ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter - 8662-P11-200607327

This page has been archived on the Web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, 27 June 2006

Our File: 8662-P11-200607327 

Delivered by e-mail

Laurence J.E. Dunbar
Counsel to Primus Telecommunications
Johnston & Buchan LP
275 Slater Street, Suite 1700
Ottawa , Ontario
K1P 5H9

Dear Mr. Dunbar,

Re: Part VII Application to Review and Vary Part of Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-15, Forbearance from Regulation of retail local exchange services -- Winback Rules

Further to the above-noted Application, Primus Telecommunications is requested to file its responses to the attached interrogatories, and serve copies on all parties, by 30 June 2006 .

All documents must actually be received, and not merely sent, by the date indicated above.

Yours sincerely,

(original signed by J. Macri )

John Macri
Director, Financial and Regulatory Matters

cc:   Cathy Allison, CRTC (819) 953-7112
        Interested parties to Decision 2006-15


1.   In paragraph 77 of its Application, Primus Telecommunications (Primus) submitted that if the customer decided to switch back to the ILEC, the competitor incurred significant costs to connect the customer to its network. Primus provided (in confidence) a range of costs depending on whether the customer was in a single- or multi-dwelling unit and depending on the grade of local circuit.

            Provide detailed assumptions, methods and calculations used to derive these costs.

2.   In paragraph 89 of its Application, Primus stated that it did not break even in delivering service until the # month of service, and that at an initial average investment of $ #      per customer, it lost 81% of that investment if it lost a customer in the fourth month, compared to only 8% if it lost the customer in the thirteenth month.

            Provide all detailed assumptions, methods and calculations used to derive the figures in the above-noted paragraph.

# -- provided in confidence by Primus

Date Modified: 2006-06-27
Date modified: