ARCHIVED - Telecom - Commission Letter - 8638-C12-73/02 - TELUS' Revised ServiceImprovement Plan
This page has been archived on the Web
Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. Archived Decisions, Notices and Orders (DNOs) remain in effect except to the extent they are amended or reversed by the Commission, a court, or the government. The text of archived information has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Changes to DNOs are published as “dashes” to the original DNO number. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats by contacting us.
LetterOur File: 8638-C12-73/02 Ottawa, 16 October 2002 BY TELECOPIER Mr. Willie Grieve Dear Mr. Grieve: Subject: TELUS' Revised Service Improvement Plan This is further to TELUS' revised Service Improvement Plan (SIP) dated 13 September 2002. Commission staff has a number of questions for TELUS (see attached). The process for submissions and comment on the TELUS SIP and these interrogatories is amended to the following:
Where a document is to be filed or served by a specific date, the document is to be actually received, not merely sent by that date. Yours sincerely, Scott Hutton c.c.: Public Notice CRTC 2001-37 List of Interested Parties Attachments 1 and 2 Attachment 1: Interrogatories for TELUS 1. A) With reference to TELUS' revised SIP dated 13 September 2002, paragraphs 7, 34, 35, and 36, the total of the communities is 35+9+8+7 = 59. In paragraph 6, TELUS stated that there are 61 total unserved communities. Reconcile the difference. The company should apply any required corrections to the Commission's interrogatories and its responses below.B) With reference to TELUS' revised SIP dated 13 September 2002, paragraphs 34, 35, and 36, provide three tables in the same format as Appendix 1 to set out: (i) the 9 communities that are technically eligible for the revised Service Improvement Plan (SIP) but that are not included in the revised SIP (paragraph 34); (ii) the 8 communities that are ineligible for the SIP because the capital cost per dwelling exceeds the $25,000 capital criteria (paragraph 35); and (iii) the 7 communities that are not in the SIP since they would be better off in the Service Extension Plan (SEP) (paragraph 36). 2. With reference to TELUS' revised SIP dated 13 September 2002, paragraphs 6 and 7, TELUS stated that $10.6 million was explicitly approved in Decision 2002-34 (paragraph 864), and the company subsequently filed a SIP for unserved premises that totalled $9.6 million for 35 communities (Appendix 1). TELUS then correctly pointed out that the Commission modified the criteria proposed by TELUS for unserved premises (paragraph 865) and filed a new estimate for the SIP that totalled $16.5 million for unserved premises in 46 communities, pursuant to the Commission's directives. The Commission also directed TELUS to commence the SIP in 2002 (paragraph 865) and complete the SIP in 2005 (paragraph 918). In light of the foregoing, provide a SIP for Commission approval that reflects the criteria approved in Decision 2002-34. This SIP should be in the same format as Appendix 1, and should include a minimum of 46 unserved communities that would cost $16.5 million. Also, provide a new three-year roll-out plan for the communities in question that completes in 2005 in the same format as Appendices II and IV.3. With reference to paragraph 34, provide a new table to include the 9 communities that are technically eligible for the SIP in the revised SIP to the 46 communities totalling $16.5 million for a total of 55 communities in the same format as Appendix 1. Calculate the new total and set out a three-year roll-out plan in the same manner as the response to interrogatory 2 above. 4. With reference to paragraph 31, TELUS stated its intent to delay the commencement of the roll-out such that 2003 will be the first year of the SIP in terms of actual capital investment and construction activity. One of the reasons given for the delay was "the date by which the Decision was [issued]". Decision 2002-34 was issued on 30 May 2002, which allowed seven months for TELUS' construction activity in 2002. Given that the Commission approved a start date of 2002 (paragraph 865), provide more detailed justification for the postponement of the roll-out to 2003. 5. With reference to Appendix IV, confirm that Years 1 to 4 are actually 2003-2006. 6. Provide a Phase II cost study in the format as Bell Canada in its submission dated 18 September 2002 to recover the costs for the following SIPs: (i) the SIP that includes 46 communities; (ii) the SIP that includes 55 communities. 7. Refer to TELUS' revised SIP dated 13 September 2002, Appendix 1 [Document B], and to the response to interrogatory TELUS(CRTC)27Apr01-602, Attachment 1 [Document A]. The Commission notes that there have been additions and removals of localities to Document A to arrive at Document B. Provide a table indicating the additions and removals to Document A, indicating the associated costs and justification for the changes. 8. With reference to TELUS' revised SIP dated 13 September 2002, page 15, TELUS noted that the costs originally provided with respect to providing Internet access via a local call in the communities listed in the response to interrogatory TELUS(CRTC)27Apr01-613 were premised on other elements of TELUS' original SIP being approved as well. Commission staff notes that the costs for Greenville have increased significantly from $32K to either $1.39 million (paragraph 41) or $1.49 million (Appendix 3). a. Indicate which is the correct amount; and b. Provide a detailed description of the additional assets and associated costs required for Greenville, along with detailed justification for proceeding with this project in the light of the significant increase in costs. 9. With reference to TELUS' revised SIP dated 13 September 2002, paragraph 43, provide a detailed description (including a typical example) and justification for the charging of "other service and construction charges" as applicable pursuant to the company's tariffs given that the Commission's intent was that no customer should have to pay more than $1,000 if the locality met the criteria. 10. With reference to TELUS' revised SIP dated 13 September 2002, paragraph 44, provide a detailed description (including a typical example) and justification for the charging of "costs associated with providing facilities on private property" as applicable pursuant to the company's tariffs given that the Commission's intent was that no customer should have to pay more than $1,000 if the locality met the criteria. 11. A) With reference to TELUS' revised SIP dated 13 September 2002, paragraph 36, TELUS stated that the 7 unserved communities that are not being considered for the SIP would be better off in terms of their capital contribution under the SEP. Select the costliest project of the 7 communities in question and demonstrate that this statement is correct. Provide detailed calculations. B) Should the 7 communities in question not be included in the SIP, provide TELUS' view on whether it would be claiming a lesser amount than it would be entitled to in its cost recovery in the TSR. 12. Attachment 2 is a list prepared by Commission staff from current Commission records that reflects an approximate number of premises for which service has been requested in TELUS territory but currently are unserved. Update this list to indicate which premises can be served under the SIP and which premises can be served under the current tariff. Also update this list to indicate the costs, distance, and current schedule for service to each premises. Attachment 2: List of premises that have requested service
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
- Date modified: