ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter - 8661-S9-200510588
This page has been archived on the Web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, 12 June 2008 File No.: 8661-S9-200510588 By email Mr. David Wilkie Dear Mr. Wilkie: RE: Part VII application by Shaw Communications Inc. to revise TBayTel PSO tariff rate TBayTel is requested to file its response to the attached interrogatories, and serve copies on Shaw Communications Inc., by 30 June 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 cc: Jean Brazeau Shaw Communications Inc. Attachment Attachment Interrogatories to TBayTel 1. (a) Does TBayTel repair and maintain the entire Partial Systems Offering (PSO) including the strand, both on TBayTel poles and Thunder Bay Hydro poles? (b) Does TBayTel have the authority to grant Shaw access to Thunder Bay Hydro poles for the purpose of repairing and maintaining the PSO including the strand on Thunder Bay Hydro poles? If so, identify, with supporting documents, the source of TBayTel's authority. 2. (a) Confirm that TBay Tel does not own any of the subscriber drops (drop wires) and amplifiers related to the PSO plant used by Shaw. (b) Does TBayTel perform any repairs, maintenance or other servicing of the subscriber drops and amplifiers owned by Shaw? If so, identify, with supporting documents, TBayTel's authority to carry out such servicing. 3. Does TBayTel have the authority to grant Shaw access to Thunder Bay Hydro poles for the purpose of accessing the subscriber drops and amplifiers attached to Thunder Bay Hydro poles? If so, identify, with supporting documents, the source of TBayTel's authority. 4 How many TBayTel poles on which the PSO plant is attached also have Shaw subscriber drops and/or amplifiers from the PSO, anchored or attached to TBayTel poles? 5. Does TBayTel charge Shaw for the subscriber drops and/or amplifiers attached to TBayTel poles? If so, under what tariff does TBayTel charge Shaw? 6. In interrogatory response Shaw(CRTC)10April08-1, Shaw stated that the PSO is attached to 8,113 poles of Thunder Bay Hydro. In TBayTel(CRTC)10April08-3, TBayTel stated that TBayTel strand supporting the PSO is attached to 13,680 Thunder Bay Hydro poles. (a) Provide an explanation for the differences in the number of poles. (b) Does TBayTel have any of its PSO plant not used by Shaw attached to Thunder Bay Hydro poles? 7. In interrogatory response Shaw(CRTC)10April08-1, Shaw stated that the PSO plant is attached to 406 TBayTel poles. In TBayTel(CRTC)10April08-3, TBayTel stated that TBayTel strand supporting the PSO is attached to 130 TBayTel poles. Provide an explanation for the differences in the number of poles. 8. In response to TBayTel(CRTC)10 April08-6, TBayTel stated that it "does pay Thunder Bay Hydro one pole attachment rate per pole when the PSO plant and other TBayTel facilities are on the same pole." Does TBayTel pay Thunder Bay Hydro a pole attachment when the PSO plant is the only TBayTel facility that TBayTel has attached to a Thunder Bay Hydro pole? If so, indicate the rate per pole and the number of Thunder Bay Hydro poles affected. Date Modified: 2008-06-12 |
- Date modified: