|
Letter
Ottawa, 28 March 2008
File No.: 8740-B54-200803496
8740-B2-200803488
By E-mail
Mr. Denis Henry
Vice-President - Regulatory Affairs
Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership
110 O'Connor St., 14th Floor
Ottawa, Ontario
K1P 1H1
regulatory@bell.aliant.ca
Mr. David Palmer
Director - Regulatory Affairs
Bell Canada
110 O'Connor St., 7th Floor
Ottawa, Ontario
K1P 1H1
bell.regulatory@bell.ca
Dear Mr. Henry and Palmer:
RE: Bell Aliant Tariff Notice 164 and Bell Canada TN 7110 - Rate Schedule for Primary Exchange (Local) Service
In Telecom Decision 2006-9, to ensure that funds would not continue to accumulate in the deferral accounts in the future, the Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (except Télébec) (the ILECs) were required to implement rate reductions to eliminate the recurring amounts in the deferral account. The ILECs were required to apply these rate reductions to Primary Exchange Services (PES) and optional services for residential subscribers in non-High Cost Serving Areas (non-HCSAs). In that Decision, the Commission concluded that all residential subscribers in non-HCSA bands should benefit from these rate reductions.
On 3 March 2008, the Commission received applications by Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership and Bell Canada (collectively, the companies), under cover of Tariff Notices 164 and 7110 (TNs 164 and 7110), respectively. The companies proposed rate reductions that would serve to eliminate Bell Canada 's remaining deferral account obligation related to the annualized recurring amount in its deferral account as of 1 June 2007.
The companies are requested to provide their response to the attached questions by 7 April 2008 .
Yours sincerely,
Original signed by
Suzanne Bédard
Senior Manager, Tariffs
Telecommunications
cc: Martin Brazeau, CRTC, (819) 997-3498, martin.brazeau@crtc.gc.ca
Attachment
- In Telecom Decision 2006-9, the Commission determined that the recurring amounts to be eliminated by rate reductions should be assigned to the Residential Local Services in non-HCSAs basket and proportionally allocated, based on revenues, to the Residential Local Exchange Services in non-HCSAs and the Residential Optional Local Services in non-HCSAs sub-baskets. The Commission further concluded that all residential subscribers in non-HCSA bands should benefit from these rate reductions.
Since Telecom Decision 2006-9 was issued, the regulatory environment has substantially changed. On the face of it, the companies' proposals appear consistent with the Commission's conclusion in that Decision that the recurring amounts to be eliminated by rate reductions should be assigned to the Residential Local Services in non-HCSAs basket and proportionally allocated, based on revenues, to the Residential Local Exchange Services in non-HCSAs and the Residential Optional Local Services in non-HCSAs sub-baskets.
However, in Telecom Decision 2006-9, the Commission further concluded that all residential subscribers in non-HCSA bands should benefit from these rate reductions. The companies' proposals would benefit only a very small portion of those subscribers.
a) Provide the companies' views with supporting rationale as to whether their proposals would be inconsistent with the Commission's intent that rate reductions to clear the recurring amounts in the deferral account should benefit all residential subscribers in non-HCSAs.
b) Provide the companies' views with supporting rationale as to whether it would be more consistent with the Commission's intent that all residential subscribers in non-HCSA bands should benefit from these rate reductions for the Commission:
i) to require the companies to re-allocate the $4.6M recurring amount associated with the residential optional services to all residential PES customers in non-HCSAs (forborne and non-forborne markets) since residential optional services are now uncapped; and
ii) to reduce the cap on forborne PES services established in Decision 2006-15 to ensure that forborne residential PES customers would benefit from the same rate reduction as residential PES customers whose rates are still regulated thereby clearing the recurring balance of $16.3 M in its deferral account; or
iii) to require the companies to reduce the PES rates in non-HCSAs that are still regulated (1.8 M), and to place present worth of the remaining recurring amounts (14.5 M) in the accumulated balance in the Bell Canada's deferral account, with the intent that these amounts would be rebated to non-HCSA residential PES customers in forborne areas; or
iv) to require the companies to assign the present worth of the annual recurring balance in the deferral account (16.3 M) to the accumulated balance in the Bell Canada's deferral account, with the intent that these amounts would be rebated to all non-HCSA residential PES customers.
- Of the approaches explored in question 1 b above, identify, with supporting rationale, the companies' preferred approach.
- Identify, with supporting rationale, any alternative preferred by the companies, that would result in the them remitting the entire recurring balance in Bell Canada 's deferral account to all residential PES customers in non-HCSAs.
Date Modified: 2008-03-28 |