CNOC Application Re Implementation of TRP 2011-703

8/3/2019 CNOC Application Re Implementation of TRP 2011-703

1/34


2/34

Table of Contents

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ........................................................................11.1 The urgency and importance of implementing TRP 2011-703 correctly ................11.2 Order Sought ............................................................................................................21.3 Structure of balance of application ..........................................................................5

2.0 LEGAL BASIS FOR APPLICATION ................................................................................62.1 Section 24 of theAct................................................................................................6 2.2 Section 25 of theAct................................................................................................6 2.3 Section 27 of theAct................................................................................................7 2.4 Section 32 of theAct................................................................................................7 2.5 Section 47 of theAct................................................................................................8

2.5.1 Application of section 27 of theAct............................................................8 2.5.2 Application of the telecommunications policy objectives of theAct..........82.5.3 Application of the Policy Direction .............................................................9

2.6 Section 55 of theAct..............................................................................................10 3.0 THE IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES RAISED BY INCUMBENT TARIFF PAGES .....11

3.1 The Bell Companies ...............................................................................................113.1.1 Realm splitting is unnecessary and unduly disruptive and costly for

independent ISP end-users a different approach is required andindependent ISPs must have the means to audit the separation of

residential and business traffic ...................................................................113.1.2 Allocation of contracted capacity dynamically across multiple interfaces is

essential to facilitate ISP network redundancy and load balancing

requirements ...............................................................................................143.1.3 Capacity ordering intervals must be short to accommodate the removal of

traffic shaping and other changing market conditions ...............................163.1.4 Independent ISPs should not be charged for 155 Mbps of capacity on

legacy OC3 interfaces, when those interfaces can only support 130 Mbps

of IP traffic .................................................................................................173.2 MTSA ....................................................................................................................17

3.2.1 Allocation of contracted capacity dynamically across multiple interfaces isessential to facilitate independent ISP network redundancy and load

balancing requirements ..............................................................................183.2.2 Capacity ordering intervals must be short to accommodate changing

market conditions .......................................................................................203.2.3 Legacy and VDSL traffic should be carried on the same AHSSPIs ..........20

3.3 Cogeco, Rogers and Videotron ..............................................................................213.3.1 Allocation of contracted capacity dynamically across multiple interfaces is

essential to facilitate independent ISP network redundancy and load

balancing requirements ..............................................................................223.3.2 Capacity ordering intervals must be short to accommodate changing

market conditions .......................................................................................243.4 Cogeco, Rogers, Shaw and Videotron ...................................................................24


3/34

- ii -

4.0 THE NEED FOR RAPID AND FAIR IMPLEMENTATION OF TRP 2011-703 ...........264.1 Implementation of TRP 2011-703 must be competition friendly and must not be

delayed ...................................................................................................................264.2 CNOC request for abridgement of filing dates associated with this Application ..274.3 CNOC request to have the terms and conditions of implementation of TRP 2011-703 made interim ...................................................................................................274.4 This Application does not prejudice CNOCs right to respond to various tariff

notices ....................................................................................................................275.0 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................286.0 LIST OF PARTIES SERVED ...........................................................................................307.0 NOTICE .............................................................................................................................31


4/34

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1.1 The urgency and importance of implementing TRP 2011-703 correctly

1. In Billing practices for wholesale residential high-speed access services, Telecom

Regulatory Policy CRTC 2011-703, 15 November 2011 (TRP 2011-703), the Commission

approved a model that permits incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) and cable carriers

(collectively incumbents) to charge independent Internet service providers (ISP) (also called

wholesale ISP customers) purchasing high-speed access services from the incumbents for

usage based on capacity, expressed in Mbps (approved capacity model).

2. Under this approach, each independent ISP will purchase network capacity in 100 Mbps

increments and will be responsible for predetermining the amount of capacity it requires. The

approved capacity model will apply to Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited

Partnership and Bell Canada in Ontario and Quebec (Bell Companies), Cogeco Cable Canada

Inc. (Cogeco), MTS Allstream Inc. (MTSA), Rogers Communications Partnership (RCP)

and Videotron Ltd. (Videotron) (collectively incumbents implementing approved capacity

model) effective 1 February 2012.

3. CNOC wishes to stress that it is very supportive of the shift to a capacity-based approach

for paying for usage.

4. CNOC is bringing this Application, pursuant to part I of the Canadian Radio-television

and Telecommunications Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules),1

in order to

address certain matters relating to the implementation of TRP 2011-703.

5. This is not an application to review and vary TRP 2011-703. The matters raised in this

Application are implementation issues that were simply not addressed in TRP 2011-703 or on

which the Commission did rule, but with respect to which enforcement is required.

6. The primary purpose of this Application is to seek relief that will ensure that the

approved capacity model will be implemented in a timely and pro-competitive manner. Another

purpose is to ensure that cable carriers continue to adhere fully to speed matching requirements


5/34

-2 -

during the transition period to aggregated Points of Interconnection (POIs) for Third Party

Internet Access (TPIA) service also mandated by TRP 2011-703. It is for this reason that Shaw

Cablesystems GP (Shaw) has also been made a respondent to this Application even though it is

not implementing the approved capacity model.

7. CNOC does not want to delay implementation of TRP 2011-703 while implementation

issues are being sorted out. Independent ISPs have waited a long time to offer services that

match all of the speeds of the services offered by incumbents to their retail end customers.

Although most of the capacity rates approved in conjunction with the approved capacity model

are, in CNOCs view excessive (which is a matter that will be addressed separately), they still

represent an overall improvement over the existing interim rates approved for these services,

which have not led to any meaningful increase in competition since they went into effect last

summer. It is for this reason that CNOC is seeking expedited treatment of this Application by the

Commission.

8. As is often the case when it comes to regulatory matters, the devil is in the detail and if

implementation issues are not handled correctly, end customers of independent ISPs will not

realize the full benefit of competition that TRP 2011-703 was intended to confer upon them.

1.2 Order Sought

9. In order to facilitate the transition to the approved capacity model, in TRP 2011-703, the

Commission directed the incumbents implementing the approved capacity model to issue by 19

December 2011 tariff pages that reflect the introduction of the approved capacity model and

corresponding rates approved in that regulatory policy.

10. It was therefore only on 19 December 2011, when the incumbents implementing the

approved capacity model issued these tariff pages that the manner in which they intend to

implement the approved capacity model became apparent. Having now had an opportunity to

review those tariff pages over the holiday break, CNOC is concerned that certain aspects of how

these incumbents plan to implement the approved capacity model is unworkable and will cause

1SOR/2010-277, 30 November 2010.


6/34

-3 -

significant expense and inconvenience for independent ISPs and their end-users, all of which

would have a chilling effect on competition in the provision of retail Internet access services by

independent ISP subject to this model.

11. Consequently, in this Application, CNOC is seeking, on an expedited basis, an order

from the Commission:

(a)Abridging the time within which the respondents and other interested parties mayrespond to this Application, such that any answers and interventions are filed with the

Commission and served on all parties by no later than 11 January 2012;

(b)Abridging the time within which CNOC may reply to the answers of respondents andintervention of other interested parties, such that any such reply must be filed with the


(c)Directing the Bell Companies to implement the approved capacity model in a mannerthat does not require configuration changes or affect individual end users of the Bell

Companies wholesale ISP customers. More specifically, this meansnot requiring the

use of different realms for the separation of residential wholesale traffic frombusiness wholesale traffic;

(d)Directing the Bell Companies to employ dynamic Radius or another technique forseparating residential wholesale traffic from business wholesale traffic that is

transparent to the end customers of the Bell Companies wholesale independent ISP

customers, and that does not impose configuration changes or costs on those end

customers;

(e)Directing the Bell Companies to provide real time mapping information between theBell Companies high-speed access service end user logins and associated telephone

numbers so that the Bell Companies wholesale ISP customers have a means to audit

which traffic crossing an interface is residential vs. business;


7/34

-4 -

(f) Directing the Bell Companies not to charge wholesale ISP customers 155 Mbps ofcapacity on OC3 legacy interfaces, when such interfaces can only accommodate 130

Mbps of IP traffic;

(g)Confirming that MTSA must allow its wholesale ISP customers to employ the sameaggregated high-speed service provider interfaces (AHSSPIs) for both legacy and

very high-speed digital subscriber line (VDSL) traffic, all under the rate structure

approved in TRP 2011-703;

(h)Directing the Bell Companies, MTSA, Cogeco, Rogers and Videotron to allow theirwholesale ISP customers to allocate purchased capacity dynamically to one or more

interfaces for the purpose of enabling independent ISPs to manage their networks by

providing for ISP network redundancy and load balancing without having to pay for

excess capacity that will never be used;

(i) Directing the Bell Companies, MTSA, Cogeco, Rogers and Videotron to implementchanges to network capacity requested by wholesale ISP customers very quickly (i.e.,

in real time or no later than two business days after such a request is made);

(j) Confirming that Cogeco, Rogers, Shaw and Videotron must adhere to the speed-matching requirements of Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-77 (TD 2006-77) for both

disaggregated and aggregated POIs during the transition period to aggregated POIs;

and

(k)Making all of the terms and conditions in the tariff pages issued by the BellCompanies, MTSA, Cogeco, Rogers and Videotron in response to TRP 2011-703

interim, in the event the issues addressed herein cannot be resolved and implemented

by 1 February 2012, such that any ultimate Commission determinations can be

applied retroactively as of that date.


8/34

-5 -

1.3 Structure of balance of application

12. Part 2.0 of this Application addresses the legal basis for the Application. Part 3.0

discusses the relief sought with respect to the various incumbents implementing the approved

capacity model in greater detail. Part 4.0 addresses the need to avoid delays in the

implementation of TRP-2011-703 while ensuring that the implementation is carried out in a pro-

competitive manner. Part 5.0 is the conclusion. Part 6.0 lists the parties served with this

Application, and Part 7.0 provides notice of the Application to those on whom it is being served.


9/34

-6 -

2.0 LEGAL BASIS FOR APPLICATION

13. The relief sought by CNOC in this Application is based on a number of provisions

included, or grounded, in the Telecommunications Act(Act).2

2.1 Section 24 of theAct

14. Section 24 of theActprovides:

The offering and provision of any telecommunications service by a Canadian carrierare subject to any conditions imposed by the Commission or included in a tariff

approved by the Commission.

15. In this Application, CNOC is asking the Commission to impose conditions with respect

to how the new capacity services under the approved capacity model are to be implemented,

pursuant to section 24 of theAct.


16. Section 25 of theActprovides in part:

(1) No Canadian carrier shall provide a telecommunications service except in

accordance with a tariff filed with and approved by the Commission that specifies the

rate or the maximum or minimum rate, or both, to be charged for the service.

. . .

(3) A tariff shall be filed and published or otherwise made available for public

inspection by a Canadian carrier in the form and manner specified by the

Commission and shall include any information required by the Commission to beincluded.

17. In this Application, the Commission is also being asked to require the incumbents

implementing the approved capacity model to include in their tariffs conditions regarding how

the model is to be implemented that conform to the relief sought by CNOC herein, as authorized

by section 25 of theAct.

2 S.C. 1993, c. 38, as am.


10/34

-7 -


18. Subsection 27(2) of theActprovides:

No Canadian carrier shall, in relation to the provision of a telecommunications

service or the charging of a rate for it, unjustly discriminate or give an undue orunreasonable preference toward any person, including itself, or subject any person to

an undue or unreasonable disadvantage.

19. The implementation of the approved capacity model that CNOC is seeking in this

Application is intended to ensure that the incumbents implementing the approved capacity model

do not unjustly discriminate against their wholesale ISP customers (who are also their

competitors) with respect to the manner in which they provide network capacity to the ISPs

relative to the manner in which these incumbents provide capacity to themselves. Accordingly,

the relief sought by CNOC is well founded under section 27 of the Act.

20. The same consideration applies with respect to ensuring that cable carriers do not

unjustly discriminate against independent ISPs be ceasing to match wholesale speeds to retail

speeds during the transition period from disaggregated POIs to aggregated POIs.


21. Section 32 of theActprovides in part:

The Commission may, for the purposes of this Part,

(d) suspend or disallow any portion of a tariff, agreement or arrangement that is in

its opinion inconsistent with this Part;

(e) substitute or require the Canadian carrier to substitute other provisions forthose disallowed;

(f) require the Canadian carrier to file another tariff, agreement or arrangement, oranother portion of it, in substitution for a suspended or disallowed tariff,

agreement, arrangement or portion; and


11/34

-8 -

(g) in the absence of any applicable provision in this Part, determine any matterand make any order relating to the rates, tariffs or telecommunications services of

Canadian carriers.

22. These provisions confer upon the Commission the authority to substitute provisions in

the tariff pages issued by the incumbents implementing the approved capacity model pursuant to

TRP 2011-703 with provisions that incorporate the relief sought by CNOC in this Application.


23. Section 47 of theActprovides:

The Commission shall exercise its powers and perform its duties under this Act and

any special Act

(a) with a view to implementing the Canadian telecommunications policyobjectives and ensuring that Canadian carriers provide telecommunications

services and charge rates in accordance with section 27; and

(b) in accordance with any orders made by the Governor in Council under section

8 or any standards prescribed by the Minister under section 15.

2.5.1 Application of section 27 of theAct

24. Consistent with subsection 47(a) of the Act, the relief sought by CNOC in this

Application will, as required by subsection 27(2) of the Act, prevent the unjust discrimination

that independent ISPs would otherwise face if the incumbents implementing the approved

capacity model are allowed to implement that model as they propose to do.

2.5.2 Application of the telecommunications policy objectives of theAct

25. The relief sought in this Application will also streamline the implementation of the

approved capacity model, reduce the related costs for independent ISPs and their end users, and

promote the fair application of the speed matching principle. The net effect will be to enhance

the retail competition that will be facilitated by implementation of this model.


12/34

-9 -

26. Accordingly, and consistent with subsection 47(b) of the Act, the granting of this relief

will enhance the pursuit of the following telecommunications policy objectives set out in section

7 of the Act: (a) to facilitate the orderly development throughout Canada of a

telecommunications system that serves to safeguard, enrich and strengthen the social and

economic fabric of Canada and its regions; (b) to render reliable and affordable

telecommunications services of high quality accessible to Canadians in both urban and rural

areas in all regions of Canada; (c) to enhance the efficiency and competitiveness, at the national

and international levels, of Canadian telecommunications; (f) to foster increased reliance on

market forces for the provision of telecommunications services and to ensure that regulation,

where required, is efficient and effective; and (h) to respond to the economic and social

requirements of users of telecommunications services.

2.5.3 Application of the Policy Direction

27. Also, pursuant to subsection 47(b) of the Act, the relief requested by CNOC is also

consistent with the provision of paragraph 1(b)(iv) of the Policy Direction3 passed pursuant to

section 8 of the Act which provides that the Commissions regulatory measures comprising

arrangements or regimes relating to access to networks should ensure the technological and

competitive neutrality of those arrangements or regimes, to the greatest extent possible, to enable

competition from new technologies and not to artificially favour either Canadian carriers or

resellers.

28. The measures that CNOC is proposing in this application are designed to ensure that the

approved capacity model and speed matching are implemented in a manner that promote

competition from both DSL and cable technologies, and that such implementation is

technologically and competitively neutral and does not disadvantage wholesale ISP customers of

incumbents relative to the manner in which the incumbents implementing the approved capacity

model satisfy their own network capacity requirements.

3 Order Issuing a Direction to the CRTC on Implementing the Canadian Telecommunications Policy Objectives,

P.C. 2006-1534, 14 December 2006, SOR/2006-355, Canada Gazette Part II, Vol. 140. No. 26, 27 December

2006.


13/34

-10 -


29. Section 55 of the Act provides the Commission with the powers of a superior court with

respect to the doing of anything necessary for the exercise of its powers and the performance ofits duties. The broad statutory authority further reinforces the Commissions authority to grant

the relief sought in this Application.


14/34

-11 -

3.0 THE IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES RAISED BY INCUMBENT TARIFF PAGES

3.1 The Bell Companies

30. Four main concerns arise from the tariff pages issued by the Bell Companies. Theseconcerns are: (a) the requirement for the use of separate realms to separate residential traffic

from business traffic, the effect of which would be extremely disruptive to independent ISPs and

their end customers;4 (b) the lack of flexibility for independent ISPs to allocate purchased

capacity dynamically over multiple interfaces, which would require independent ISPs to pay for

twice the capacity they use in order to provide redundancy and load balance traffic within their

networks;5 (c) the lack of specified availability of very short time frames for ordering and having

deployed capacity, which limits the ability of independent ISPs to react quickly to the removal of

traffic shaping by the Bell Companies and other market conditions; and (d) the Bell Companies

stated intention to charge wholesale ISP customers 155 Mbps of capacity on OC3 legacy

interfaces despite the fact that such interfaces can only accommodate 130 Mbps of IP . Each

issue is discussed in turn below.

3.1.1 Realm splitting is unnecessary and unduly disruptive and costly for

independent ISP end-users a different approach is required and independent ISPs

must have the means to audit the separation of residential and business traffic

31. The Bell Companies intend to require independent ISPs to assign separate realms to

residential and business traffic to address the reality that residential traffic is subject to the

approved capacity model, while business traffic is not. This approach would be extremely

disruptive and costly for independent ISP end-users to implement, since each end-user whose

realm is required to be changed would have to be contacted individually in order to ensure that

the end-user can continue to authenticate to (i.e., log into) its ISPs network. This is not a change

that can be made quickly or painlessly; this is a very significant change for every end-user.Attempting to force end-users to make such changes quickly will most likely drive many of them

to the incumbents, whereas the Bell Companies face no such disruption of their retail services.

4 Bell Aliant General Tariff 21560, Items 5410.3.(r) and 5440.3.(p) and Bell Canada Tariff 6716, Item 5410.3.(r)

and 5440.3.(p).5

Bell Aliant General Tariff 21560, Item 5410.2.(c)(3) and 5440.2.(c)(6) and Bell Canada Tariff 6716, Item

5410.2.(c)(3) and 5440.2.(c)(6).


15/34


16/34

-13 -

more straightforward than requiring all of the Bell Companies wholesale ISP customers to add

at least one realm to each of the hundreds of Broadband Access Servers in the Bell Companies

network.

36. There may also be other ways for the Bell Companies to deal with this issue that do not

disrupt end customers of competitors. For example, the Bell Companies were clearly able to

separate traffic when they used deep packet inspection to apply traffic shaping to some types of

wholesale traffic while exempting others and the equipment required to do this is already

deployed through the Bell Companies network.

37. Accordingly, CNOC seeks an order from the Commission directing the Bell Companies

to implement the approved capacity model in a manner that does not require configuration

changes or affect individual end users of the Bell Companies wholesale ISP customers. More

specifically, this meansnot requiring the use of different realms for the separation of residential

wholesale traffic from business wholesale traffic.

38. Instead CNOC is asking the Commission to direct the Bell Companies to employ

dynamic Radius or another technique for separating residential wholesale traffic from business

wholesale traffic that is transparent to the end customers of the Bell Companies ISP wholesalecustomers and does not impose configuration changes or cost on those end customers.

39. Regardless of the solution ultimately adopted for the separation or identification of

residential and business traffic on interfaces, independent ISPs require real-time access from the

Bell Companies to the mapping information between the Bell Companies high-speed access

service end user login usernames and associated telephone numbers so that the ISPs can audit

whether end customers are using their residential and business logins correctly on telephone lines

associated with residential and business high-speed services, respectively.

40. Independent ISPs have no other means of auditing their end users usage for compliance

with any separation of residential and business traffic. This type of information has long been

requested by CNOC members and the Bell Companies have consistently refused to provide it.

Access to this information is essential for the Bell Companies wholesale ISP customers ability


17/34

-14 -

to comply with the separation of residential and business traffic required by the approved

capacity model.

41. Accordingly, CNOC requests an order from the Commission directing the Bell

Companies to provide real time mapping information between the Bell Companies high-speed

access service end user login usernames and associated telephone numbers so that the Bell

Companies wholesale ISP customers have a means to audit which traffic crossing an interface is

residential vs. business

3.1.2 Allocation of contracted capacity dynamically across multiple interfaces is

essential to facilitate ISP network redundancy and load balancing requirements

42. The Bell Companies are also proposing to prohibit independent ISPs from using

purchased reserved capacity dynamically over multiple AHSSPIs. Instead the capacity has to be

split and pre-allocated to specific interfaces. Thus, for example, an independent ISP only using

300 Mbps of capacity, but wanting to have redundancy for that capacity on another interface

would have to purchase 600 Mbps of capacity blocks in order to provide for the redundancy,

even though it will never use more than 300 Mbps of incumbent capacity in total. Capacity

charges should not be applied in this manner. The only capacity for which an independent ISP

should compensate the Bell Companies is the total capacity employed by the ISP that crosses the

interfaces between the ISP and the Bell Companies network.

43. Independent ISPs already pay to obtain redundancy and load balancing capabilities by

purchasing multiple interfaces, but the amount of total capacity used is the same, whether it is

allocated over one or multiple interfaces.

44. Independent ISPs should not be forced to pay for twice the capacity they need in order toobtain redundancy and load balancing functionalities. Such an outcome is not consistent with the

stated intent of TRP 2011-703 of allowing independent ISPs to manage their own capacity.

Independent ISPs should be able to use the capacity that they purchase in a manner that allows

them to manage their networks as they, and their end-users require. It should be possible for

independent ISP purchased capacity to be allocated dynamically over multiple AHSSPIs as

required in order to achieve this result. Otherwise, the Bell Companies will be conferring an


18/34

-15 -

undue preference on themselves in this area as well, while unduly discriminating against their

wholesale ISP customers, contrary to section 27(2) of the Actsince the Bell Companies face no

such constraints and increased costs to manage their own retail end customers traffic on the Bell

Companies network.

