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This page has been archived on the Web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, 28 November 2011
Our reference.: 8678-N1-201108754
To: Distribution List
RE: Review of regulatory framework for the small incumbent local exchange carriers and related matters, Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2011-348-2 – Request for information
Pursuant to the procedure set out in paragraph 2 of Review of regulatory framework for the small incumbent local exchange carriers and related matters, Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2011-348-2, 28 November 2011, attached is a request for information addressed to the small incumbent local exchange carriers (small ILECs).
Reponses to the interrogatories contained in this request for information are to be filed with the Commission by 11 January 2012. Responses are to be received, and not merely sent, by this date.
Appendix 1 contains the names of the small ILECs to whom the request for information is addressed. Appendix 2 contains the interrogatories.
Original signed by
cc: William Lloyd, CRTC, (819) 997-4654, email@example.com
Small ILECs by province
CityWest Telephone Corporation
Amtelecom Limited Partnership
Brooke Telecom Co‑operative Ltd.
Cochrane Telecom Services
Dryden Municipal Telephone System
Execulink Telecom Inc.
Gosfield North Communications Co‑operative Limited
Hay Communications Co‑operative Limited
Huron Telecommunications Co‑operative Limited
Lansdowne Rural Telephone Co. Ltd.
Mornington Communications Co‑operative Limited
Nexicom Telecommunications Inc.
Nexicom Telephones Inc.
North Frontenac Telephone Corporation Ltd.
NorthernTel, Limited Partnership
People's Tel Limited Partnership
Quadro Communications Co‑operative Inc.
Roxborough Telephone Company Limited
Tuckersmith Communications Co‑operative Limited
Wightman Telecom Ltd.
La Cie de Téléphone de Courcelles Inc.
La Compagnie de Téléphone de Lambton Inc.
La Compagnie de Téléphone de St‑Victor
La Compagnie de Téléphone Upton Inc.
Le Téléphone de St‑Éphrem inc.
Téléphone Guèvremont inc.
Téléphone Milot inc.
101. For each exchange/wire centre, provide the following information, as at 31 July 2010 and 31 December 2010, by small ILEC serving territory:
(a) wire centre name (Column A);
(b) number of residential network access services (NAS) within the wire centre (Column B);
(c) number of business NAS within the wire centre (Column C); and
(d) band/sub-band classification of the wire centre (Column D).
102. For each exchange/wire centre, provide the following information, as at 31 December 2010 and 31 July 2011 (if different from 31 December 2010), by small ILEC serving territory:
(a) the residential primary exchange service (PES) monthly tariffed rate including Touch-Tone service (Column A);
(b) the message relay service (MRS) equivalent rate, if the rates in (a) above include MRS (Column B);
(c) the 9-1-1 equivalent rate, if the rates in (a) above include 9-1-1 service (Column C);
(d) the amount of any service improvement plan rate increase(s) included in (a) above and the decision/order number approving the increase(s) (Column D);
(e) the amount of any direct toll rate increase(s) included in (a) above stemming from Telecom Decision 2005-3 and the decision/order number approving the increase(s) (Column E); and
(f) the amount associated with any other exogenous adjustment included in (a) above and the decision/order number approving the increase(s) (Column F).
103. For each small ILEC, provide a list of the services and the rate(s) for each service in each of the four price cap baskets as at 31 December 2010.
104 For each small ILEC, provide, for each of the years 2008 to 2010, the actual/estimated capped services revenues broken down as follows:
(a) capped residential PES (i.e. first basket);
(b) capped business PES (i.e. second basket);
(c) 9-1-1 service, MRS and toll restriction (i.e. third basket); and
(d) other capped services (i.e. fourth basket).
105. (a) For each small ILEC, provide, for each of the years 2008 to 2010, the number of direct connection (DC) conversation minutes and associated revenues.
(b) If changes to the DC rates are proposed, provide all supporting rationale and evidence relied upon to justify the proposed rate changes. This evidence should include detailed company-specific cost studies based on Phase II costs or any other reasonable costing methodology.
106. (a) For each small ILEC, provide, for each of the years 2008 to 2010, the number of toll trunks as at 31 December and the annual revenues associated with toll trunks.
(b) If changes to the toll trunk rates are proposed, provide all supporting rationale and evidence relied upon to justify the proposed rate changes. This evidence should include detailed company-specific cost studies based on Phase II costs or any other reasonable costing methodology.
107. In Telecom Decisions 2007-27 and 2007-106, the Commission permitted large ILECs to rate de-average within a local exchange for both residential and business PES. In Telecom Decision 2007-36, large ILECs were permitted to offer services within rate ranges where a minimum or maximum rate is published.
Provide comments, with supporting rationale, on the appropriateness of permitting small ILECs to rate de-average and/or to offer services within rate ranges following the implementation of local competition in a small ILEC territory. The comments should include proposed principles on which the Commission would establish a price floor.
108. In Telecom Decisions 2007-117 and 2008-41, the Commission established the current rules applicable to large ILECs with respect to bundles and promotions.
Provide comments, with supporting rationale, on the appropriate rules for small ILECs with respect to bundles and promotions following the implementation of local competition in a small ILEC territory.
109. If annual adjustments to the cost component of the subsidy calculation are proposed, provide all supporting rationale and evidence relied upon to justify the proposed adjustments.
- Date modified: