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This page has been archived on the Web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, May 20, 2010
Our File: 8663-C12-201000653
BY E-MAIL
To: Distribution List
Re: Obligation to serve and other matters, Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2010-43: Commission interrogatories
Pursuant to the procedures set out in Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2010-43, attached are the Commission interrogatories associated with this proceeding.
Responses to these interrogatories are to be filed with the Commission, and served on all parties to this proceeding, by 15 June 2010. Responses are to be received, and not merely sent, by this date.
Appendix 1 contains the distribution list.
Appendix 2 contains the interrogatories and to whom they are addressed.
Yours sincerely,
Original signed by:
John Macri
Director
Telecommunications Policy
As amended by Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2010-43-2.
Appendix 1
Distribution List:
Regulatory.Matters@corp.eastlink.ca; michel.messier@cogeco.com; david.watt@rci.rogers.com; Regulatory.@sjrb.ca; regaffairs@quebecor.com
Appendix 2
Interrogatories to the following competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs):
- Bragg Communications Inc., on behalf of itself and its affiliates (Bragg); and
- Cogeco Cable Inc. (Cogeco), Quebecor Media Inc., on behalf of its affiliate Videotron Ltd. (Videotron), Rogers Communications Inc. (Rogers) and Shaw Communications Inc. (Shaw) (collectively the Cable Carriers).
Interrogatories to Bragg, Cogeco, Rogers, Shaw and Videotron
101. Provide the total number of subscribers in the company’s serving territory who only subscribe to wireline residential primary exchange service (PES), i.e. residential PES customers who do not subscribe to the company’s Internet, wireless, television, optional or toll service plans. Indicate the percentage that these subscribers represent in relation to the total number of the company’s wireline residential PES subscribers. This information should be provided by a) province, b) forborne local exchanges (taken as a whole) and c) non-forborne local exchanges (taken as a whole).
102. Refer to Bell Canada’s 26 April 2010 submission, Appendix 4, Tables 3, 4 and 5. Indicate by province and for each forborne residential local exchange within the company’s serving territory:
a) whether your company provides stand-alone wireline residential PES that is generally available throughout the exchange, and, if so, the company’s stand-alone wireline residential PES rate (including all standard mandatory charges, such as touch-tone, network access charges, 911 and message relay); and
b) the lowest available rate for a service bundle for your company that includes wireline residential PES (identifying the number of services included) in those exchanges where stand-alone wireline residential PES is not generally available.
103. For each of Bands E, F and G, provide, as applicable, the number of residence NAS provided by your company in forborne exchanges as of 31 December 2009 in each of the following ILEC territories:
a) Bell Aliant NL;
b) Bell Aliant NS;
c) Bell Aliant NB;
d) Bell Aliant PEI;
e) Bell Aliant Central (Ontario and Quebec);
f) Bell Canada;
g) MTS;
h) SaskTel;
i) Telus AB;
j) Telus BC;
k) Telus PQ; and
l) Télébec.
Interrogatory to the Cable Carriers
104. At paragraph 121 of their submission, the Cable Carriers stated the following:
“It is also highly unlikely that competition would result in there being no incumbent local telephone service provider in a SILEC operating territory. A SILEC facing competitive market pressure would likely be able to find another service provider to take over its assets and continue to serve the market.”
Provide your views, with supporting rationale, whether the Commission should establish, as a condition of competitive entry into a small ILEC operating territory, the requirement that the CLEC assume the obligation to serve in the small ILEC’s exchange(s) in the event the small ILEC ceases operations.
- Date modified: