ILECs using CISC to delay implementation of CRTC orders, AT&T Canada charges

A battle is brewing between CLECs and ILECs over access to unbundled local loops. While initial hopes were for the matter to be settled by the CRTC ex parte, the commission is weighing the evidence presented by many parties on both sides of the issue. AT&T Canada Corp. had filed a request with the CRTC at the end of April asking that ILECs be ordered to fully comply with the provisions of Telecom Decision 2002-14, a ruling on timely access to local loops by CLECs. The Toronto-based competitor complained that the ILECs were delaying implementation by bringing in exceptions and by not producing quality of service (QoS) reports on time. It also accused the older companies of using the CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee (CISC) as a tool to change commission decisions through the back door. "The ILECs’ behaviour constitutes an abuse of CISC, a waste of industry time and resources as well as an attempt to disregard and/or vary aspects of this commission order," Teresa Griffin-Muir, AT&T Canada VP regulatory affairs, wrote in her April 30 letter. She included a four-page chronology, giving her interpretation of how the ILECs have exploited the CISC process. The history runs from early 1998 until last month. The commission accepted the submission, but denied Muir’s request to treat the issue ex parte. "It would be more efficient and fair to allow parties to comment on the application," the CRTC replied on May 2. Other parties had until May 9 to respond and AT&T Canada made its reply on May 14. Not surprisingly, the ILECs took umbrage at Muir’s complaints, while other CLECs backed AT&T Canada. Sheridan Scott, chief regulatory officer for Bell Canada, filed a response on behalf of her telco, Aliant Telecom Inc., MTS Communications Inc., and SaskTel. "AT&T has misunderstood and are proposing an incorrect interpretation of the commission’s directives in Decision 2002-14," Scott wrote. "AT&T has also mischaracterized the efforts and motivations of the companies’ CISC representatives." Willie Grieve, VP government & regulatory affairs for Telus Corp., took the same hard line in his statement to the CRTC. "Telus objects to the allegation that it is not providing CLECs with new and migrated loops in accordance with the directives contained in Decision 2002-14. And Telus further disputes allegations that any Telus communication, oral or written, represents an attempt to implement the directives contained in Decision 2002-14 other than in accordance with that decision," he wrote. "Telus’ efforts, internally and as documented in communications with AT&T, are fully geared toward meeting its service interval obligations." Other CLECs were less kindly to the former monopoly carriers. Robert Noakes, director of regulatory affairs for GT Group Telecom Services Corp., chided the CRTC for its slant on the dispute. "Group Telecom considers the commission was being extremely benevolent in classifying the ILECs’ non-compliance with the letter decision as being merely a misinterpretation. It appears that the ILECs are ‘misinterpreting’ the directives outlined in Decision 2002-14 to their mutual and exclusive benefit, actions, which Group Telecom would classify as clear-cut non-compliance," he wrote. "There were no caveats in the decision regarding volume of loops with an order or any delineations made between a complex versus non-complex service." Call-Net Enterprises Inc., the parent of Sprint Canada, worries that delays will ultimately cost it market share. Jean Brazeau, senior VP regulatory & strategic partnerships, also condemned the incumbents’ use of the CISC process. "Call-Net is in full agreement with AT&T Canada’s application and reiterates that the timely provision and installation of local service is a key end-customer consideration when requesting service. In Call-Net’s experience, if a CLEC fails to provision the loop within a timely interval, customers will simply cancel the order," Brazeau wrote. "Call-Net is concerned with the ‘gaming’ that has been demonstrated by the ILECs over the last two years," he added. "The ILECs are making a mockery of the CISC process and the commission’s directives by continually inventing new categories of service and unilaterally imposing new service intervals on CLECs." Bell and its associates dispute that vehemently. "AT&T’s comments are not only offensive to the companies’ CISC representatives, they are also untrue." Scott defends the actions of the ILEC agents on the CISC business process working group (BPWG). She maintains the telcos have been striving to fill in gaps and ambiguities in Decision 2002-14. "Negotiations to change previously agreed upon and commission approved intervals for the turnaround time for processing local service confirmations and the porting of telephone numbers are just two such examples," she wrote. "The companies make no apology for the work performed by their CISC representatives in the process. The record speaks for itself. Clearly, without the assistance of these individuals in finding solutions to the myriad of problems presented, the loop provisioning process would be in turmoil." Muir, a Bell Canada alumna, questions her former colleague’s interpretation of events. "AT&T Canada submits that the fact that three BPWG meetings have been spent discussing issues raised by the ILECs on a matter that has now been dealt with in two separate commission decisions speaks to a misuse of the process," she wrote in her May 14 reply. "The fact that most of these discussions resulted as a consequence of Memo #34 issued by Bell Canada, outlining exceptions to the decision, speaks to the disregard Bell Canada and other ILECs have for the CISC process. The use of the CISC process to interpret and alter the meaning of the commission’s directives illustrates an ILEC pattern of behaviour that must be brought to an end." Noakes backs up AT&T Canada. "CISC is not intended to be a forum where commission decisions and policies are reviewed and varied but rather a means to develop procedures where necessary to implement them expeditiously," he wrote. "To allow the ILECs to use CISC to delay or neutralize the directive of commission orders and decisions seriously undermines the effectiveness and integrity of CISC." In her initial filing, Muir claimed that "all the ILECs have said that they will be unable to implement the mandated intervals for purposes of QoS reporting effective 1 April 2002." The older telcos deny that allegation.Grieve says Telus has "every intention" of meeting the requirements and wonders how AT&T Canada concluded otherwise. Scott similarly professes the AT&T contention is wrong. "The companies’ representatives have made no such statements," she wrote. "The reporting of the information in question will be provided on time and consistent with the commission’s previous determinations." A chastened Muir accepted the commitment. She did, however, cite CISC minutes to explain the reasoning of her original complaint. "AT&T Canada is encouraged that the ILECs will be reporting QoS for the new intervals in time for the Q2 2002 report," she wrote May 14. "However, this was not made clear at the 26 March 2002 CISC BPWG meeting. Bell Canada suggested that since the implementation had occurred so quickly, there had not been sufficient time to determine all areas impacted and stated the item must be discussed further." AT&T Canada is requesting an expedited hearing from the CRTC, a request endorsed by Group Telecom. Bell and Telus both want the application dismissed as being without merit.

ILECs using CISC to delay implementation of CRTC orders, AT&T Canada charges

News | 05/21/2002 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