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This page has been archived on the Web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, 13 February 2012
Our Ref.: 8740-S4-201201459
BY E-MAIL
Ms. Louise Bégin
Legal Counsel
Sogetel Inc.
111 12-Novembre Street
Nicolet, Quebec
J3T 1S3
louise.begin@sogetel.com
Re: Tariff Notices 149 and 149/A - Local Network Interconnection
Dear Ms. Bégin:
On 3 February 2012, the Commission received Sogetel Inc. (Sogetel) Tariff Notice 149 - Local Network Interconnection, which was amended on 7 February 2012. In its application, Sogetel indicated that the proposed tariff was in response to Telecom Decision 2012-421 regarding Sogetel’s implementation plan for local competition with respect to TELUS Communications Company and Cogeco Cable Inc. The company indicated that its application qualified as a Group B retail filing pursuant to Telecom Information Bulletin 2010-455 – Approval processes for tariff applications and intercarrier agreements (Information Bulletin 2010-455), dated 5 July 2010.
Commission staff notes that Sogetel included provisions regarding the treatment of imbalance traffic compensation which, in accordance with Telecom Decision 2010-787,2 apply only to the operating territories of Bell Aliant Regional Communications Limited Partnership and Bell Canada. Commission staff considers that it is appropriate to remove those provisions from Sogetel's tariff proposal.
Accordingly, staff requires Sogetel to file an amended application that includes the changes set out in the Appendix no later than 20 February 2012.
Further, Commission staff considers that this application does not satisfy the definition of Group B retail tariff filings set out in Information Bulletin 2010-455, since it does not address services provided to retail customers, but rather services that would be provided only to competitors. For purposes of efficiency, therefore, the Commission will process this application as a Competitor tariff filing rather than close the file and require the company to re-file it as a new application.
The application will therefore follow the procedure described in Information Bulletin 2010-455 regarding competitor tariffs:
- Interested parties may file intervention within 30 calendar days of the filing date of an application; and
- The applicant may file reply comments within 10 calendar days of the deadline for filing interventions.
Accordingly, the company is not to implement the proposed amendments until the Commission has rendered its determination regarding this application in the form of an order.
Yours sincerely,
Original signed by
Suzanne Bédard
Senior Manager, Tariffs
Telecommunications
cc: Sylvie Labbé, CRTC (819) 953-4945, sylvie.labbe@crtc.gc.ca
[1] Sogotel inc. – Implementation of local competition for Cogeco Cable Inc., Telecom Decision CRTC 2012-42, 24 January 2012.
[2] Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership and Bell Canada – Proposed revision to the treatment of imbalance traffic compensation, Telecom Decision CRTC 2010-787, 25 October 2010, amended by Telecom Decision CRTC 2010-787-1, 16 August 2011.
Appendix – Requested changes to Sogetel’s tariff proposal
Sogetel is to make the following changes to its tariff proposal:
- On pages 13 and 14, remove the following provisions and the second table in item 4.21.4 3.a, Termination of CLEC intra LIR Traffic:
The table below indicates the percentages of the monthly compensation payments to a CLEC when the total volume of traffic exchanged between the company and a CLEC over all their local shared-cost trunks is at least 10 million minutes per month and the volume of traffic in the direction of that CLEC network is more than 80 percent of the total traffic exchanged between the company and the CLEC (the Traffic Threshold).
The discounts set out in the table below will initially apply when the 10 million minute volume and Traffic Threshold conditions described in the preceding paragraph have been met in three consecutive months, and will continue to apply for each month until the traffic falls to, or below, the Traffic Threshold.
Following the initial application of the discounts in the table below, those discounts will apply in any subsequent month when the total volume of traffic exchanged between the company and a CLEC over all their local shared-cost trunks is at least 10 million minutes per month, and the volume of traffic in the direction of that CLEC network is more than the Traffic Threshold.
The compensation payments are calculated by applying the percentages in the table below to the amounts payable using the rates identified in the tables above.
- Date modified: