ARCHIVED - Letter

Ottawa, 25 May 2011

Our reference: 8663-T7-200909640

BY EMAIL

Sharon Chuter
General Manager and Secretary-Treasurer
Tuckersmith Communications Co-operative Limited
40023 Kippen Road
Kippen, ON
N0M 2E0
sachuter@tcc.on.ca  

Re: Local competition in small ILEC territories

Dear Madam:

In a letter dated 20 May 2011, Bragg Communications Inc., carrying on business as EastLink (EastLink), informed the Commission and Tuckersmith Communications Co-operative Limited (Tuckersmith) that it is still interested in entering Tuckersmith’s territory as a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC). EastLink indicated that it intends to offer local switched services to customers located in the exchange of Bayfield, Ontario.  This letter was posted on the Commission’s website on 25 May 2011 at the following address:

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/PartVII/eng/2009/8663/t7_200909640.htm

As set out in a Commission staff letter dated 5 May 2011, the following process applies:

Where a CLEC or a WSP [wireless service provider] reaffirms its interest in pursuing competition or implementing WNP [wireless number portability] in a small ILEC’s territory, the small ILEC in question is to file an updated implementation plan with the Commission, serving a copy to the CLEC and/or WSP, no later than 30 days from the date the CLEC’s or WSP’s letter of confirmation of interest is posted on the Commission’s website.  Each small ILEC’s updated implementation plan plan must contain

• all information required by Revised regulatory framework for the small incumbent local exchange carriers, Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-14, 29 March 2006, and Regulatory framework for the implementation of wireless number portability within the serving territories of the small incumbent local exchange carriers, Telecom Decision CRTC 2008-122, 18 December 2008; and
• detailed information about costs and cost recovery (see Appendix 2 for questions and Appendix 3 for a table to be completed). [These documents are attached to this letter for reference.]

In conjunction with filing its implementation plan, the small ILEC is to file any required tariffs.

Based on the above, Tuckersmith must file its implementation plan and other required information with the Commission, serving a copy to EastLink, no later than 24 June 2011.

Tuckersmith is to ensure that its updated implementation plan addresses its proposed interconnection arrangements with EastLink and includes any other requirements needed to implement local competition in its territory.  Commission staff reminds Tuckersmith that it should begin discussion with EastLink about its requirements as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

‘Original signed by S. Bédard’

Suzanne Bédard
Senior Manger, Tariffs
Telecommunications

cc: Natalie MacDonald, EastLink, regulatory.matters@corp.eastlink.ca
Laurie Ventura, CRTC, (819) 997-4589, laurie.ventura@crtc.gc.ca

Small ILECs are to include the following cost and cost recovery elements as part of their implementation plans:

Appendix 2

[to 5 May 2011 Commission staff letter]

1. The company’s total number of residential and business NAS, as of 1 June 2011.

2. The company’s ownership and affiliate structure, including the total residential and business NAS of all the small ILEC’s affiliates and/or its parent company as of 1 June 2011.

3. A 10-year demand forecast using Table 1 in Appendix 3.

4. The names of the exchanges where local competition, LNP, and/or WNP will be implemented.

5. A list of all tariffs required by competitors, including:

a) a description of the service;

b) whether it is a new or an existing tariffed service;

c) a description of the required tariff changes, as applicable; and

d) the proposed effective date for the service introduction or tariff changes.

Note: proposed tariffs are to be filed with the implementation plan.

6. The following costing information:

a) Using Table 2 in Appendix 3, provide details of the cost cash flows associated with implementing local competition, LNP, and/or WNP in the company’s operating territory.  The cost cash flows are to be broken down into start-up and ongoing costs, and also expressed as present worth of annual costs (PWAC) and annual equivalent cost (AEC), using a 5-year study period. Small ILECs with over 3,000 total NAS should also include a sensitivity that reflects a 10-year study period.

Further, provide a breakdown of the start-up and ongoing costs into major capital and expense components.  The response should also provide details on the functionality and activities associated with each of the major components, and the associated costing methodology and all assumptions ‒ including the source and vintage of data used, the cost increase factor(s), expense increase factor(s), and productivity increase factor(s) applied in the study period.

b) Further to the information required in 6. a) above, provide

i) the general cost study parameters and assumptions, such as cost of capital, cost of debt, debt equity ratio, tax rate, labour unit cost(s), and the study period used to derive the costs provided in Table 2; and

ii) details as to the schedule for the various elements of your plan.

7. A plan for cost recovery.  As noted above, residential rates may not increase by more than $4 in any one year.  This amount would include any rate increases to recover exogenous adjustments for local competition and/or WNP costs, as well as any rate increases to recover subsidy lost due to the Commission’s determinations in Telecom Regulatory Policy 2011-291.

Date modified:

2011-05-25