangements to facilitate the provision of high
speed Internet access by ISPs.
36. As the Commission is aware, Bell Canada does not offer high speed
Internet access service (or dial-up services) on a retail basis. As
referenced above, the Company offers a number of alternatives on a wholesale
basis to enable others to offer retail high speed Internet access services.
The Company also provides some underlying network functionalities which are
combined by Bell Nexxia with other functionalities obtained from other
suppliers to offer, on a wholesale basis, a service to enable ISPs to
provide high speed Internet access to their end-customers. The serving
arrangements developed by Bell Nexxia are specifically geared to the
wholesale market and are currently being used by some of CAIP's membership
to provide service. Furthermore, competing services may be available to
ISPs from other wholesale suppliers.
37. While the Applicants may choose to dismiss out of hand other
alternatives, the Company also notes that its affiliated ISP (Bell
ActiMedia) as well as other ISPs are offering high speed Internet access
services without using local channels in the manner the Applicants now
seek..
Indeed, the Company submits that to allow the continued use by the
Applicants of voice grade channels in this way when the Company requires its
own affiliate and CLECs to utilize appropriate facilities could constitute a
form of unjust discrimination.
38. In paragraph 46, cited above, the ISPs reveal what perhaps truly
underlies their application, namely the pricing of high speed Internet
access. As the Commission has previously concluded, the marketplace for
high speed Internet access is highly competitive. In an application filed
in December 1998, CAIP sought orders from the Commission establishing price
floors for high speed Internet access services or mandating the Company to
offer regulated discounts for ISPs on the high speed Internet access
services offered by Bell ActiMedia. The Commission rejected CAIP's
application. CAIP's current application now seeks that the Commission order
the Company to provide channels for high speed Internet access services at
rates applicable to low speed channels regardless of other considerations.
39. It is inappropriate to suggest, as have the ISPs, that in order for
them to offer high speed Internet access services, they require orders from
the Commission mandating Bell Canada to make available to them, serving
arrangements which are not designed for the purpose for which the ISPs use
them, which have been identified as sources of network harm and which, if
continued to be supplied as requested by the Applicants, will result in
increasing numbers of service problems. The low speed channels the ISPs
want the Commission to mandate the Company to provide to them are not
suitable for the applications requested in the application.
40. In paragraph 26 of their application, the ISPs state that:
"Šnone of the Applicants' members have been directly contacted by the
Respondent with respect to the issue of interference and none have been
advised of any of the exact details of the problems experienced. Hence, the
Applicants have had no opportunity to resolve these problems, prior to
learning in the middle of January 2000 that the Respondent was unilaterally
terminating the provision of new LDDS channels and would be terminating
individual contracts of service for existing LDDS channels within 12
months."
41. In response, the Company notes that the service problems associated
with the use of voice grade channels for the carriage of high speed
xDSL-based traffic do not stem from the specific types or models of
equipment used by ISP but from the (mis)use of the voice grade channels to
carry high speed traffic.
42. As noted earlier in this submission, potential service problems
associated with the use of xDSL equipment are well documented and have
received considerable industry attention in Canada and elsewhere. CAIP and
its members are or should be well aware of proceedings before the
international standards setting bodies and of the work of the CISC. It is
not the Company's role to enlist CAIP's members in the activities of
industry fora and it is reasonable for the Company to expect that, as
informed and competent service providers, ISPs and/or CAIP on their behalf,
would make themselves aware of industry developments and would not pursue
the use of technologies in a manner known to have service problems.
43. The Company further notes its understanding that ISPs have also been
obtaining local channels from resellers for use with xDSL, rather than
directly from the Company. The Company has no business relationship with the
customers of resellers. Moreover, even if the Company had chosen to consult
with the resellers, it is unlikely that the resellers would have been in any
position to engage in discussions regarding the service problems associated
with specific equipment utilized by their customers since the resellers
would typically have no knowledge of the uses made of the channels by their
customers.
44. The Company agrees that problems associated with interference arising
from the use of twisted pair copper facilities to offer high speed Internet
access services warrant industry discussions. As noted earlier, such
discussions have been underway for some months in a number of industry
fora..
The Company has been an active participant, within the ITU, the TIA and ANSI
Accredited Committee T1, to discussions conducted to identify and address
such issues. The Company considers that, at this stage, the discussions
which would be appropriate relate to the migration of existing users to more
suitable facilities and the assessment of alternatives which may be
available to the ISPs for the delivery of xDSL high speed services.
Channels designed to deliver traffic at transmission speeds of 9.6kbps
should not be used to deliver traffic at transmission rates contemplated for
xDSL service applications. To the Company's knowledge, there are no
industry discussions underway in other jurisdictions regarding the use of
such circuits for this purpose.
45. With reference to the contention made in paragraph 29 of the
application that the Company failed to comply with Article 22 of its Terms
of Service, the Company notes that Article 22 relates to the termination of
a customer's service. In this regard, the Company would first note that the
channels which the ISPs are utilizing are provided on a month to month
basis. When it made its announcement of 17 January 2000, the Company, in
effect, provided existing customers 12 months advance notice. The provision
of 12 months advance notice is more than adequate and exceeds considerably
any notice requirement for any one month term contract. In any event, the
time period simply reflects the Company's assessment of a reasonable period
over which it could work with all of its customers to explore service
alternatives and to investigate alternative serving arrangements to enable
the offering of xDSL-based high speed services. No decision has been taken
at this time to actually terminate or otherwise withdraw the underlying
network service. Of course, where customers choose not to migrate, service
quality and the resulting need for facility rearrangements may become
increasingly problematic as the number of available unused copper pairs
declines. In this regard, the Company further notes that Article 8.3 of its
Terms of Service provides that:
"Customers are prohibited from using Bell Canada's services or permitting
them to be used so as to prevent a fair and proportionate use by others.
For this purpose, Bell Canada may limit use of its services as necessary."
46. In conclusion, the CAIP application should be dismissed. As noted
above, LDDS is customer provided equipment, not a network service or
facility. The local channels to which customer have attached LDDS, and more
recently xDSL, were obtained pursuant to GT Items 950, 4550 and 4660. The
Company has neither refused to provide nor withdrawn any of these tariffed
services or channels and any future withdrawal would require Commission
approval. Metallic continuity is still available, but the Metallic
Continuity Channel contract referenced by CAIP is of no relevance to the
issues at hand. The past attachment of customer provided equipment such as
LDDS and xDSL to local channels has been on a permissive basis. The
permissive attachment of LDDS was less problematic and has been condoned.
In contrast, the permissive attachment of xDSL raises serious network
interference and customer service concerns. The Company has therefore
provided customers with ample notice and taken steps to ensure in its
provisioning that no actions are taken to facilitate the misuse of local
channels for high speed service. By taking steps now to discourage the
permissive attachment of xDSL to local channels, the Company expects to
limit the magnitude of the future problem. LDDS and xDSL devices already
permissively attached will be permitted to remain in place at this time.
Over the coming twelve months, the Company expects to explore with customers
service migration and other options to reduce network interference from xDSL
devices already attached to local channels. In the circumstances, the
modest steps taken by the Company's to address the so called LDDS issue were
reasonable. CAIP has not substantiated its allegations. It has neither
provided actual evidence to support its allegations of harm nor to support
its allegations that Bell Canada has failed to fulfill its obligations
pursuant to tariffs and terms of service. Accordingly, the Applicants'
requested orders should be denied.
NOTICE
THIS ANSWER is made by Bell Canada, Ms. Sheridan Scott, Chief Regulatory
Officer, 105 Hôtel-de-Ville, Floor 6, Hull, Québec, J8X 4H7.
TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to its letter dated 10 February 2000, the
Applicant has agreed to mail or deliver a reply to this Answer to the
Secretary General of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications
Commission, Central Building, 1 Promenade du Portage, Hull, Québec, K1A 0N2
and to serve a copy of the Reply on the Respondents, at the above address,
by 22 February 2000.
SERVICE of a copy of the Reply may be effected by personal delivery or by
ordinary mail. In the case of service by personal delivery, it may be
effected at the address set out above.