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This page has been archived on the Web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, 27 May 2010
Our Reference: 8695-C12-201005455
8678-B54-200915663
BY E-MAIL
Mr. Denis Henry
Vice-President – Legal, Regulatory and Government Affairs
& Chief of Privacy Affairs
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
Regulatory & Government Affairs
Bell Canada
160 Elgin Street, 19th Floor
Ottawa, Ontario K2P 2C4
bell.regulatory@bell.ca
Dear Mr. Henry and Mr. Bibic:
Re: Telecom Decision CRTC 2007-27, Price cap framework for large incumbent local exchange carriers (Decision 2007-27) and Telecom Decision CRTC 2010-160, Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership, Bell Canada, and Télébec, Limited Partnership – Effects of deflation on price cap mechanics (Decision 2010-160) Follow-Up: 2010 Total Subsidy Requirement Based on Company-Specific Costs
In a letter dated 10 May 2010, Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership (Bell Aliant) filed disaggregated residential Primary Exchange Service (PES) costs and requested that these costs be used for determining the Total Subsidy Requirement (TSR) in 2010 for Bands E and F for Bell Aliant-Central region and Bell Canada. In a separate letter dated 10 May 2010, Bell Canada indicated that it has reviewed and fully supports Bell Aliant’s request.
Attached to this letter are interrogatories pertaining to the disaggregated costs filed to determine the TSR in 2010 for Bands E and F for Bell Aliant-Central region and Bell Canada. Responses to these interrogatories are to be filed with the Commission by 7 June 2010.
Yours sincerely,
Original signed by
Yvan Davidson
Senior Manager
Competitor Services and Costing
c.c.: Mohammed Omar, (CRTC), (819) 934-6378, mohammed.omar@crtc.gc.ca
Attachment
Interrogatories to Bell Aliant
1. Refer to paragraph 3 in Attachment 1 to Bell Aliant’s submission dated 10 May 2010 where the company submitted that the Installed First Costs (IFCs) for each Band were derived based on the underlying wire centre-specific capital costs and residential Network Access Services (NAS) demand.
a) Provide the methodology and assumptions used to derive the wire centre-specific capital costs, with supporting rationale.
b) With respect to the underlying wire centre-specific capital costs, for each of Bands E and F, confirm that the costing inputs used in the residential cost study filed in the proceeding that led to
Decision 2001-238[1] have been used. If not, explain why not and describe the costing inputs that were used, with supporting rationale.c) Using Band E as an example, illustrate how the underlying wire centre-specific capital costs are used to calculate the IFCs for that Band for the current Bell Aliant-Central region and Bell Canada.
d) For each of the current Bell Aliant-Central region, Bell Canada serving area, and the former Bell Canada serving area (including both the current Bell Aliant-Central region and Bell Canada serving area as filed in the proceeding that led to Decision 2001-238) and for each of Bands E and F, provide a comparison of the following residential characteristics:
i. number of NAS,
ii. average loop length,
iii. average cable size, and
iv. average construction mix (aerial, underground and buried).
2. Refer to paragraph 5 in Attachment 1 of Bell Aliant’s submission dated 10 May 2010 where the company submitted that the disaggregated company-specific costs were normalized such that the weighted average costs in each of Bands E and F in the current Bell Canada serving area and in the Bell Aliant-Central region was equal to the mandated Decision 2001-238-2.
Provide the methodology and assumptions used to normalize the costs, with supporting rationale.
3. Refer to paragraph 6 in Attachment 1 to Bell Aliant’s submission dated 10 May 2010 where the company submitted that i) the disaggregation of the filed SIP costs for Bands E and F into the portions of those Bands that correspond to the current Bell Canada serving area and the Bell Aliant-Central region was based on the data used in Bell Canada's SIP study which allowed the company to identify the demand and cost inputs separately for the areas that were within the Bell Aliant-Central region and within Bell Canada's serving area, and ii) the estimated disaggregate SIP costs per NAS for Bands E and F for Bell Canada's serving area and the Bell Aliant-Central region were normalized to the results filed in the 18 September 2002 SIP cost study.
a) Using Band F as an example, illustrate how the disaggregated SIP costs per NAS have been estimated for the current Bell Aliant-Central region and Bell Canada.
b) Provide the methodology and assumptions used to normalize the SIP costs per NAS, with supporting rationale.
[1] Restructured bands, revised loop rates and related issues, Telecom Decision CRTC 2001-238, 21 April 2001, as amended by Decision 2001-238-2, 7 August 2001.
- Date modified: