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This page has been archived on the Web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.
File No: 8661-C12-201201384
Bluewater Tariff Notice 5
EastLink Tariff Notice 30
Iristel Tariff Notice 6
Vidéotron Tariff Notice 39
Ottawa, 27 April 2012
To: Distribution List
Re: Interrogatories with respect to Telecom Notice of Consultation 2012-72, Review of conditions for approval of a local service request rejection charge
Commission staff request that Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership (Bell Aliant); Bell Canada; Cogeco Câble Canada s.e.n.c. (Cogeco); Bragg Communications Incorporated, operating as EastLink (EastLink); Iristel Inc. (Iristel); MTS Inc. (MTS); Québecor Media inc. on behalf of itself and its affiliate Vidéotron s.e.n.c. (Vidéotron); Rogers Communications Partnership (Rogers); Saskatchewan Telecommunications (SaskTel); Shaw Telecom G.P. (Shaw); and TELUS Communications Company (TCC) respond to the attached interrogatories associated with Telecom Notice of Consultation 2012-72.
Responses to these interrogatories are to be filed with the Commission and served on all parties on the distribution list of this letter by 17 May 2012. Parties may file comments on the additional information only by 24 May 2012. Parties that wish to designate some or all of their answers as confidential must do so in accordance with the CRTC Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Documents to be filed and served are to be received, not merely sent, by the dates indicated. All documents should also be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Original signed by:
Director, Competition Implementation and Technology
Mr. Denis E. Henry
Vice-President - Regulatory, Government Affairs and Public Law
Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership
160 Elgin Street, Floor 19
Ottawa, ON K2P 2C4
Mr. Philippe Gauvin
Senior Counsel - Regulatory Law & Policy
160 Elgin Street, Floor 19
Ottawa, ON K2P 2C4
Mr. Michel Messier
Directeur, Affairs réglementaires, Télécommunications
Cogeco Câble Canada s.e.n.c
5 Place Ville Marie, Bureau 1700
Montréal, QC H3B 0B3
Ms. Natalie McDonald
Vice President, Regulatory Matters
EastLink Bluewater Communications Inc.
6080 Young Street, Suite 801
Halifax, NS B3K 5M3
Ms. Andreea Badea
675 Cochrane Drive, East Tower, 6th floor
Markham, ON L3R 0B8
Ms. Teresa Griffin-Muir
Vice President, Regulatory Affairs
45 O’Connor Street, Suite 1400
Ottawa, ON K1P 1A4
Mr. Dennis Béland
Directeur, Affaires réglementaires, Télécommunications
612 rue St-Jacques, 15e étage, Tour Sud
Montréal, QC H3C 4M8
Mr. David Watt
Vice President Regulatory Telecommunications
Rogers Communications Partnership
333 Bloor Street East
Toronto, ON M4W 1G9
Mr. John C Meldrum
Vice President Corporate Council & Regulatory Affairs
2121 Saskatchewan Drive, 12th floor
Regina, SK S4P 3Y2
Mr. Jean Brazeau
Senior VP, Regulatory Affairs
Shaw Telecom G.P.
Suite 900, 630 - 3rd Ave SW
Calgary, AB T2P 4L4
Mr. Ted Woodhead
Vice-president Telecom Policy & Regulatory Affairs
TELUS Communications Company
215 Slater Street, Floor 8
Ottawa, ON K1P 0A6
Interrogatory addressed to all parties.
1. At paragraph 10 of Vidéotron’s comments and paragraph 5 of EastLink’s reply comments, Vidéotron and EastLink are of the view that there are several causes of local service request (LSR) rejections that cannot be addressed by the use of Access to operational support systems (OSS) service. In this regard:
a. Provide your view on whether LSR rejections are generally caused by two types of errors: errors that are preventable using Access to OSS service and errors that are not preventable using such service.
b. To the extent possible, provide a breakdown of (i) LSR fields where errors in such fields would be preventable using Access to OSS service and (ii) LSR fields where errors in such fields would not be preventable using Access to OSS service. 1
Interrogatories addressed to Bell Aliant, Bell Canada, Cogeco, EastLink, MTS, Rogers, SaskTel, Shaw, TCC, and Vidéotron.
2. Provide the following information with respect to LSRs received by your company, broken down by each LEC that submits LSRs to your company, for the period from January to March 2012:
a. The total number of LSRs received;
a. The total number of LSRs rejected; and
c. The percentage of LSRs rejected.
3. Provide an estimate, including underlying rationale for your estimate, for the period from January to March 2012 of:
a. The total number of LSRs rejected due to errors that would have been prevented if the ordering LEC had used Access to OSS service; and
b. The total number of LSRs rejected due to errors that would not have been prevented even if the ordering LEC used such service.
Note 1: For the purpose of this exercise, whether your company actually offers Access to OSS service is not of consideration.
Note 2: In the case of an LSR rejected due to both types of errors, that LSR should be considered to have been rejected due to errors that would have been prevented if the ordering LEC had used Access to OSS service.
Note 3: For the purpose of this exercise, errors that would have been prevented if the ordering LEC had used Access to OSS service are considered to be errors related to customer information (e.g. wrong name, telephone number, address, etc.) and LSRs sent to the wrong LEC (i.e. LSRs erroneously sent to your company when your company is not the service provider). These reasons for rejections are provided as examples only.
4. Provide your estimated cost to review and reject an LSR. Your response should also provide details of the processes and time required to review and reject an LSR.
 Refer to:
- Exhibit 1, Local Service Request, of Section 2 of the Canadian Local Ordering Guidelines (C-LOG), v6.1;
- Exhibit 1, End User Information, of Section 3 of the C-LOG v6.1;
- Exhibit 1, Service Details, of Section 4 of the C-LOG v6.1; and
- the service ordering process in general.
- Date modified: