ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter - 8661-C12-200610057
This page has been archived on the Web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, 3 November 2006
File Nos. 8661-C12-200610057
Mr. David Palmer
Dear Mr. Palmer:
RE: Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2006-11
Bell Canada and Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership (Bell Aliant) are requested to provide comprehensive answers, including any supporting information, to the attached questions regarding the proposed changes to Bell Canada's and Bell Aliant's General Tariff. The companies are to provide responses by 27 November 2006 .
'Original signed by S. Bédard '
c.c. Interested parties to PN 2006-11-1 (Attached)
1. Provide the following information for each of the years from 2002 to 2005:
2. Provide, to the extent possible, the percentage of residential network access customers who did not request a new installation or a move, during (i) the last 5 years, and (ii) the last 10 years.
3. Provide the following information for the companies' Ontario and Quebec serving territories combined:
4. Provide the number of customers who opted for the companies' instalment payment plan in each year for the period from 2002 to 2005.
5. Provide the companies' views, with supporting rationale, on how its proposal would impact low-income households.
6. The companies submitted that for subsidy calculation purposes, it would be appropriate to exclude the impact of the increase in the monthly rate for residential PES. Explain the companies' proposal using a detailed example. Provide justification for the proposed treatment
7. In this proceeding, customers have complained that they would effectively pay the equivalent of the service charges over time although they may cause no additional costs to the company. Provide the companies' views, with justification, on whether the companies' proposal would result in unjust discrimination with respect to the customers that do not request new installations, contrary to subsection 27(2) of the Telecommunications Act.
8. Provide the companies' views, with supporting rationale, on why it would be appropriate to contravene the 5% rate element constraint for the High Cost Serving Area (HCSA) Basic residential services sub-basket.
9. If the Commission were not prepared to accept the companies' proposal to violate the rate element constraint for the HCSA Basic residential services sub-basket, how would the company modify its rate increase proposal. Would the companies consider implementing rate element increases that are within the rate element constraints over a two year period.
10. Provide the companies' views on implementing rate increases that would be revenue neutral: (i) on a per band basis, and (ii) by HCSA and non-HCSA.
E-mail Addresses :
firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; Regulatory.email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; Regulatory.email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.orgDate Modified: 2006-11-03
- Date modified: