Search

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This page has been archived on the Web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.

Archived

This page has been archived on the Web.

Ottawa, 9 June 2011

Ref. No.: 8740-H4-201109109 2

BY E-MAIL

Mr. Glenn Grubb
General Manager
Huron Telecommunications Co-operative Limited
60 Queen Street, P.O. Box 220
Ripley, Ontario
N0G 2R0
grubb@hurontel.on.ca

RE: Huron Telecommunications Co-operative Limited - Tariff Notice 31

Dear Mr. Grubb:

On 2 June 2011, the Commission received an application by Huron Telecommunications Co-operative Limited (HuronTel), under Tariff Notice 31, in which the company indicated that it was proposing rate increases to its local (residential) rates pursuant to TRP 2011-291.

Commission staff notes the following concerns about this application:

• The tariff notice was filed without indicating the following in its cover letter

o the application type (Group A, Group B, etc.);
o appropriate details relating to the specific local rate increases, including how they will determined;
o revisions made to item 4.04, relating to Seasonal Rates, which indicates that the company is proposing

i. to grandfather the current terms of this item; and
ii. to introduce a fee of $50 per occurrence to place residential service on vacation for a maximum of 6 months.

Staff further notes that with respect to the company’s first proposal in item 4.04, grandfathering relates to the destandardization of a tariffed service, which is subject to the rules established in the Appendix to Telecom Decision 2008-22. As such this proposal should have been filed as a separate item and must contain the information outlined in the Appendix to Telecom Decision 2008-22.

With respect to the proposed introduction of the $50 fee, in item 4.04, the appropriate information was not provided in that, pursuant to Decision 2001-756 paragraph 34 , the application should have referenced for which company, when, and where the Commission approved the rate on which the company is basing its proposed rate, or an economic study should have accompanied the application.

• The proposed tariff pages did not show the following:

o at the top of each page, labelled as “proposed tariff page”;
o at the bottom centre of each page, the tariff notice number.

Based on the above, this file is now closed. The Commission is prepared to consider new applications under cover of new tariff notices.

Yours sincerely,

 

‘Original signed by S. Bédard’

Suzanne Bédard
Senior Manager, Tariffs
Telecommunications

cc: Cliff Abbott, CRTC (819) 997-4509 cliff.abbott@crtc.gc.ca

Date modified: