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This page has been archived on the Web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, 31 March 2011

Ref. No.: 8661-M59-201015868

BY E-MAIL

Mr. David Palmer
Director – Regulatory Affairs
Bell Canada
160 Elgin St. Floor 19
Ottawa, Ontario  K2P 2C4  
bell.regulatory@bell.ca

Robert Olenick
Regulatory Analyst
TBayTel
1046 Lithium Drive
Thunder Bay, Ontario  P7B 6G3
rob.olenick@tbaytel.com

Mr. Ted Woodhead
Vice President
Telecom Policy & Regulatory Affairs  
TELUS Communications Company
215 Slater Street
Ottawa , Ontario  K1P 0A6v

regulatory.affairs@telus.com

Dear Sirs:  

RE: Revised interrogatories to assess the effects of HST on competitor services costs

Commission staff is in receipt of correspondence from TELUS Communications Corporation (TCC), dated 22 March 2011, and from Bell Canada and Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership (collectively, the Bell companies), dated 28 March 2011, indicating that they are unable to respond by the prescribed date of 31 March 2011 to the staff interrogatories sent by letter dated 11 March 2011 to Bell Canada and Bell Aliant (operating in Ontario and Quebec) (the Bell companies), TBayTel and TCC.  Staff is also in receipt of correspondence from MTS Allstream, dated 25 March 2011, opposing the requests made by TCC. 

Staff notes that the information requested in the interrogatories was to be used by staff to assess the HST impact on each company’s competitor services as well as staff’s formulation of recommendations to the Commission for the disposition of MTS Allstream’s application. However, in view of the representations by TCC and the Bell companies that they cannot complete the interrogatories as asked in the established time-frame, staff has modified its  requests for information as noted in the attachment to this letter.  It is noted that the information requested in these interrogatories is the minimum information required to assess the HST impact on competitor services.  

Accordingly, the Bell companies, TBayTel and TCC are requested to provide responses to the revised interrogatories by 15 April 2011, with copies to MTS Allstream and other interested parties to the proceeding.

Yours sincerely

Original signed by

Yvan Davidson
Senior Manager, Competitor Services and Costing
Telecommunications

cc: MTS Allstream   iworkstation@mtsallstream.com
Ontario Telecommunications Association  jonathan.holmes@ota.on.ca
City West Telephone Corporation  lisa.marogna@cwct.ca

Attachment


Attachment

A. Questions to the Bell companies (defined as Bell Canada and Bell Aliant in Ontario and Quebec)

1. For each wholesale service provided by the Bell companies, provide the annual 2010 revenues associated with the service.  Further, identify those services that are not expected to have significant capital cost components (i.e., having capital PWAC costs less than 10% of total PWAC costs), with supporting rationale.

The response should separate the revenues for the Competitor Digital Network (CDN) services between those services that are classified as conditional essential services and those classified as non-essential subject to phase-out.

2. In a letter dated 20 May 2003 regarding cost study information associated with its competitor Direct Connection (DC) service, Bell Canada provided information on the costs associated with the provision of this service.

a) For that study, provide the estimated proportion of the capital PWAC costs  relative to the total PWAC costs;

b) Further, for that same study, provide an estimate of the percentage of the capital costs that are not subject to the application of the company’s sales tax factor
(e.g., internal staff labour).  If, despite its best efforts, the company is unable to provide such estimate by 15 April 2011, provide the company’s best estimate of the average percentage of capital costs relating to internal staff labour or other cost components (specify) that are not subject to the application of the company’s sales tax factor within Phase II cost studies, with supporting assumptions and rationale. 

B. Questions to TELUS Communications Company (TCC)( defined as TCC operating in  Alberta and British Columbia) 

1. a) For each wholesale service provided by TELUS that has province-specific rates in British Columbia (e.g. unbundled loops, DC, AT, CDN) provide the annual 2010 revenues associated with the service in British Columbia.

b) For each wholesale service provided by TELUS that has company average rates across Alberta and British Columbia (e.g. co-location, aggregated ADSL), provide the annual 2010 revenues associated with the service in Alberta and British Columbia.

c) Further, identify those services that are not expected to have significant capital cost components (i.e., having capital PWAC costs less than 10% of total PWAC costs), with supporting rationale.

The response should separate the revenues for the Competitor Digital Network (CDN) services between those services that are classified as conditional essential services and those classified as non-essential subject to phase-out.

2. In a letter dated 16 January 2004 regarding cost study information associated with its competitor Direct Connection (DC) service, TCC provided information on the costs associated with the provision of this service in the operating territory of British Columbia.

a) For that study, provide the estimated proportion of the capital PWAC costs  relative to the total PWAC costs;

b) Further, for that same study, provide an estimate of the percentage of the capital costs that are not subject to the application of the company’s sales tax factor (e.g., internal staff labour). If, despite its best efforts, the company is unable to provide such estimate by 15 April 2011, provide the company’s best estimate of the average percentage of capital costs relating to internal staff labour or other cost component (specify) that are not subject to the application of the company’s sales tax factor within Phase II cost studies, with supporting assumptions and rationale.

C. Questions to TBayTel

1. For each wholesale service provided by TBayTel, provide the annual 2010 revenues associated with the service. 

2. For the wholesale services identified in 1, identify which service is not expected to have significant capital cost components (i.e., having capital PWAC costs less than 10% of total PWAC costs), with supporting rationale.

Date modified: