Letter
Ottawa, 27 June 2007
File No.: 8740-S22-200706955
BY EMAIL
Brian Armstrong
Director of Regulatory Affairs
Saskatchewan Telecommunications
2121 Saskatchewan Drive
Regina , Saskatchewan S4P 3Y2
document.control@sasktel.sk.ca
Dear Mr. Armstrong:
Subject: Competitor link service
T he Commission is in receipt of Tariff Notice 136, as amended by Tariff Notice 136A from Saskatchewan Telecommunications (SaskTel). This application relates to the link service and supporting cost studies filed pursuant to Rogers Wireless Partnership - Part VII application with respect to the applicability of retail Digital Network Access link charges to Competitor Digital Network facilities , Telecom Decision CRTC 2007-6, 2 February 2007, as amended by Telecom Decision CRTC 2007-6-1, 20 March 2007.
To assist the Commission in disposing of this application by the third quarter 2007, SaskTel is requested to provide responses to the interrogatories set out in Attachment 1.
As a result, the process related to SaskTel's application is revised as follows:
|
SaskTel to file interrogatory responses
Comments by all interested parties
Reply comments by SaskTel
|
18 July 2007
31 July 2007
8 August 2007
|
The above material is to be filed and served on all other parties to this process by the dates set out above, and must be received, not merely sent, by those dates.
Yours sincerely ,
'Original signed by Y. Davidson'
Yvan Davidson
Senior Manager
Competitor Services and Costing
cc: CRTC Regional Offices
B.Natraj (Nat Natraj) (CRTC) 819-953-5081
TCC - regulatory.affairs@telus.com
Rogers Communications Inc. - david.watt@rci.rogers.com
MTS Allstream - iworkstation@allstream.com
Attachment 1
1) Refer to SaskTel's 2 May 2007 submission (Tariff Notice 136) as amended by the 9 May 2007 submission (Tariff Notice 136A) and the 18 June 2007 submission (reply comments related to these applications).
a) Refer to the component diagrams shown on pages 1 to 22 of SaskTel's 18 June 2007 submission. SaskTel is requested to identify and select from its list of component diagrams the three most frequently-used competitor link configurations.
i) For each of the three selected technology configurations, identify the individual service pairing (i.e. identifying the Competitor Digital Network (CDN) service and non-CDN competitor service) for which the technology configuration would apply.
ii) For each of the three selected technology configurations, for each of the service pairings provided in the response to part (i) above, confirm that the rate of the non-CDN competitor service (connecting to the CDN service) captures/recovers none of the resource components identified in the company's selected configuration diagram; if any of the link resource components shown under the company's proposed component configuration diagrams are captured and recovered under the other competitor service connecting to the CDN service, identify the components by service pairing that are recovered by the non-CDN competitor service, and comment on the appropriate approach to adjusting the proposed link rates in a manner to avoid double recovery of the associated link component costs.
b) For each of the three technology configurations selected in the response to part (a) above using the format of Table 9 - Detailed Summary of Phase II costs, provide estimates of the PWAC and associated monthly per link costs.
c) If the monthly per-link costs provided in the response to part (b) above vary by more than plus or minus 20 percent from each other, comment on the appropriateness of introducing separate link rates for each of the selected configurations.
d) Refer to Attachment 1, Table 10 of the company's 9 May 2007 submission. Provide the detailed calculations used to derive the maintenance PWAC of $974 and the monthly link maintenance costs of $19.62 associated with the DS-3 competitor link service, showing how the maintenance factors provided in Table 7 of the Attachment and described in item 6.4.1.4. paragraph 27 (Maintenance) are used in this calculation. Further, identify which of the company's proposed competitor link configurations would correspond to this DS-3 competitor link service.
e) Refer to Attachment 1, Table 11 of the company's 9 May 2007 submission. Under the assumption that the service connection costs are included in the monthly rate instead of being applied separately through a one-time service connection charge, provide an estimated monthly equivalent costs (MEC) identifying and justifying the chosen period used to develop the MEC. Comment on the appropriateness of this alternate rating approach whereby all link service connection costs are recovered through a monthly recurring rate, instead of monthly recurring rate and a service charge.
Date Modified: 2007-06-27
|