ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter - 8678-T78-200609654

This page has been archived on the Web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.

Letter

Ottawa, 17 November 2006

File : 8638-C12-200602708
        8678-T78-200609654

BY E-MAIL

Michel Gilbert
Director General - Regulatory Affairs
Regulatory Division
Télébec, Société en commandite
7151 Jean-Talon Street East
Anjou , Quebec
H1M 3N8

reglementa@telebec.qc.ca

Dear Mr. Gilbert:

Re:  Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-9 - Proposal to recover the recurring shortfall in the Télébec, Société en commandite deferral account

This letter is in response to the proposal to recover the recurring shortfall in the Télébec, Société en commandite (Télébec) price cap deferral account that was filed with the Commission on 14 July 2006 .   In the proposal, Télébec suggested offsetting the shortfall through a special subsidy from the national contribution fund.

This application was filed with the Commission in accordance with the guideline provided in paragraph 247 of Disposition of funds in the deferral accounts, Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-9, 16 February 2006 .

Please find attached, interrogatories regarding the above subject. Responses to interrogatories must be filed with the Commission on or before 15 December 2006 .

Yours truly,

"Original signed by N. Froese (for) "

Suzanne Bédard
Senior Manager, Tariffs
Telecommunications

Attach.

c.c.:    Eric Bowles, CRTC, 819-953-5672

ATTACHMENT

Interrogatories

Question 1

In paragraph 247 of Disposition of funds in the deferral accounts , Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-9, 16 February 2006 , the Commission authorized Télébec, Société en commandite (Télébec or the Company) to recover the recurring shortfall in its deferral account through an exogenous adjustment. In paragraph 246 of the same decision, the Commission contended that the recurring shortfall would increase to $3.3 million by the end of the extension year of the current price cap period.

In paragraph 93 of its proposal to recover the recurring shortfall in its price cap deferral account , the Company indicated that it proposed to only recover part of the recurring shortfall through a special subsidy from the national contribution fund.   In paragraph 114 of same, the Company explicitly stated that it reserved the right to implement an exogenous adjustment to offset the outstanding recurring shortfall.

Should the Commission not accept the Télébec proposal to offset the shortfall through a special subsidy, outline, with supporting rationale and with reference to the basket structure established for the purpose of price regulation as set out in Implementation of price regulation for Télébec and TELUS Québec , Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-43, 31 July 2002 :

  1. The allocation of the sum to be recovered that the Company would propose to implement between the various service baskets.
  2. The changes that the Company would make to the service band limit (SBL) for each service basket accepted and for the concomitant rate increases deemed necessary to recover the above-mentioned allocated sums.

In response to the above interrogatories, the Company is urged to state and justify all assumptions or speculation used in its analysis.

Question 2

In response to the above scenario, the Company is directed to assume that it received instructions to allocate the sum to be recovered among the service baskets and sub-baskets listed below based proportionally on revenue weights associated with each of these service baskets and sub-baskets.   Indicate, with supporting rationale and figures, the changes that should be made to the various SBLs as well as the duration and scope of rate increases that the company should introduce to recover the sums allocated in each of the following service baskets and sub-baskets:

(a) basic residential services - areas other than high-cost service areas (HCSAs);

(b) optional residential services - areas other than HCSAs;

(c) basic residential services - HCSAs;

(d) optional residential services - HCSAs;

(e) business services; and

(f) other capped services.

In response to the above scenario, the Company is urged to state and justify all assumptions or speculation used in its analysis.

Date Modified: 2006-11-17
Date modified: