ARCHIVED - Telecom - Commission Letter - 8661-C12-08/01 - CRTC to review revised loop andprimary exchange service cost filings, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2001-119 -Request to conclude the proceeding

Letter

Ottawa, 21 February 2003

File No. 2001.8661.C12.08

BY FASCIMILE

To: Parties to Public Notice 2001-119

Re: CRTC to review revised loop and primary exchange service cost filings, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2001-119 - Request to conclude the proceeding

The application

By letter dated 18 December 2002, Bell Canada filed a letter on behalf of itself, Aliant Telecom Inc. (Aliant), MTS Communications Inc. (MTS) and Saskatchewan Telecommunications (SaskTel) (collectively, Bell Canada et al.) in which it requested that the Commission conclude the proceeding initiated by CRTC to review revised loop and primary exchange service cost filings, Public Notice CRTC 2001-119, 30 November 2001 (PN 2001-119).

Background

Pursuant to the procedure established by letter dated 23 December 2002, comments were received on Bell Canada et al's request on 13 January 2003 from: AT&T Canada Corp. on behalf of itself, AT&T Canada Telecom Services, Call-Net Enterprises Inc., Rogers Wireless Inc. and the Canadian Cable Television Association (AT&T Canada et al.); GT Group Telecom Services Corp. (Group Telecom); the Public Interest Advocacy Centre on behalf of the Consumers' Association of Canada (CAC), the National Anti-Poverty Organization and l'Union des consommateurs (CAC et al.); and TELUS Communications Inc. (TELUS). Bell Canada et al. submitted reply comments on 17 January 2003.

The procedure established in PN 2001-119 was amended by letters dated 29 May 2002, 22 July 2002 and 11 October 2002. Bell et al. and TELUS referred in their submissions to interrogatories addressed to them by parties to the proceeding initiated by PN 2001-119 as amended (the PN 2001-119 proceeding). Pursuant to the procedure established in the 11 October 2002 letter, responses to these interrogatories were due by 28 February 2003.

Positions of parties

Bell Canada et al. referred in their request to the Commission's decision in Regulatory Framework for Second Price Cap Period, Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-34, 30 May 2002 (Decision 2002-34) to initiate a review of the Phase II costing approach that would involve all stakeholders (Phase II review).

In particular, Bell Canada et al. argued that the Phase II review could result in changes to the assumptions, inputs and costing methodologies used to develop Phase II costs for all services, including the loop and primary exchange services (PES) costs filed in the PN 2001-119 proceeding. Bell Canada et al. argued that any changes to the Phase II costing approach made as a result of the Phase II review would have a direct effect on the Phase II costs for loops and PES, and would undoubtedly require the incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) to update the PES and loop costs filed in the PN 2001-119 proceeding. Bell Canada et al. submitted that, in view of this and in view of the resource-intensive nature of the PN 2001-119 and Phase II review proceedings, the PN 2001-119 proceeding should be concluded at this time.

Bell Canada et al. proposed that, once the Commission made its determinations in the Phase II review, it should initiate a new proceeding to update the ILECs' PES and loop costs based on the Phase II costing methodologies established in the Phase II review. Bell Canada et al. considered that this approach would be the most efficient and cost-effective for all industry participants.

Bell Canada et al. further proposed to respond, in the Phase II review, to the PN 2001-119 interrogatories addressed to it that the Commission would find useful for the purpose of the Phase II review.

TELUS did not oppose Bell Canada et al.'s request to conclude the PN 2001-119 proceeding if the Commission were to expedite the initiation of the Phase II review. TELUS agreed with Bell Canada et al. that any PN 2001-119 interrogatories that the Commission considered useful in the Phase II review should be identified in the public notice initiating that review.

AT&T Canada et al. and CAC et al. did not oppose Bell Canada et al.'s request to conclude the PN 2001-119 proceeding. AT&T Canada et al. and CAC et al. argued that it would be wasteful to abandon completely the work done in connection with the PN 2001-119 proceeding and supported Bell Canada et al.'s proposal to provide responses to PN 2001-119 interrogatories that dealt with issues to be addressed in the Phase II review. In this regard, AT&T Canada et al. and CAC et al. identified the interrogatories that they considered would assist parties participating in the Phase II review.

Group Telecom submitted that the overlap between the PN 2001-119 proceeding and the Phase II review was apparent when the Commission announced its intention to initiate the Phase II review and questioned why Bell Canada et al. waited until 18 December 2002 to request that the PN 2001-119 proceeding be concluded. Group Telecom considered that the implications of the responses of Bell Canada et al. to the PN 2001-119 interrogatories and related confidentiality and deficiency matters should be assessed before Bell Canada et al.'s request to conclude the PN 2001-119 proceeding was addressed. Group Telecom therefore requested that consideration of Bell Canada et al.'s requests be deferred until all PN 2001-119 interrogatories were answered and a decision with respect to confidentiality and deficiency matters had been issued. Group Telecom further argued that parties should have an opportunity to comment on Bell Canada et al.'s requests based on the information on the record at that time. Group Telecom also submitted that regardless of the decision with respect to Bell Canada et al.'s request to conclude the PN 2001-119 proceeding, all PN 2001-119 interrogatories should be answered.

In its reply comments, Bell Canada et al. argued that, as originally contemplated, the PN 2001-119 proceeding could have been completed before the commencement of the Phase II review. According to Bell Canada et al., it was only the subsequent amendments to filing dates in the PN 2001-119 proceeding that created the possibility of a significant overlap with the Phase II review. Bell Canada et al. reiterated that, as circumstances had changed, it would be best for all parties if responses to many of the PN 2001-119 interrogatories were provided in the context of the findings of the Phase II review.

Bell Canada et al. also identified those PN 2001-119 interrogatories that they considered would provide information relevant to the Phase II review. Bell Canada et al. argued that the remaining interrogatories and the associated parts of the submissions on the record of the PN 2001-119 should not form part of the Phase II review. Bell Canada et al. further stated that they were not opposed to filing the interrogatory responses considered to be relevant to the Phase II review coincident with the commencement of that review.

Conclusions

The Commission has considered the relationship that exists between the issues of the PN 2001-119 proceeding and the issues to be addressed in the Phase II review. The Commission notes that, due to the delays in the process dates experienced in the PN 2001-119 proceeding, there is the potential for significant overlap between these two proceedings. The Commission further considers that it would be more efficient and effective for the parties and the Commission to consider the PN 2001-119 interrogatories that are relevant to the Phase II review in the context of that review.

Therefore, having regard to the procedural considerations set out below, the Commission determines that the PN 2001-119 proceeding will conclude when Bell Canada et al. and TELUS file their responses to the relevant interrogatories on the record of that proceeding. The interrogatories have been identified in a separate Commission staff letter dated 31 January 2003, and responses to the relevant interrogatories are due on 28 February 2003.

Responses to these interrogatories will be filed on, and form part of, the record of the PN 2001-119 proceeding. The record of the PN 2001-119 proceeding will be made part of the record of the Phase II review in the public notice initiating that review (Phase II PN). The Phase II PN will also establish a procedure with respect to parties' requests regarding confidentiality and deficiencies in respect of the relevant interrogatories.

The Commission notes that it has received a request dated 13 February 2003, LondonConnect Inc., the successor to Group Telecom. London Connect Inc. identified additional interrogatories from the PN 2001-119 proceeding that it considered would be relevant to the Phase II review. The Commission notes that this request will be dealt with at a later time.

Yours truly,

Diane Rhéaume,
Secretary General