45. In addition, in situations where a wholesale ISP customer employs multiple AHSSPIs

each time an end user connects to the independent ISPs network, the Bell Companies determine

the AHSSPI over which the end user will be connected without any input from the independent

ISP. Thus, the independent ISP must manage its capacity globally over all AHSSPIs and not on

an AHSSPI-by-AHSSPI basis.

46. There is nothing in TRP 2011-703 that specifically requires capacity to be allocated to a

specific interface. Quite the opposite appears to be the case. Paragraph 58 of TRP 2011-703

specifies the creation of a monthly capacity charge, offered in increments of 100 Mbps, but does

not require the capacity to be allocated to specific interfaces. Paragraph 48 of the TRP 2011-703

also endorses the use of a capacitybased model, which measures capacity at a single point in a

network, as being consistent with respect to how the incumbent network providers plan and build

their own networks and estimate their usage costs. In other words, the purpose of the capacity

charge is to recover usage throughout an incumbents network and should be available forpurchase according to that context. In sum, a plain reading of TRP 2011-703 requires capacity to

be allocated globally over all available interfaces employed by a wholesale ISP customer of the

Bell Companies.

47. Based on all of these considerations, CNOC is requesting an order from the Commission

requiring the Bell Companies to allow their ISP wholesale customers to allocate purchased

capacity dynamically to one or more interfaces for the purpose of enabling independent ISPs to

manage their networks by providing for ISP network redundancy and load balancing without

having to pay for excess capacity that will never be used.


19/34


20/34

-17 -

53. If these issues are not remedied, the Bell Companies will be conferring an undue

preference on themselves in this area as well, while unduly discriminating against their

wholesale ISP customers, contrary to section 27(2) of the Actsince the Bell Companies face no

such lengthy provisioning intervals in managing their own retail end customers traffic on the

Bell Companies network.

54. Accordingly, CNOC is requesting an order from the Commission requiring the Bell

Companies to implement changes to network capacity requested by wholesale ISP customers

very quickly (i.e., either in real time or no later than two business days after such a request is

made).

3.1.4 Independent ISPs should not be charged for 155 Mbps of capacity on legacy

OC3 interfaces, when those interfaces can only support 130 Mbps of IP traffic

55. CNOC members have been advised that the Bell Companies intend to charge wholesale

ISP customers for 155 Mbps of capacity on OC3 legacy interfaces, when such interfaces can

only accommodate 130 Mbps of IP traffic. There is no justification for this approach.

Independent ISPs should only be charged for purchased useable network capacity as required by

TRP 2011-703.

56. Accordingly, CNOC is requesting an order from the Commission directing the Bell

Companies not to charge wholesale ISP customers 155 Mbps of capacity on OC3 legacy

interfaces, when such interfaces can only accommodate 130 Mbps of IP traffic.

3.2 MTSA

57. Since MTSA has not proposed different rate structures or rates for its wholesale high-

speed access service depending on whether the service is ultimately used by independent ISPs to

serve residential or business end customers, there is no need to separate residential traffic from

business traffic. Accordingly, the realm splitting issue identified in the case of the Bell

Companies does not arise in the case of MTSA.


21/34

-18 -

58. The other two concerns identified in the case of the Bell Companies do also apply in the

case of MTSA. These concerns plus an additional one that arises only in the case of MTSA are:

(a) the apparent lack of flexibility for independent ISPs to allocate purchased capacity

dynamically over multiple interfaces, which would require independent ISPs to pay for twice the

capacity they use in order to provide redundancy and load balance traffic within their networks;7

(b) the lack of specified availability of very short time frames for ordering and having deployed

capacity, which limits the ability of independent ISPs to react quickly to market conditions; and

(c) the imposing on independent ISPs of a requirement to employ separate AHSSPIs for legacy

and VDSL traffic, respectively, which unduly limits the usefulness of the approved capacity

model in promoting competition.

3.2.1 Allocation of contracted capacity dynamically across multiple interfaces isessential to facilitate independent ISP network redundancy and load balancing

requirements

59. MTSA is proposing to prohibit independent ISPs from using purchased reserved capacity

dynamically over multiple AHSSPIs. Instead the capacity has to be split and pre-allocated to

specific interfaces. As noted in section 3.1.2 of this Application, if this requirement were

implemented, independent ISPs would have to pay twice for the amount of network capacity

they actually reserve in order to provide for redundancy, even though the independent ISP willnever use more than original amount of contracted capacity in total. Capacity charges should not

be applied in this manner. The only capacity for which an independent ISP should compensate

MTSA is the total capacity employed by the independent ISP that crosses the interfaces between

the independent ISP and MTSAs network.


purchasing multiple interfaces, but the amount of total capacity used is the same, whether it is

allocated over one or multiple interfaces.

61. Independent ISPs should not be forced to pay for twice the capacity they need in order to

obtain redundancy and load balancing functionalities. Such an outcome is not consistent with the

7 MTSA Special Services and Facilties Tariff 24002, Item 5830.3.A.6).


22/34

-19 -




independent ISP purchased capacity to be allocated dynamically over multiple AHSSPIs as

required in order to achieve this result. Otherwise, MTSA will be conferring an undue preference

on itself in this area as well, while unduly discriminating against their wholesale ISP customers,

contrary to section 27(2) of theAct, since MTSA faces no such constraints and increased costs to

manage its own retail end customers traffic on its network.

62. In addition, in situations in which a wholesale ISP customer employs multiple AHSSPIs

when an end user connects to the ISPs network, MTSA determines the AHSSPI over which the

end user will be connected without any input from the ISP. Thus, the ISP must manage its

capacity globally over all AHSSPIs and not on an AHSSPI-by-AHSSPI basis.





also endorses the use of a capacitybased model, which measures capacity at a single point in anetwork, as being consistent with respect to how the incumbent network providers plan and build


charge is to recover usage throughout an incumbents network and should be available for

purchase according to that context. In sum, a plain reading of TRP 2011-703 requires capacity to

be allocated globally over all available interfaces employed by a wholesale ISP customer of

MTSA.


requiring MTSA to allow its wholesale ISP customers to allocate purchased capacity

dynamically to one or more interfaces for the purpose of enabling independent ISPs to manage

their networks by providing for ISP network redundancy and load balancing without having to

pay for excess capacity that will never be used.


23/34

-20 -

3.2.2 Capacity ordering intervals must be short to accommodate changing market

conditions

65. The capacity ordering and deployment intervals contemplated by MTSA do not appear to

have been specified in the MTSA tariff.

66. Very short network capacity ordering and deployment intervals are required by

independent ISPs in order to deal with dynamic changes that can occur rapidly in retail markets.

Capacity should also be available to be allocated dynamically across multiple interfaces, in order

to prevent an unduly punitive and discriminatory implementation of TRP 2011-703, which

would be contrary to the intent of that Commission decision.

67. If these issues are not clarified, and if necessary remedied, MTSA will be conferring an

undue preference on itself in this area as well, while unduly discriminating against its wholesale

ISP customers, contrary to section 27(2) of the Act since the MTSA faces no such lengthy

provisioning intervals in managing its own retail end customers traffic on the MTSA network.

68. Accordingly, CNOC is requesting an order from the Commission requiring MTSA to

implement changes to network capacity requested by wholesale ISP customers very quickly (i.e.,

either in real time or no later than two business days after such a request is made).

3.2.3 Legacy and VDSL traffic should be carried on the same AHSSPIs

69. MTSA appears to be imposing a requirement for legacy and VDSL traffic to be carried

across separate AHSSPIs. This means that independent ISPs would have to buy separate

AHSSPIs to carry each type of traffic, thereby greatly diminishing the usefulness of the approved

capacity model to promote competition in the operating territory of MTSA.

70. This approach runs contrary to TRP 2011-703 wherein the Commission specifically

stated:8

8 At paragraph 70.


24/34

-21 -

The Commission considers that requiring each ILEC to use a single billing modelfor both its new and legacy services would be efficient for independent service

providers, as it would alleviate CNOCs concern about an independent service

provider having to buy separate interfaces for new and legacy services.

71. It is clear that the Commission intended for the approved capacity model, includingcapacity and interface charges approved in TRP 2011-703, to be applied to both legacy and

VDSL traffic and for interfaces and capacity to be shared by residential wholesale traffic using

both the older and newer DSL access technologies.

72. Accordingly, CNOC requests that the Commission order MTSA to allow its ISP

wholesale ISP customers to employ the same AHSSPIs for both legacy and VDSL traffic, all

under the rate structure approved in TRP 2011-703.

3.3 Cogeco, Rogers and Videotron

73. In accordance with TRP 2011-703, Cogeco, Rogers and Videotron (cable carriers

implementing the approved capacity model) are all subject the approved capacity model. Since

TPIA service does not distinguish wholesale high-speed access services depending on whether

they are ultimately used by independent ISPs to serve residential or business end customers,

there is no need to separate residential traffic from business traffic. Accordingly, the realmsplitting issue identified in the case of the Bell Companies does not arise in the case of these

three cable carriers.

74. However, two other concerns identified in the case of the Bell Companies and MTSA do

also apply in the case of the cable carriers implementing the approved capacity model. These

concerns are: (a) the possible lack of flexibility for independent ISPs to allocate purchased

capacity dynamically over multiple interfaces, which would require independent ISPs to pay for

twice the capacity they use in order to provide redundancy and load balance traffic within their

networks; and (b) the lack of specified availability of very short time frames for ordering and

having deployed capacity, which limits the ability of independent ISPs to react quickly to market

conditions.


25/34

-22 -

3.3.1 Allocation of contracted capacity dynamically across multiple interfaces is

essential to facilitate independent ISP network redundancy and load balancing

requirements

75. None of the cable carriers implementing the approved capacity model have specifically

indicated that purchased network capacity can or cannot be allocated among multiple POI

interconnections located at aggregated POI locations. However, since the Bell Companies and

MTSA do intend to tie the use of purchased capacity to specific AHSSPIs, CNOC wishes to

ensure that this situation will not occur in the case of the three cable carriers implementing the

approved capacity model.

76. As noted in section 3.1.2 of this Application, if this requirement were implemented,

independent ISPs would have to pay twice for the amount of network capacity they actually

reserve in order to provide for redundancy, even though the ISP will never use more than

original amount of contracted capacity in total. Capacity charges should not be applied in this

manner. The only capacity for which an ISP should pay is the total capacity employed by the ISP

that crosses the interfaces between the ISP and a cable carriers network.


purchasing multiple interfaces, but the amount of total capacity used is the same, whether it isallocated over one or multiple interfaces.

78. Independent ISPs should not be forced to pay for twice the capacity they need in order to

obtain redundancy and load balancing functionalities. Such an outcome is not consistent with the




independent ISP purchased capacity to be allocated dynamically over multiple interfaces as

required in order to achieve this result. Otherwise, Cogeco, Rogers and Videotron will be

conferring an undue preference on themselves in this area as well, while unduly discriminating

against their wholesale ISP customers, contrary to section 27(2) of the Actsince no cable carrier

faces any such constraints or increased costs to manage its own retail end customers traffic on

its network.


26/34

-23 -

79. In addition, in situations in which a wholesale ISP customer employs multiple interfaces

when an end user connects to the independent ISPs network, the cable carrier determine the

interface over which the end user will be connected without any input from the independent ISP.

Thus, the independent ISP must manage its capacity globally over all interfaces and not on an

interface-by-interface basis.





also endorses the use of a capacitybased model, which measures capacity at a single point in a

network, as being consistent with respect to how the incumbent network providers plan and build


charge is to recover usage throughout an incumbents network and should be available for

purchase according to that context. In sum, a plain reading of TRP 2011-703 requires capacity to

be allocated globally over all available interfaces employed by a wholesale ISP customer of

Cogeco, Rogers or Videotron .


requiring Cogeco, Rogers and Videotron to allow their wholesale ISP customers to allocate

purchased capacity dynamically to one or more interfaces for the purpose of enabling

independent ISPs to manage their networks by providing for independent ISP network

redundancy and load balancing without having to pay for excess capacity that will never be used.


27/34


28/34

-25 -

87. More specifically, the the Commission determined that whenever one of these cable

carriers introduces a new retail Internet service speed, it is to file, at the same time, proposed

revisions to its TPIA tariff to include this new speed offering, with a supporting cost study. 11 The

Commission also ruled that should such a cable carrier introduce a speed upgrade to one of its

retail Internet service offerings with no corresponding price change, it is to issue at the same

time, revised TPIA tariff pages that match these retail service speed changes with no

corresponding price change.12

These requirements are still in effect.

88. In TRP 2011-703,13

established a two year transition period commencing 15 November

2011 for migration of cable carrier wholesale ISP customers from disaggregated POIs to

aggregated POIs (Transition Period). Independent ISPs that currently interconnect at an

existing disaggregated POI will be allowed to add retail customers and POI capacity at that POI

during the Transition Period.14

89. CNOC is seeking confirmation that the four cable carriers that provide TPIA service will

adhere to the speed-matching requirements of TD 2006-77 for TPIA service provided at the

disaggregated POIs, as well as aggregated POIs during the Transition Period. If cable carriers

cease adhering to the speed matching requirements with respect to disaggregated POIs, as cablecarriers increase retail speeds, TPIA customers will effectively be forced to migrate immediately

to aggregated POIs very quickly in order to get access to the corresponding higher speeds via

TPIA. Such an outcome would, effectively and practically, render the Transition Period granted

by the Commission meaningless.

90. Should the cable carriers that are required to provide TPIA be unwilling to confirm that

they will adhere scrupulously to the speed matching requirements of TD 2006-77 with respect to

both disaggregated and aggregated POIs during the Transition Period, CNOC is requesting that

the Commission order them to do so.

10 Rogers Access Services tariff CRTC 21530, part G, Item 703.1.4 i).11 TD 2006-77, paragraph 209.12

Id., At paragraph 210.13

At paragraph 153.14 Ibid.


29/34

-26 -

4.0 THE NEED FOR RAPID AND FAIR IMPLEMENTATION OF TRP 2011-703

4.1 Implementation of TRP 2011-703 must be competition friendly and must not be

delayed

91. CNOC understands that a number of the problems discussed in Part 3.0 of this

Application reflect the technical and operational challenges associated with the approved

capacity model. At the same time, it is only now that independent ISPs have become fully aware

of these grave problems and the related high costs they would bear if the Bell Companies,

MTSA, Cogeco, Rogers and Videotron implement the approved capacity model in the manner in

which they propose. The implementations proposed by these incumbents would have a punitive

effect on independent ISPs that amounts to undue discrimination against them, contrary to

section 27(2) of theAct.

92. Implementation of the approved capacity model in the manner proposed by incumbents

will harm competition. The approved capacity model must be implemented promptly, yet in a

competition-friendly manner that does not disadvantage end-users.

93. The interim rates approved for wholesale services in Telecom Order CRTC 2011-377

(TO 2011-377) are excessively high and there has been very limited take-up for wholesale

services at those rates. Similarly, existing legacy wholesale high-speed access service rates are

simply too high in light of the cost reductions that have occurred in the telecommunications

industry since those rates were struck.

94. Despite the fact that the new capacity-based rates of the Bell Companies, Cogeco, Rogers

and Videotron are, in CNOCs view, excessively high, it is very important for the independent

ISP community to have timely access to: (a) speed-matched services at reasonable and affordable

rates; and (b) rate reductions for the access portions of the wholesale high-speed services of the

incumbents implementing the approved capacity model, so that independent ISP services can be

more competitive for the benefit of consumers.


30/34

-27 -

4.2 CNOC request for abridgement of filing dates associated with this Application

95. In order to ensure the most expeditious resolution of the matters raised in this

Application, CNOC is requesting an order:


Commission and served on all parties by no later than 11 January 2012; and

(b)Abridging the time within which CNOC may reply to the answers of respondents andintervention of other interested parties, such that any such reply must be filed with the

Commission and served on all parties by no later than 16 January 2012.

4.3 CNOC request to have the terms and conditions of implementation of TRP 2011-703

made interim

96. In order to ensure as seamless as possible a resolution of the issues raised in this

Application and minimize disruption and expense for the wholesale customers of the incumbents

and their end users, CNOC is requesting an order from the Commission making all of the terms

and conditions in the tariff pages issued by the Bell Companies, MTSA, Cogeco, Rogers andVideotron in response to TRP 2011-703 interim. That way, if the issues addressed herein cannot

be resolved and implemented by 1 February 2012, any ultimate Commission determinations

arising from this Application can be applied retroactively as of that date.

4.4 This Application does not prejudice CNOCs right to respond to various tariff

notices

97. This Application is made without prejudice to CNOCs right to intervene with respect tovarious tariff notices (TNs) filed by incumbents further to TRP 2011-703.

15CNOC fully

intends to intervene with respect to those tariff notices as permitted by theRules.

15These include Bell Aliant TNs 391 and 392, Bell Canada TNs 7338 and 7339, Cogeco TN 35A, Cogeco TN 36,

MTSA TN 721, Rogers TN 19 and Videotron TN 41.


31/34

-28 -

5.0 CONCLUSION

98. Based on all of the foregoing submissions, in order to ensure a timely and pro-

competitive implementation of TRP 2011-703, in this Application CNOC is seeking, on an

expedited basis, an order from the Commission:



(b)Abridging the time within which CNOC may reply to the answers of respondents andintervention of other interested parties, such that any such reply must be filed with theCommission and served on all parties by no later than 16 January 2012;

(c)Directing the Bell Companies to implement the approved capacity model in a mannerthat does not require configuration changes or affect individual end users of the Bell

Companies wholesale ISP customers. More specifically, this meansnot requiring the

use of different realms for the separation of residential wholesale traffic from

business wholesale traffic;

(d)Directing the Bell Companies to employ dynamic Radius or another technique forseparating residential wholesale traffic from business wholesale traffic that is

transparent to the end customers of the Bell Companies wholesale ISP customers,

and that does not impose configuration changes or costs on those end customers;

(e)Directing the Bell Companies to provide real time mapping information between theBell Companies high-speed access service end user logins and associated telephone

numbers so that the Bell Companies wholesale ISP customers have a means to audit

which traffic crossing an interface is residential vs. business;


32/34

-29 -

(f) Directing the Bell Companies not to charge wholesale ISP customers 155 Mbps ofcapacity on OC3 legacy interfaces, when such interfaces can only accommodate 130

Mbps of IP traffic;

(g)Confirming that MTSA must allow its wholesale ISP customers to employ the sameaggregated high-speed service provider interfaces (AHSSPIs) for both legacy and

very high-speed digital subscriber line (VDSL) traffic, all under the rate structure

approved in TRP 2011-703;

(h)Directing the Bell Companies, MTSA, Cogeco, Rogers and Videotron to allow theirwholesale ISP customers to allocate purchased capacity dynamically to one or more

interfaces for the purpose of enabling independent ISPs to manage their networks by

providing for ISP network redundancy and load balancing without having to pay for

excess capacity that will never be used;

(i) Directing the Bell Companies, MTSA, Cogeco, Rogers and Videotron to implementchanges to network capacity requested by wholesale ISP customers very quickly (i.e.,

in real time or no later than two business days after such a request is made);

(j) Confirming that Cogeco, Rogers, Shaw and Videotron must adhere to the speed-matching requirements of Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-77 (TD 2006-77) for both

disaggregated and aggregated POIs during the transition period to aggregated POIs;

and

(k)Making all of the terms and conditions in the tariff pages issued by the BellCompanies, MTSA, Cogeco, Rogers and Videotron in response to TRP 2011-703

interim, in the event the issues addressed herein cannot be resolved and implemented

by 1 February 2012, such that any ultimate Commission determinations can be

applied retroactively as of that date.


33/34

-30 -

6.0 LIST OF PARTIES SERVED

1. Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership - Denis Henry

[[email protected]]

2. Bell Canada Mirko Bibic [[email protected]]

3. Cogeco Cable Canada Inc. Michel Messier [[email protected]]

4. MTS Allstream Inc. Teresa Griffin-Muir [[email protected]]

5. Rogers Communications Partnership Ken Engelhart [[email protected]]

6. Shaw Cablesystems GP Jean Brazeau [[email protected]]

7. Videotron Ltd. Dennis Beland [[email protected]]

8. List of Parties to Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2011-77 [Most recent CRTC

email distribution list]


34/34

-31 -

7.0 NOTICE

This application is made by Canadian Network Operators Consortium Inc., c/o Bill Sandiford,

107-85 Curlew Drive, Toronto, ON, M3A 2P8 [Email: [email protected]].

A copy of this application may be obtained by sending a request to [email protected].

TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to section 25, and, as applicable section 26 of the Canadian

Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Rules of Practice andProcedure, any

respondent or intervener is required to mail or deliver or transmit by electronic mail its answer to

this application to the Secretary General of the Canadian Radio-television and

Telecommunications Commission (Commission), Central Building, 1 Promenade du Portage,Gatineau (Qubec) J8X 4B1, and to serve a copy of the answer on the applicant within 30 days

of the date that this application is posted on the Commissions website or by such other date as

the Commission may specify.

Service of the copy of the answer on the applicant may be effected by personal delivery, by

electronic mail, or by ordinary mail. In the case of service by personal delivery, it may be

effected at the address set out above.

If a respondent does not file or serve its answer within the time limit prescribed, the application

may be disposed of without further notice to it.

*** END OF DOCUMENT ***

Documents

CNOC Application Re Implementation of TRP 2011-703