Cybersurf calls on CRTC to unbundle cable company networks

Despite an agreement to sell nearly all key telecommunications assets, Cybersurf Corp. is pushing the CRTC to force cable companies to share their networks with competitors much in the same way that telcos do. The company filed a Part VII earlier this month, requesting the commission expand an ongoing proceeding to unbundle ILECs ADSL networks to include cablecos’ high-speed Internet services. Telus Corp. has filed a letter, supporting Cybersurf’s request, while MTS Allstream Inc. is opposed to an expansion of the unbundled ADSL proceeding (Telecom Regulatory Policy 2009-34). The application comes less than a week after Cybersurf inked an agreement with an as-yet-to-be named Canadian telecommunications company to sell assets relating to its Internet access user bases, including its high speed, long distance and VoIP telephone services in Canada, associated underlying agreements and other relevant assets for $5.5 million. In its Part VII, Cybersurf says the commission has, for all intents and purposes, opened the door to cable network unbundling when it classified cable Third Party Internet Access (TPIA) as mandated non-essential in last year’s Telecom Decision 2008-17. The Calgary ISP also pointed to a 2006 decision on packet cable quality of service (QoS) as evidence the CRTC can force cable companies to unbundle their networks. As well, regulatory symmetry and technological neutrality would dictate the same access to cable company networks as there is for telco networks. “Those services should afford competitors the same degree and functionality as there are to ILEC facilities. Specifically, that there should be the opportunity for competitors to physically or virtually co-locate equipment for the purpose of delivering telecommunication and Internet services, in the same manner that cable companies have provided for themselves,” Cybersurf writes in its March 2 application. “This would allow competitors the ability to define their own service from that which is offered by the cable companies, to the same degrees as the ADSL Access Service would allow competitors to differentiate their service from the ILECs.” Creating symmetrical rules for access to both cableco and telco networks for telecom-related services is only fair, according to Cybersurf, which suggests that competitive development and innovation is more likely on networks that are open. “It imposes greater restrictions and regulatory burden on the ILECs, when the broadband market is equally split between them and cable companies, and while both share the same monopoly heritage that led to their broadband network development,” says Cybersurf. The company notes that by imposing the same rules on cablecos, competitors would invest even more money in developing their own infrastructure. “The unbundling of networks affords more potential in investment as competitors would need to develop their own interconnection facilities and deploy their own network hardware, and make investments in competing networks to the greatest degree possible.” As well, giving competitors access to exclusive channels on the cable network, competitors would have to deploy and use their own network management tools and manage their own network applications and capacity – functionality TPIA and aggregated ADSL customers currently don’t have and would require capital investment, according to Cybersurf.

Cybersurf calls on CRTC to unbundle cable company networks

News | March 9, 2009

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