ARCHIVED - Letter
This page has been archived on the Web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.
Ottawa, 1 December 2008
To: Distribution list
Re: Non-consensus report on the Calculation of Bill and Keep Required Trunk Requirements and the Imbalanced Minutes for the Application of the Imbalance Tariff
On 22 July 2008, the CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee Network Working Group (NTWG) submitted non-consensus report NTRE044 regarding the methodology for determining compensation for traffic imbalances. Despite having reached consensus on an overall methodology, parties were unable to agree on two particular aspects of the methodology and requested the Commission to provide direction in regards to these non-consensus items.
Commission staff has reviewed all parties' contributions and considers that additional information is necessary. Accordingly, those companies that submitted contributions to NTWG task number 23, namely Bell Canada, Telus Communications Company, MTS Allstream Inc., Rogers Communications Inc., Distributel Communications Ltd., Telnet Communications and Execulink Telecom Inc., are to submit their responses to the interrogatories in the attachment by 22 December 2008, serving copies to all NTWG meeting members and to all local exchange carriers (as per the attached distribution list).
Other local exchange carriers may, at their option, also submit responses to the attached interrogatories by 22 December 2008, serving copies to all NTWG meeting members and to all local exchange carriers (as per the attached distribution list).
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.
Original signed by
Acting Director, Competition Implementation and Technology
c.c.: Sam.Yung@TELUS.COM ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; Gord.Sutherland@bell.ca ; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; Kent.Duong@mtsallstream.com ; Leonard.Eichel@cogeco.com ; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com ; Rob.Sired@TELUS.COM ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com
Cogego Cable Canada Inc. firstname.lastname@example.org
ISP Telecom Inc. email@example.com
Bell Canada firstname.lastname@example.org
Mountain Cablevision Ltd. JohnP@mountaincable.on.ca
Videotron Ltd. email@example.com
Telus Communications Company firstname.lastname@example.org
Bruce Municipal Telephone System email@example.com
Maskatel Inc. firstname.lastname@example.org
Téléphone Drummond Inc. email@example.com
Access Communications firstname.lastname@example.org
Persona Communications Inc. email@example.com
Nexicom Telecommunications Inc. firstname.lastname@example.org
Wightman Communications Ltd. email@example.com
Bragg Communications Inc. firstname.lastname@example.org
Globility Communications Corp. email@example.com
Distributel Communications Ltd. firstname.lastname@example.org
NRTC Communications email@example.com
Shaw Telecom Inc. Regulatory@sjrb.ca
Huron Telecommunications firstname.lastname@example.org
Mornington Communications email@example.com
Fido Solutions Inc. Tiffany.firstname.lastname@example.org
IVIC Télécom email@example.com
Rogers Communications Inc. firstname.lastname@example.org
Tuckersmith Communications email@example.com
Telnet Communications firstname.lastname@example.org
Iristel Inc. email@example.com
Execulink Telecom Inc. firstname.lastname@example.org
DERYtelecom Inc. email@example.com
Câble-Axion Digitel inc. firstname.lastname@example.org
MTS Allstream Inc. email@example.com
Exatel Inc. firstname.lastname@example.org
Westman Communications Group email@example.com
Flexity Solutions Inc. firstname.lastname@example.org
Bluewater TV Cable Ltd. email@example.com
1. For each month over the course of the last year (i.e. from September 2007 to August 2008), provide:
a) Total imbalance payments paid out to other carriers, by carrier.
b) Total imbalance payments received from other carriers, by carrier.
2. Commission staff has developed an alternative to the approaches proposed by parties in regards to the time period basis to use when calculating imbalance compensation.
Staff's proposed approach is as follows:
When there is an imbalance situation, each pair of carriers would determine the daily average peak busy hour traffic for all business days in a month and, in a separate calculation, determine the daily average peak busy hour traffic for all weekend days in the same month. The higher of the two values, whether it is the weekday average or the weekend average would then be used as the proxy for average peak traffic for the month and applied to the Neil-Wilkinson 1% Medium Traffic Table to determine the number of required trunks.
a) Comment on the issues, if any, in calculating the peak busy hour period using this approach.
- Date modified: