This page has been archived on the Web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, 8 November 2010

Our Reference: 8740-T42-201016189


Mr. Hal Reirson
Senior Regulatory Advisor
Telecom Policy & Regulatory Affairs
21-10020-100 Street NW
Edmonton, Alberta T5J 0N5

Dear Mr. Reirson:

RE: TCC Tariff Notice 399 and TCBC Tariff Notice 4341

On 28 October 2010 the Commission received an application from TELUS Communications Company (TELUS), proposing revisions to its General Tariff – Local Calling Area (LCA) Expansion (CRTC 21461), Item 209 and TCBC General Tariff – Exchanges (CRTC 1005), Item 30. Specifically, TELUS proposed to introduce a new LCA expansion between the communities of Union Bay and Bowser on Vancouver Island and proposed to bill the LCA surcharges on an annual basis for three years.

The companies are requested to provide responses to the following interrogatories as set out in the Attachment by 15 November 2010.

In addition, TELUS is to provide a copy of the above-noted application, as well as a copy of the responses to the interrogatories to the regional districts of Nanaimo and Comox Valley.

Yours sincerely,

Original signed by

Suzanne Bédard
Senior Manager, Tariffs

c.c.: Joanne Baldassi, CRTC, 819-997-4576
James Warren, Comox Valley Regional District,
N. Avery, Regional District of Nanaimo,


1) At paragraph 6 of its application, the company indicated that in order to expedite the LCA expansion, it was relying on the economic study dated November 2007 with respect to long-distance toll revenue losses for TELUS and its toll competitors as a result of this LCA expansion. In view of the general decline in toll revenues over the past three years, provide the company’s rationale as to why the existing economic study should not be updated to reflect more current long-distance toll revenue losses in the two communities at issue in this application.

2) At paragraph 7, the company states that due to the relatively low surcharges per month for the proposed LCA expansion, it is not economically feasible for TELUS to bill the LCA surcharges on a monthly basis. Explain why it is not economically feasible to bill LCA charges on a monthly basis as TELUS did in TN 321.

3) Provide a copy of the draft bill message to be sent to customers affected by the LCA expansion, if available.


Date modified: