ARCHIVED - Telecom - Commission Letter - 8638-C12-200304634
This page has been archived on the Web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.
LetterFile No: 8638-C12-200304634 Ottawa, 26 July 2005 BY E-MAIL
Teresa Griffin-Muir Dear Ms. Griffin-Muir: Re: Decision 2003-83 Direct Connection Service In accordance with the procedure set out in the Commissions staff's letter dated 30 June 2005 , MTS Allstream Inc. is 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 MTS Allstream • Refer to Tables 2 and 4 of the response to interrogatory MTS(CRTC)16Feb04-2. • For each of the costing units provided in Tables 2 and 4, specify the annual retrospective CIFs and PIFs that were used to restate the (2002$) unit costs to (2003$) unit costs, and provide estimates of the resulting restated (2003$) unit costs derived on this basis. • For each of the costing units provided in Tables 2 and 4, provide a comparison of the supplier prices of the major hardware and/or software components associated with each costing unit between the years 1999 and 2003. For each of the costing units, provide an estimate of the percentage of the installation/other component of the IFC costs. • For each of the costing units provided in Tables 2 and 8, provide a revised estimate of the (2003$) unit cost that is based on 2003$ material and installation cost data as provided in response part b) above. • Refer to the 6 June 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 MTS Allstream, 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) 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 and 4 in the response to interrogatory MTS(CRTC)16Feb04-2) 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 question 1.(c); • a 7-year study period is used; and • items b) and c) combined. • Refer to paragraph 27 of Report on the Economic Evaluation for the Tariff Revision of Direct Connect(DC) service, dated 6 June 2003 . Provide the average maintenance cost factor(s) used in the DC cost study, the associated maintenance expense accounts and asset classes used to develop these factors, and the vintage of the data used. Date Modified: 2005-07-26 |
- Date modified: