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This page has been archived on the Web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-M59-201116418
BY E-MAIL
Mr. John Maksimow
Tariffs Manager, Regulatory Affairs
MTS Allstream
333 Main Street,
Winnipeg, MB R3C 3V6
Re: Follow-up to Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2011-703 – Outstanding Rating Issue (MTS Allstream Tariff Notice 721) 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 MTS Allstream Inc. (MTS Allstream) 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 MTS Allstream’s tariff application and, to expedite the rate review and approval process, MTS Allstream 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, MTS Allstream is to disclose on the public record, for each proposed service charge, 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 2010, 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: Trichur Krishnan, trichur.krishnan@crtc.gc.ca
Interested Parties to Telecom Notice of Consultation 2011-77
Encl.: Attachment
DISTRIBUTION
Interested Parties to Telecom Notice of Consultation 2011-77
pkgdonovan2@gmail.com; regulatory@vianet.ca; lefebvre@rogers.com; constantly@rogers.com; lainwired@gmail.com; jim-johnston@cogeco.ca; tracy.cant@ontera.ca; linda_maljan@gov.nt.ca; kevanst.john@gmail.com; Regulatory@sjrb.ca; tom.copeland@caip.ca ; lisagoetz@globalive.com; vince.valentini@tdsecurities.com; crtcubb@douville.org; douglas216@shaw.ca; cataylor@cyberus.ca; jkolyn@ikano.com; angusoliver320@gmail.com; bcampbell@skywaywest.com; martina.emard@lethbridgecollege.ca; babramson@mccarthy.ca; regulatory@telnetcommunications.com; bell.regulatory@bell.ca ; regulatory@bell.aliant.ca; regulatory@execulink.com; jcarter@surenet.net; mike.manvell@switchworks.com; rtwanow@gmail.com; ghariton@sympatico.ca; ctacit@tacitlaw.com; crtcmail@gmail.com; scott@beamdog.com; mmallani@yahoo.ca; d.olafson@shaw.ca; wally@ciaccess.com; jared.mcateer@istockphoto.com; thepga@gmail.com; dirkalgera@gmail.com; tfarrelly@bryston.ca; al@purepages.ca; rubenstein.mark@gmail.com; jamiea@storm.ca; glenrfarrell@gmail.com; dr.wilson@wilson-research.ca; jacqueslee917@gmail.com; catherine.middleton@ryerson.ca; apilon@acninc.com; deschec@ircm.qc.ca; jebouchard@phdvideo.com; ian_fraser@nomorecrtcspam.ca; scottandkai@rogers.com; spaesani@gmail.com; dmckeown@viewcom.ca; peterdasilva@yahoo.ca; abriggs@cogeco.ca; rwadsworth@sandvine.com; document.control@sasktel.com; sidneirohr@hotmail.com; ivan@vibrantprints.ca; jae@c-art.com; rem00126@hotmail.com; cmich@rogers.com; tzaritsa1000@hotmail.com; chad.cunningham@cwct.ca; renaonlinenow@gmail.com; tisrael@cippic.ca; jfleger@jflegerlaw.com; andyb@teksavvy.com; samsonmi@tlb.sympatico.ca; andre.labrie@mcccf.gouv.qc.ca; regulatory@primustel.ca; amanevich@heenan.ca; brian@colenet.ca; Regulatory.Matters@corp.eastlink.ca; adena.dinn@calliougroup.com; anlakenews@gmail.com; regulatory@bcba.ca; satkepa@rogers.com; lukejwohlgemut@hotmail.com; Smartyjones@sympatico.ca; ricka@zing-net.ca; kirsten.embree@fmc-law.com; hemond@consommateur.qc.ca; grayden@graydenlaing.com; john.temprile@vivosonic.com; yuandme@gmail.com; broxx@shaw.ca; syscool77@hotmail.com; dougheale@yahoo.ca; duarte@aetoronto.ca; eric.leclerc@iaah.ca; jroots@cad.ca; jonathan.holmes@ota.on.ca; mike@mikeaudet.com; mena_samuel@hotmail.com; iworkstation@mtsallstream.com; dennis@iplink.net; rob.olenick@tbaytel.com ; shannonbgroves@yahoo.com; t_wardman@hotmail.com; jfmezei@vaxination.ca; scott@zip.ca; ml.auer@sympatico.ca; cbachalo@juniper.net; mdrobac@netflix.com; andrewoca@gmail.com; hannon@rogers.com; hijbji@gmail.com; blackwell@giganomics.ca; erik.waddell@ic.gc.ca; david.watt@rci.rogers.com; regulatory.affairs@telus.com; Andreea.Todoran@ic.gc.ca; cjprudham@barrettxplore.com; regulatory@teksavvy.com; crtc@mhgoldberg.com; piac@piac.ca; telecom.regulatory@cogeco.com; regaffairs@quebecor.com; regulatory@distributel.ca; marc@teksavvy.com; munly@worldbroadbandfoundation.org; henault_claude@hotmail.com;
Attachment
1. In paragraph 191 of TRP CRTC 2011-703, the Commission directed MTS Allstream to provide a tariff and supporting cost studies, separately, for each of the network capacity as well as stand-alone interface components on a per-order basis.
a) For each of the (i) installation and provision of a stand-alone interface and (ii) installation and provision of network capacity, provide revised cost studies and proposed rates, on a per-order basis, using a five-year study period (2012-2016).
b) For each of the stand-alone interface and the network capacity identified in 1.a) above, using the format of Table 1 (see next page), complete the table which provides the assumptions and development of the unit costs by sub-activity.
c) For each of the stand-alone interface and the network capacity identified in 1.a) above, provide a detailed description of each sub-activity provided in column (a) of the template, including the purpose and function of the sub-activity.
d) For each of the stand-alone interface and the network capacity identified in 1.a) above, provide the methodology and assumptions used to arrive at the occurrence rate (percentage of frequency 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.
e) With reference to each of the stand-alone interface and network capacity components, identify the activities that are associated with the creation of the VLAN, with supporting rationale. The response should also provide a detailed step-by-step explanation of the activities and functions required to create a VLAN. Indicate for each activity associated with the creation of the VLAN, whether it is a software-driven activity or a labour-driven activity or both. Further, explain why the VLAN technology is used instead of sending an ISP’s data from the Ethernet switch to the Interface using a router, without creating a VLAN.
Attachment
- Date modified: