ARCHIVED - Letter

Ottawa, 9 March 2010

Our Reference: 8638-C12-200817505

                     8638-C12-200817512

                     8638-C12-200817520

BY E-MAIL

Mr. Denis E. Henry

Vice-President – Legal, 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

Mr. Mirko Bibic

Senior Vice-President – Government and Regulatory Affairs

Bell Canada

160 Elgin Street, 19th Floor

Ottawa, Ontario  K2P 2C4

bell.regulatory@bell.ca

Ms. Teresa Griffin-Muir

Vice President, Regulatory Affairs

MTS Allstream Inc.

45 O’Connor Street, Suite 1400

Ottawa, Ontario  K1P 1A4

iworkstation@mtsallstream.com

Mr. Ted Woodhead

Vice-President – Telecom Policy and Regulatory Affairs

TELUS Communications Company

215 Slater Street, 8th Floor

Ottawa, Ontario  K1P 0A6

regulatory.affairs@telus.com

Dear Madam, Sirs:

Re:  Follow-up to Use of deferral accounts to improve access to telecommunications services for persons with disabilities and to expand broadband services to rural and remote communities, Telecom Decision CRTC 2008-1 (Telecom Decision 2008-1)

In its letter dated 16 February 2010, Commission staff noted that further interrogatories might be addressed to Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership and Bell Canada (collectively, the Bell companies), MTS Allstream Inc. (MTS Allstream), and TELUS Communications Company (TCC) to further assist the Commission in its consideration of their proposals to dispose of the funds remaining in their deferral accounts.

In this correspondence Commission staff is addressing interrogatories to these companies with respect to their proposals for the roll-out of broadband services, the introduction of a new competitor service associated with the facilities funded by the deferral accounts, and their consumer rebate proposals. The Bell companies, MTS Allstream, and TCC are requested to provide a response to the interrogatories provided in the attachments by 30 March 2010.

Yours sincerely,

Original signed by Mario Bertrand

for

Paul Godin

Director General

Competition, Costing & Tariffs

Telecommunications

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

Encl.:  Interrogatories

       Distribution List

Attachment 1

Interrogatories for the Bell companies

Retail Service

101.  With respect to the Bell companies’ current retail broadband services (wireless and wireline), using legacy or next generation networks, complete the following table:

102.  At paragraph 16 of the Bell companies’ submission dated 15 January 2010, the companies stated that their High-Speed Packet Access (HSPA) wireless technology proposal offers all of the benefits of Digital Subscriber Loop (DSL) technology in terms of providing broadband capability. Validate your statement by comparing the broadband capabilities of HSPA in relation to that of the Bell companies’ current wireline and wireless retail broadband services using the table above as a starting point.

103.  Telecom Decision 2008-1 states that the solution proposed for broadband expansion must satisfy certain service requirements. For example, paragraph 71 of Telecom Decision 2008-1 states:

“Pursuant to the Commission's 10 March 2006 letter, the ILECs were to propose broadband services comparable to those they offer in urban areas in terms of rates, terms, and conditions, upload and download speeds, and reliability.”

Further, paragraph 74 of Telecom Decision 2008-1 states:

“The Commission is of the view that the ILECs must make services available at a download speed of at least 1.0 Mbps in all deferral account funded communities.

However, the Commission considers that it would be in the public interest for an ILEC to offer various speed levels, including lower priced services at a download speed below 1.0 Mbps.”

Provide the Bell companies’ explanation as to how their proposed wireless HSPA solution better satisfies the service requirements noted above when compared with their previous proposal to provide a wireline DSL solution. Compare and contrast the advantages and disadvantages of each solution with respect to these costing, technology and service requirements.

104.  At paragraph 19 of their 15 January 2010 submission, the Bell companies stated that their proposed wireless broadband service includes affordable price, broadband speeds, including usage allowance, and features that are typical of Internet services in other parts of the country. Provide details with respect to price, speeds, usage allowance, and features of the comparable services in other parts of the country.

105.  Provide an analysis of the revenues and costs specifically associated with permitting retail customers to roam using their wireless broadband service. Describe how these revenues and costs impact the amount of funds required from the deferral account. To what extent would permitting roaming for retail wireless broadband users affect the funding requirement?

106.  At paragraph 25 of their 15 January 2010 submission, the Bell companies described the types of usage that the proposed 2 GB of usage on a monthly basis will typically support:

a.  Comment on the capabilities of the wireless HSPA technology and this level of usage with respect to the ability that wireless broadband users would have to access other applications commonly used by residence subscribers today, such as video streaming (for example, watching a 1-hour TV show), gaming, and Voice over Internet Protocol services.

b.  Provide an estimate of the amount of monthly usage that could be accommodated for each of these applications by the proposed HSPA service.

c.  Discuss any differences in service quality for the use of such applications with a wireless HSPA service versus a wireline DSL solution.

107.  Provide a description of the factors that might impact the level of service and extent of coverage available using wireless HSPA technology. Include in this discussion the manner in which such factors as tower location and height, distance of the end-users from the tower, latency, terrain characteristics, and interference considerations might impact the service provided. Compare and contrast these factors with the level of service and coverage available using the wireline DSL access technology and fixed wireless technology previously proposed by the Bell companies in their 1 September 2006 submission.

Competitor Service

201.  With respect to the Bell companies’ current wholesale broadband services (wireless and wireline), complete the following table:

202.  At paragraph 197 of Telecom Decision 2006-9 and paragraph 84 of Telecom Decision 2008-1, the Commission confirmed that the wholesale broadband service offered by the ILECs should be made available in all funded communities. The Bell companies have proposed that competitors be offered a wireless service similar to their wireline Gateway Access Service (GAS) Lite Plus – Residence option only. No High Speed Access Service equivalent will be provided. Provide the Bell companies’ views with respect to how their proposed wireless wholesale broadband service complies with the Commission’s directives in Telecom Decisions 2006-9 and 2008-1 as these pertain to the provision of competitor services.

203.  With respect to roaming:

a.  Explain why the service offered to wholesale customers will not include roaming outside the customer’s Home Zone, if the Bell companies’ retail customers of the similar retail service are permitted to roam.

b.  Discuss why the prohibition on roaming with respect to wholesale services would not result in providing the Bell companies with an unfair competitive advantage over competitors offering a similar retail service using the Bell companies’ wholesale wireless broadband service.

c.  Provide an analysis of the revenues and costs for wholesale customers’ roaming, and the impact that inclusion of these revenues and costs would have on the amount of funds required from the deferral account.

204.  Given the technical restrictions requiring that wireless end-user devices used on Bell Mobility’s HSPA network must be approved by the Bell companies, would alternative broadband service providers (ABSPs) be able to purchase the same devices that the Bell companies will use to provide their own broadband services? Provide a list of the devices that are used by the Bell companies. Explain the process required for an ABSP to obtain approval to use an end-users device not used by Bell.

205.  Provide an estimate of how long would it take to implement:  1) a wholesale wireless broadband service; and 2) a Broadband Expansion Service configuration, should a demand be identified. Include a detailed list of the activities that must be undertaken to establish each of these services.

206.  In Tariff Notice 7242 (TN 7242), Bell Canada proposed changes to its General Tariff to introduce item 5430 – Wholesale Wireless Broadband Service (WWBS). Bell Canada submitted that it will introduce a new WWBS that will be available to ABSPs in the approved communities in the serving areas of both Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership (Bell Aliant) and Bell Canada.

In Bell Aliant Tariff Notice 305 and Bell Canada Tariff Notice 7240, the Bell companies proposed changes to their Access Services Tariffs to introduce item 150 – Broadband Expansion Service (BES). The companies submitted that the new service will be available to ABSPs in the approved communities and will enable them to have end-to-end connectivity to the rural and remote approved communities by providing the BES Port and Path service component which can be used in conjunction with additional service components available elsewhere in the Bell companies tariffs:

a.  Since the Commission did not receive a tariff notice from Bell Aliant with respect to the WWBS, explain how the WWBS will be provided to service providers in the Bell Aliant’s approved communities.

b.  Explain why the 3 proposed tariffs have an expiry date of 31 December 2024.

c.  Sub-item 3(k) of TN 7242 and sub-item 3(f) of the BES tariffs provide for additional charges to be paid by the ABSP when it is necessary to install special equipment or to incur an unusual expense to establish the services. Provide a list of the potential implementation activities that could be involved. Explain how the additional charge would be calculated.

207.  In paragraph E-4 of the document entitled, Additional Follow-up Information Related to the Deferral Account-Funded Broadband Expansion Program, dated 26 February 2010, the Bell companies proposed to retain $2.7 million of the potential consumer rebate for the WWBS if there is firm demand:

a) Provide a detailed breakdown of the costs that would be included in this $2.7 million amount that would not be otherwise recovered from the deferral account.

b) Explain why these costs would not be recovered by the proposed rate of $22 for the WWBS.

Deferral Account Balance

301.  With respect to the current deferral account balances:

a.  For each year of the period from 1 June 2002 to 26 February 2010, provide a complete deferral account schedule, in the format submitted in Bell Canada(CRTC)30Mar07-3006 PN 2006-15, filed with the Commission on 31 July 2007. Include the recurring amounts cleared from and accruing to the accounts beyond 31 May 2007 together with the impact of the rate reductions intended to clear the recurring balances in the deferral account. Figures should be rounded to the thousands (000s) and include the following eight time periods:

1)  1 June 2002 to 31 May 2003

2)  1 June 2003 to 31 May 2004

3)  1 June 2004 to 31 May 2005

4)  1 June 2005 to 31 May 2006

5)  1 June 2006 to 31 May 2007

6)  1 June 2007 to 31 May 2008

7)  1 June 2008 to 31 May 2009

8)  1 June 2009 to 26 February 2010

b.  Provide the breakdown of the balance remaining in the deferral account as of 26 February 2010, showing amounts allocated to accessibility initiatives, broadband expansion, and consumer rebates. Figures should be rounded to the thousands (000s).

Rebate Plan

401.  Provide a detailed list of all implementation activities and costs assuming the following scenarios:

a.  Providing only a one-time rebate cheque, or

b.  Providing only the choice of a one-time rebate cheque or a six month bill credit equivalent to one-sixth of the rebate obligation per qualifying Network Access Service (NAS).

402.  Provide a detailed list of the added costs to include former eligible customers on record as of 17 January 2008.

Roll-out Plan

501. With respect to the Bell companies’ economic study report submitted 26 February 2010:

a.  With reference to paragraph 9 of the economic study report, describe the methodology and provide the supporting data used to estimate the margin from the deployment of Bell’s mobile voice HSPA service in 106 of 112 of the approved communities. Identify the other six communities and explain why no mobile voice HSPA service is proposed for these communities.

b.  Explain why the inclusion of the margin generated from the provision of Bell’s mobile voice services in the economic study will not result in the subsidy for the construction of the wireless network for mobile voice service using deferral account funds.

c.  With reference to paragraph 32, explain why the Companies have included the costs of a Broadband Remote Access server in its 2010 submission when no such component were included in the 1 September 2006 submission. Further provide the Installed First Costs (IFC) of the major hardware components with associated capacity related to the Broadband Remote Access Server.

d.  In paragraph 35 of the economic study report, the Bell companies stated that they included the costs of constructing one Ethernet access facility in each of the approved communities. In paragraph 20, the Bell companies stated that these facilities would not have been placed by the Bell companies in the absence of the proposed broadband expansion program. Do the Bell companies foresee the use of these Ethernet facilities for other services provided by the Bell companies at any time during the study period? If so, have the Bell companies included the revenues generated by these services in its cost study? Further identify those potential services.

e.  Explain why the take rate, that is the number of subscribers relative to the number of premises passed, reflected in Table 1 of the Attachment Appendix to the Bell companies’ 26 February 2010 submission is substantially greater than the take rate for the five year roll-out plan and supplemental plan included in the Bell companies’ 1 September 2006 submission. Describe in detail how the take rate is calculated.

502.  Funding was approved for the Bell companies to provide broadband service for certain distribution serving areas (DSAs) that are located in or near the 112 communities in Ontario and Quebec. The original Bell companies’ funding proposal contemplated that the Bell companies would provide a wireline DSL solution specifically to each approved DSA. The Commission notes that in some communities not all DSAs were approved for funding on the basis that an ABSP already provided a comparable service to that DSA. For example, such communities include, in Ontario, Beachville, Bluewater Beach, Dublin, Hastings, Lanark, Pembroke, and Tweed, and in Quebec, La Patrie.

The current Bell companies’ proposal contemplates a wireless HSPA network solution that would not be restricted to providing service only to each DSA approved for funding:

a.  With respect to DSAs originally proposed by the Bell companies that did not receive approval for deferral account funding because an ABSP is serving or will serve that DSA, describe the current Bell companies’ plan with respect to the provision of service in those DSAs that were denied funding.

b.  Provide the Bell companies’ views on the extent to which its proposed HSPA network services could impact markets serviced by those ABSPs who already provide service in DSAs that were denied funding.

503.  Describe the procedures that will be developed to allow customers service representatives and systems to determine:  1) which customers in a community qualify for the deferral account-funded broadband service because they reside in a DSA approved for funding; and 2) those which ought not qualify, since they do not reside in a DSA approved for funding.

504.  Describe the manner in which HSPA network capacity would be managed to ensure sufficient capacity for wireless broadband service in the approved DSAs.

505.  In their 26 February 2010 submission, the Bell companies noted that the proposed HSPA solution would make mobile voice services available in 48 of the 112 communities approved for deferral account funding, while it would expand service in 58 other communities:

a.  Provide a list of all DSAs in the 112 communities approved for deferral account funding

b. For each approved DSA, provide the following information:

506.  Provide a regulatory economic study in the same format as provided in the 1 September 2006 submission for the 112 approved communities and all approved DSAs using:  1) the fixed wireless technology (such as the Inukshuk broadband wireless network); and 2) wireline DSL technology.

507.  The Commission notes that in its disclosure determination dated 16 March 2007, with respect to information provided in Table 1 of the Attachment Appendix to the economic study report certain similar information was placed on the public record. Consistent with this prior determination with respect to these deferral account proceedings, the Bell companies are to disclose the following information from this table and submit a revised table for the public record:

a.  Number of subscribers (end 2024).

b.  Present Worth of Annualized Cost (PWAC) Broadband Capital and Expenses.

c.  Present Worth of Broadband Revenues.

d.  Total Upfront Capital Expenditures (CapEx).

e.  Upfront CapEx per premise passed.

f.  Upfront CapEx per subscriber (based on the number of subscribers at the end of 2024).

Attachment 2

Interrogatories for MTS Allstream

Competitor Service

201.  In Tariff Notice 687, dated 15 January 2010, MTS Allstream proposed to add to its Ethernet Transport Service tariff an element defined as a Deferral Account Backhaul Path for the transport of the alternative broadband service provider’s (ABSP’s) traffic to Winnipeg. In its cost study for this tariff item, MTS Allstream has included capital costs.

202.  In its previous competitor services’ cost study included with its submission dated 8 December 2006, MTS Allstream included only maintenance expenses based on additional equipment or facilities required to extend its network to the approved communities. At paragraph 96 of Telecom Decision 2008-1, the Commission directed MTS Allstream to include only costs that have not been accounted for in the determination of the uneconomic costs of broadband expansion to the communities approved for broadband expansion:

a.  Explain why MTS Allstream included capital costs in addition to maintenance expenses in its most recent cost study.

b.  Provide a revised cost study and proposed rate based on maintenance expense only.

203.  With reference to Table 3 of the MTS Allstream cost study dated 15 January 2010, explain why the upfront CapEx estimates have increased for the communities Oswald, Poplar Point and Spruce Woods when compared to the upfont CapEx estimates included in its cost study submitted on 8 December 2006 for the same communities.

204.  Provide MTS Allstream’s views with respect to what service classification should apply to their proposed Competitor Backbone Service and Deferral Account Backhaul Path Ethernet Transport Service.

205.  Confirm whether MTS Allstream’s Bundled ADSL Data Access Service, Supplementary Tariff Item 5820, will also be made available to ABSPs.

Deferral Account Balance

301.  With respect to the current deferral account balances:

a.  For each year of the period from 1 June 2002 to 26 February 2010, provide a complete deferral account schedule, in the format submitted in MTS Allstream(CRTC)30March07-3003 PN 06-15, which was filed with the Commission on 13 June 2007. Include the recurring amounts cleared from and accruing to the accounts beyond 31 May 2007, together with the impact of the rate reductions intended to clear the recurring balances in the deferral account. Figures should be rounded to the thousands (000s) and include the following eight time periods:

1) 1 June 2002 to 31 May 2003

2) 1 June 2003 to 31 May 2004

3) 1 June 2004 to 31 May 2005

4) 1 June 2005 to 31 May 2006

5) 1 June 2006 to 31 May 2007

6) 1 June 2007 to 31 May 2008

7) 1 June 2008 to 31 May 2009

8) 1 June 2009 to 26 February 2010

b.  Provide a detailed estimate of any recurring balance remaining in the MTS Allstream deferral accounts. Identify MTS Allstream’s current plan to clear any remaining recurring balance.

c.  Provide the breakdown of the balance remaining in the deferral account as of 26 February 2010 showing amounts allocated to accessibility initiatives, broadband expansion, and consumer rebates. Figures should be rounded to the thousands (000s).

Rebate Plan

401.  MTS Allstream has proposed to provide the consumer rebate only to active lines. Provide an estimate of the added costs to rebate customers of record as of 17 January 2008. Identify the individual expense components of the estimate.

402.  Provide a detailed list of all implementation activities and costs assuming that a one-time rebate cheque will be provided, instead of a billing credit over six months.

403.  Provide a list of all residential lines and services with the applicable tariff item references for those lines that will be eligible for the consumer rebate.

404.  Provide a list of all non-high cost serving area exchanges where the rebate would be applied.

405.  In its 29 January 2010 submission, MTS Allstream proposed that discounts or promotional offers may be provided instead of the proposed rebate. Provide the details of what discounts or promotional offers are proposed, including the value of the offers, the services involved, the duration of the offer, who would be eligible, etc.

Roll-out Plan

501.  In its 15 January 2010 submission, MTS Allstream indicated that one community, Cranberry Portage, has already been provided with broadband service. Was funding from any other source, such as a governmental body, given to provide service to Cranberry Portage? If so, provide details of the amount of funding and its source.

502.  The Commission notes that in its disclosure determination, dated 16 March 2007, with respect to information provided in Table 1, Appendix 1 of Attachment 1 of MTS Allstream’s 15 January 2010 submission, certain similar information was placed on the public record. Consistent with this prior determination with respect to these deferral account proceedings, MTS Allstream is to disclose the following information from this table and submit a revised table for the public record:

a.  Number of premises passed.

b.  Number of subscribers (after five years from service introduction).

c.  Present Worth of Annualized Cost (PWAC) of Costs (2010 dollars).

d.  Present Worth of Revenues (2010 dollars).

e.  Total Upfront Capital Expenditures (CapEx).

f.  Upfront CapEx per premise.

g.  Upfront CapEx per subscriber.

Attachment 3

Interrogatories for TCC

Competitor Service

201.  At paragraph 84 of Telecom Decision 2008-1, the Commission confirmed that the ILECs were required to make backbone facilities funded through the deferral accounts available at a minimal rate and that any wholesale broadband service offered by the ILECs would be made available in all funded communities. At paragraph 95 of Telecom Decision 2008-1, TCC was directed to file proposed tariffs for its competitor services that would use facilities funded by the deferral account. In its 15 January 2010 submission, TCC proposed to make these services available on a contracted basis, rather than on a tariff basis:

a.  Justify TCC’s position that no tariffs are required for its proposed wholesale services.

b.  Describe how the use of an agreement instead of a tariff will ensure that the rates, terms, and conditions of the wholesale service will comply with the Commission’s requirements regarding the scope of the wholesale services offered and the requirement to make backbone facilities funded through the deferral accounts available at a minimal rate.

c.  Provide TCC’s views with respect to what service classification should apply to its proposed wholesale services.

202.  TCC has advised that it will not serve a community if a competitor wishes to serve it. Where no competitor indicates an intention to serve a community, TCC will serve it instead. At what rates, terms, and conditions will service be provided to a competitor in the case were TCC provides a service, but where a competitor later indicates an intention to provide service after TCC’s service is operational?

203.  Provide a regulatory economic cost study including a cost study report and associated standard tables 1 to 5 for the proposed competitor services that will be funded from the deferral account.

204.  With reference to the rates filed for the competitor services:

a.  Provide all the existing British Columbia Connecting Communities Agreement rates and the SuperNet rates in Alberta for the backbone services.

b.  If the proposed rates and rate structures are different from those above in part a), explain and justify the difference.

c.  Provide the rationale for using similar rates for the Quebec territory.

d.  Explain why the proposed rates are appropriate, given that construction of the backbone facilities provided to competitors is being subsidized by the deferral account fund.

Deferral Account Balance

301.  With respect to the current deferral account balances:

a.  For each year of the period from 1 June 2002 to 26 February 2010, provide a complete deferral account schedule, in the format provided by TCC in its 21 September 2009 submission to the Commission. Include the recurring amounts cleared from and accruing to the accounts beyond 31 May 2007, together with the impact of the rate reductions intended to clear the recurring balances in the deferral account. Figures should be rounded to the thousands (000s) and include the following eight time periods:

1) 1 June 2002 to 31 May 2003

2) 1 June 2003 to 31 May 2004

3) 1 June 2004 to 31 May 2005

4) 1 June 2005 to 31 May 2006

5) 1 June 2006 to 31 May 2007

6) 1 June 2007 to 31 May 2008

7) 1 June 2008 to 31 May 2009

8) 1 June 2009 to 26 February 2010

b.  Provide a detailed estimate of any annualized recurring balance remaining in the TCC deferral accounts.

c.  Provide the breakdown of the balance remaining in the deferral account as of 26 February 2010 showing amounts allocated to accessibility initiatives, broadband expansion, and consumer rebates. Figures should be rounded to the thousands (000s).

Rebate Plan

401.  Telecom Decision 2008-1 required TCC to provide rebates to residential customers in non-high-cost serving areas as of the date of the decision, 17 January 2008. In its submission, TCC indicated that it does not have a record of its residential customers in non-high-cost serving areas as of that date. Explain why TCC did not retain a record of these customers following the rebate direction provided in Telecom Decision 2008-1.

402.  TCC has proposed to provide the consumer rebate only to active lines. In light of the absence of a record of its residential customers in non-high-cost serving areas as of 17 January 2008, provide an estimate of the added costs to rebate customers of record as of 17 January 2008. Identify the individual expense components of the estimate.

403.  Provide a detailed list of all implementation activities and costs that will be incurred to provide a consumer rebate. Include a breakdown on all cost components that make up the total estimate.

404.  Provide a detailed list of all implementation activities and costs assuming that a one-time rebate cheque will be provided, instead of a one-time billing credit.

405.  Provide a list of all lines and services and any applicable tariff item references, for those lines that will be covered by the rebate.

406.  Provide a list of all non-HSCA exchanges where the rebate would be applied.

407.  TCC’s original proposal in September 2006 contemplated a hold back of $2 million [1.3 percent of the amount allocated for broadband expansion] for possible adjustments that might be required during roll-out of the program. Currently TCC is proposing to hold back 10 percent of the amount allocated for broadband expansion until final broadband draw down is completed. Explain in detail why a holdback is required, and why the size of the proposed holdback has increased since TCC’s 2006 submission.

408.  TCC proposes to offer an alternate value proposition if a second rebate is required following the completion of the broadband expansion program. Provide the details of what types of discounts or promotional offers might be proposed, including the value of the offers, the services involved, the duration of the offer, who would be eligible, etc.

Roll-out Plan

501.  With reference to Appendix B, Tables 3a, 3b, and 3c of TCC’s submission dated 15 January 2010:

502.  With respect to TCC’s response to interrogatory TELUS(CRTC)28Jan10-3 submitted 18 February 2010:

a.  Provide a list of all assumptions concerning usage of SuperNet (bandwidth and interconnection method requirements) used to calculate the SuperNet Charges for each community listed in Attachment 1 to TELUS(CRTC)28Jan10-3.

b.  Describe the SuperNet Interconnect – Costs, as shown in Attachment 1 to TELUS(CRTC)28Jan10-3, broken out by estimated costs of interconnecting in the SuperNet community and at the Calgary or Edmonton Meet-Me-Centre.

c.  Identify the location of the TCC central office in each community listed in Attachment 1 to TELUS(CRTC)28Jan10-3.

d.  Provide all assumptions concerning the distance of the fibre or other build between the TCC and SuperNet point of presence (POP) used to calculate the SuperNet Option, Interconnect Cost shown for each community in Attachment 1 to TELUS(CRTC)28Jan10-3.

e.  Identify whether there currently exists a copper connection or any other connection between the TCC and the SuperNet POP for each community listed in Attachment 1 to TELUS(CRTC)28Jan10-3 and, if no such connection exists, identify the shortest distance between existing TELUS copper facilities and the SuperNet POP.

f.  Provide the number of transport fibres that TCC has assumed would be terminated in each community listed in Attachment 1 to TELUS(CRTC)28Jan10-3 for purposes of generating the TCC Option costs.

g.  Provide a detailed reconciliation of any discrepancies between the TCC Option (Transport Only) costs shown for each community in Attachment 1 to TELUS(CRTC)28Jan10-3, to the costs shown in Attachment 1 to TELUS(Axia)30Mar07-2 as well, as to the costs shown in Appendix 4, Tables 3A and 4A to TELUS’ Broadband Expansion Proposal dated 1 September 2006. Provide the costs for the major costs hardware, software, and labour components used to develop the estimates for TCC’s backbone or transport facilities to the listed Supernet communities. Further describe, with rationale, any changes in assumptions from the previous study used in developing the estimates.

h.  Provide the costs for each major hardware and software component associated with providing SuperNet connect services in each community listed in TELUS(CRTC)28Jan10-3, broken out by initial capital cost and ongoing costs if:  a) TCC uses SuperNet transport to the community; and b) TCC builds its own transport to the community.

i.  Identify whether TCC is currently using copper facilities to provide wholesale broadband access to the SuperNet in some of the communities that are part of TCC’s proposed broadband roll-out plan. If so, provide a list of these communities.

j.  Provide a description of the interconnection facilities with SuperNet, including routers that TCC has in place in Calgary and Edmonton. Provide detailed reasons why those facilities cannot be used for the purposes of using SuperNet transport to and from SuperNet communities.

k.  Provide TCC’s assumptions regarding the nature of the services that will be offered (burstable or committed service, etc.) and to which market (residential or business).

l.  Provide a description of TCC’s assumptions regarding committed bandwidth requirements for each service (upload and download).

m.  Provide a description of TCC’s assumptions regarding the take rate for each retail service in each community.

503.  The Commission notes that in its disclosure determination, dated 16 March 2007, with respect to information provided in Table 1 of Appendix B of TCC’s submission dated 15 January 2010, certain similar information was placed on the public record. Consistent with this prior determination with respect to these deferral account proceedings, TCC is to disclose the following information from this table and submit a revised table for the public record:

a.  Number of premises passed.

b.  Number of subscribers (after five years from service introduction).

c.  Present Worth of Annualized Cost (PWAC) of Costs (2010 dollars).

d.  Present Worth of Revenues (2010 dollars).

e.  Total Upfront Capital Expenditures (CapEx).

f.  Upfront CapEx per premise.

g.  Upfront CapEx per subscriber.

Distribution List

regulatory.affairs@telus.com; document.control@sasktel.sk.ca; iworkstation@mtsallstream.com; bell.regulatory@bell.ca; telecom.regulatory@cogeco.com; michel.messier@cogeco.com; reglementation@xittel.net; ken.engelhaert@rci.rogers.com; natalie.macdonald@corp.eastlink.ca; cedwards@ccsa.cable.ca; pdowns@nexicomgroup.net; glennb@nor-del.com; nicole.springer@axia.com; eric.banville@axion.ca; regulatory.matters@corp.eastlink.ca; steve@wtccommunications.ca; piac@piac.ca; regulatory@bell.aliant.ca; fmenard@xittelecom.com; johnm@barrettxplore.com; s.cloutier@axion.ca; billm@barrettxplore.com;  awood@windmobile.com; jonathan.holmes@ota.on.ca; tim.deweerd@quadro.net; pdowns@nexicom.net; gosfield@gosfieldtel.com; wagrier@1000island.net; deborah.shaffner@corp.eastlink.ca; vp.finances@sogetel.com; grubb@hurontel.on.ca;  rbanks@mornington.ca;  steve@wtccommunications.ca;  roxboro@ontarioeast.net;  sachuter@tcc.on.ca;  jpatry@telcourcelles.qc.ca;  nantel@tellambton.net;  telstep@telstep.net;  paul.frappier@telmilot.com;  pwightman@wightman.ca;  a.schneider@hay.net;  alain.duhaime@sogetel.com;  regulatoryaffairs@nwtel.ca;  j-fmathieu@telupton.qc.ca;  gcordeau@maskatel.qc.ca;  lisa.marogna@cwct.ca;  nfrontenac@kw.igs.net;  rob.olenick@tbaytel.com ;  tracy.cant@ontera.ca;  rroy@telwarwick.qc.ca;   lisa.marogna@citywest.ca;   regulatory@execulink.com;  telvic@telvic.net;  dreynard@kmts.biz;  m.baron@brktel.on.ca;  reglementa@telebec.com;  pallard@cooptel.qc.ca;  nicolet@puc.net;  jdowns@nexicomgroup.net;  regulatory@brucetelecom.com;  reglementa@telebec.com ;  david.wilkie@tbaytel.com; regaffairs@quebecor.com;   rob.olenick@tbaytel.com;  donald.woodford@bell.ca; intervention@newnorth.ca;  stephen.scofich@tbaytel.com;  dreynard@kmts.biz;  bob.gowenlock@firstnetworks.ca;   pgillis@dryden.ca;  scoffey@dryden.ca; adimaio@lynxmobility.com; don.falle@inukshuk.ca; 

regulatory.aff@fidomobile.ca; dave.baxter@quadro.net; sbell@globalstar.ca; 

rwi_gr@rci.rogers.com; lisagoetz@globalive.com; ybarzakay@comwave.net; 

tom.copeland@caip.ca;  hemon@consommateur.qc.ca;  documentcontrol@cwta.ca;  

dmckeown@viewcom.ca;  regulatory@sjrb.ca      ;  cpresley@rogers.com;  kasearson@rogers.com;  sg3birley@hotmail.com;  eeadie@mts.net;  mark@mcsnet.ca;  justdidit@generation.net;  ruwruw@gmail.com;  brant.jeffery@mycanopy.net;  serge@serbernet.com;  lbcconsulting@hotmail.com;  mecbell@rogers.com;  craigloehr@yahoo.ca;  s.milers.neverlose@hotmail.com;   che76.bo@telus.net;  stark.chris@rogers.com; cbergbusch@sasktel.net;  xmasflower1257@hotmail.com; leonorjohnson@hotmail.com; gphoeppner@shaw.ca; takachin_69@hotmail.com;  deaftravel11@hotmail.com;  kdurs@shaw.ca;  humptyj@hotmail.com; ctbelleau@yahoo.ca;  Davobergeron@yahoo.ca; anderson4200@shaw.ca;  howardn@douglas.bc.ca;   bcgrey_bear@hotmail.com;  bsk@valkyrieriders.com;   dpingitore@lightspeed.ca; elbrt4@rogers.com; tmcampbell@rogers.com;  kc.2020@hotmail.com;  gerichard@rogers.com; rikerstarr@yahoo.com;  whbford2000@yahoo.com;  sniven@shaw.ca;  sp_cathcart@yahoo.ca;  jboutros@globility.ca;  cataylor@cyberus.ca; jlarose.aptn@gmail.com; david.watt@rci.rogers.com; ine@ccdonline.ca;  scott.mannering@blueskynet.ca; cgrant@grant.ca; thargrave@enerplus.com; merv.bev.sanders@sasktel.net;  macinniscarol@hotmail.com;  alandcharlenequirk@hotmail.com;  jonathanguinta@shaw.ca;  isgeja@hotmail.com;  merv.bev.sanders@sasktel.net;  richmane@gov.ns.ca; leon.ally.vv@sasktel.net;  sheilapacket@hotmail.com;  fordgk@shaw.ca; gmkennedy@cogeco.ca;  timkaringrieman@yahoo.ca; gmkennedy@cogeco.ca;  justin.debaie@ns.sympatico.ca; dar.pam@shaw.ca;  robert_weppler@msn.com;  carver@shaw.ca;  calvinpoortinga@hotmail.com; smithtr_@hotmail.com; angel_jayden19@hotmail.com;  sheilapacket@hotmail.com;  timz24@hotmail.com;  d_horychun@hotmail.com; jemclaren@rogers.com; lizwarren@sasktel.net;  ronpegfee@telus.net;  sophiet@sasktel.net;  elainemanning@gmail.com; dez.rayzak@ontario.ca; todd.tobin@statcan.ca;  newfiedjh@yahoo.com;  jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca;   dmomotiuk@smd.mb.ca;  mpotvin@ccbnational.net;  kier@cailc.ca;  laurie@ccdonline.ca; daans@ns.sympatico.ca; bmd@accesswave.ca; oadpresident@gmail.com;  garyb@neilsquire.ca; joweber@accesscomm.ca; Silvergirl46@hotmail.com; Dodie865@hotmail.com; cqda@videotron.ca; fordgk@shaw.ca;  mbach@cacl.ca;  dennis.mudryk@gov.ab.ca;  jacki.andre@usask.ca;  maxine.kinakin@usask.ca;  kjdit86@shaw.ca;  dalebirley@yahoo.ca;  leona@sdhhs.com; vchauvet@shaw.ca;  gmalkowski@chs.ca;  gkane@stikeman.com; lshemrock@reztel.net;  derek.barr@opensourcesolutions.ca; tdobie@pop.kin.bc.ca;  westm@douglas.bc.ca;  bob.Allen@abccomm.com; masters@widhh.com;  lunn@bcinternet.net;  dave@elkvalley.net;  smacfayd@vcc.ca;  amadill@hwy16.com;  bmykle@telus.net;  kristen.pranzl@gov.bc.ca;  bruce@sis.ca;  james@sis.ca;  terry@netago.ca;  stacy@digicomts.com;  boris@coool.ca;  nratcliffe@skyrydernet.com; matthewa@bcwireless.net; blackwell@giganomics.ca; marcia.cummings@rci.rogers.com;  chet@pathcom.ca;  agaimer@wildroseinternet.ca;  mybow@legalaid.mb.ca; dma2@telusplanet.net; dmckeown@viewcom.ca; dunbar@johnstonbuchan.com; regulatory@lya.com; canreg.affairs@alcatel-lucent.com; bywil@pilc.mb.ca; bcpiac@bcpiac.com; support@bcpiac.com; mybow@legalaid.mc.ca; beland.dennis@quebecor.com;

Date modified:

2010-03-09