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This page has been archived on the Web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, 6 October 2006
By Electronic mail
Ms. Teresa Griffin-Muir
Re: Review of price cap framework , Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2006-5 - Additional Interrogatories
Dear Ms. Griffin-Muir:
Attached are additional interrogatories associated with this proceeding.
A response to these interrogatories are to be filed with the Commission, and served on all the interested parties to this proceeding, by 11 October 2006 .
Original signed by/
cc: Bob Noakes, CRTC, 819-997-4429, bob.noakes @crtc.gc.ca
Components of Price Cap Plans
3401 At paragraph 39 of its submission dated 10 July 2006 , MTS Allstream submitted that its residential network access lines (NAS) had declined since 2002. At paragraph 41 of that submission, the company submitted that, given the significant importance of scale economies to the achievement of productivity growth, a reduction of at least 60% to the current value for the X-factor (3.5%) was justified, representing the contribution of overall economies of scale to productivity growth. The company further submitted that its proposed 60% reduction to the value for the X-factor was highly conservative in light of the year-over-year decline in NAS.
Assume that residential NAS were to decline at a different rate in the future. Discuss the impact that this would have on the value the company has proposed for the X-factor, including, as appropriate, the proposed revised values for the X-factor if the decline in the number of residential NAS was, (a) half the amount the company had assumed in its proposal; and (b) two times the amount the company had assumed in its proposal.
3402 Refer to paragraphs 36 through 39 of the company's submission, dated 10 July 2006 .
Date Modified: 2006-10-24
- Date modified: