ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter - 8678-C12-200605553

This page has been archived on the Web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.


File Number:   8678-C12-200605553

Ottawa, 8 August 2006

By Electronic mail

Mr. Michael Janigan

General Counsel, Public Interest Advocacy Centre
1204 - ONE Nicholas Street
Ottawa , ON   K1N 7B7


Re:   Review of price cap framework, Telecom Public Notice 2006-5

Dear Mr. Janigan:

Pursuant to the procedures set out in Review of price cap framework, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2006-5, 9 May 2006 , attached are interrogatories associated with this proceeding.

Responses to these interrogatories are to be filed with the Commission, and served on all the interested parties to this proceeding, by 6 September 2006 .

Yours sincerely,

(Original signed by)

John Macri,
Director, Financial and Regulatory Affairs


cc:    Bob Noakes, CRTC, 819-997-4429 bob.noakes

Attachment Page 1 of 1

Services, Baskets and Pricing Constraints

1201       Refer to paragraph 96 of PIAC's submission. Discuss, with supporting rationale, whether the productivity offset proposed by PIAC for residence and business retail services would be appropriate for Category I Competitor Services.

Rate De-averaging

1301        In Forbearance from the regulation of retail local exchange services , Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-15, 6 April 2006, paragraph 488, the Commission indicated that it was ''.prepared to consider applications from an ILEC requesting the removal of the local winback rule in a relevant market when the applicant ILEC can demonstrate that it has lost 20 percent of its market share in that relevant market.''.

Provide PIAC's view on a similar transitional measure with respect to the prohibition on rate de-averaging based on, among other things, a percent market share loss in that relevant market.   Identify, with supporting rationale, the percentage market share loss level to justify this transitional measure.

Date Modified: 2006-08-08
Date modified: