ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter - 8640-T69-200800195
This page has been archived on the Web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, 15 April 2008 File No.: 8640-T69-200800195 By email Mr Ted Woodhead Mr Mirko Bibic Dear Mr Woodhead and Mr Bibic : Re: Part VII application from TELUS Communications Company for forbearance from the regulation of residential local exchange services in the exchanges of L'Islet, Saint-Roche-des-Aulnais and Saint-Jean-Port-Joli, Quebec Part VII application from TELUS Communications Company for forbearance from the regulation of residential local exchange services in the exchanges Saint-Agapit, Saint-Anselme, Saint-Antoine-de-Tilly, Saint-Apollinaire, Saint-Charles, Sainte-Croix, Saint-Damien-de-Buckland, Saint-Édouard-de-Lotbinière, Saint-Flavien, Saint-François, Saint-Michel, Saint-Raphaël et Val-Alain, Quebec 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 In its 7 May 2007 letter, the Commission outlined the information required by the parties in a forbearance application. In the absence of the number of local access lines capable of being served with local exchange services, the Commission outlined a proxy which uses postal codes to determine the number of households capable of being served with local exchange services in an exchange. Commission staff notes that the parties in the above-mentioned applications are questioning the accuracy of the number of households capable of being served with local exchange services within an exchange based on postal codes. As an alternative, Vidéotron ltée suggested that the Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC) and the Competitive Local Exchange Carrier (CLEC) be required to submit to the Commission a list of every civic address it is capable of serving within the exchange for which forbearance from the regulation of local exchange services is sought by the ILEC. Commission staff notes that in its letter dated 11 April 2008, TELUS Communications Company (TCC) supported Vidéotron's proposal. Commission staff considers that, at this time, the proxy adopted by the Commission in its 7 May 2007 letter is still appropriate. However, in light of the concerns raised in the above-mentioned applications, Commission staff accepts, if the parties are in agreement, to consider the total number of civic addresses capable of being served with local exchange services by the ILEC and Vidéotron in an exchange. At this time, Commission staff is of the view that there is no need for the parties to submit the list of all civic addresses. In light of the above, TCC is invited to file in confidence with the Commission the total number of civic addresses it is capable of serving within the exchange of L'Islet, Saint-Agapit, Saint-Apollinaire, Saint-Charles, Saint-Damien, Saint-Edouard, Saint-Raphael and Val-Alain, Québec, by 23 April 2008. Commission staff also provides Bell Canada with the opportunity to file in confidence with the Commission the total number of civic addresses it is capable of serving for the exchanges of Brownsburg, Luskville, Thurso and Waterloo, Québec, by 23 April 2008 . Commission staff notes that for these 12 exchanges, Videotron has already submitted, in confidence, information providing the number of civic address it is capable of serving. 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 cc: Isabelle Morneau, TELUS Communications Company |
- Date modified: