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This page has been archived on the Web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.: 8678-M59-200816507
BY EMail
Ms. Teresa Griffin-Muir
Vice-President – Regulatory Affairs
MTS Allstream Inc.
45 O'Connor Street, Suite 1400
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1A4
iworkstation@mtsallstream.com
Re: Part VII application to recover wireline portion of costs associated with the implementation of Wireless Number Portability
Dear Ms. Griffin-Muir:
On 9 December 2008, the Commission received an application by MTS Allstream Inc. (MTS) requesting that it be allowed to recover, through an exogenous adjustment, the cost of advancement of the wireline costs associated with the implementation of wireless number portability (WNP) in MTS' incumbent serving territory.
MTS is requested to provide responses to interrogatories as set out in the Attachment by 30 January 2009.
Where a document is to be filed by a specific date, the document must be actually received, not merely sent, by that date.
Yours sincerely,
Original signed by
Suzanne Bédard
Senior Manager, Tariffs
cc: Joanne Baldassi, CRTC joanne.baldassi@crtc.gc.ca
Attachment (1)
Attachment
1) At paragraph 5 of its application, MTS stated that the recovery methodology proposed in this application is consistent with the recovery methodology approved by the Commission for Bell Canada's WNP-related implementation costs in Telecom Decision 2007-88, and in a letter from Commission staff dated 7 December 2007.
a) Staff notes that its 7 December 2007 letter accepted Bell Canada's request to draw down the recurring balance in its deferral account attributed to residential basic services in non high cost serving areas (non-HCSAs) based on Telecom Decision 2006-9. Staff further notes that MTS currently has no recurring balance in its deferral account.
Explain, with supporting rationale, the basis upon which MTS should be permitted to draw down the accumulated balance in its deferral account attributed to residential basic services in non-HCSAs.
b) Staff notes that in Telecom Decision CRTC 2007-88, at paragraph 48, the Commission determined that Bell Canada's wireline-related WNP implementation costs[1] were to be allocated to the Residential HCSAs Services Basket, the Residential Non-HCSAs Services Basket, the Business Services basket, the Uncapped Services basket, and services that were forborne from regulation on the basis of single-line residential and business network access service (NAS) attributed to these baskets or services.
Explain, with supporting rationale, why MTS has not proposed to assign the exogenous adjustment associated with WNP implementation across the Uncapped Services basket, and services that are forborne from regulation on the basis of single-line residential and business NAS.
2) Staff notes that in Telecom Decision 2008-115, at paragraph 15, the Commission denied TCC's request to include its Canadian Local Ordering Guidelines Version 6 (CLOGv6) implementation costs as part of the wireline-related WNP costs it would be entitled to recover through an additional exogenous adjustment.
Clarify if CLOGv6 costs were included in the cost study. If included, identify whether any additional CLOGv6 costs specific to WNP were incurred and if so, provide a revised PWAC that reflects only the CLOG costs associated with WNP.
[1] In Telecom Decision CRTC 2008-115, the Commission directed the same allocation for Telus Communications Company at paragraph 25.
- Date modified: