|
Letter
Ottawa, 3 March 2008
File No. 8690-T66-200714049
By E-mail
Ted Woodhead
Vice-President, Telecom Policy & Regulatory Affairs
TELUS Communications Company
215 Slater St., 8th Floor
Ottawa, Ontario
K1P 0A6
regulatory.affairs@telus.com
Dear Mr. Woodhead:
Re: Part VII application by TELUS Communications Company (TCC) seeking an order directing Shaw Cablesystems Limited to pay monthly and non-recurring charges relating to Shaw-owned facilities and equipment attached to TCC's support structures
Further to the Commission letter of 3 March 2008 regarding notification of the expedite hearing, TELUS Communications Company Inc. (TCC) is requested to file with the Commission its responses to the attached interrogatories, and serve copies on Shaw Cablesystems Limited (Shaw), by 25 March 2008.
Where a party designates information filed with the Commission as confidential, it must provide the reasons for its claim for confidentiality at the time it files the information with the Commission. If it chooses to do so, the other party (the requesting party) has two days to make representations to the Commission, clearly stating why it considers that the disclosure of the information filed in confidence is in the public interest, serving a copy on the party claiming confidentiality. The party claiming confidentiality will have two days to file a reply, serving a copy on the requesting party. Commission staff will issue a determination on the confidentiality requests shortly thereafter.
Where a party designates information filed with the Commission as confidential for the public record but has provided the confidential information to the other party, the party claiming confidentiality must file an abridged copy for the public record.
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 singed by
Mario Bertrand
Acting Director, Competition Implementation and Technology
Telecommunications
cc: Mr. Jean Brazeau
jean.brazeau@sjrb.ca
Regulatory@sjrb.ca
Jesslyn Mullaney, CRTC, 819-953-5255
Attachment
Attachment
- For 1970 to 2006 inclusive, provide a list of all the support structure installation applications including date, location and details such as number of poles, metres of strand or conduit and route, that were approved by TCC/BCTEL for Shaw or a cable company operating in the area at the time, for each of the 12 audited areas referred to in TCC's application. Exclude any applications made after the audit for that area.
- For 1970 to 2006 inclusive, provide a list of all the as-built records for each of the 12 audited areas referred to in TCC's application, including the date, location and details such as number of poles, metres of strand, conduit and the route, that were completed by TCC/BCTEL on behalf of Shaw or the cable company operating in the area at the time. Indicate which approved application identified in response to question 1 corresponds to each as-built record. Exclude any as-built records referring to installations made after the audit for that area.
- Reconcile and explain any difference(s) as to date, location and details such as number of poles, metres of strand, conduit and route, between each approved application identified in response to question 1 and the corresponding as-built record identified in response to question 2.
- Indicate whether any difference(s) between the responses to question 1 and 2 have been accounted for in the invoice for unauthorized charges that TCC issued for the audited area in question. If so, explain how. If not, explain why not.
- For each approved application listed in response to question 1, provide a copy of the first billing record that was issued to Shaw or a cable company operating in the area at the time, for the installed facility.
- Provide a copy of the audit for each of the 12 audited areas referred to in TCC's application.
- Provide, using the same format as set out in paragraph 22 of the TCC's application dated 4 October 2007, the details in the chart for each of the 12 audited areas referred to in TCC's application.
- For 1970 to 2006 inclusive, provide copies of the Support Structure License Agreements that were entered into with Shaw or a cable company operating in that area at the time for the 12 audited areas.
- Provide a list of the non-recurring charges other than unauthorized attachment charges for each of the 12 audited areas that are part of the relief requested by TCC.
- Provide a copy of the 12 invoices that were sent to Shaw for the unauthorized attachment charges as a result of the 2006 audit. For each invoice, provide a detailed calculation of how the unauthorized attachment charges were determined. If not indicated on the invoice, provide a description of the type of unauthorized attachments i.e., conduit, strand, coaxial or fibre cable, that were found in each of the 12 audited areas, and include the metre coverage of each type of cable in each audited area.
- At paragraph 9 of TCC's reply comments dated 6 November 2007 , TCC stated that it provides Shaw, on a quarterly basis, with a complete billing record for each of its operating areas in British Columbia . Specify the years that TCC/BCTEL has provided the above noted billing records to Shaw.
- In view of paragraph 28 of TCC's reply comments dated 6 November 2007 ,
(a) provide an estimate of the alleged unauthorized cable plant that TCC considers was placed on TCC/BCTEL support structures up to 22 June1995 when the Supreme Court of Canada decision British Columbia Telephone Company v. Shaw Cable Systems (BC) Ltd . [1995] 2 SCR 739 was issued, with full supporting rationale and evidence on which TCC relies ;
(b) indicate whether any of the alleged unauthorized cable plant identified in response to question 12 (a), was placed on TCC/BCTEL support structures by TCC/BCTEL, and, if so, estimate how much, with full supporting rationale and evidence on which TCC relies ;
(c) provide an estimate of how much of the approximately $2.4 million in unauthorized attachment charges would be attributable to the cable plant that TCC estimates in response to question 12 (b) was placed on TCC/BCTEL support structures by TCC/BCTEL, with full supporting rationale and evidence on which TCC relies .
13. Confirm that Shaw has paid the monthly rental charges applied to Shaw's facilities resulting from the TCC audit of its support structures and invoiced to Shaw to date.
14. Provide a copy of the complete list of the unsafe, non-standard and deficient installations in the 12 audited areas that TCC stated at paragraph 14 in its reply comments dated 6 November 2007 , that it would forward to Shaw.
Date Modified: 2008-03-03 |