It is the position of IStop.com that wholesale DSL is in the nature of an essential service, and therefore should be priced at category I rates. Even if the commission deems wholesale ADSL to be a category II service, the rates Bell has requested in 6767D are not appropriate. In Decisions 97-9 and 98-2, the Commission concluded that category II competitor services should be made available to competitors at rates based on Phase II costs plus an appropriate mark-up. In DT2002-34 the commission stated that category II should be priced on a "case-by-case basis". Therefore if the commission decides to leave ADSL services in category II, market pricing does not apply.
In it's 6767A filing, Bell attempted to justify higher prices for business based on higher-value services such as WAN and VPN. This is completely irrelevant, as bell only provides the access (not IP services). In 6767D Bell has provided no justification for higher prices on business service vs. residential. For a category II competitor service the commission need only determine what is Bell's Phase II cost, and what is "an appropriate mark-up" for ADSL. Since residential and business service have the same Phase II cost, there should only be one access service that can be applied to any loop.
Bell has requested that there be no differentiation in pricing for service from remotes. Service from remotes is clearly a category I competitor service since competitors cannot co-locate at remotes for self-supply. If Bell no longer wishes to separate Access-R and Access-H, then all ADSL Access should be priced at category I rates. Since AHSSPI is required for aggregation of service from remotes, it must be priced at category I rates as well. Bell has stated it would incur significant costs to differentiate between host and remote access. Perhaps Bell's regulatory team has not seen the Bell portal or the DSL loop qualification files. For each order for service, the portal indicates host or remote. The loop qualification files indicate host or remote service for each qualified phone number. For example the loop qualification file from November 25th contains the following entry for the IStop.com main phone line: "6138296597,Y,,,3,B,R". The "R" at the end of the line indicates service from a remote (which happens to be located at 2670 Queensview Dr.)
Various competitors have requested interim approval of 6767D, despite deficiencies in the tariff. This seems to be based on the belief that an interim approval of a bad tariff is better than no tariff at all. The commission might believe that competitors could use TN6622 that was given interim approval as GT item 5400. TN6622 amendments filed by Bell in 2003 added the necessary components to provide the GAS and HSA service. GAS and HSA are the services that BellNexxia was providing on a forborne basis prior to the commissions order to merge into Bell CSG. For competitors it is as if TN6622 does not exist. Competitors wishing to obtain wholesale DSL that includes AHSSPI can only obtain it on terms similar to TN6767. Bell refuses to offer service under the terms of TN6622, even though at a technical level both tariffs use the same elements (see Appendix I).
IStop.com has previously commented on the similarities between TN6622 and TN6767, detailing how the services in TN6767 are made up of elements of TN6622. However the underlying markups requested by Bell are higher for many items in TN6767 than in TN6622. In fact through Allstream's 2003/08/25 submission, it is evident that even phase II costs Bell claims in TN6767 are higher than those in TN6622. For example the HSA item in TN6767 consists of a DSLAM port (Access-H or Access-R) and a PVC mapped to an AHSSPI port. The phase II cost for Access-H is $10.95 and $2.20 for the PVC, for a total of $13.15. These numbers date from 2 years ago, Bell(CRTC)9Jan03. Given lower costs for DSLAMs and data switching equipment, current costs should be even lower. So there is no reason for HSA phase II costs to be higher than $13.15.
ADSL access in TN6622 is a DSLAM port which according to the ITU g.992.1 specification is capable of 8Mbps speeds. In TN6767D, Bell proposes to limit the DSLAM ports to 4Mbps. By denying competitors access to wholesale DSL under the terms of TN6622, and restricting them to the inferior service offered in TN6767D, Bell is engaging in discriminatory action. Considering parts of TN6622 have been given interim approval by the commission and no approvals have been given for TN6767, this discrimination by Bell seems to defy logic (other than the logic of Bell's self-serving interests).
To conclude, IStop.com recommends that the commission reject TN6767D. Instead approval should be given for TN6622. IStop.com supports the draft tariff proposed by Allstream in its 2003/08/25 submission, with a couple of exceptions. Since GAS and HSA are made up of Access and PVC, these items are redundant and so GAS and HSA should be removed. Bell could continue to use the existing portal order system to allow competitors to order GAS and HSA, and only the billing need change to reflect the components of the service. However if the commission chooses to give interim approval to TN6767D, it should issue a decision at the same time clarifying the status of TN6622.
Ralph Doncaster
IStop.com president
Appendix I
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 14:34:53 -0500
From: "sharon.perry@bell.ca" <sharon.perry@bell.ca>
To: "ralph+d@istop.com" <ralph+d@istop.com>
Cc: "dave.arnold@bell.ca" <dave.arnold@bell.ca>,
"glen.fletcher@bell.ca" <glen.fletcher@bell.ca>,
"richard.cloutier@bell.ca" <richard.cloutier@bell.ca>,
"william.nah@bell.ca" <william.nah@bell.ca>
Subject: RE: FW: Doncaster Consulting "WITHOUT PREJUDICE"
Hi Ralph,
To confirm, Bell Canada is providing ADSL services to Istop consistent
with its contractual obligations.
Regards,
Sharon
-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph Doncaster [mailto:ralph@istop.com]
Sent: November 11, 2004 8:25 AM
To: Perry, Sharon E (N172609)
Cc: Arnold, David (a575057); Fletcher, Glen L (N282679); Cloutier,
Richard (A165534); Nah, William (P003318)
Subject: Re: FW: Doncaster Consulting
On Tue, 2 Nov 2004, sharon.perry@bell.ca wrote:
[...]
> As discussed, we are currently delivering and billing ISTOP for GAS
and
> HSA as contracted.
>
> GT 5400 is available for ISTOP to order as a different service and
> rating product. TN6622 has not been given full CRTC approval;
therefore
> Bell Canada cannot offer this service or rating structure to ISTOP.
> With respect to modifications of GT5400, as outlined in the Company's
> tariff application TN6622, only those services associated with the
rates
> approved by the Commission pursuant to Order CRTC 2001-914 will be
> available.
Is Bell claiming that the wholesale ADSL service provided under the
contract with Doncaster Consulting Inc. does not consist of TN6622
elements?
-Ralph