ARCHIVED -  Letter

File No: 8661-C12-201201384
8633-E17-201108978
Bluewater Tariff Notice 5
EastLink Tariff Notice 30
Iristel Tariff Notice 6
Vidéotron Tariff Notice 39

Ottawa, 27 April 2012

BY E-MAIL

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 kevin.pickell@crtc.gc.ca.

Yours sincerely,

Original signed by:

Mario Bertrand
Director, Competition Implementation and Technology
Telecommunications

Attach.

Distribution List

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
regulatory@bell.aliant.ca

Mr. Philippe Gauvin
Senior Counsel - Regulatory Law & Policy
Bell Canada
160 Elgin Street, Floor 19
Ottawa, ON  K2P 2C4
bell.regulatory@bell.ca

Mr. Michel Messier
Directeur, Affairs réglementaires, Télécommunications
Cogeco Câble Canada s.e.n.c
5 Place Ville Marie, Bureau 1700
Montréal, QC  H3B 0B3
telecom.regulatory@cogeco.com

Ms. Natalie McDonald
Vice President, Regulatory Matters
EastLink Bluewater Communications Inc.
6080 Young Street, Suite 801
Halifax, NS   B3K 5M3
Regulatory.Matters@corp.eastlink.ca

Ms. Andreea Badea
Regulatory Affairs
Iristel Inc.
675 Cochrane Drive, East Tower, 6th floor
Markham, ON   L3R 0B8
regulatory@iristel.ca

Ms. Teresa Griffin-Muir
Vice President, Regulatory Affairs
MTS Inc.
45 O’Connor Street, Suite 1400
Ottawa, ON   K1P 1A4
iworkstation@mtsallstream.com

Mr. Dennis Béland
Directeur, Affaires réglementaires, Télécommunications
Vidéotron s.e.n.c.
612 rue St-Jacques, 15e étage, Tour Sud
Montréal, QC   H3C 4M8
regaffairs@quebecor.com

Mr. David Watt
Vice President Regulatory Telecommunications
Rogers Communications Partnership
333 Bloor Street East
Toronto, ON   M4W 1G9
david.watt@rci.rogers.com

Mr. John C Meldrum
Vice President Corporate Council & Regulatory Affairs
Saskatchewan Telecommunications
2121 Saskatchewan Drive, 12th floor
Regina, SK   S4P 3Y2
document.control@sasktel.sk.ca

Mr. Jean Brazeau
Senior VP, Regulatory Affairs
Shaw Telecom G.P.
Suite 900, 630 - 3rd Ave SW
Calgary, AB      T2P 4L4
Regulatory@sjrb.ca

Mr. Ted Woodhead
Vice-president Telecom Policy & Regulatory Affairs
TELUS Communications Company
215 Slater Street, Floor 8
Ottawa, ON       K1P 0A6
regulatory.affairs@telus.com

ATTACHMENT

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.

[1] 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:

2012-04-27