CRTC allows bells usage based billing

[andyb2]

:out: <br />
<br />
Crtc allows UBB on wholesale users customers.On a ****in per user basis rather than an aggregate amount.WTF.Say goodbye to wholesale very soon <br />
c/p <br />
Telecom Decision CRTC 2010‑255 <br />
Ottawa, 6...

[andyb2]

cont... <br />
<br />
Is the Bell companies’ proposal for wholesale Residence GAS an economic ITMP? <br />
16. As mentioned above, the Commission notes that the Bell companies’ proposal would require a GAS...

[andyb2]

cont... <br />
<br />
iv) Should the Bell companies’ proposal to charge GAS ISPs for uncorrelated usage be approved? <br />
35. The Bell companies submitted that their proposed approach to implementing...

[andyb2]

cont

56. The Commission is not persuaded that the Bell companies’ assumption regarding the number of help desk return calls is reasonable. The Commission also notes that the record does not indicate that the Bell companies applied a productivity improvement factor to their time estimate associated with help desk return calls for the period between 2006 and the start of the cost study, which was 2009. The Commission considers it reasonable to adjust the costs associated with help desk return calls in order to reflect a lower average number of such calls and to apply to the time estimate the productivity improvement factor of 1.3 percent per year identified in Bell Canada’s Appendix V attachment to its Phase II costing manual.
57. In light of the above, the Commission has reduced by 10 percent the Bell companies’ maintenance costs associated with help desk return calls.
Peak/off‑peak traffic distribution
58. The Bell companies submitted that some GAS costs are driven by bandwidth and are therefore affected by bandwidth requirements during the peak period. They further stated that the estimate of bandwidth required for GAS during the peak period for every 1 GB of average usage, per end‑user, per month, was based on Bell Canada’s retail Internet service customer data gathered during a three‑week period in August 2007.
59. The Commission notes that in the oral hearing leading to the ITMP decision, Bell Canada indicated that 27 percent of its traffic is P2P traffic. The Commission also notes that in the proceeding leading to Telecom Decision 2008‑108, Bell Canada indicated that it began shaping peak period retail Internet service P2P traffic in October 2007, and that total P2P peak period traffic had declined by 50 percent as a result. Based on this evidence, the Commission considers it appropriate to reduce the Bell companies’ bandwidth costs for the flat‑rate component to reflect this change in P2P traffic.
60. Accordingly, the Commission has reduced by 14 percent the Bell companies’ GAS capital costs that are driven by bandwidth to reflect the reduction in total peak period P2P traffic, due to their traffic shaping practice.
ATM switches
61. The Bell companies filed switching costs based on the use of ATM switches. The Commission notes that the Bell companies have generally stopped investing in ATM technology and currently relieve congestion by migrating traffic from ATM to Ethernet growth technology. The Commission therefore considers that the use of existing ATM switches advances Ethernet switches and that the Bell companies’ switching costs should be based on the advancement of Ethernet switches rather than the advancement of ATM switches.
62. The Commission notes that the record does not provide information on costs associated with Ethernet switches and that Bell Canada’s Appendix V attachment to its Phase II costing manual suggests that the life estimate associated with Ethernet switches is at least as long as the period of the Bell companies’ cost study–that is, five years. The Commission considers that newer technologies, such as Ethernet, are generally more efficient than older technologies, such as ATM, and are expected to cost less per unit of capacity. Based on the record of this proceeding, the Commission finds it reasonable to use the ATM switching costs as a proxy for the Ethernet switching costs and to assume that there is no replacement of ATM switches during the study period.
63. Accordingly, the Commission has reduced by 37 percent the Bell companies’ capital costs associated with ATM switching hardware.
ii) Bell companies’ proposed markups for the flat‑rate component
64. The Commission notes that, in Telecom Decision 2008‑17, it mandated the continued provision of the Bell companies’ wholesale GAS and the cable carriers’ wholesale TPIA services.
65. The Commission notes that the Bell companies proposed a rate structure for their economic ITMP that is consistent with the rate structure approved for the cable carriers’ TPIA services, in that it has a flat‑rate component and a UBB component. However, the proposed markups reflected in the flat‑rate component of the Bell companies’ economic ITMP, whether determined based on their proposed costs or on adjusted costs, are not comparable to the markups reflected in rates approved for the flat‑rate component of the cable carriers’ TPIA services.[7]
66. In light of its determinations in Telecom Decision 2008‑17 and in accordance with the objective of competitive neutrality, the Commission considers that rates for the flat‑rate component of Residence GAS should reflect markups that are comparable to those for TPIA. The Commission also considers that comparable markups for all speed options of the Bell companies’ Residence GAS would support retail Internet service competition by providing GAS ISPs with equivalent pricing flexibility for all speed options, thereby increasing their retail pricing flexibility. The Commission notes that this approach is consistent with markups reflected in rates approved across all speed options for the cable carriers’ TPIA services.
67. The Commission is therefore of the view that it would be appropriate to approve rates for the flat‑rate component of the Bell companies’ proposed economic ITMP for Residence GAS that are based on adjusted costs and reflect markups which are comparable to those for the cable carriers’ TPIA services.
iii) Bell companies’ proposed rates for the UBB component
68. The Commission notes that the UBB rates proposed by the Bell companies for their economic ITMP for Residence GAS are 25 percent lower than their comparable retail UBB rates and, as such, are set in relation to these rates. Consistent with the intended purpose of the Bell companies’ economic ITMP, which is to incent heavy end‑users to reduce their usage, the Commission considers that the Bell companies’ proposed market‑based pricing approach is appropriate for the UBB component of their proposal.
69. Accordingly, the Commission considers that the level of the Bell companies’ proposed usage thresholds, above which a GAS ISP would pay UBB rates on a per‑GB, per‑end‑user basis up to a maximum of $22.50 per month, are reasonable.
Bell companies’ proposed rates for additional wholesale Business GAS speed option
70. The Commission has reviewed the Bell companies’ cost estimates for their additional Business GAS speed option. For the reasons set out with respect to the Commission’s adjustments to the Bell companies’ cost estimates for the flat‑rate component of their proposed economic ITMP for Residence GAS, the Commission considers it appropriate to make the same adjustment to costs for the additional Business GAS speed option that are associated with help desk return calls, peak period bandwidth requirements, and the use of ATM switches.
71. The Commission has assessed the rate levels that will result if rates for the additional Business GAS speed option are based on service costs, as adjusted, plus the Bell companies’ proposed markup. The Commission considers that these rate levels would provide customers of the additional Business GAS speed option with pricing flexibility at the retail level.
Conclusion
72. Accordingly, the Commission approves, as just and reasonable, the rates set out in the Appendix to this decision for the Bell companies’ proposed economic ITMP for Residence GAS and for their additional Business GAS speed option. The Bell companies are to issue tariff pages for the additional Business GAS speed option that reflect this determination no later than 15 days from the date of this decision.

[andyb2]

cont <br />
<br />
IV. What implementation period would be appropriate? <br />
73. Certain interveners proposed various implementation periods in the event that the Commission approves the Bell companies’...