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This page has been archived on the Web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, 16 March 2012
File Nos.: 8740-B54-201202697
8740-B2-201202720
BY E-MAIL
Mr. Denis E. Henry
Bell Aliant
160 Elgin Street, 19th floor
Ottawa, Ontario
K2P 2C4
regulatory@bell.aliant.ca
- AND -
Mr. Philippe Gauvin
Bell Canada
160 Elgin Street, 19th floor
Ottawa, Ontario
K2P 2C4
bell.regulatory@bell.ca
RE: Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership – Tariff Notice 403 and Bell Canada – Tariff Notice 7348
Dear Sirs:
On 8 March 2012, the Commission received an application by Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership and Bell Canada (collectively, the Companies) under cover of Tariff Notice 403 and Tariff Notice 7348, respectively. The Companies proposed revisions to their Exchange Service Tariffs, Item 200 – Service Overlap, to, among other housekeeping items; reflect their proposal to serve two customers, currently served by the Mactier exchange, from a remote in the Honey Harbour exchange.
Bell Canada noted that this transfer will not alter the customers’ current service arrangements as the company will ensure that these two customers will retain their current telephone numbers and local calling area, and continue to pay the same monthly rate for the same local calling area (Mactier exchange).
Commission staff notes that in tariff item 200 the information for each customer with a service overlap indicates, among other things, the ‘’proper service exchange’’ and the ‘’current service exchange’’. In the proposed tariff modification, the Companies are proposing to leave the current service exchange blank. Commission staff considers that this will be confusing as it would then appear that these two customers do not have a service overlap, despite being listed in this tariff. Commission staff requests that the Companies submit an amendment to their application wherein a note would be inserted explaining the service arrangements for these two customers.
Consequently, this application, along with all associated subsequent revisions, may not be approved on an interim basis on the 15th calendar day following receipt. However, the Commission intends to dispose of this application, along with all associated subsequent revisions, within 45 business days of receipt of the filing.
Yours sincerely,
Original signed by M. Murray (for)
Suzanne Bédard
Senior Manager, Tariffs
Telecommunications
cc: Nancy Webster Cole, CRTC (819) 934-6377 nancy.webstercole@crtc.gc.ca
- Date modified: