Search

ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter - 8638-C12-200708003

This page has been archived on the Web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.

Archived

This page has been archived on the Web.

Letter

Ottawa, 4 June 2007

File No.: 8638-C12-200708003

BY E-MAIL

To: Distribution List (attached)

Re:    Disclosure of information filed in confidence with the Commission pursuant to Decision 2007-35

On 25 May 2007, the Commission issued Framework for forbearance from regulation of high-speed intra-exchange digital network access services , Telecom Decision CRTC 2007-35, 25 May 2007 (Decision 2007-35), in which it set out the criteria that the Commission will use to determine when it is appropriate to forbear from regulating high-speed intra-exchange digital network access services (high-speed DNA) and the scope of such forbearance.   Pursuant to paragraphs 151 and 152 of Decision 2007-35, applicant Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs) and competitors must provide specific information for each wire centre for which a demand for forbearance is filed, as per the format set out in the Appendix of the Decision.

In the process leading to Decision 2007-35, Bell Canada and its competitors filed this information in confidence, allowing the Commission to calculate the competitor network presence in each wire centre.

The Commission considered in paragraph 182 of Decision 2007-35 that there would be merit in advising ILECs of the percentage of competitor network presence in wire centres with buildings connected to an ILEC's and/or competitors' high-speed DNA-capable network.   The Commission further noted that it would set out a process to determine whether it is appropriate to publicly disclose this information.

Accordingly, Commission staff invites comments on the following:

  1. Whether or not it is appropriate to disclose aggregated information following a determination in a forbearance application for high speed DNA services, including information filed in the proceeding that led to Decision 2007-35;

  2. If it is appropriate:

a)   What information should be publicly disclosed; and
b)    To what level of aggregation.

Table 1 below describes a possible level of disclosure and aggregation.

Table 1 . Possible format for public disclosure of wire-specific information in forbearance applications for high-speed digital network services (as defined in Decision 2007-35)

Name of the ILEC

Wire Centre

Network Presence

Aggregated Number of Buildings Served by Applicant and Competitors

Competitor Presence (%)

Bell

AAA

15

33

BBB

22

9

CCC

45

28

Commission staff specifically seeks views on whether or not the suggested level of disclosure and aggregation are appropriate.   If not, propose an alternative with full justification.

Comments must be filed with the Commission, serving a copy on all other parties included on the distribution list, by 26 June 2007 .   All parties may file reply comments with the Commission by 6 July 2007 , serving a copy on all other parties that filed comments.   Where a document is to be filed or served by a specific date, the document must be actually received, not merely sent, by that date.

Sincerely,

'Original signed by L. Fancy'

Lynne Fancy
A/Director, Competition Implementation & Technology
Telecommunications

Attach.

cc.:    Marianne Blais, Senior Analyst
         Competition Implementation & Technology
         (819) 997-4588

Distribution List :

bell.regulatory@bell.ca ;  iworkstation@allstream.com ;  reglementa@telebec.com ;  document.control@sasktel.sk.ca ;  regulatory.affairs@telus.com ;  regulatory.matters@aliant.ca ;  lcalabrese@cygnal.ca ;  dunbar@johnstonbuchan.com ;  tommoss@telecomOttawa.com ; stinsond@comnet.ca ;  lefebvre@rogers.com ;  kirsten.embree@fmc-law.com ;  dmckeown@viewcom.ca ;  reglementation@xittelecom.ca ;  abriggs@cogeco.ca ;  lya@lya.com ;  christian.tacit@cybersurf.com ;  lisangus@angustel.ca ;  clayton@mnsi.net ;  bruce.macdougall@Internetworking-atlantic.com ;  regaffairs@quebecor.com ;  ddingwall@lusi.on.ca ;  bruce.craig@lusi.on.ca ;  brovet@yak.ca ;  andre.labrie@mcc.gouv.qc.ca ; jnagle@city.brantford.on.ca; telecom-sales @enersource.com ; smccartney@fibertech.net ; swilson@fiberwired.com ; jim.deluzio@brascanpower.com ; frankk@agilisnet.com ; guatto@haltonhillsfibre.com ; iscollins@fiberwired.com ; dsmith@maxess.ca ; jryan@niagara.com ; thare@blink.ca ; dfee@orpowercorp.com ; dgoulet@puc.org ; roy.wiseman@peelr egion.ca ; allan.frederick@ssmpuc.com ; tom@scbn.ca ; imiles@torontohydro.com ; rscarffe@veridian.on.ca ; regulatory@corporate.fcibroadband.com ; dirgen@risq.qc.ca ; Gagnon.pierre.5@hydro.qc.ca ; bboudens@orenergysolutions.com ; telecom.regulatory@cogeco.com ; don.bowles@rci.rogers.com ; regulate@sprint-canada.com ; tracy.brason@brookfieldpower.com ; david.watt@rci.rogers.com ; regulatory@atrianetworks.com ; khildebrandt@enmax.com ; esther.snow@sjrb.ca ; info@dvgsystems.com ; customerservice@ssmpuc.com ; regulatory@hydroone.com ;

Date Modified: 2007-06-04
Date modified: