ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter - 8640-B2-200802612
This page has been archived on the Web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.
LetterOttawa, 20 March 2008 File No.: 8640-B2-200802612 By E-mail Dennis Béland Dear Mr. Béland : Re: Part VII application from Bell Canada for forbearance from the regulation of residential local exchange services in the exchanges of Brownsburg, Cowansville, Granby, Luskville, Saint-Paul-d'Abbotsford, Thurso and Waterloo, Quebec . Videotron Ltd (Videotron) is requested to file its responses to the following, and serve a copy on all parties to this proceeding, by 4 April 2008 . The Commission notes that in its comments dated 28 February 2008, Videotron confirmed that it provides residential local exchange services over its cable network in all the seven exchanges for which local forbearance has been requested. In order to confirm whether it was capable of serving at least 75 percent of the residential households, Videotron divided, for each exchange, the number of "Videotron Cable Telephony Homes Passed" by the number of residential households submitted by Bell Canada in its 18 February 2008 application. The Commission further notes that for the exchanges of Brownsburg, Luskville, Thurso and Waterloo, Videotron claimed that Bell Canada failed to satisfy the fixed-line portion of the Competitor Network Criterion since Videotron is not capable of serving at least 75 percent of the residential households in those exchanges. Accordingly, for each of the exchanges of Brownsburg, Luskville, Thurso and Waterloo , please identify, by street name or by neighbourhood, the location of the residential households not considered by Videotron to be "Videotron Cable Telephony Homes Passed". Furthermore, please provide detailed information as to why these houses cannot be considered as "Videotron Cable Telephony Homes Passed". As an example, in the exchange of Brownsburg, Videotron claimed that 1,271 of the 1,810 residential households were "Videotron Cable Telephony Homes Passed". Videotron must therefore identify the location of the 539 residential households that are not "Videotron Cable Telephony Homes Passed", as well as the reason why these residential households cannot be considered as "Videotron Cable Telephony Homes Passed". Where a document is to be filed by a specific date, the document must be actually received, and not merely sent, by that date. Yours sincerely, Original signed by Mario Bertrand |
- Date modified: