ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter - 8740-T46-200704347

Letter

Ottawa, 28 March 2007

File No.: 8740-T46-200704347

BY E-MAIL

Mr. Terry Connolly
Director, Regulatory Affairs
Telecom Policy and Regulatory Affairs
Telus Communications Company
21-10020-100 Street NW
Edmonton , AB
T5J 0N5

terry.connolly@telus.com

Dear Mr. Connolly:

RE:   TCBC Tariff Notice 4270

On 15 March 2007 , the Commission received an application by TELUS Communications Company (TCC), under cover of TCBC Tariff Notice 4270, in which the company proposed to withdraw, from TCBC General Tariff CRTC 1005, Item 279, Residential Additional Line Bundle.

Commission staff notes that TCC proposed to withdraw the bundle due to declining demand resulting from the increased availability of high-speed Internet service options, which it stated were comparably priced and technologically superior.   In addition, the company noted that, under its new billing system, it would be administratively costly to convert and maintain the bundle, which was available only to customers in British Columbia .

Commission staff notes that an application to destandardize and/or withdraw tariffed services must comply with the procedures outlined in New procedures for disposition of applications dealing with the destandardization and/or withdrawal of tariffed services , Telecom Circular CRTC 2005-7, 30 May 2005 (Circular 2005-7).

Commission staff notes that TCC has failed to provide the following information in its application to the Commission, as required by paragraphs 16, item f) and 17 of Circular 2005-7:

• clearly indicate that the availability of the substitute pertains to the same geographical area for all remaining customers ;
  
• clearly indicate whether or not there were any costs to the affected customers related to the initial outlay, in addition to the ongoing monthly costs; and
  
• indicate whether it has worked with its customers to resolve any transition issues before it filed the withdrawal application, and if not, indicate why.

In relation to the above, the company is to confirm whether or not high-speed Internet service is available to all customers who currently subscribe to the bundle.   Where it is not available, the company is to identify other options.

Commission staff further notes that TCC also failed to provide the following information in its notice to the affected customers, as required by paragraph 19 of Circular 2005-7:

• rationale for the application;
  
• availability of a substitute, with rationale as to why it is reasonable in terms of equivalent functionality, availability in the same geographical area, and cost (including the initial outlay and ongoing costs to the customer); and
  
• with respect to the transition plan, the company's proposal to provide customers with a two-week period following Commission approval to finalize alternate service arrangements.

As a consequence of the above, this file is now closed.

The Commission is open to examining a new application from the company which addresses the noted deficiencies.   The application must be filed under cover of a new tariff notice.

Yours sincerely,

'Original signed by P. Godin'

Paul M. Godin

A/Director General,
Competition, Costing and Tariffs
Telecommunications

cc:   Cliff Abbott, CRTC, (819) 997-4509