Cable Omnibus Application ABRIDGED Final

7/27/2019 Cable Omnibus Application ABRIDGED Final

1/79

ABRIDGED

BEFORE THE CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION

AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF

AN APPLICATION BY CANADIAN NETWORK OPERATORS CONSORTIUM INC.

(APPLICANT)

PURSUANT TO PART I OF THE CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND

TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

AND SECTIONS 24, 25, 27, 32, 47 AND 55 OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT

DIRECTED TO

COGECO CABLE INC., ROGERS COMMUNICATIONS PARTNERSHIP,

SHAW CABLESYSTEMS G.P. AND VIDEOTRON G.P.

(RESPONDENTS)

TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF WHOLESALE HIGH-SPEED ACCESS SERVICES

THE RESPONDENTS PROVIDE TO INDEPENDENT INTERNET SERVICES

PROVIDERS

27 SEPTEMBER 2013


2/79

ABRIDGED

Table of Contents

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF (SUMMARY OF THEAPPLICATION) ..................................................................................................................11.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................11.2 Request for relief......................................................................................................3

1.2.1 Two classes of relief are requested ..............................................................31.2.2 Specific orders requested .............................................................................31.2.3 Quality of service indicators and a rate rebate plan .....................................6

1.3 The remedies sought by CNOC are consistent with Canadian law .......................121.4 Structure of this Application ..................................................................................121.5 Confidentiality claim .............................................................................................13

2.0 THE TPIA LIFE-CYCLE AND RELATED SERVICE ISSUES .....................................142.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................142.2 ISP application for TPIA service ...........................................................................162.3 Ordering and provisioning .....................................................................................18

2.3.1 New TPIA order installation process .........................................................182.3.2 Installation windows ..................................................................................202.3.3 Tagging TPIA cable connections ...............................................................22

2.4 Troubleshooting and repair ....................................................................................222.4.1 TPIA repair process ...................................................................................222.4.2 Trouble ticket status ...................................................................................242.4.3 Repair windows .........................................................................................242.4.4 Escalation procedures ................................................................................25

2.5 Network maintenance and modifications ...............................................................262.5.1 Network routing .........................................................................................262.5.2 Reducing the impact of single points of failure .........................................262.5.3 Network modifications...............................................................................26 2.5.4 IP address allocation ..................................................................................292.5.5 IPv6 implementation and rollout strategies ...............................................31

2.6 Billing ....................................................................................................................322.7 Disconnection ........................................................................................................332.8 Remedies sought by CNOC ...................................................................................34

3.0 SPECIFIC RELIEF REQUESTED TO RESOLVE CERTAIN TPIA LIFE-CYCLESERVICE ISSUES.............................................................................................................353.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................353.2 Delays in the TPIA service sign-up process must be reduced ...............................363.3 Installation and repair processes require some general improvements ..................363.4 Installation and repair processes need some additional specific improvements

where a technician dispatch is required .................................................................38


3/79

ABRIDGED

ii

3.5 Improvements are required in Carrier network survivability, as well as proceduresrelating to network maintenance, modifications and related TPIA customernotifications............................................................................................................40

3.6 Improvements are required in Carrier invoices and invoicing processes ..............434.0 QUALITY OF SERVICE INDICATORS AND RATE REBATE PLAN: FRAMEWORK

AND CONSIDERATIONS ...............................................................................................454.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................454.2 Guiding Principles .................................................................................................464.3 Company-wide and competitor-specific indicators ...............................................48

4.3.1 Why both types of indicators are necessary ...............................................484.3.2 Company-wide Q of S indicators ...............................................................504.3.3 Competitor-specific indicators relating to installations .............................524.3.4 Competitor-specific indicators relating to repair .......................................594.3.5 Competitor-specific indicators relating to disconnections .........................65

4.4 The Rate Rebate Plan .............................................................................................674.4.1 The proposed structure of the Rate Rebate Plan ........................................674.4.2 Frequency of reporting and rebates ............................................................684.4.3 Repeat failure mechanism ..........................................................................684.4.4. Other aspects of the TPIA RRP .................................................................71

5.0 THE RELIEF SOUGHT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE TELECOMMUNICATIONSPOLICY OBJECTIVES AND THE POLICY DIRECTION ............................................725.1. The relief sought in the Application promotes the Telecommunications Policy

Objectives ..............................................................................................................725.2. The relief Sought in the Application is consistent with the Policy Direction ........72

6.0. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................74 7.0 LIST OF PARTIES SERVED ...........................................................................................758.0 NOTICE .............................................................................................................................76


4/79

ABRIDGED

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF (SUMMARY OF THE

APPLICATION)

1.1 Introduction

1. Canadian Network Operators Consortium Inc. (CNOC) is bringing this application

(Application) pursuant to part I of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications

Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure1 (Rules) and sections 25, 27, 32, 47 and 55 of

the Telecommunications Act2 (Act). In the Application, CNOC seeks improvements to the

quality of the wholesale high-speed access services (WHSAS) provided in the form of Third

Party Internet Access (TPIA) services by Cogeco Cable Inc. (Cogeco), Rogers

Communications Partnership (Rogers), Shaw Cablesystems G.P. (Shaw) and Videotron G.P.

(Videotron) (collectively Cable Carriers or Carriers) to independent Internet service

providers (ISPs) such as the members of CNOC. In this Application, the term ISP is used to

refer to wholesale TPIA customers of one or more Carriers and the terms end-user or end

customer refer to the customers of ISPs, unless otherwise noted.

2. In this Application, CNOC seeks certain orders more particularly described below to

improve the robustness of the regulatory regime related to the provision of TPIA services by the

Cable Carriers.

3. This is necessary because ISPs, who are members of CNOC, are being treated in an

unduly discriminatory manner by the Carriers relative to the manner that the Carriers treat their

own retail operations, contrary to section 27(2) of the Act. The vastly inferior treatment to which

ISPs are being subjected, which is described in this Application, is present at all stages of the

TPIA service life cycle. The result is a very poor quality of service that detrimentally and

unfairly affects the reputation of ISPs that rely on TPIA services to provide high-speed Internetaccess and related services to their end-users.

1 SOR/2010-277, 30 November 2010.2 S.C. 1993, c. 38, as amended.


5/79

ABRIDGED

2

4. If this situation is allowed to persist, the very legitimacy of the TPIA platform as a means

of promoting competition in the provision of retail Internet access and other high-speed services

will be irreparably diminished. Such an outcome will ultimately lead to an undue lessening of

competition in the provision of the retail services that the TPIA platform is meant to support.

That outcome is clearly not in the interest of consumers, or in the broader public interest.

5. Based on these considerations, CNOC is seeking a set of remedies from the Commission

to compel the Carriers to provide a level of service that will allow the TPIA regime to fulfill the

Canadian telecommunications policy objectives of theAct3

in a manner that is consistent with the

Policy Direction4, to the greater benefit of Canadian consumers and society.

6. It was not without significant consideration, that CNOC came to the conclusion that the

remedies proposed herein are required. Various CNOC members have tried to work

collaboratively with Carriers for some time to address the issues underlying this Application, but

those efforts have not met with sufficient success to prevent the type of undue discrimination

described in the Application from continuing to occur. It is unclear to CNOC whether in any

given case, the problem results from willfulness, or mere indifference on the part of the Carriers

in providing TPIA services. At the end of the day, motive and intent do not matter. The

important thing is that the conduct described in the Application has the anti-competitive effect of

conferring an undue preference in favour of the Carriers and unjustly discriminating against ISPs

that rely on TPIA services.

7. For all of these reasons, remedial action by the Commission is required on an urgent

basis.

3 The telecommunications policy objectives are set out in section 7 of theAct.4 Order Issuing a Direction to the CRTC on Implementing the Canadian Telecommunications Policy Objectives,

P.C. 2006-1534, 14 December 2006, SOR/2006-355, Canada Gazette Part II, Vol. 140. No. 26, 27 December2006 (Policy Direction).


6/79

ABRIDGED

3

1.2 Request for relief

1.2.1 Two classes of relief are requested

8. In this Application, CNOC requests two classes of relief. The first class consists of a

number of specific directives aimed at the Carriers. These directives can be implemented on a

one-time going forward basis to correct certain deficiencies in the manner in which TPIA service

is provided.

9. The second class of relief consists of the implementation of a regime for the ongoing

monitoring of certain service levels associated with the provision of TPIA services. More

specifically, CNOC is seeking the implementation of a monitoring regime that involves the

application of a number of quality of service (Q of S) indicators, coupled with a rate rebate

plan (RRP) for TPIA.

1.2.2 Specific orders requested

10. Under the first class of relief, CNOC is requesting that the Commission make an order

directing the Carriers:

To provide a potential TPIA customer the full documentation package required by thepotential customer to sign up for TPIA service within three (3) weeks of a request for the

documentation package, and to start the TPIA provisioning process for that party within a

further three (3) weeks of receipt of all required executed documentation;

To provide a detailed service qualification database by postal code that is updated by theCarrier at least monthly, with this activity being referred to the CRTC Interconnection

Steering Committee (CISC) for further implementation;

To make the same tools that they use to troubleshoot their retail end-users connectionsand cable modems available to TPIA customers;


7/79

ABRIDGED

4

To provide meaningful details and status updates regarding installation orders and troubletickets, including their causes and resolutions;

To implement a full, business hour and non-business hour escalation process and chartwith support tiers that includes reliable contact information for Carrier staff who can be

reached using real time communications methods in case of network outages to assist in

the timely resolution of network issues;

To require each Carrier to prohibit its employees or contractors from marketing theCarriers services or trying to convince end-users to switch to the Carriers retail services

when a TPIA customers end-user contacts the Carrier to inquire about an outstanding

TPIA repair issue;

To provide ISPs access to a Carriers technician dispatch staff when installation or repairtechnicians do not show up for a scheduled appointment or attempt to change the window

for an installation or repair on the actual day that the activity is scheduled to occur;

To insert a provision in their tariffs requiring them to tag all TPIA connections whenevera TPIA end-user installation requires a premise visit by a Carrier technician;

To require each Carrier to prohibit its technicians from marketing the Carriers servicesor trying to convince end-users to switch to the Carriers retail services in conjunction

with a TPIA installation or repair activities;

To require Carriers to implement network safeguards such as the use of a network faultdetection protocol (e.g., Bidirectional Forward Detection (BFD) so that traffic can be

routed around connection failures between a Carrier and an ISP when router equipment at

either end is not aware of the failure;

To require Carriers to implement efficient protection, where practicable, to reduce theimpact of single points of failures in their TPIA network designs;


8/79

ABRIDGED

5

To provide advance notification to ISPs of all changes that affect a competitor's use orpotential use of Carrier bottleneck functions,

5and that such changes would include

technical changes to interconnection interfaces, as well as changes to network functions

(including new functions) that could be used to provide competitive services, with such

notification occurring at the time a Carrier makes the decision to proceed with a change,

or 6 months before the proposed change, whichever is earlier for greater certainty, this

would include, without limitation, such matters as frequency changes affecting the TPIA

service, implementation of Data over Cable Service Interface Specification (DOCSIS)

or other standard upgrades by geographic area, cable modem firmware upgrades, changes

that could require the deployment of additional IP addresses to serve the ISPs end-users

(with a corresponding analysis of that additional demand and when it will need to

satisfied);6

To provide disclosure of terminal interface specifications for the Carriers' bottleneckservices - for greater certainty, this would include, without limitation, all matters that

could impair the continued operation of cable modems already certified for use on a

Carriers network;7

To prohibit Carriers from restricting TPIA customers from advising their end users of anyCarrier bottleneck functions (as described above), terminal-to-network interfaces, as well

as reasons for TPIA service outages and remedial actions taken by a Carrier to address

the outages, notwithstanding the non-disclosure provisions of TPIA Agreements.

5 In competition law and economics, bottleneck functions are those functions (including other assets, facilitiesand/or services) that are non-duplicable on a commercial basis within a reasonable time scale. Thus a competitorthat does not possess those functions itself is dependent on access to the bottleneck functions that an incumbenthas in order to provide services that compete downstream (e.g., at the retail level) with those of an incumbent.Last mile connections to end-user constitute one example of bottleneck functions.

6 This is the same approach taken by the Commission in Re: Notification of Network Changes, Terminal-to-Network Interface Disclosure Requirements and Procedures for the Negotiation and Filing of Service

Arrangements, Telecom Letter Decision CRTC 94-11, 4 November 1994 (Telecom Letter Decision CRTC 94-11 or TLD 94-11) to prevent incumbent local exchange carriers from providing an undue preference tothemselves with respect to network changes and terminal-to-network interface disclosure.

7 See, supra, note 6.


9/79

ABRIDGED

6

To provide TPIA customers the latest versions of the Carriers roll out plans toimplement the IPv6 Internet Protocol (IP) addressing scheme once every quarter, until

such implementation has been completed;

To provide their TPIA customers daily reports generated during peak hours (e.g.,between 8 and 11 P.M. local time) that show the number of IP addresses allocated to

DHCP by IP pool and the number of IP addresses actually in use by end-users by IP pool;

To provide all of the billing details set out in Attachment A to the Application on theirTPIA invoices, to invoice at the same time every month, to provide invoices in Excel

spreadsheet format, and to ensure that the details on the invoices are set out clearly by

customer, using plain language, and without obscure codes or layouts; and

To commence work on the provision of TPIA invoicing information in Open DataProtocol (OData) format via customer portals, with this activity being referred to CISC

for further implementation.

1.2.3 Quality of service indicators and a rate rebate plan

11. The Q of S and RRP regime proposed by CNOC is based on the Q of S and RRP

framework already approved by the Commission for local voice services in Telecom Decision

CRTC 2005-208 (TD 2005-20). CNOC is of the view that many aspects of the TD 2005-20

framework are directly transferable to the present context, including: the Guiding Principles of

the voice RRP framework, the core formula of the RRP, the frequency of reporting and rebates

and procedure for audits, disputes and non-compliance. CNOCs proposal includes some

additional tweaks to the TD 2005-20 regime to address specific problems relating to the delivery

of TPIA.

8 Finalization of quality of service rebate plan for competitors, Telecom Decision CRTC 2005-20, 31 March 2005(TD 2005-20).


10/79

ABRIDGED

7

12. The regime includes four company-wide Q of S indicators, nine competitor-specific

leading indicators and four competitor-specific trailing indicators. The trailing indicators are

modeled upon similar indicators that were included in the TD 2005-20 local voice RRP. Trailing

or secondary Q of S indicators are paired with main or primary (i.e., leading) competitor-specific

indicator. When a Carrier fails to meet the standard of a main Q of S indicator, the trailing

indicator becomes active and captures the Carriers ability to satisfy the main indicator within a

given time frame after the original due date.

13. In order for the proposed RRP to create an incentive for Carriers to adhere to standards

for wholesale installations that are the same as the standards they apply to their own retail

operations, the measurement methods for a number of the Q of S indicators should employ the

retail service standards adopted by the Carriers as the reference point for the definition of the

corresponding Q of S indicators. Otherwise, the Carriers could circumvent the indicators (and the

financial consequences of the RRP for non-compliance in the case of competitor-specific

indicators) simply by booking wholesale activity windows that are excessively long relative to

the corresponding retail activity windows. Under such a scenario, as long as the wholesale

windows are not missed the indicator would be considered to have been met, even though

Carriers wholesale customers would be significantly disadvantaged compared to their retail

operations and that would defeat the purpose of the proposed Q of S indicator and RRP regime.

For this reason, it is essential for retail standard intervals to be embedded in a number of the

proposed competitor-specific Q of S indicators.

14. There are also some differences in the activities to be measured in the TPIA life-cycle as

compared to the local voice regime, due to the different services and functions that incumbents

provide in each case. The Q of S indicators and RRP regime proposed herein have taken account

of these differences, which is why the proposal made herein is not exactly the same as what the

Commission adopted in TD 2005-20 for local voice services. In fact, the proposal in this

Application contains a fewer number of indicators than the number authorized in TD 2005-20.

However, every attempt has been made to mirror the Commissions determinations from that

decision in the proposal made by CNOC to the greatest extent practicable.


11/79

ABRIDGED

8

15. As noted, CNOC is proposing that the Commission adopt four company-wide Q of S

indicators. Two of them relate to installations and the other two relate to repairs. The reason that

CNOC is proposing two of each class of indicators is because service intervals will differ

depending on whether a technician dispatch is or is not required.

16. The company-wide Q of S indicators that CNOC is asking the Commission to introduce

are:

Indicator 1.1 - Competitor Installation Appointments Met - Dispatch Required Indicator 1.2 - Competitor Installation Appointments Met - Dispatch Not Required Indicator 1.3 Competitor Repair Appointments Met Dispatch Required Indicator 1.4 Competitor Repair Appointments Met Dispatch Not Required

17. The competitor-specific Q of S indicators that CNOC is asking the Commission to

introduce are:

Indicator 2.1 New Order Activation Service Interval Met Dispatch Required Indicator 2.2 New Order Activation Service Interval Met Dispatch Not Required Indicator 2.3 New Order Activation Confirmed Due Date Met Dispatch Required Indicator 2.3A New Order Activation Late Completions Dispatch Required Indicator 2.4 New Order Activation Confirmed Due Date Met Dispatch Not

Required

Indicator 2.4A New Order Activation Late Completions Dispatch Not Required Indicator 2.5 Repair Service Interval Met Dispatch Required Indicator 2.6 Repair Service Interval Met Dispatch Not Required

Indicator 2.7 Repair Confirmed Due Date Met Dispatch Required Indicator 2.7A Repair Late Completions Dispatch Required Indicator 2.8 Repair Confirmed Due Date Met Dispatch Not Required Indicator 2.8A Repair Late Completions Dispatch Not Required Indicator 2.9 Disconnection Service Interval Met


12/79

ABRIDGED

9

18. Based completely on the TD 2005-20 model9, CNOC recommends that the Commission

adopt the following formula as part of the RRP for TPIA:

1. The total potential rebate amount (TPRA) for a month is equal to 5 percent of theamounts billed to a competitor for services (existing plus incremental ordered during the

month) covered by a Q of S indicator with activity in that month;

2. Each Q of S indicator with activity in that month is given equal weight and the potentialrebate amount (PRA) for an indicator is the TPRA divided by the number of active

indicators for the month; and

3. The total rebate payable to a competitor for a month is the PRA multiplied by the numberof Q of S indicators for which the Carrier failed to achieve the minimum performance

standard that month.

19. With reference to the above noted considerations, CNOC recommends the following

practices (which mirror those of TD 2005-2010) in relation to the frequency of reporting and

rebates for the TPIA RRP:

1. Carriers shall issue competition-related Q of S results on a quarterly basis;

2. Carriers must file those results with the Commission, providing a copy of competitor-specific results to the relevant competitor, within 30 days of the last day of the applicable

quarter and make any rate rebate payments to competitors within the same 30-day time

period; and

9 Id., at para. 74.10 Id., at para. 86.


13/79

ABRIDGED

10

3. Carriers are required to file with the Commission, and provide to the relevant competitor,all supporting details associated with the determination of the Q of S results and the

calculation of the rate rebate amounts.

20. In the experience of CNOCs TPIA members, the Carriers have consistently failed to

deliver minimum service standards in many areas over prolonged periods of time. While CNOC

is confident that the implementation of Q of S indicators and a RRP will provide necessary

incentives to encourage Carriers to meet service standards, CNOC believes that the serious

consequences of repeat service failures warrant additional measures to incent the Carriers to

comply and to compensate competitors adequately when the Carriers dont comply.

21. In recent months, ISPs have faced dire service crises with their respective TPIA Carriers.

As previously noted, end-users naturally assume that their ISP is responsible for all of the

network disruptions and service delays that they experience, even when responsibility lies

squarely with the Carrier. Persistent and repeated service shortcomings at virtually every stage of

Internet provisioning have seriously damaged the business reputation of many TPIA ISPs. As a

consequence, the entire TPIA industry is undermined. The current state of TPIA has led to

formal customer complaints and regular media coverage. In an effort to preserve customer

support, some ISPs have reached out to their subscriber base and communicated their intent to

resolve the situation with the Carriers and the Commission. If the remedies ordered by the

Commission are not successful in reversing sub-standard service delivery by the Carriers, then

ISPs will be unable to reverse the damage to their business reputation and to the viability of

competitive TPIA services in general.

22. For these reasons, CNOC proposes that a rebate for an indicator should be multiplied by

that indicators repeat factor. Initially, the repeat factor is set at one and is increased by one for

every month in which the Carrier reports a below standard Q of S result, up to a maximum of six

months. Once the Carrier delivers service at the approved standard for one month, the repeat

factor is reset to one.


14/79

ABRIDGED

11

23. The basic design of CNOCs repeat failure mechanic resembles the system proposed by

the Competitors in TD 2005-2011, but with two important adjustments that are designed to

alleviate the Commissions concern that a mechanism of this sort might become punitive in

effect12. These two changes are inspired by submissions of the incumbent local exchange carriers

(ILECs) in the proceedings leading to TD 2005-20 that address why the proposed repeat

failure mechanism of the Competitors was perceived by them to be unreasonable and punitive13.

24. Firstly, CNOCs repeat factor is subject to a maximum cap of six so that rate rebates do

not increase at an exponential rate ad infinitum14

.

25. Secondly, the application of the repeat factor is symmetrical in nature. In other words,

once the service standard is met for one month (as opposed to the proposed repeat failure

mechanism of the Competitors in TD 2005-20, which required a service standard to be

maintained for three consecutive months15), the repeat factor is reset to one.

26. CNOC believes that this moderated proposal would not have a punitive effect and would

be an effective means of ensuring just and reasonable rates in accordance with section 27 of the

Act. Again, while assessing this aspect of the proposed TPIA RRP, CNOC asks the Commission

to consider the state of the TPIA industry in a time where persistent and repeated service failures

have become the status quo.

27. In this regard, CNOC wishes to highlight that the Carriers most flagrant deviations from

reasonable service standards occur in the back-to-school season (i.e., July through September)

and around moving day in Quebec (July 1st), which are the busiest times of the year for all

telecommunications service providers, and hence for consumers. The repeat factor on the RRP

could be of particular assistance in dissuading the Carriers to engage in particularly unjustly

11 Id., at para. 88.12 Id., at para. 99.13 Id., at paras. 91-93.14 Id., at para. 92.15 Id., at para. 88.


15/79

ABRIDGED

12

discriminatory behavior towards their ISP customers for a consecutive number of months during

this very important part of the year.

28. For all of these reasons, CNOC asks the Commission to include a repeat failure

mechanism, as described above, as part of the RRP for TPIA.

1.3 The remedies sought by CNOC are consistent with Canadian law

29. As discussed below in this Application, the relief sought by CNOC is consistent with past

Commission rulings,16 the Canadian telecommunications policy objectives17 and the Policy

Direction.18 Elimination of the anti-competitive behavior of the Carriers is in the interest of

consumers and Canadian society at large.

1.4 Structure of this Application

30s. Part 2.0 of this Application outlines the complete life cycle of a TPIA service to the end-

user, thereby providing the context for, and description of, the problems experienced by ISPs

with the TPIA service provided by Carriers. It is the persistent nature of these problems that

justify the granting of the regulatory relief sought in this Application.

31. Part 3.0 proposes certain remedial orders required to address many of the problems

identified in part 2.0 on a going forward basis.

32. Part 4.0 describes proposed Q of S indicators and RRP to address ongoing service

standard concerns also identified in part 2.0 of the Application.

16 Infra, note 21.17 Infra, note 1918 Supra, note 4.


16/79

ABRIDGED

13

33. Part 5.0 demonstrates how the relief sought in this Application will promote the Canadian

telecommunications policy objectives19 and comply with the Policy Direction20.

34. Part 6.0 sets out CNOCs conclusions.

35. Part 7.0 lists the parties served with this Application. These parties are the Respondents

to the Application.

36. Part 8.0 provides notice of the application to the Respondents, as required by theRules.

1.5 Confidentiality claim

37. Certain information contained in this Application is filed in confidence with the

Commission pursuant to section 39 of the Act. The information in question is commercial

information regarding the poor service levels obtained by certain CNOC members from the

Carriers and adverse impacts of those poor service levels on the competitive positions of those

CNOC members in the marketplace. That information is confidential and is treated consistently

in a confidential manner by the members of CNOC who submitted it. Disclosure of this

information could prejudice the competitive position of these members and result in material loss

to them, thereby causing them specific direct harm. There is no discernible public benefit to the

disclosure of the information in question. Therefore, the public interest in disclosure does not

outweigh the specific direct harm to the CNOC members resulting from such disclosure. An

abridged version of the Application is being filed for the public record. In the abridged version

# indicates filed in confidence.

19 The telecommunications policy objectives are set out in section 7 of theAct.20 Supra note 4.


17/79

ABRIDGED

14

2.0 THE TPIA LIFE-CYCLE AND RELATED SERVICE ISSUES

2.1 Introduction

38. This section of the Application describes the life-cycle of TPIA services, mostly from an

end-user connection perspective, and describes the problems that can arise when a Carriers

processes are deficient and/or a Carrier does not observe reasonable service standards.

39. The phases of a TPIA life-cycle for an end-user connection range from the installation of

the end-users service through to the potential disconnection of an end-user with other possible

events occurring in between. In addition, the TPIA end-user life-cycle can only begin after a

Carrier actually starts providing TPIA service to an ISP.

40. This part of the Application examines all of the phases through which an end-user

connection may pass. These phases include the ISPs ability to start offering service on the TPIA

platform, TPIA end-user access ordering and provisioning, troubleshooting and repair, and the

impact on ISPs and their end-users of Carrier network maintenance and modifications and

Carrier billing practices for TPIA service. The final step in the life-cycle is the actual

disconnection of a TPIA end-users access.

41. As described throughout this part of the Application, the ISPs level of dependence on the

underlying Carrier providing the TPIA service throughout the life-cycle of each end-user

connection is of particular significance and concern. It is this dependence that provides the

justification for regulatory intervention when problems arise that Carriers are not motivated to

cure on their own initiative.

42. The reality is that ISPs and their end-users face serious delays, service disruptions andother problems throughout the TPIA end-user access life-cycle. These types of issues can have a

serious negative impact on the reputation of ISPs and competition itself an outcome that is

detrimental to consumers. In addition, the more direct service delays and disruptions to end-

users Internet services can cause serious inconvenience and economic losses, particularly for


18/79

ABRIDGED

15

those who study or work at home, some or all of the time. In addition, health and safety concerns

can also arise to the extent that end-users subscribe to voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)

services, which also become disrupted, thereby removing their ability to call 9-1-1 or other

emergency services should the need arise.

43. CNOC acknowledges that TPIA service issues will arise from time-to-time. CNOC

members accept the fact that the operation of complex, dynamic and vast cable networks involve

unavoidable service disruptions. What is unacceptable is when Carriers either: (1) design the

TPIA service and network elements so as to provide an inferior level of service compared to

what the Carriers deliver to their own retail customers; or (2) do not respond to the service

disruptions of their TPIA customers with the same degree of vigilance and urgency that ensures

efficient resolution of issues which affect their own retail services. Even beyond the resolution of

network disruptions, Carriers simply do not provide TPIA services at standards that foster

competition and they do so to their own benefit.

44. Similarly, when a Carrier delays the availability of TPIA service to an ISP or causes

disruption to the ISPs service (irrespective of whether this results from the willfulness or

neglect), the Carrier is effectively raising a barrier to competition. A Carrier will not typically

have any incentive to eliminate or reduce such a barrier that it has chosen to institute, even as it

continues to favour its own retail operations. In fact, sometimes, Carriers will use the very fact

that they are not as responsive to TPIA customers service needs as they are to the service needs

of Carriers own retail operations to win over end-users from TPIA customers! This practice is

clearly anti-competitive.21

21 The Commission has already recognized this when it mandated Carriers to provide the same service standards/intervals to its TPIA customers that the Carrier provides to its own retail customers. For example at paragraphs10 and 11 ofTerms and rates approved for large cable carriers higher speed access service, Telecom Order2000-789, 21 August, 2000, the Commission stated:

The Commission considers that it would be appropriate for the carriers to include specific wording in theirtariffs that any term or restriction applied to an ISP's use of the access service must not be less favourablethan the basis on which the carrier uses its facilities to offer retail Internet service.

If an issue arises as whether a carrier uses its facilities to provide its own retail Internet service on a basis thatis more favourable than that on which an ISP may use the carrier's access service, the onus would be on thecarrier to establish that its actions are not contrary to section 27(2) of the Act.


19/79

ABRIDGED

16

45. When a Carrier behaves in such an adverse manner with respect to its competitors, the net

effect is that it confers an undue preference in its favour and unjustly discriminates against its

TPIA customers/competitors, contrary to section 27(2) of the Act. In such circumstances

regulatory action is required to remove this barrier to entry and eliminate the undue preference /

unjust discrimination that results from the barrier to competition.

46. This part of the Application describes the types of problems that Carriers can create for

their TPIA customers and how those problems can result in barriers to competition throughout

the TPIA end-user access life-cycle. The specific measures proposed by CNOC to remedy this

situation are set out in parts 3.0 and 4.0 of the Application.

2.2 ISP application for TPIA service

47. Although this part of the Application focuses largely on the TPIA service life-cycle for

end-user connections, before any such connection can be established, an ISP must subscribe to a

Carriers TPIA service, enter into the necessary agreements, pay the required initial fees,

establish links to one or more aggregated points of interconnection (POIs), purchase capacity

and provide IP addresses to the Carrier to support the ISPs end-users on the Carriers cable

network and set up the necessary administrative procedures required by the Carrier.

48. CNOC members have reported extreme delays in obtaining TPIA service after submitting

an initial request or expression of interest in the service to a Carrier22. Generally, the only official

Similarly, at paragraph 73 ofPoint of interconnection and service charge rates, terms and conditions for thirdparty Internet access using cable networks, Telecom decision CRTC 2004-69, 2 November 2004, theCommission stated:

Consistent with the approach adopted in Order 2000-789, the Commission requires that cable companiesprovide the same service intervals for services provided to ISPs for connection of their end-customers as theyprovide to their own customers for similar services.

22 These delays can stretch from 1-2 years and beyond. For example, # waited two years before obtaining TPIAservice from Rogers. Similarly, # initially contacted Rogers for the purpose of launching TPIA in July 2011 andthe ISP has yet to obtain service due to incessant delays and wholly inadequate service from Rogers account


20/79

ABRIDGED

17

timelines for processing a new TPIA application are those stipulated in TPIA tariffs and standard

form TPIA service agreements. However, these specified timelines typically only begin once an

ISP submits a TPIA POI service application along with the prescribed TPIA tariff charges.

Specific processes must then be followed that lead to the ISPs POI interconnection becoming

operational within a prescribed period of time. However, the preceding timelines for Carriers to

provide TPIA applications and agreements to prospective TPIA customers are not regulated.

49. At least one Carrier23 has imposed waiting periods which precede the delivery of a TPIA

application to an ISP. In the experience of some CNOC members, these waiting periods can

stretch up more than two years24. During these waiting periods, ISPs are provided few updates as

to when they might expect to receive a TPIA service application and they are given absolutely no

information concerning the design, technical specifications and costs that would apply to them in

order to obtain service25

. For ISPs that are committed to implementing a TPIA service as a

foundation of their business model, such lengthy waiting times and lack of information can be

fatal.

50. For an ISP that has applied for TPIA service, it is imperative that the application process

progresses quickly and efficiently. By definition, the businesses of ISPs rely on access to the

last-mile infrastructure of the Carriers in order to provide a range of competitive Internet and

other high-speed services to Canadians. Until the TPIA application process is completed and the

service becomes operational, the ISP is unable to market its own retail services on the Carriers

TPIA platform, sign up end-users or conduct business generally. In light of these facts, effective

and timely communication between both parties throughout the introduction, negotiation and

implementation stages of the TPIA application is essential. The Carrier must also ensure that the

technical steps leading up to the launch of a new TPIA service are addressed in a timely manner.

team. # also reports that the company has been waiting in excess of 12 months to become a Rogers TPIAcustomer.

23 Namely, Rogers.24 See, supra, note 19.25 # has been subjected to a mandatory one year waiting period by Rogers prior to obtaining a TPIA application. At

this early stage, # is not even sure whether it intends to implement a TPIA service but the company does not havethe information required from Rogers to decide one way or the other. Rogers refuses to provide ISP-specificlaunch related information until the waiting period expires.


21/79

ABRIDGED

18

Overall, the TPIA services of Carriers must be accessible to ISPs. The administrative and

technical processes associated with a TPIA launch should not, under any circumstances, be a

barrier to the business of ISPs.

51. When a Carrier delays the whole process by not providing an ISP the initial package that

it requires in order to commence the subscription process to TPIA in a timely manner, the ISPs

entry in to the market is delayed, leading not only to loss of business for the ISP, but a general

undue lessening of competition in the marketplace relative to the level of competition that would

have been in place had the Carrier not delayed this initial step of the subscription process or any

other step leading to the point where an ISP can start providing its owns retail services on the

Carriers platform.

2.3 Ordering and provisioning

2.3.1 New TPIA order installation process

52. Once an ISP is ready to commence operations on a TPIA platform and an end-user signs

up to the ISPs retail service, the ISP places an order for a TPIA access with the Carrier.

53. Before the ISP can have an end-user order accepted by a Carrier, it is necessary for the

ISP to determine whether the potential end customer can even qualify for service, and if so, for

which services, since Carriers provide different services in different areas. Some Carriers provide

relatively imprecise postal code lookups to determine qualification. Other Carriers provide no

such tool at all. In circumstances in which the qualification of the end-user for service is

indeterminate, the only option for an ISP is to submit the order and await a response which could

be a multi-day process. This leaves the end customer waiting to determine whether it can even

become a customer of the ISP.


22/79

ABRIDGED

19

54. If the end-user qualifies for service, one of three provisioning processes is then triggered

depending on the circumstances.26

55. Where the end-users premises do not have an existing connection to the Carriers

network, a technician must be dispatched by the Carrier. In this scenario, the technician must

connect the co-axial cable wiring inside the subscribers premises to the Carriers network

facilities.27

The technician also connects the co-axial cable in the home to the outlet to be

connected to the cable modem and tests the upstream and downstream Radio Frequency (RF)

network signals to ensure that the end-user can receive service from the ISP.28

56. In a second scenario, where the subscribers premises have an existing connection to the

Carrier but the subscriber does not currently subscribe to the Carrier, a technician is also

typically dispatched.29

In this case, the technician also connects the co-axial cable in the home to

the outlet to be connected to the cable modem and tests the upstream and downstream RF

network signals to ensure that the end-user can receive service from the ISP.30

57. For TPIA installations (and repair) requiring a technician to be dispatched to the end-

users premises, the Carrier provides the ISP with a date and a precise time window for the

deployment of a technician to the premises of the ISPs end-user. The ISP then forwards this

information to the end-user so that access to the end-users premises can be provided to the

Carriers technician within the given time window.

58. In the final scenario, where the ISPs new subscriber currently subscribes to the Carriers

retail Internet service or that of another ISP on the Carriers TPIA platform, there is no need to

26 Rogers Communications Inc., Necessity of cable installer/technician visit, Contribution NTCO0427 to CISCNetwork Working Group, December 11, 2007, at para 3.

27 Id., at para 6.28 Ibid.29 Id., at para 7. There is an exception to this practice in the case of Rogers which allows a self-installation option

in these circumstances when the end-user already subscribes to another Rogers service using cable facilities. SeeCRTC Interconnection Steering Committee Non-consensus report on the necessity of a cable carrier technician

visit for an installation or transfer to an independent Internet service provider, Telecom Decision CRTC 2009-78, 18 February 2009.

30 Ibid.


23/79

ABRIDGED

20

dispatch a technician. In this situation, the Carrier initiates a transfer of service which involves

certain administrative and reconfiguration activities.31

59. Regardless of which of the above scenarios is triggered, provisioning services of one kind

or another are required from Carriers. Both the installation/connection and transfer services are

contemplated in the TPIA tariffs for each of the Carriers. As a result, ISPs pay the tariffed fees

required for these services.

60. These provisioning services are vital to ISP growth, the quality of service that ISPs aspire

to deliver to their customers and the reputation that the ISPs develop in the market place.

61. Any unnecessary delay by a Carrier in any provisioning interval associated with an

installation or transfer serves as a barrier to entry that unjustly discriminates against the ISP that

ordered the service.

62. Similarly, the lack of information provided by Carriers regarding the status of installation

orders is also troublesome as an ISP can neither investigate any anomalies in the processing of

specific orders, nor keep its own end-users abreast of the progress of their orders.

2.3.2 Installation windows

63. General delays in the provisioning and installation process can be widespread and

persistent over time. More specific delays can also be present in the amount of time that a Carrier

takes to schedule a customer transfer or the dispatch of an installer, depending on the situation,

or in the amount of time that an end-user has to wait for an installer to be dispatched, where a

dispatch is required. A number of CNOC members who are TPIA customers have reported that

they have experienced an eleven day installation interval on average during the last fewmonths.

32In some instances, installation delays were far greater than this already unacceptable

31 Cogeco Cable Inc., Necessity of cable installer/technician visit on an end-user installation or transfer to anindependent ISP, Contribution NTCO0428A to CISC to Network Working Group, 17 January 2008, at para 3.

32 For example, Videotron has taken up to 20 days to complete installations for #. Similarly, Cogeco has taken upto 15 days to complete installations for #. Rogers has taken an average of 8-10 days for new installations and


24/79

ABRIDGED

21

average. In addition, missed appointments or appointments changed on the day of installation by

installers can cause further delays and disruption for end-users when they make special

arrangements to be home during working hours in order to facilitate an installation visit that

never occurs33.

64. One particular CNOC member, who obtains TPIA service from four Carriers, reported

that its installation windows were altered on the very day of the scheduled installation between

40 and 300 times since June 2013, depending on the Carrier34. Moreover, this same ISP reported

that the technician never even showed up to a scheduled installation between 40 and 200 times,

depending on the Carrier35, over that same time period. Other CNOC members, who have had

similar experiences36, also report uncooperative behavior from the technicians deployed by the

Carriers37

. For example, ISP end-users have reported various instances of technicians feather

knocking38

at doors or hanging up on a call to the premises after a few rings. In these situations,

the premise visit has to be rescheduled.

65. ISPs can also be prejudiced when installation technicians use their visits to try to win

over ISP end-users to the Carriers competing retail services.

17.25 days for customer transfers (which do not involve an on-site technician visit) in the case of # since June of2013.

33 It is noteworthy that some Carriers, like Rogers, will place automated outbound calls to the customer to informthem of a technician dispatch for either an installation or repair 24-48 hours prior to the work. If the customermisses the call there is no way to re-initiate this confirmation (by callback number or other means) and thetechnician dispatch is cancelled.

34 # reported that since June 2013, the occurrence of changed installation windows on the day of installation hasbeen as follows: over 300 times for Rogers; over 40 times for Cogeco; over 40 times for Shaw; over 300 timesfor Videotron.

35 # reported that since June 2013, the occurrence of Carrier technicians that did not show up for a TPIA

installation has been as follows: over 200 times for Rogers, over 50 times for Cogeco, over 40 times for Shawand over 100 times for Videotron. # reported that Shaw technicians did not show up for 18.8% of scheduledinstallations.

36 # reports 333 incidents of no-show technicians for Rogers TPIA installations since June of 2013; # also reportsthat Rogers is unable to meet the requested installation days for 30% of orders and that Cogeco regularly changesrequested installation dates since it never even acknowledges the order until the requested install date has passed.

37 Customers of # have made frequent reports to that company detailing blatant examples of uncooperativebehavior from technicians.

38 I.e., knocking so lightly that the average person will not hear or hardly hear the knock at all.


25/79

ABRIDGED

22

2.3.3 Tagging TPIA cable connections

66. Another related problem is the lack of consistent tagging of cable connections service by

TPIA by some Carriers during installation. Carriers inspect neighbourhood cable connections

from time-to-time to ensure that cable signals are not being delivered to homes occupied by

persons who are not paying for such signals. Where such connections are found, the Carrier

disconnects them. Tagging is necessary for cable connections on which TPIA services are

provided to ensure that the Carrier does not mistake these connections as being used

illegitimately, thereby leading to their disconnection and the disruption of legitimate end-users

Internet service39

.

67. Mistaken disconnections due to a lack of tagging require separate technician dispatches

for the restoration of service and this means that an end-user can be without service for an

extended period until the reason for the problem is identified, the Carrier schedules a dispatch,

and the technician actually shows up to restore the connection and (hopefully) tag the line

properly before leaving. The proper tagging of TPIA connections should occur without exception

whenever a technician dispatch is required for a TPIA access installation.

2.4 Troubleshooting and repair

2.4.1 TPIA repair process

68. ISPs that make use of TPIA service will generally provide their own technical support to

investigate and resolve problems reported by their subscribers; however, an ISPs ability to

troubleshoot a non-working end-user TPIA access connection is very limited, because the

Carriers have not provided tools that allow the ISP to monitor and reset the settings on cable

modems remotely, or to monitor the presence or quality of data streams over TPIA accesses.

ISPs are also charged tariffed diagnostic maintenance fees where dispatches are required, and so

the lack of access of ISPs to tools that could reduce the rate of Carrier dispatches means that ISPs

are subject to dispatches and related costs that could be avoided. Carriers should make the same

39 # reports that this is a recurring cause of service outages for its TPIA customers.


26/79

ABRIDGED

23

tools that they use to troubleshoot their retail end-users connections and cable modems available

to TPIA customers.

69. When a customer is offline, the ISPs visibility is limited to checking with the end-user

verbally whether certain lights on the modem are lit and whether the end-user does or does not

have connectivity, or that connectivity is faulty in some manner. In those cases, where reverse

domain name server (DNS) functionality is provided by a Carrier, the ISP also has the ability

to determine the last time that the end-users modem was registered on the Carriers network.

Following some very basic troubleshooting by the ISP, if an end-users problem persists, it must

be referred to the Carrier. Such issues are reported to a Carrier via trouble tickets that identify the

affected end-users and the nature of the problems that they are experiencing. When tickets are

not resolved promptly, Carrier processes usually provide for a limited number of escalations,

although not every Carriers escalation process has been formalized in an operational manual.

Moreover, some Carrier escalation procedures merely involve submitting the escalations in the

same manner as the original tickets, with no discernible improvements in priority for escalated

tickets40. Ticket escalation procedures do not typically provide for the ability to communicate

with actual Carrier staff.

70. In cases where end-user disruptions are concentrated by type, timing or geographic

region and the Carrier permits, the ISP will, based on reaching certain thresholds, submit multi-

fault master tickets to the Carrier41. When in receipt of a trouble ticket, the Carrier must take

action to resolve the TPIA service disruption. Depending on the prognosis of the issue, the

situation may or may not require the dispatch of a technician to the premises of the end-user or to

network facilities operated by the Carrier.

71. Regardless of whether the resolution of an issue requires on-site repairs or not, ISPs must

be able to expect, at a minimum, the same level of technical support that can be expected from

the Carrier for its own retail Internet services. CNOC members have not obtained this standard of

40 # reports that this has been its experience with Rogers. Tickets can only be escalated once every 24 hours (up toa third level) and yet escalations do not appear to increase a tickets priority.

41 In # experience with Rogers process associated with multi-fault master tickets, these tickets often obtain noadditional priority and follow the same procedure as individual tickets.


27/79

ABRIDGED

24

service for either on-site or remote repairs. The average service interval for on-site repairs has

been 4-5 days since June 2013. However, these service levels degraded far below this average in

a number of cases42

. This means that the Carriers administrative processes involved in tracking

and managing trouble tickets must be orderly and efficient. Similarly, ISPs must have access to

the same types of troubleshooting tools that the Carriers provide to their own retail operations.

2.4.2 Trouble ticket status

72. Moreover, the ISP should be updated on the status of the trouble ticket as matters

progress, just as the Carrier would advise its own end-users in similar circumstances. ISPs need

to obtain sufficient information regarding the cause and resolution of trouble tickets43 for two

reasons. In limited cases where the faults may be capable of being remedied by an ISP, this

information may enable the ISP to take remedial actions to reduce similar instances in the future.

The second reason is the more important it allows the ISP to explain the reasons for troubles

and steps taken toward resolution to their end-users. This is critical to the credibility of ISPs in

the eyes of their end-users. ISPs should not be put in the position of not being able to provide

their end-users any details regarding their outages and the actions taken to resolve them.

2.4.3 Repair windows

73. Where technicians are required to conduct network or on-site repairs, they should be

dispatched within an acceptable service interval. As the Carriers are aware, since a subscribers

42 For example, in August 2013, Rogers average on-site repair interval was 12 days for # customers. Notsurprisingly, average intervals for repairs where no technician dispatch is required are shorter, at approximately3-4 days for most Carriers. However, some CNOC members have experienced very lengthy service outages evenwhere no on-site repair was required. For instance, # suffered one chronic outage caused by Rogers that keptTPIA customers offline for 24 days. During that period, Rogers provided no explanation for the outage despitenumerous requests.

43 For example, # reported that Rogers never provides any information relating to a ticket and its resolution unlessthe information is requested by the ISP. Even when the information is requested, the reply from Rogers is vagueor avoids the question altogether. For larger maintenance issues, Rogers never provides clear information. SomeCarriers, like Cogeco are better at providing information on request, but also fail to provide information relatingto larger maintenance issues. Other CNOC members had similar reports. For example, # indicated that it neverreceives updates or resolutions reasons on tickets from Shaw. Using # (an ILEC) for comparison, the sameCNOC member noted that for each ticket it receives an exact resolution report that states the cause of the trouble,ownership of issue (wholesale customer or the ILEC), and all of the metrics around the issue. Using the ILECsticket system it is also possible for the CNOC member to go back and look at past tickets and troubles of everyticket.


28/79

ABRIDGED

25

confidence in its Internet provider is understandably extremely sensitive to network disruptions,

the importance of prompt repair service from the Carriers cannot be overstated.

74. ISPs customers often have to make special arrangements to be home or ensure some

other adult is home to receive Carrier technicians on the scheduled dispatch dates. When a

technician fails to show up for scheduled appointments, or attempts to change the window for

repair visits on the day of the actual scheduled repair visit, the ISPs customer is inconvenienced,

and, more often than not, it is the ISPs reputation that is at risk.

75. In two particularly bad cases, a Carrier changed 70% of scheduled repair windows44 and

one CNOC member reported that Carrier technicians did not report at all for 34.6% of all repair

appointments since June 201345

. Similar to what was described above with respect to the

ordering and provisioning of TPIA accesses, CNOC members also report instances of Carrier

technicians feather knocking at doors or hanging up on a call to the premises after a few

rings46

. In these situations, the premise visit has to be rescheduled.

76. A Carriers repair technician may also use the opportunity of a repair visit to attempt to

switch the customer to the retail service of the Carrier.

2.4.4 Escalation procedures

77. Carrier network outages can cause large numbers of TPIA customers end-users to go

offline. Therefore, it is essential for ISPs to have proper escalation procedures and charts, both

during and after business hours. The charts should include reliable contact information for

Carrier staff who can be reached using real time communications methods to assist in prompt

resolution of network outages47

.

44 # reported that Rogers only respected 30% of scheduled repair dates and time windows since June 2013.45 # reported that Shaw technicians did not show up for 34.6% of scheduled repairs since June 2013. Similarly, #

reported a no-show rate of 20% for Rogers repair technicians and of 30% for Cogeco repair technicians duringthat same time period.

46 Customers of # have made frequent reports to that company detailing blatant examples of uncooperativebehavior from technicians.

47 CNOC members reports that all Carriers employ rudimentary escalation procedures that do not work well.Perhaps acknowledging this fact, some Carriers, including Rogers and Cogeco have implemented informal


29/79

ABRIDGED

26

2.5 Network maintenance and modifications

2.5.1 Network routing

78. When a TPIA connection between a Carrier and ISP fails and the router equipment at

either end is not aware of the failure, traffic is lost and end customers experience service

interruptions. The use of a standard protocol such as bidirectional Forwarding Detection

(BFD), which is already available on Carrier routers without additional cost and implemented

with ease, would prevent the unnecessary delays that result from the need to make manual

routing changes around failures.48

2.5.2 Reducing the impact of single points of failure

79. The fact that at least some Carriers have TPIA networks that are built over a single-fault

point is also a pressing concern. In these cases, the standard TPIA network design houses all

TPIA connections on a single router. In other words, if this router were to fail then so would all

TPIA service for the Carrier. The risk of such catastrophic consequences warrants additional

safeguards. Carriers could implement efficient protection, where practicable, to reduce the

impact of single points of failures in their TPIA network designs.

2.5.3 Network modifications

80. Shifting consumer needs and demands drive the evolution of network technologies. In

this dynamic environment, both Carriers and ISPs are required to diligently maintain, adapt and

modify their networks. However, in light of the adverse impacts that Carrier network

modifications may have on TPIA service, it is important that Carriers and ISPs give sufficient

policies whereby an ISP can, in some circumstances, contact TPIA account managers directly. However, theseprocesses are fraught with their own problems. For example, the fact that an account managers are not associatedclosely with Carrier help desks makes referencing specific trouble tickets through account managers verydifficult.

48 # reports that one recent outage occurred when Rogers rerouted traffic, but it is unclear whether Rogers did somanually or automatically and this Carrier is not forthcoming with details about the incident.


30/79

ABRIDGED

27

notice49 and openly communicate their plans prior to and throughout scheduled and unscheduled

network modifications50. These discussions must include plans to implement new technologies

and network configurations. In addition to communicating network changes to ISPs, the Carriers

must have adequate technical safeguards to minimize disruptions to TPIA services over the

course of their network modifications.

81. Proper coordination should involve Carriers notifying their ISP customers of network

changes that could adversely affect the service that the ISPs provide to their own customers.

Ample notifications should be given by Carriers to their ISP customers for such matters as,

without limitation, DOCSIS and other standards-based version upgrades (by service area),

frequency changes for channels used for TPIA service, modem firmware downloads 51, and other

major network changes. When a carrier is not transparent about these types of changes, ISPs

experience outages that they cannot mitigate and for which they cannot prepare themselves and

their own end-customers. For example, recent changes made by Rogers in its network caused a

very high volume of outages for a number of ISPs. In another case, a CNOC member was faced

with a situation where thousands of customers were offline due to unannounced network

upgrades in a regional POI52

.

82. For example, DOCSIS upgrades (such as from version 2.0 to 3.0) coupled with speed

upgrades made by a Carrier may mean that existing modems that are not compatible with the

new DOCSIS version will no longer function. Advance notice by a Carrier to its TPIA customers

can assist those ISPs in getting their own customers prepared for such transitions to avoid or

49 In order for notice to be sufficient it must be timely and informative. More specifically, notice should clearlyindicate the geographic location of the equipment that is being modified and identify the affected user base. Forexample, Node ABC is being maintained on the following day and the area affected or list of affectedcustomers is as follows: XYZ.

50 CNOC members do sometimes obtain certain information from all Carriers. However, often this informationrelates to firmware updates and maintenance matters. Rogers in particular, tends not to inform its TPIAcustomers of work being done that will impact end-users, nor does a standardized process for such notificationseven appear to exist. # has requested access to such a process and it has not been provided.

51 ISPs need to be able to notify its end customers to leave their modems on when a Carrier will be pushing afirmware upgrade, since Carriers only push upgrades once. In addition, ISPs should be able to request firmwareupgrades for specific end-users who were missed during a mass firmware upgrade.

52 This was the situation faced by # when Cogeco performed upgrades during a maintenance window on the #POI. As a result of this incident, thousands of customers went offline. In another example, a network changemade by Shaw caused three and a half day outage for all the customers of #.


31/79

ABRIDGED

28

minimize service outages. In addition, prompt notification will prevent TPIA customers from

being disadvantaged from a marketing perspective because they do not know the precise

boundaries of areas in which DOCSIS 3.0 services are or are not supported53

.

83. Another area that can cause problems is frequency reassignments. When a Carrier

decides to reassign frequencies used to provide TPIA service, cable modems connected to the

Carriers network may require new firmware or other reconfiguration. In addition, due to the

sensitivity of cable plant to interference, changes in frequencies can also cause problems with the

radio frequency (RF) signals used to transport Internet traffic over the cable network.

84. Complicating matters further is the fact that cable modem unique identifiers known as

media access control (MAC) addresses must be registered on a Carriers network in order for

the cable modem to function on that network. When a cable modem fails, due to incomplete

firmware upgrades or other configurations or, indeed, for any other reasons, an ISP cannot

simply fix the problem on its own by supplying another cable modem to the affected end-user.

Coordination with the Carrier is required to ensure that the replacement modems MAC address

is registered on the Carriers network. If the Carrier delays this registration process, the ISPs

end-customer will be without service in the interim.

85. For these reasons, it is critical for a Carrier to communicate network changes to its TPIA

customers in advance and to allow those customers to notify their end-customers of such

impending changes, as well. If either timely notification is not provided or a Carrier provides the

information yet insists on having it treated in a confidential manner by its TPIA customers

pursuant to the provisions of TPIA agreements in place between carriers and their TPIA

customers, those ISPs cannot prepare their own end-users to avoid or reduce service outages.

53 # and # employ DOCSIS 3.0 throughout their network footprints while # and # have only implemented thisstandard in parts of their operating territories, and are gradually rolling it out further.


32/79

ABRIDGED

29

2.5.4 IP address allocation

86. Another area that needs to be managed better by Carriers relates to the deployment of IP

addresses supplied by ISPs to the Carrier for assignment to equipment that serves the ISPs

customers. The IP addresses provided by an ISP to a Carrier are assigned to equipment used to

connect the end-users of the ISP to the Internet.

87. For example, the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) is used for, among

other things, supplying IP addresses to cable modems seeking a connection to the ISPs network.

In the absence of an assignment of an IP address, a cable modem cannot be used for

communication over the Internet. IP addresses are most often assigned dynamically to cable

modems from a pool of addresses provided by the ISP to the Carrier for assignment to DHCP-

related equipment serving the specific area that includes the portion of the Carriers network to

which the cable modem is connected. An IP address will be assigned to a cable modem

whenever it is powered up or when the previous IP lease, which is temporary, for that cable

modem expires. If the pool of addresses for a particular area has been depleted, the next cable

modem in that area that requires an IP address will not be able to obtain one and the end-

customer will not be able to get online.

88. These types of problems can lead to frustration by multiple end users and numerous

corresponding trouble tickets due to the dynamic nature of IP address allocation. This is because

a cable modem that may not obtain an IP address during a specific given period of time, may

suddenly be able to obtain one next time the user attempts to go online because an IP address

was freed up by another cable modem in the interim. The net result is a frustrating round of IP

address whack-a-mole as cable modems compete for an insufficient number of IP addresses in a

particular area.

89. This type of IP address depletion can occur quickly in certain situations and only the

Carrier has the data required to anticipate these situations and request more IP addresses from

ISPs in a sufficiently timely manner to prevent the types of shortages and ensuing frustration just


33/79

ABRIDGED

30

described54. These situations include node splits and faster than average growth by ISPs in

certain areas.

90. Due to the shared nature of cable networks, when demand for bandwidth increases

significantly in a neighbourhood served by a single node, the Carrier will split the node, thereby

reducing the number of houses served by each node. Node splits will often lead to a need for the

allocation of additional IP addresses to new equipment associated with each node. Unless the

Carrier advises its TPIA customers of node splits in advance, TPIA customers will be caught

unaware and IP shortages may result in the affected areas.

91. When an ISPs customer base grows disproportionately quickly in a given area, IP

shortages may also ensue, since ISPs are not aware of the specific boundaries of the areas served

by the IP pools that they provide to Carriers for us in conjunction with TPIA service. Only the

Carrier is able to see the trends by IP pool area in advance.55 Therefore, unless a Carrier advises

its TPIA customers of impending shortages due to rapid growth in advance, TPIA customers will

be caught unaware and IP shortages may result in the affected areas.

92. There are other related problems that compound the difficulties faced by ISPs with

respect to IP address allocations. ISPs cannot be overly generous in advance allocations of IP

addresses to Carrier equipment in order to try to anticipate and avoid IP address shortages

because IP addresses supplied using the current IPv4 format employed by carriers and TPIA

customers alike are being rapidly depleted and additional allocations from the American Registry

for Internet Numbers (ARIN) which is responsible for such allocations throughout North

54 In the experience of CNOC members, the Carriers do not act proactively when it comes to TPIA IP addressallocations. The average time that it takes a Carrier to complete an allocation of IP addresses to DHCP is oftenstated to be no more than 24 hours, although it is often longer. On its face 24 hours seems like a short delay, butin practice it is unacceptable when allocations only occur once a DHCP issue arises and the ISP issues a ticket tothe Carrier, who must then investigate and determine the root cause of the issue. Only at the end of this delay-laden process will the Carrier request additional IP addresses and then make allocation. Even when an allocationis complete, # and # report that their Carriers do not notify them when allocations have been completed.Consequently, the ISP is unable to determine whether the problem has been resolved and forward thatinformation to its end-users.

55 Even those Carriers that provide reverse Domain Name Server (DNS) tools, refuse to give ISPs the necessarydetails to be able to track this ourselves. If ISPs had the mapping of all subnets assigned to a node and cablemodem terminating system (CMTS) interface, they could track the IPs by using the reverse DNS tools.


34/79

ABRIDGED

31

America are getting more difficult to obtain. In addition, Carriers will sometimes not allow TPIA

customers to make larger allocations of IP addresses in order to avoid shortages later on even

where this is possible.

93. In order to avoid these problems, Carriers should provide ISPs sufficient advance

notification of Carrier network modifications that could cause additional demand for the

deployment of additional IP addresses to serve ISP end-users and daily IP address utilization

reports56;

94. Finally, due the impending exhaustion of the availability of new IPv4 IP addresses,

network operators are migrating to the use of IP addresses in the IPv6 format.

2.5.5 IPv6 implementation and rollout strategies

95. CNOC members have received varying levels of cooperation from Carriers when it

comes to sharing information that is relevant to their IPv6 implementation and roll out

strategies57. Unfortunately, most Carriers are unwilling to share their IPv6 rollout plans with

their wholesale customers.

96. As the Carriers are aware, the transition to IPv6 requires extensive preparation in terms of

hardware changes and network configuration. A number of Carriers have yet to provide any

information regarding processes such as anticipated changes to the deployment of IPv6 blocks of

IP addresses to Cable Modem Termination System (CMTS) interfaces or how they plan to

implement IP addressing for modems. Carriers have also yet to provide any information on what

modifications are required surrounding the interconnection to the aggregate network in order to

take full advantage of IPv6.

56 IP address utilization reports are currently only provided automatically by Videotron. Rogers only offers reportson an ad-hoc request basis and does not provide them more than once per month. # also reports that Rogerscharges them fees for these reports. Similarly, Cogeco reluctantly provides utilization reports in response torequests. Shaw does not provide utilization reports at all (whether requested or automatically).

57 # has provided some IPv6 rollout information to its TPIA customers; CNOC members have not obtained anysuch information from #, # or #.


35/79

ABRIDGED

32

97. As a result of Carriers refusing or limiting the sharing of IPv6 plans, ISPs will be unable

to conduct necessary upgrades and reconfigurations proactively. Left in the dark, ISPs will

undoubtedly struggle to ensure a smooth transition to the newest protocol version and end-users

will ultimately suffer service disruptions as a result. In fact, without proper advance planning,

migration to IPv6 will, at least in the case of one Carrier, result in a loss of the forward DNS just

recently provided to ISPs by the Carrier that allows cable modem MAC addresses to be cross-

referenced with IP addresses assigned to the cable modems. This is a functionality that is very

important to ISPs for troubleshooting TPIA end-user access trouble reports, and which CNOC

members have been clamoring to obtain for some time.

98. In order for TPIA customers and their end customers to be ready for the Carrier

migrations and to avoid as much disruption to the end customers as possible, advance notice and

coordination of migrations to IPv6 are is required between Carriers and their TPIA customers.

2.6 Billing

99. A Carriers TPIA invoices must be accurate and timely. Unfortunately, there are

instances where this is not the case. For example, a CNOC member58 reported that a Carrier59

billed the member retroactively for capacity charges three times for the same time periods. Well

over a year after these mistakes, the ISP has yet to obtain a correct bill or adjustment. The ISP

has requested that the Carrier adjust and correlate the incorrect bills no less than six times. The

dollar amount of the required adjustments is approximately $200,000.

100. Carrier invoices must also contain sufficient information so that the TPIA customer can

verify the charges on the invoices and ensure that the TPIA customers own end users are being

billed correctly. Attachment A to this Application lists all of the elements that should be

present on such invoices. As the confidential version of the Attachment demonstrates none of the

four major Carriers provide invoices that include all of the elements. This needs to be rectified.

58 Namely, #.59 Namely, Cogeco.


36/79

ABRIDGED

33

101. In addition, the format and layout of invoices is not clear at all and does not make it easy

for TPIA customers to import the invoice data for use in reconciling the invoices in all cases. For

example, in some cases, invoices do not contain unique identifiers that match amounts invoiced

to customers60. In other cases, the invoice forms do not provide a summary of the products and

services that are being charged. Some invoice layouts are also not well organized and

challenging to decipher61. Overall, these billing issues greatly complicate the accounting jobs of

ISPs and in some cases lead to significant and unnecessary payment errors.

102. The preferred format for invoices is Microsoft Excel and billing details should be

provided in a straightforward manner that is set out by customer, in plain language and without

the use of obscure codes or layouts.

103. It would also be very useful if invoices could ultimately be provided in an OData62

format via customer portals.

2.7 Disconnection

104. At a subscribers request, an ISP must arrange for disconnection of service with the

Carrier. A timely response from the ISP and the Carrier is in the interest of the end-user. Prompt

disconnection and cessation of billing by the Carrier is necessary to empower consumers to make

60 This is the case for Cogecos invoices, as reported by #. # has a similar experience with Cogeco. This is becausethat Carrier uses of cable modem MAC addresses as the unique identifiers in its invoices, and when end-usermodems change and this is not reflected accurately right away by Cogeco, the MAC address will no longercorrespond to the end-user.

61 # reports that Shaw bills are very inconsistent from region to region which renders them nearly impossible toaudit.

62 The OData Protocol is an application-level protocol for interacting with data via RESTful web services. Theprotocol supports the description of data models and the editing and querying of data according to those models.It provides facilities for (1) Metadata: a machine-readable description of the data model exposed by a particulardata provider; (2) Data: sets of data entities and the relationships between them; (3) Querying: requesting that theservice perform a set of filtering and other transformations to its data, then return the results; (4) Editing:creating, editing, and deleting data; (5) Operations: invoking custom logic; and (6) Vocabularies: attachingcustom semantics. The OData Protocol is different from other REST-based web service approaches in that itprovides a uniform way to describe both the data and the data model. This improves semantic interoperabilitybetween systems and allows an ecosystem to emerge. See http://www.odata.org/.


37/79

ABRIDGED

34

it easy to choose their service providers on an ongoing basis63. This is consistent with the

Commissions ruling in Broadcasting and Telecom Regulatory Policy 2011-19164, requiring

broadcasting distribution undertakings to complete customer transfers within two days of a third-

party custome

Cable Omnibus Application ABRIDGED Final

Documents

Transcript of Cable Omnibus Application ABRIDGED Final