ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter - 8622-R11-200515505

This page has been archived on the Web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.


Ottawa, 2 June 2006

File No:   8622-R11-200515505

By E-mail

Mr. Willie Grieve, Vice-President Telecom Policy & Regulatory Affairs, TELUS Communications Company.

Re:   Part VII Application by Rogers Wireless Partnership:   Clarification on the Applicability of Retail Digital Network Access (DNA) Link Charges on Competitor Digital Network (CDN) Facilities

TELUS Communications Company (TCC) is requested to provide comprehensive answers, including any supporting information, to the attached interrogatories with respect to the above referenced application by 23 June 2006 . Parties may comment on TCC 's response, serving a copy on other parties, by 7 July 2006 . TCC is to file its reply comments, serving a copy on other parties, by 14 July 2006 .

Yours Sincerely,
Yvan Davidson
Senior Manager, Competitor Services and Costing

Ms. Dawn Hunt, Rogers Wireless                                 
Mr. Jonathan Holmes, Primus                                        
Mr. Mirko Bibic, Bell Canada                                          
Mr. Bill Beckman, Saskatchewan Telecommunications
Mr. David Hennessey, Aliant Telecom Inc.                   
Ms. Teresa Griffin-Muir, MTS Allstream Inc.                 
Bob Martin, CRTC (819) 953-3361                                



1)   Based on its review of the companies' responses to the Commission's 22 February 2006 and 19 April 2006 questions, Commission staff considers that in the event the companies incur costs to connect a CDN and a retail service or another Competitor Service and a retail service that are not recovered through rates of either the Competitor Service or the retail service, such costs should be recovered through the rates of an additional link service.  

a)  Provide the company's view as to whether any additional link services are required and if so, whether each additional link service should be a Competitor or a retail service, with rationale.   If the company is of the view that any of these additional link services should be a Competitor Service, provide the company's view on the appropriate Competitor Service classification of each additional link service, with rationale.

b)  For each additional link service identified in response to part a):

i)  provide a cost study and a proposed rate and proposed tariff pages in support of this new link service; further provide the supporting rationale for the company's proposed rate;

ii)   further to the company's response to 1 b) i), having regard to the proposed capital costs that are causal to service demand, provide the following information: the costing methodology and assumptions used to determine the equipment capital costs by major resource component, outlining the development of the corresponding cash flows, identifying demand drivers, capital unit cost inputs, economic cost factors, life estimates, fill factor values and cost factors used. Further identify the vintage date of the raw data used to develop the unit cost inputs and explain the methods and assumptions used to express each of the capital unit costs in 2006 dollars as appropriate;

iii)  further to the company's response to 1 b) i), having regard to the proposed expenses that are causal to service demand, provide detailed explanations on how each of the maintenance and service provisioning expense estimates were developed, including a listing of all activities and associated costing assumptions (e.g. time estimates, labour unit costs). If the maintenance expenses estimate is inconsistent with the Commission's costing determination as specified in paragraph 448 of Decision 2005-6, explain why the company is proposing to deviate from this determination; and

iv) if in response to 1 a) above, the company identifies an additional link service as a Category I Competitor Service, provide the appropriate service cost study details on the public record in accordance with the level of disclosure for Category I Competitor Service costs as set out in Attachment 3 of Commission staff letter dated 30 June 2005.

Date Modified: 2006-06-02
Date modified: