ARCHIVED - Telecom - Commission Letter - 8638-C12-81/02 - Aliant Service Improvement Plan - 2002 Tracking Report

This page has been archived on the Web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.


Our File: 8638-C12-81/02

Ottawa, 28 May 2003


Mr. Mark Connors
Manager - Regulatory Matters
Aliant Telecom Inc.
Fort William Building
P.O. Box 2110
St. John's, Newfoundland
A1C 5H6

Dear Mr. Connors:

Re: Aliant Service Improvement Plan - 2002 Tracking Report

On 31 March 2003, pursuant to Regulatory framework for second price cap period, Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-34, 30 May 2002 (Decision 2002-34), Aliant Telecom Inc. (Aliant) filed with the Commission its annual service improvement plan (SIP) tracking report, which tracked the company's SIP performance for the year 2002.

Commission staff requires additional information and is issuing the attached interrogatories.  Aliant is requested to file responses to these interrogatories within 21 days from the date of this letter.

Where a document is to be filed or served by a specific date, the document should be actually received, not merely sent, by that date.

Yours sincerely,

Scott Hutton
Director - Contribution and Costing
(819) 997-4573

attachment: interrogatories

c.c.      Hugh Thompson, CRTC, (819) 953-6081

Attachment:   Aliant Interrogatories


1.         Refer to the responses to interrogatories Aliant(CRTC)26Jun01-1601 PC and Telesat(CRTC)31Aug01-3600 (b) PC filed in the proceeding leading to Decision 2002-34.  In its 2002 tracking report, Aliant stated that it is unaware at this time of new or alternative technologies to which would allow the provision toll-free access to the Internet on an economically-efficient basis.  Given this statement, indicate whether Aliant has ruled out the possibility of reselling direct-to-home (DTH) satellite data transmission via Bell ExpressVu, Telesat Anik F2 (in 2003), or some other DTH provider for the provision of toll-free Internet access.  If so, indicate why.  If not, provide a detailed description of the company's technical and costing research.


2.        The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has endorsed new technology that provides Internet access over power company wires and stated that the agency will begin examining this service in April 2003.  The FCC stated that this could mean a third major broadband pipe into the home after telephone and cable-television lines.  Assuming that this broadband technology is found to be viable and cost-effective in the U.S., discuss the advantages and disadvantages of a partnership between Canadian telephone companies and Canadian power companies to use this type of technology to provide toll-free Internet access to telephone subscribers in SIP underserved areas where current telephone company technolgy is cost-prohibitive.  Also, discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using narrowband technology over power lines if such technology is currently available in the marketplace.


3.         At paragraph 913 of Decision 2002-34, the Commission noted that if there is no Internet service provider (ISP) providing toll-free Internet access to the remaining exchanges where thus far no ISP has chosen to locate by the first quarter of 2003, it will consider whether the incumbent local exchange carriers' obligation to serve includes an obligation to provide toll-free access to the Internet.  Taking into account the answers provided to interrogatories 1-2 above, provide your views as to whether or not the Commission should consider this obligation at this time, indicating the advantages and disadvantages.  If this is not an appropriate time, indicate what time would be appropriate and why.

Date modified: