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This page has been archived on the Web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This page has been archived on the Web.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, 14 September 2011

File No.: 8663-C41-200813800
8663-G1-200813776
8663-L2-200813742
8663-S4-200813833
8663-S6-200813726
8663-S7-200813718
8663-M4-200813841
8663-U2-200813784

BY E-MAIL

Serge Désy
President
Association des Compagnies de téléphone du Québec
2750 Chemin Vallée
Saint-Alexis-des-Monts, Quebec
J0K 1V0
sdesy@actq.qc.ca

Dear Mr. Désy:

Re: Local competition in small ILEC territories – Request for extension for the filing of replies

The Commission acknowledges receipt of a letter dated 9 September 2011 from the Association des Compagnies de Téléphone du Québec (ACTQ), requesting that the deadline for filing replies to the comments of TELUS Communications Company (TCC) be moved from 21 September 2011 to 30 September 2011.  The ACTQ notes that all of its staff will be busy attending its annual convention, which ends on 20 September 2011.

Commission staff grants the ACTQ’s request for an extension.  The small ILECs will therefore have until 30 September 2011 to file their replies to TCC’s comments.

The Commission also acknowledges receipt of the ACTQ’s letter of 12 September 2011, in which the ACTQ requests that the Commission give its members until 10 November 2011 to file their modified implementation plans.  This extension was requested in light of a letter from GENBAND, dated 2 September 2011, noting that it would be withdrawing technical maintenance and support for several of its telephone switches in the next two to five years.

In order for the Commission to assess the latter request, the ACTQ must file its replies to the Commission’s request for information, appended to this letter, by 30 September 2011.

TCC and Cogeco will have until 5 October 2011 to submit comments on the ACTQ’s replies to the attached request for information. The ACTQ will have until 7 October 2011 to file its final reply.

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 S. Bédard]

Suzanne Bédard
Senior Manager, Tariffs
Telecommunications

 

Distribution list

Louise Bégin, Téléphone Milot Inc. louise.begin@sogetel.com
Louise Bégin, Sogetel Inc. louise.begin@sogetel.com
Pierre Allard, CoopTel pallard@cooptel.qc.ca
Jean-François Mathieu, La Compagnie de Téléphone Upton Inc. j-fmathieu@telupton.qc.ca
Guy Cordeau, Téléphone Guèvremont Inc. gcordeau@maskatel.qc.ca
Raymonde Lapierre, La Compagnie de Téléphone de Lambton Inc. tellambton@tellambton.net
Michel Couture, Téléphone de St-Éphrem Inc. telstep@telstep.net
Jean Bélanger, La Compagnie de Téléphone de Saint-Victor telvic@telvic.net
Roger Choquette, Consultant and Authorized Representative choquette@comgate.com
Ted Woodhead, TCC ted.woodhead@telus.com; regulatory.affairs@telus.com
Michel Messier, Cogeco michel.messier@cogeco.com
Eric Edora, TCC eric.edora@telus.com
Laurie Ventura, CRTC, 819-997-4589 laurie.ventura@crtc.gc.ca
Danny Moreau, CRTC, 819-953-5672 danny.moreau@crtc.gc.ca

 

APPENDIX

  1. Provide the names of the companies that will be affected by the withdrawal of technical maintenance and support for DMS-10, DMS-100 and DCO, and specify when each company will be affected.
  2. On what date do the companies listed in response to question 1 plan to replace their switches? Specify the switch technology that each company plans to implement and when it will be implemented.
  3. Will the new switches offer a number portability function by default? If so, given that the purchase of new switches would not be caused by local competition requests, explain why the costs associated with the purchase of new switches would be attributable to local competition and/or to number portability.
  4. What is the extent of the impact that the changes to the anticipated costs will have? Referring to the appendix of costs submitted with your implementation plans, indicate the specific cost components that will be affected.
Date modified: