Search

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This page has been archived on the Web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.

Archived

This page has been archived on the Web.


Ottawa, 26 June 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 Street, 19th Floor

Ottawa, Ontario   K2P 2C4

regulatory@bell.aliant.ca

 

Dear Mr. Henry:

 

Subject: 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.   In addition, on June 1 st 2009 and June 19 th 2009, the Commission received Bell Aliant's responses to Commission interrogatories.

 

Attached are additional interrogatories to further assist the Commission to dispose of TN 338.   The Company is requested to provide a response by 10 July 2009, and is to provide an abridged version of the responses to these interrogatories for the public record.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Original signed by Tom Vilmansen

for

 

Yvan Davidson

Senior Manager

Costing & Competitive Services

Communications

 

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

Att.

 

Attachment

Interrogatories

  1. Explain with supporting rationale whether the demand for the 5 Mbps ADSL WAN service is predominantly for business or residence customers.

  2. With reference to the responses to the interrogatory Bell Aliant(CRTC)8Jun09-03 part iii) TN 338, the company stated that the company's peak period associated with the assumed average peak bandwidth consumed is in the evening period. If in response to question 1 above, the service is used predominantly for business customers, comment on the appropriateness of using the peak period traffic growth in the evening period for determining traffic growth for the ADSL WAN service.

  3. With reference to the response to interrogatory Bell Aliant(CRTC)8Jun09-02 TN 338:

    a) Provide the supplier prices used in TN 212 and for 2009 for the applicable line cards, line optics cards and tributary cards for each of the following components: DSLAM Shelf CO, DSLAM Remote Cabinet, Sonet Fibre Optic Terminal OC-48, and Sonet Fibre Optic Terminal OC-192;

    b) Using the 2009 supplier prices for the DSLAM, Sonet Fibre Optic Terminal equipment (OC-48 and OC-192) and applicable line cards provide a revised Detailed Summary of Phase II Costs as provided in Table 5a of the cost study filed for TN338;

    d) In addition to using the 2009 supplier prices as described in part b) above, assume an average bandwidth growth per access of 20% instead of the average bandwidth growth per access of 33% used in the original study and provide a revised Detailed Summary of Phase II Costs as provided in Table 5a of the cost study filed for TN338.
Date modified: