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This page has been archived on the Web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, 6 January 2012

Our Reference: 8740-C6-201116476


Mr. Michel Messier
Director, Regulatory Affairs, Telecommunications
5 Place Ville Marie, bureau 1700
Montréal (Quebec) H2B 0B3

Re: Follow-up to Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2011-703 – Outstanding Rating Issue (Cogeco Tariff Notice 36) and Revised TPIA Service Agreement

In Billing practices for wholesale residential high-speed access services, Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2011-703, 15 November 2011, the Commission noted that certain network providers may incur additional service order costs related to the provision of services to independent service providers. Accordingly, the Commission determined that under the approved capacity model the service charge rate associated with the network capacity in 100 Mbps increments will apply on a per-order basis, independent of the number of increments.

The Commission also directed Cogeco Cable Inc. (Cogeco) to file for approval, by 19 December 2011, tariffs and supporting cost studies for its proposed service charge rate.

The Commission is in receipt of Cogeco tariff application and, to expedite the rate review and approval process, Cogeco is to respond to the attached interrogatories by 16 January 2012. These responses are to be received, and not merely sent, by this date.

In its response, Cogeco is to disclose, on the public record, the occurrence rates (column b) and the time estimates (column f) for each sub-activity to be identified in Table 1 of the attachment. Commission staff notes that it has previously required the disclosure of similar competitor-only costing information in a Commission staff letter dated 12 May 2910, in the proceeding associated with Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership Tariff Notice (TN) 269 and Bell Canada TN 7205 .

Yours sincerely,

Original signed by:

Yvan Davidson
Senior Manager, Competitor Services and Costing

cc: Mohammed Omar,
Interested Parties to Telecom Notice of Consultation 2011-77

Encl.: Attachment


Interested Parties to Telecom Notice of Consultation 2011-77;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;



1. With reference to Table 3 in the Appendix of Cogeco’s tariff notice 36, dated 19 December 2011, where the company identified the activities covered by the proposed service order charge:

a) Complete Table 1 (see next page) which provides the assumptions and development of the unit costs by sub-activity.

b) Provide a detailed description of each sub-activity provided in column (a) of the template, including the purpose and function of the sub-activity.

c) Provide the methodology and assumptions used to arrive at the occurrence rate (percentage of time that an activity is expected to occur) and the time estimate for each sub-activity. If the occurrence rates or time estimates are based on inputs other than from a subject matter expert (SME) inputs, then describe the source and vintage of the data used.

2. Refer to Tables 1 and 2 in Appendix of Cogeco Tariff Notice 36 dated 19 December 2011 where the company provided the costing information associated with the proposed interface charge (i.e., 1 GE and 10 GE Interface). For each of Line Card 1 GE and 10 GE Interface Port cost study, provide the methodology and assumptions used to derive the monthly unit cost estimate, including the following:

a) Study period,
b) Annual demand forecast, present worth of demand in the study period used to calculate the per monthly charge
c) Description and vintage of line card(s)
d) Installed First Cost (IFC), life estimate, working fill factors, and the associated capital increase factors of line card(s)
e) Present worth of terminal value in the study period and on a per month basis
f) Expense increase factors and productivity improvement factors applied to capital and expense cash flows


Date modified: