GATINEAU – Some consensus around a Rogers Communications proposal for IP to IP connection emerged during the first day of rebuttals Monday at the CRTC’s interconnection hearing.
Rogers decided that it would be easier to live with the status quo in IP interconnection and pay for the costs of converting IP traffic to TDM (time-division multiplexing) to terminate voice calls on ILECs network as long as ILECs would negotiate IP interconnection where they offer it to either a subsidiary, a division or an unaffiliated carrier. Last week, Rogers requested the commission require the ILECs to pay for the conversion of IP traffic to TDM.
David Watt, VP of regulatory telecommunications for Rogers, said it altered its position because its original proposal was panned by the ILECs and didn’t appear to be well received by the Commission. If the CRTC mandated IP to IP interconnection for voice services, Rogers said in its opening remarks that it is willing to leave the issue of traffic conversion costs to negotiations.
“Mandating IP-IP interconnection where the ILECs are IP-ready… will accelerate this type of interconnection and therefore reduce the need for protocol conversion – a win-win for the ILECs and IP-based competitors,” Watt said. “But we urge that the ILECs cannot have it both ways. They cannot refuse responsibility for protocol conversion of terminating traffic on their TDM networks and also refuse direct IP-IP voice traffic exchange where their networks are IP-ready.”
To guide its new position, the company said there would be two triggers that would dictate when IP to IP interconnections would be required. First, the ILEC will have to provide IP interconnection to competitors when it has wireline IP to IP interconnection with an affiliate, a division or an unrelated service provider. Secondly, if the ILEC is providing voice services to end users via IP switches in a particular market, then the ILEC would have to provide IP interconnection to competitors in that same market.
“Our prime interest here is to try and get IP to IP interconnection moving as quickly as possible [and] therefore we are willing to compromise,” Watt said in response to a question from CRTC chair Konrad von Finckenstein. “To the assumption that our criteria could be accepted, which we think would move IP to IP interconnection quickly, we would be willing then to continue the status quo… where we pay the conversion costs.”
The telcos – Bell Canada, MTS Allstream, SaskTel and Telus – agreed that Rogers, proposal represents a good compromise.
Telus said it’s not opposed to Rogers’ new position, but added there will be things that need to be worked out. “At a high level, we are in agreement with Rogers’ proposal,” said Ted Woodhead, VP of telecom policy and regulatory affairs at Telus. He added that there may still be some elements that need to be studied further at CISC, the commission’s interconnection technical steering committee.
Bell was also not opposed to the new Rogers’ proposal but opened its rebuttal with its own proposal. Jonathan Daniels, VP of regulatory law at Bell Canada, said rather than creating a blanket rule for IP interconnection – all regions of a market and all services – the company suggests something with some limitations. He added Bell’s proposal suggests that if a LEC is going to offer IP interconnection, then it has to provide it to other carriers but will be limited specific areas, services and types of traffic.
As an example, if Bell interconnects with Videotron for IP voice in Quebec City, then it would only have to offer other providers IP interconnection for voice in Quebec City, but Bell wouldn’t be forced to offer IP interconnection for wireless. But before either of Bell’s or Rogers’ proposals could be adopted, there would need to be some work done by CISC, said Daniels. Rogers and Quebecor Media disagreed noting that it would be just as effective if the two interconnecting carriers could work together to standardize the connection.
The cost to maintain existing TDM infrastructure was also raised during the first day of rebuttals. Telus noted in its opening remarks and under questioning that while it believes the future lies in IP, it’s too soon to mandate any movement there. Besides, the company added, it is still spending a considerable amount of money in TDM infrastructure. Woodhead pointed to an island community off the coast of BC that requires a $5-million upgrade in TDM equipment to improve the quality of its voice services as an example.
“That is one proactive way in which we have to spend real money to augment those systems when they begin to deteriorate,” he said. “Within our network generally, we continue to invest in TDM because as features come along that TDM supports… we will invest in upgrading those switches with the appropriate line cards.”
Orest Romaniuk, VP and controller of finance, noted that since 2005, Telus has invested between $35 million and $40 million TDM switches.
Telus changes position on equal access
TELUS ACKNOWLEDGED during its rebuttal appearance that many parties believed it appropriate to give wireless service providers (WSPs) access to shared-cost interconnection, but relieve them of equal access. The company said it is willing to accept that as long as the WSPs meet all of other CLEC obligations.
“The simplest way to achieve this would be to remove the equal access obligation from WLECs (wireless CLECs),” said Woodhead during his opening remarks. “Doing so would allow the use of established processes, documentation and standards and would not be disruptive to the industry.”
Telus went further suggesting that equal access should be also be removed for wireline carriers as well. “Given this concession to co-carrier status for WSPs that all LECs should be relieved of the equal access requirement one year from the date of the decision in this proceeding,” said Woodhead.
The Canadian Network Operators Consortium (CNOC) opposed the removal of equal access provisions from CLEC obligations. Noting that this is conceptual at the moment and out of scope with the proceeding, Chris Tacit, counsel for CNOC, said removing equal access would negatively affect consumers. If this is allowed, there will be further consolidation among providers, which will lead to an increase in prices for consumers, he added.
