ARCHIVED - Telecom - Commission Letter - 8622-X4-200409906 - Part VII application by Xit Télécom Inc. v. TELUS Communications Inc. regarding the construction of a fibre optic network for the Commission scolaire de la Côte-du-Sud

This page has been archived on the Web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.

Letter

Ottawa, 14 January 2005

BY E-MAIL

Our File No.: 8622-X4-200409906

 

APPLICANT

Mr. Robert Proulx

President

Xit Télécom Inc.

1350 Place Royale, Suite 800

Trois-Rivières, QC   G0X 1Z0

reglementation@xittelecom.ca

RESPONDENT

 

Ms. Francine Julien

Director of Sector, Regulation

TELUS Communications Inc.

6 Jules-A.-Brillant Road

Rimouski , QC   G5L 7E4

francine.julien@telus.com

regulatory.affairs@telus.com

 

Re:      Part VII application by Xit Télécom Inc. v. TELUS Communications Inc. regarding the construction of a fibre optic network for the Commission scolaire de la Côte-du-Sud

Further to my letter 7 January 2005 , please find enclosed requests for further information, in the above-noted matter. This information must be filed with the Commission at procedure@crtc.gc.ca , and served on the other party, by 28 January 2005 . The information should also be forwarded to Paul Godin, at paul.godin@crtc.gc.ca .

Where a party designates information filed with the Commission as confidential, it must provide the reasons for its claim for confidentiality at the time it files the information with the Commission. If it chooses to do so, the other party (the requesting party) has two days to make representations to the Commission, clearly stating why it considers that the disclosure of the information filed in confidence is in the public interest, serving a copy on the party claiming confidentiality. The party claiming confidentiality will have two days to file a reply, serving a copy on the requesting party.

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

Yours sincerely,

 

Paul Godin

Director - Competition and Technology

Telecommunications

Attachment

cc:  Mr. Roger Vézina, Ministère de l'Éducation du Québec

        roger.vezina@meq.gouv.qc.ca

 

Interrogatories addressed to TELUS Communications Inc. (TCI)

 

1.  Indicate whether Électro Saguenay Ltée (Électro Saguenay) must build the entire high bandwidth fibre optics network for the Commission Scolaire de la Côte-du-Sud (the Network) or whether TCI will provide the Commission Scolaire de la Côte-du-Sud with part of the strands required in order to complete the Network.

 

2.  TCI provided a copy of the partial assignment of the contract from TCI to Électro Saguenay, concluded on 14 September 2004 (the Assignment), with its response of 8 October 2004 . Paragraph 4.1 of the Assignment refers to appendices B and D. Please provide a copy of appendices B and D and all other appendices to the Assignment.

 

3.  Provide a signed copy of all contracts and/or written agreements and a description of all contracts and/or verbal agreements between TCI, the Commission Scolaire de la Côte-du-Sud, Électro Saguenay and/or Consultants Laforte for completion of the Network and for TCI's acquisition of the remaining strands of the Network. Also include the amounts paid to the parties pursuant to the above-mentioned contracts and/or agreements.

 

4.  Comment on Xit Telecom's position in paragraphs 16 and 24 of its application of 10 September 2004 that provision of the engineering services and support structure services, because they are not severable when they are supplied by an incumbent carrier, should be considered bundled services subject to the tariffs of the incumbent carrier or to a special arrangement approved by the Commission.

 

5.  Detail and explain the costs that TCI charged Électro Saguenay for the support structure access permits and for the preparatory work completed by TCI to allow Électro Saguenay to access TCI's support structures in order to complete the Network.

 

6.  Indicate the amount TCI will pay Électro Saguenay for the remaining strands of the Network, and the number of strands that TCI will purchase from Électro Saguenay.

 

7.  Indicate whether TCI sold the detailed engineering plans and specifications prepared by TCI for construction of the Network to Électro Saguenay and, if so, provide the amount for which the plans and specifications were sold.

 

8.  Further to the letter of 10 December 2004 to TCI from the Quebec Department of Education (the Department):

 

a)   Clarify whether TCI or any other party, either voluntarily or on behalf of TCI, asked the Department and/or the Quebec Department of Municipal Affairs, Sports and Leisure whether it was possible to assign the contract for construction of the Network to Électro Saguenay or to give the construction to Électro Saguenay. Also provide the response from the above-mentioned departments, if available;

 

b)  Specify whether, pursuant to the Assignment:

 

•  Électro Saguenay is acting as a subcontractor for TCI and whether TCI remains responsible for completing the Network, in accordance with TCI's first proposal to the Réseau collectif de la Gaspésie;

 

•  Électro Saguenay will assume all construction of the Network, in accordance with TCI's second proposal to the Réseau collectif de la Gaspésie; or

 

•  Whether another contractual relationship exists between Électro Saguenay, TCI and/or any other party for construction of the Network.

c)  If Électro Saguenay is acting as a subcontractor and TCI remains responsible for completing the Network, explain why:

 

•  Construction of the Network should not be subject to a tariff; and

 

•  Électro Saguenay should not be considered an affiliate of TCI pursuant to the rules established by the Commission.

Interrogatories addressed to Xit Telecom Inc. (Xit Telecom)

1.  Comment on TCI's position in paragraphs 35 to 37 of its response of 8 October 2004 that the fibre optics maintenance service that TCI offered the Commission Scolaire de la Côte-du-Sud does not need to be regulated because it involves a private network held by a third party that is not a telecommunications carrier and has no intention of offering telecommunications services to the public in exchange for payment.

2.  Detail and explain the costs that TCI charged Xit Telecom for support structure access permits and preparatory work to access TCI's support when Xit Telecom responded to the call for tenders from the Commission Scolaire de la Côte-du-Sud to build the Network.

3.  Provide the evidence supporting Xit Telecom's claim in paragraph 8(e) of its response of 18 October 2004 that TCI planned to purchase the strands from Électro Saguenay for an amount that was proportionally higher than that paid by the Commission Scolaire de la Côte-du-Sud and its partners in order to compensate Électro Saguenay for building the Network.

Date modified: 2005-01-14

Date modified: