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This page has been archived on the Web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.
Our reference.: 8663-C12-201108754
Ottawa, 14 March 2012
To: Distribution List
RE: Review of regulatory framework for the small incumbent local exchange carriers and related matters, Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2011-348-3 – Requests for information
Pursuant to the procedure set out in paragraph 33 of Review of regulatory framework for the small incumbent local exchange carriers and related matters, Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2011-348-3, 21 December 2011, attached are requests for information addressed to the small incumbent local exchange carriers (small ILECs) except Amtelecom Limited Partnership, People's Tel Limited Partnership, NorthernTel, Limited Partnership, and KMTS.
Reponses to the interrogatories contained in this request for information are to be filed with the Commission and served on all parties by 4 April 2012. Responses are to be received, and not merely sent, by this date.
Appendix 1 contains the names of the small ILECs to whom this request for information is addressed. Appendix 2 contains the interrogatories.
Commission staff notes that the small ILECs included in this request have not yet provided responses the interrogatories included in the information request dated 28 November 2011. In addition to the current request for information, these small ILECs are requested to provide, by 4 April 2012, responses to the interrogatories in the 28 November 2011 information request.
Original signed by:
cc: William Lloyd, CRTC, (819) 997-4654, email@example.com
Small ILECs by province
CityWest Telephone Corporation
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.
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.
201. In Telecom Decision 2005-3, the Commission determined that the small ILECs, in certain circumstances, could offset some of their reductions in toll interconnection revenues through local rate increases. Subsequent to this decision, some small ILECs implemented local rate increases to offset some of these revenue reductions.
Provide the company's views, with supporting rationale, as to how these local rate increases should be treated in the calculation of the local rate amount used for subsidy calculation purposes (i.e., should the $30 target rate established in Telecom Regulatory Policy 2011-291 include or exclude local rate increases related to the reductions in toll interconnection revenues).
202. In Telecom Regulatory Policy 2011-291, the Commission determined that small ILECs that receive forbearance based upon the 50% forbearance criteria, but not the 75% forbearance criteria, would continue to receive subsidies from the National Contribution Fund.
Discuss how the rate component used in the subsidy calculation should be determined for small ILECs that receive forbearance based upon the 50% forbearance criteria, but not the 75% forbearance criteria.
203. In Telecom Decision 2006-14, the Commission determined at that time that it was premature to establish a fifth basket for competitor services as part of the small ILECs’ regulatory framework.
Comment, with supporting rationale, on the appropriateness of establishing a fifth basket for competitor services for the next small ILEC regulatory framework. If a fifth basket for competitor services is deemed appropriate, comment, with supporting rationale, on what price constraints should be placed on the basket, in particular if a small ILEC does not have a relevant cost study for the service in question.
- Date modified: