ARCHIVED - Telecom - 8638.C12.200304634 - Commission Letter
This page has been archived on the Web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.
LetterOttawa, 26 July 2005 File No: 8638-C12-200304634 BY E-MAIL
Mr. Denis E. Henry Dear Mr. Henry: Re: Decision 2003-83 Direct Connection Service In accordance with the procedure set out in the Commission staff's letter dated 30 June 2005 , Aliant Telecom Inc. (Aliant Telecom) and Bell Canada , (collectively, the Companies) are asked to provide responses to the attached questions by 26 August 2005 . Yours sincerely , Original signed by
Yvan Davidson B.Natraj (Nat Natraj) - Senior Analyst (819) 953-5081 Attachment c.c.: Interested parties to Decision 2003-83
Attachment The Companies • For Bell Canada , refer to Tables 2 and 8 of the response to interrogatory The Companies (CRTC)16Feb04-2 DC. • For each of the costing units provided in Tables 2 and 8, specify the annual retrospective CIFs and PIFs that were used to restate the (2000$) unit costs to (2003$) unit costs, and provide estimates of the resulting restated (2003$) unit costs derived on this basis. • For each of the costing units provided in Tables 2 and 8, provide a comparison of the supplier prices of the major hardware and/or software components associated with each costing unit between the years 1999 and 2003. For each of the costing units, provide an estimate of the percentage of the installation/other component of the IFC costs. • For each of the costing units provided in Tables 2 and 8, provide a revised estimate of the (2003$) unit cost that is based on 2003$ material and installation/other cost data as provided in response part b) above. • For Aliant, refer to Tables 3 to 6 and Tables 9 to 12 of the response to interrogatory The Companies (CRTC)16Feb-2 DC . • For each of the four Aliant regions, for each of the costing units provided in Tables 9 to 12, specify the annual retrospective CIFs and PIFs that were used to restate the (2000$) unit costs to (2003$) unit costs, and provide estimates of the resulting restated (2003$) unit costs derived on this basis. • For each of the four Aliant regions, for each of the costing units provided in Tables 3 to 6 and Tables 9 to 12, provide a comparison of the supplier prices of the major hardware and or software components associated with each costing unit between the years 1999 and 2003. For each of the costing units, provide an estimate of the percentage of the installation/other component of the IFC costs. • For each of the four Aliant regions, for each of the costing units provided in Tables 9 to 12, provide a revised estimate of the (2003$) unit cost that is based on 2003$ material and installation/other cost data as provided in response to part b) above. • Refer to the Companies' 20 May 2003 submission, Report on the Economic Evaluation for the Tariff Revision of Direct Connect service, Table 6.4.5-1, titled Summary of Phase II cost Impacts for Direct Connect. For each of the four Aliant regions, and Bell Canada , provide a revised Table 6.4.5-1 for each of the following changes in assumptions: • DTC is used as the growth technology instead of SPM, and (2003$) unit costs are revised to include the (2003$) unit costs as provided in response to questions 1.(c) and 2.(c) above; further provide an estimate of the percentage of the current DC traffic that is carried using DTC technology; • demand is increased by 10%; identify the individual software and hardware costing units (as identified in Tables 2 to 12 in the response to interrogatory The Companies (CRTC)16Feb-2 DC) for which the unit costs varies depending on the assumed demand level, with supporting rationale; • (2003$) unit costs are revised to include the (2003$) unit costs as provided in response to questions 1.(c) and 2.(c) above; • a 7-year study period is used; and • items b) and c) combined. • Refer to paragraph 37 of Companies' 20 May 2003 submission, Report on the Economic Evaluation for the Tariff Revision of Direct Connect (DC) service. For each of the four Aliant regions, provide the current % Plant-In-Service cost factors used in the DC service cost study identifying the maintenance expense accounts and asset classes used in this calculation, and the vintage of the data used. • Refer to paragraph 16 of the response to interrogatory The Companies (Competitors)16Feb04-4 DC. For Bell Canada , provide the Network and Technology Adjustment factor used and explain how this factor was developed and the vintage of the data used. Additionally, indicate if a similar Network and Technology Adjustment factor was applied in the 2000 DC study, if yes, provide the factor used. If not, explain why this additional factor is now being proposed. • Refer to the to the response to interrogatory The Companies (CRTC)16Feb04-3a). For Bell Canada , explain in detail why the switching cost per connect minute end shows an increase of 32% compared to the company's 20 May 2003 submission. The response should identify the switching sub-components and/or costing assumptions that contributed to the changes identifying the $ value of the change and the percentage change for each sub-component. Date Modified: 2005-07-26 |
- Date modified: