QoS not available to Cybersurf, door open to review at later date

The CRTC has shut the door on CyberSurf Corp.’s request to get access to quality of service functionality and traffic management services currently employed by cable companies Rogers Communications Inc., Shaw Cablesystems and Vidéotron ltée (Telecom Decision 2006-61). However, in denying the principal application, the commission may have opened the door for CyberSurf to come back with ano-ther application on these issues at a later date. On the question of quality of service, CyberSurf submitted that it wanted access to the Shaw quality of service enhancement service (QSE) in areas where it resold the Shaw high-speed Internet service because the tariffed third-party Internet access (TPIA) service was not available. It stated that, without Shaw’s QSE, it could not compete with Shaw because it could not offer a similar range of services. "No traffic is given priority over other traffic, and in particular, there is no evidence that Shaw’s QSE gives its traffic preference over Cybersurf’s or any other competitor’s traffic on the HSIS (high-speed Internet service) network," the commission noted in denying CyberSurf’s application. In the second part of its application, CyberSurf stated that it wanted access to the packetcable functionality of Shaw, Rogers and Vidéotron used to deliver their own digital telephony service. This functionality is essentially a set of operational standards utilized within digital cable networks for the proper set-up and delivery of voice calls, similar to the functionality found in a Class 5 switch in the wired telephony world. The cable companies argued that what CyberSurf was asking for was, to their knowledge, technically impossible to deliver. Further, the cable companies submitted that even if it was possible to deliver such functionality over the TPIA network, it would allow CyberSurf to prioritize packets and reserve bandwidth to the detriment of users sharing the same cable company TPIA network. It was also noted that to offer this kind of functionality to CyberSurf would be equivalent to unbundling of a CLEC network contrary to the commission’s determinations in the decision approving local competition, Decision 97-8. The commission agreed with the cable companies, stating that they rely to a much greater extent on shared facilities than wireline telephone companies and they use packetcable to be able to control quality of service when delivering voice services to their end customers over such shared facilities. The commission further stated that by deploying packetcable on the TPIA network, one of two things could occur. Competitors such as CyberSurf would be able to reserve bandwidth on the shared network, thereby leading to disputes over bandwidth allocation, or the cable companies would have to reserve dedicated facilities for competitors, which could lead to bandwidth shortages. In both cases, the commission concluded that it was not appropriate for the cable companies to deploy packetcable into the TPIA network at this time. Several parties argued that Cybersurf was seeking a review and vary of parts of the ruling on VoIP regulation. The CRTC disagreed, noting that the application raised issues which were either different from those covered in the proceeding leading to the VoIP regulation ruling or were not directly addressed in the decision. The commission appeared, however, to extend an olive branch to CyberSurf. In its analysis of the question of deploying packetcable into the TPIA network, the commission concluded that "the ability of cable companies to control the Q of S between their customers and themselves via packetcable confers an advantage upon the cable companies in circumstances where they do not make packetcable available to enable competitors such as Cybersurf to have equivalent control over the Q of S". Further, the commission also concluded that "requiring the cable companies to deploy packetcable on the HSIS/TPIA network without a fuller review of the implications of bandwidth allocation, of the criteria that might apply and how disputes might be resolved, would be premature." Presumably with the CRTC’s preoccupation with wholesale access – heightened both through its new focus on the issue as a result of the government’s Order-in-Council (NL, June 22/06) and through concerted representations by smaller ISPs and MTS Allstream Inc. (NL, Sept. 1/06 and Aug. 17/06) – it is providing CyberSurf this small opening to re-address the issue at a later date.

QoS not available to Cybersurf, door open to review at later date

News | October 13, 2006

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us