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This page has been archived on the Web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, 15 May 2009

 

File No.: 8740-A53-200904921

 

BY E- MAIL

 

Mr. Denis E. Henry
Vice-President – Regulatory and Government Affairs
  and Chief of Privacy
Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership
160 Elgin St., 19th Floor
Ottawa, ON   K2P 2C4
regulatory@bell.aliant.ca

 

Dear Mr. Henry:

 

Re:   Tariff Notice 338 – ADSL WAN Service

 

On 13 March 2009, the Commission received an application by Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership (Bell Aliant) under cover of Tariff Notice 338 (TN 338), in which the company proposed a modification to its ADSL WAN Service.   To assist the Commission to dispose of TN 338, the Company is requested to provide a response to the following interrogatories by 1 st June 2009.   Provide an abridged version of the responses to these interrogatories for the public record.

Interrogatories

With reference to Table 5a of the cost study filed with TN 338:

 

1.   For the transmission equipment capital causal to demand:

 i.) Provide the installed first costs and associated vintage for each of the following components: DSLAMs, SONET fibre optic terminals and customer premise ADSL modems;

 ii.) For each of the DSLAMs and SONET optic terminals equipment provide the assumed capacity, working fills and life estimates used;

iii) Provide a comparison of the costing assumptions between this cost study and that provided in the cost study supporting Tariff Notice 212, including the installed first costs, the associated vintage and any retrospective cost and productivity increase factors used in each study, with supporting rationale.

2.  For the switching equipment capital causal to demand:

 i.) Provide the installed first costs of ATM switches as well as the assumed capacity, working fills and life estimates used;

 ii.) Provide a comparison of the costing assumptions between this cost study and that provided in the cost study supporting Tariff Notice 212, including the installed first costs, the associated vintage and any retrospective cost and productivity increase factors used in each study, with supporting rationale.

Yours sincerely,

 

Original signed by

 

Yvan Davidson
Senior Manager, Competitor Services and Costing
Telecommunications

 

cc: Donald Heale, CRTC, (819) 997-2755, donald.heale@crtc.gc.ca
Date modified: