ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter - 8662-B2-200716707

Letter

Ottawa, 10 January 2008  

File No.:   8662-B2-200716707

By email

Mr. Mirko Bibic
Chief, Regulatory Affairs
Bell Canada
110 O'Connor Street
14th Floor
Ottawa, Ontario
K1P 1H1
bell.regulatory@bell.ca

Dear Mr. Bibic:

Re:   Application by Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership (Bell Aliant) and Bell Canada for the review and variation of Telecom Decision 2007-35

Bell Aliant and Bell Canada (collectively, Bell Canada et al.) are requested to file responses to the attached interrogatories, and serve copies on MTS Allstream Inc., TELUS Communications Company and all other parties to the proceeding initiated by Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2005-8, by 17 January 2008.

Where a document is to be filed or served by a specific date, the document must be actually received, and not merely sent, by that date.

Yours sincerely,

Original signed by

Mario Bertrand
Acting Director, Competition Implementation and Technology
Telecommunications

Attachment

cc:    MTS Allstream Inc.
        TELUS Communications Company
        Parties to PN 2005-8

Attachment

1.   In Guidelines for review and vary applications , Telecom Public Notice CRTC 98-6, 20 March 1998 (Telecom Public Notice 98-6), the Commission stated that in order for it to exercise its discretion pursuant to section 62 of the Telecommunications Act , applicants must demonstrate that there is substantial doubt as to the correctness of the original decision, for example due to:

(i)    an error in law or in fact;

(ii)   a fundamental change in circumstances or facts since the decision;

(iii)   a failure to consider a basic principle which had been raised in the original proceeding; or

(iv)   a new principle which has arisen as a result of the decision.

At paragraphs 5 and 26 of the application dated 23 November 2007 , Bell Canada et al. argued that that there is substantial doubt as to the correctness of an element of Framework for forbearance from regulation of high-speed intra-exchange digital network access service , Telecom Decision 2007-35, 25 May 2007 (Telecom Decision 2007-35).

Bell Canada et al. are requested to clarify whether the basis for the claim that there is substantial doubt as to the correctness of an element of Telecom Decision 2007-35 corresponds to any of the examples set out in Telecom Public Notice 98-6, and if not, expand on the basis for this claim.

2. At paragraph 25 of the application, Bell Canada et al. submitted that the methodology set out in Decision 2007-35 and adopted by the Commission to assess forbearance applications of high-speed DNA services in wire centres that hold more than 25 connected buildings resulted, in certain cases, in substantial unjustified financial harm to the applicant ILEC and unduly postponed reliance on market forces, in violation of the Governor in Council's Order Issuing a Direction to the CRTC on Implementing the Canadian Telecommunications Policy Objectives , P.C. 2006-1534, 14 December 2006 (the Policy Direction).

Bell Canada et al. are requested to clarify their position in this matter by referencing which of the Policy Direction's directives are pertinent to the above referenced allegation and to expand on the manner and extent to which the impugned methodology is alleged to violate these directives.