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This page has been archived on the Web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, 29 September 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 CRTC 2006-5 - Additional Interrogatories

Dear Mr. Janigan:

Attached is an additional interrogatory associated with this proceeding.

A response to this interrogatory is to be filed with the Commission, and served on all the interested parties to this proceeding, by the start of the oral public hearing on 10 October 2006

Please note that responses to interrogatories should adhere to the directions set out in Form 2 of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure s .   Where an attachment is filed as part of a response to an interrogatory, the header of the attachment should clearly identify the interrogatory to which it is attached.   Similarly, when filing the responses electronically, all file names must clearly identify the interrogatory to which it is addressing.

Yours sincerely,

(Original signed by)

John Macri,
Director, Financial and Regulatory Affairs


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


Services, Baskets and Pricing Constraints


2401    Provide PIAC's view, with supporting rationale, on mandated residential local rate increases in high-cost areas in order to reduce the National Subsidy Requirement and the contribution collection revenue-percent charge.   Specifically address (i) an annual local rate increase that could be considered reasonable, (ii) the number of annual local rate increases that could occur, and (iii) the maximum residential local service rate that could be allowed.

Date Modified: 2006-09-29
Date modified: