The CRTC is wrapping up one of the more contentious, and least noticed, telecom proceedings of the last year. The title of PN 2000-124 would mean little to those outside telecom circles: access to multi-dwelling units (MDUs), in-building wiring and riser space. In other words, should the CRTC subject landlords to telecom regulation since they effectively control a bottleneck facility? For telecom service providers, the issue is one of access to the building and to its tenants. For building owners, the issue is about private property rights, something that clearly falls outside the commission’s jurisdiction. The Canadian Institute of Public and Private Real Estate Companies (CIPPREC) and the Building Owners and Managers Association of Canada (BOMA) have been among the most vocal in this proceeding. Below is an excerpt from their March 14 comments, which sum up their views on in-building access. LECs have attempted to shift the focus of this proceeding onto the anecdotal problems, the isolated incidents, and the growing pains. Only by stressing these isolated events can the LECs hope to paint a picture of a market in disarray and requiring of commission intervention. Overall, the evidence on the record of this proceeding is inadequate to come to a finding that competition in the local exchange market or in the cable access market is not working. Many proponents, including broadcast distribution undertakings and many CLECs, say it is working and support a no-interference model. The evidence on the record is generally inadequate to come to a finding that denial of access to MDUs is a systemic problem. There is no evidence of it being a systemic problem since only anecdotes are proffered by the LECs in support. There is insufficient evidence on the record to come to a conclusion that a denial of end user choice is somehow a fault of MDU owners in all or some of the anecdotal cases. There simply has been no opportunity to provide the opposing point of view, when "accusatory" information has been filed in secret by Bell, TELUS, and a few others, or no particulars are given. The evidence on the record is generally inadequate to come to a finding that MDU owners are somehow exercising market power in an inappropriate way. CIPPREC/BOMA have shown that MDU owners are embracing competition and have facilitated it. Abuse of "bottleneck" control has not been shown in fact; just argued in theory. It is disturbing that no tenant groups at all are participating in this proceeding. The fact that they are not participating creates a strong inference that tenants are not having problems obtaining end user choice to the extent they want it on a systemic basis. In fact, one could argue that it is even evidence that tenants are not having any problems with end user choice on an isolated basis, since there have been only one or two isolated filings by actual tenants. There are no commercial tenant groups, not even a single commercial tenant, who are having such a problem with end user choice that they chose to participate in this proceeding. The evidence on the record is also inadequate to deal with many sub-issues, such as the pricing for in-building wire or the timeframes associated with license negotiations, since only a few participants chose to address it. On balance, the evidence on the record in this proceeding is generally inadequate to come to a finding that competition is not working, that denial of access to MDUs is a systemic problem, that denial of end user choice is somehow the fault of MDU owners, or that MDU owners are somehow exercising market power in an inappropriate way. Real estate nationally is a highly fragmented market and MDU owners have little power to deny end user choice over the medium to long term, since their tenants will merely move if the issue is important to them. And the early penetration of MDU’s by CLECs and BDUs clearly shows facilities-based end user choice is being facilitated by MDU owners in the short term.