ILEC competitors say Canada’s three-year-old co-location rules are already outdated

A coalition of 12 telecom companies is calling for changes to Canada’s three-year-old co-location regime, saying the current rules are making it difficult for competitors to move outside urban cores and to offer next generation data services. The group, calling itself the Coalition for Better Co-location (CBC), is asking the CRTC to intervene in several co-location disputes that have arisen between its members and ILECs across Canada. The CBC’s main concerns are the lengthy ordering intervals applied by the ILECs; the inability of competitors to obtain Type 2 co-location; the lack of network planning information; and the inability of competitors to co-locate at remote terminals. One of the main challenges facing new competitors is expanding their service outside core urban markets. As the CBC points out in one of its two July 17 Part VII applications, "co-location is critical to the extension and reach of CLEC services beyond urban core areas." While co-location isn’t the only hurdle (access to municipal rights-of-way and in-building wiring are others), the group argues that it is a critical one: "…the roll-out to non-core areas of competitive local exchange services and next generation data services cannot take place without the ability for CLECs to co-locate in ILEC COs." Introduced in 1997 (Decision 97-15), the current co-location rules are designed primarily for competitive switched local telephony services. The CBC says the rules need to be revised to reflect DSL, IP-based services and other new integrated technologies. Its application notes that the current rules do not reflect the evolution of competition, nor the migration of telecom networks from circuit-switched to packet-switched protocols. The cost of co-location is another concern. The coalition contends that Type 1 physical co-location – the preferred choice of ILECs – is "extremely expensive". Bell Canada charges anywhere from $150,000 to $350,000 to co-locate in its CO. In comparison, it says Telus Communications charges between $200,000 to $500,000. "The sheer magnitude of the costs associated with co-location, whether physical or even virtual, cannot be ignored...," the CBC writes. "Indeed, it is not uncommon for a competitor to scale back its expansion plans or reconsider its service roll-out to a particular geographic area because it has received co-location quotes from the relevent ILEC which exceed $600,000, $700,000 and even $800,000 per CO." The CBC is seeking Type 2 or so-called "cage-less" co-location, which would cost less. Both Telus and Bell Canada say the CBC’s grievances are best handled by the CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee (CISC), which has a specific working group to deal with co-location. In its August 18 reply, Bell chalks up many of CBC’s concerns to a "misunderstanding" that could be resolved within the CISC. Bell’s western rival agrees. "Telus is confident that, for the most part, mutually acceptable solutions to these operational issues can be negotiated if the parties are willing to explore alternatives," it writes in its August 22 response to the CRTC. Bell also notes that some members of the CBC do not meet the criteria for Canadian carrier status, and as such, are not entitled to the same terms and conditions for co-location as designated Canadian carriers. As for other broader policy questions raised by the CBC, both Bell and Telus say there are other proceedings ongoing now that are better able to deal with these issues.

ILEC competitors say Canada’s three-year-old co-location rules are already outdated

News | 08/28/2000 4:00 am EDT

To keep reading, get a free trial.

Already a Subscriber?

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us