ARCHIVED - Letter

Ottawa, 11 August 2011

Our reference: 8663-T7-200909640

BY EMAIL

Mr Robert Van Aaken
General Manager
Tuckersmith Communications Co-operative Limited
40023 Kippen Road
Kippen, Ontario  N0M 2E0
robtcc@tcc.on.ca

RE: Tuckersmith’s local competition implementation plan for EastLink

Dear Sir:

The Commission has received a local competition implementation plan from Tuckersmith Communications Co-operative Ltd. (Tuckersmith), dated 20 July 2011, in response to a request by Bragg Communications Inc., carrying on business as EastLink (EastLink).

In a process letter dated 5 May 2011, Commission staff required Tuckersmith to file any required tariffs in conjunction with filing its local competition implementation plan.  Those tariff notices were not filed with the company’s implementation plan. Tuckersmith is to file those tariff notices, with justification for the proposed rates, when it submits its responses to the attached request for information.

Tuckersmith is requested to file with the Commission, by 1 September 2011, its responses to the request for information set out in the attachment to this letter.

The comment process set out in Commission staff’s letter dated 25 July 2011 is hereby amended as follows:

1) EastLink and any interested person may file an intervention, serving that intervention on Tuckersmith, by 8 September 2011; and

2) Tuckersmith may file a reply by 15 September 2011.

All submissions are to be made in accordance with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure, SOR/2010-277.

Yours sincerely,

Original signed by

Suzanne Bédard
Senior Manager, Tariffs
Telecommunications

cc: Nathalie MacDonald, EastLink,
Laurie Ventura, CRTC, 819-997-4589, laurie.ventura@crtc.gc.ca
Sylvie Labbé, CRTC, 819-953-4945, sylvie.labbe@crtc.gc.ca

Request for information – Implementation plan for local competition

1) In its local competition implementation plan (the plan), Tuckersmith proposes to file tariffs related to local network interconnection (LNI) based on EastLink’s LNI requirements.

a) Provide a list of all specific tariffed services requested/required to implement LNI for EastLink, along with the following information: 

i) A description of each service;

ii) whether it is a new or existing tariffed service;

iii) a description of the required tariff revisions, if any; and

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

b) Further to the list provided in a) above, include all other tariffed services required to implement local competition and LNP for the competitor, such as services related to Access to 9-1-1, Inside wiring, Transiting, and Common Channel Signalling #7.

2) Refer to paragraph 11 of the plan, where Tuckersmith indicates that it would modify its internal systems for the implementation of LNP.  Describe the internal systems and the modifications that the company intends to make.

3) Refer to paragraph 11 of the plan, where Tuckersmith proposes to modify its LNP switch software.  Indicate whether any costs would be incurred as a result of the proposed modification and, if so,

a) Indicate if these costs are included in the company’s proposal.  If so, indicate the line item description in Attachment 1 where these costs are included.

b) Provide a breakdown, by major component, of the costs to modify Tuckersmith’s LNP switch software.  The response should provide the methodology, assumptions, and detailed calculations used to derive the costs for each major component, identifying the vintage of the data for each cost item.

4) With reference to the line item “Membership Neustar” under ongoing expenses in Attachment 1 to the plan, clarify whether

a) “Membership Neustar” means that Tuckersmith is a shareholder in the Canadian Local Number Portability Consortium (CLNPC); and

b) the costs included in the Attachment 1 result from Tuckersmith’s agreement with the CLNPC.  Further, indicate if these are additional costs that are paid over and above any membership costs associated with the CLNPC.

5) With reference to the line item “Consulting fees” in Attachment 1 to the plan, for each of (i) start-up costs and (ii) ongoing costs, provide the following details:

a) The name of the consulting firm;

b) a description of the primary activities for which the consulting firm will be responsible; and

c) an estimate of the hours per week (start-up and recurring, as applicable) associated with each primary activity, with supporting rationale.

6) With reference to the line item  “CSG (Salaries)” in Attachment 1 to the plan, provide the following details:

a) Identify the type of personnel required to operate the CSG (for example – clerical employee, professional employee); and

b) indicate if the CSG function would be performed by a dedicated employee or employees.

i) If so, provide the number of dedicated employee(s), by type of personnel.

ii) If not, identify the number of personnel, by type, who would be assigned to CSG activities, and indicate the percentage of time each person would be assigned to CSG activities during their work week.  Further, explain how Tuckersmith would maintain confidentiality of its competitor’s customer information within its organization under this type of arrangement.

7) With reference to line item “LNP Dipping fees” in Attachment 1, provide the following details:

a) Unit cost for each query; and

b) expected number of queries per month, with supporting rationale.

8) With reference to the start-up cost in the line item “Equipment and installation (P.O.I)” in Attachment 1, (i) describe the functionality and activities associated with this line item description; and (ii) provide a breakdown of the costs by major component.  The response should provide the methodology, assumptions, and detailed calculations used to derive the costs for each major component, identifying the vintage of the data for each cost item.

9) With reference to the ongoing cost in the line item “Equipment (P.O.I)” in Attachment 1, (i) describe the functionality and activities associated with this line item description; and (ii) provide a breakdown of the costs by major component.  The response should provide the methodology, assumptions, and detailed calculations used to derive the costs for each major component, identifying the vintage of the data for each cost item.

10) Start from the hypothesis that the Commission would allow the company to de-average its local residential and business tariffs.  Discuss the impact this could have on the company’s plan for the recovery of its local competition and LNP costs.

11) Provide a detailed description of the methodology, assumptions, and relevant supporting data the company used to develop its market share loss projections for both its residential and business subscribers, in the areas of its territory that are covered by an application for local competition and LNP.

Date modified:

2011-08-11