|
Telecom Letter Decision
|
|
Ottawa, 31 August 1988
|
|
Telecom Letter Decision CRTC 88-8
|
|
Mr. Peter J. Knowlton
|
|
Assistant General CounselBell Canada25 Eddy Street, 4th FloorHull (Québec)J8X 4B5Re:
|
On 28 July 1988, the Commission received a letter from Bell Canada (Bell) requesting that the filing date for its estimated 1988 and 1989 Phase III results, as specified in Association of Competitive Telecommunications Suppliers and CNCP Telecommunications v. Bell Canada and British Columbia Telephone Company, Telecom Decision CRTC 88-9, 14 July 1988 (Decision 88-9), be postponed from 31 October 1988 to 15 December 1988. In support of its request, Bell stated that, in order to meet the 31 October filing date, it would have to shorten its current schedule for the preparation of the corporate budget View for 1989 required to produce Phase III results. In addition, Bell noted that management staff disruptions caused by the current labour dispute would further complicate any necessary shortening of its planned schedule.
|
In a letter dated 12 August 1988, the Commission denied Bell's request. The Commission noted that Decision 88-9 required the filing only of estimates of the Phase III results for 1988 and 1989, and not formal corporate views.
|
|
In a letter dated 17 August 1988, Bell requested that the Commission reconsider the company's original request. In its letter, Bell provided a more detailed explanation of why the corporate budget View for 1989 is required to produce the estimates of the Phase III study results for 1988 and 1989. Bell indicated that preparation of 1989 Phase III forward test year estimates requires detailed estimates of both revenues by account code and expenses by function code and that meaningful estimates must be based on the company's budget process. Bell noted the major steps required and the related schedule for the preparation of its 1989 corporate budget View, and the subsequent work required to produce Phase III study results by 15 December 1988. Bell stated that an October 31 filing date for the Phase III study results would require the company to shorten the time frames for many of the key steps in the budget process, with the result that the budget estimates produced would become significantly less reliable. Bell submitted that it would be inappropriate for the Commission to require that the first forward test year Phase III results be produced based on less than complete and reliable input data.
|
|
In light of the further details provided by Bell in its letter of 17 August 1988, the Commission has reconsidered the company's request to postpone the filing of estimated 1988 and 1989 Phase III results from 31 October 1988 to 15 December 1988 and has decided to grant the request. In so doing, the Commission notes that, should the submission of forward test year results become a periodic requirement, filing arrangements for such results will need to be considered taking into account the time required to complete the company's full corporate budget View and to produce Phase III forward test year results based on that View.
|
|
Fernand Bélisle
|
|