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This page has been archived on the Web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, 19 January 2009
File No.: 8661-P54-200815251
By E-mail
Mr. Mirko Bibic
Chief, Regulatory Matters
Bell Canada
110 O'Connor Street, 14 th Floor
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1H1
bell.regulatory@bell.ca
Dear Mr. Bibic:
RE: Public Works and Government Services Canada Application for a Commission Decision pursuant to Section 27 of the Telecommunications Act regarding telecommunications services provided by Bell Canada - Additional interrogatories
On 10 November 2008, the Commission received an application by Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) for a Commission determination in relation to the continued delivery of certain services currently provided by Bell Canada pursuant to a customer specific arrangement ( CSA ) that was to expire on 15 December 2008. PWGSC requested, among other things, that the Commission make a determination relating to Bell Canada 's compliance with section 27 of the Telecommunications Act (the Act).
On 16 January 2009, the Commission sent out interrogatories to PWGSC and Bell Canada . Attached to this letter are additional interrogatories to Bell Canada . Bell Canada is to file responses to this interrogatory at the same time as its responses to those sent on 16 January (i.e., .by 1 :00 pm EST on 21 January 2009 ).
Where a document is to be filed or served by a specific date, the document must be actually received, not merely sent, by that date. In addition to filing with the Commission, all copies of submissions are to be sent to the following email addresses: christine.bailey@crtc.gc.ca, anthony.mcintyre@crtc.gc.ca and marc.pilon@crtc.gc.ca.
Sincerely,
Original signed by :
John Traversy
Executive Director
Telecommunications
cc: C. Bailey, CRTC, (819) 997-4557, christine.bailey@crtc.gc.ca
A. McIntyre, CRTC, (819) 994-7572, anthony.mcintyre@crtc.gc.ca
M. Pilon, CRTC, (819) 997-4535, marc.pilon@crtc.gc.ca
Public Works Government Services Canada
Acquisitions Branch & Telecommunications Systems Procurement Directorate
Brenda Wyber
Manager, Telecommunication Services Division
brenda.wyber@tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca
Bell Canada - David Palmer Director-Regulatory Affairs
bell.regulatory@bell.ca
TELUS Communications Company Société TELUS Communications - Terry Connolly Director, Regulatory Affairs
regulatory.affairs@telus.com
MTS Allstream Inc. - Teresa Griffin-Muir Vice President, Regulatory Affairs
iworkstation@mtsallstream.com
Rogers Cable Communications Inc. Communications Rogers Câble inc. - Brenda Stevens Director Intercarrier Relations
brenda.stevens@rci.rogers.com
Coalition of Communications Consumers
Jennifer M. Long, Barrister and Solicitor
jennifer.mlong@gmail.com
Attachment
1. With reference to paragraph 36 on page 10 of Bell Canada 's 11 December 2008 submission, Bell provided monthly equivalent costs (MECs) for four additional non-fungible capital expenditure items that would be part of the CSA if the services listed in Appendix 1 of the 28 November 2008 joint submission would be offered for a period of two years.
(a) For each of the four non-fungible capital expenditures, provide the associated PWAC.
(b) For each of the four non-fungible capital expenditures, provide an overview of the costing methodology and assumptions.
(c) Explain whether the company would incur any of the four non-fungible capital expenditures under its new CSA proposal filed on 11 December 2008 , with rationale.
(d) If yes to part (c) above, confirm whether any of the four non-fungible capital expenditures are included in the TN895 imputation test; if so, provide the associated PWAC(s) included in the imputation test; if none of the non-fungible capital expenditures are included in the TN895 imputation test, explain how these non-fungible capital expenditures would be recovered.
2. Are there any Service Delivery Areas (SDA) where services provided to the customer consist solely of forborne services where the Commission has not retained Section 27(2) of the Telecommunications Act? ; if so, identify each SDA.
- Date modified: