Search

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This page has been archived on the Web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.

Archived

This page has been archived on the Web.

Ottawa, 14 June 2012

Ref. No.: 8663-M4-201206061

BY E-MAIL

To: See attached distribution list

Re: Implementation plan for local competition, Téléphone Milot inc.

Dear Sir or Madam:

On 18 May 2012, the Commission received a local competition implementation plan from Téléphone Milot inc. (Milot) in response to a request by Québecor Média inc. on behalf of its subsidiary Vidéotron s.e.n.c. (Vidéotron) to provide local services as a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) in the incumbent territory of Milot in the exchanges of Kingsey Falls, Saint- Albert and Warwick (including Saint-Valère).

The Commission requires additional information in order to complete the cost estimates submitted in the local competition implementation plan.

Milot must file its replies to the Commission’s interrogatory, appended to this letter, by 27 June 2012.

Accordingly, the process is as follows:

Québécor Media inc. may file comments with respect to the responses of Téléphone Milot inc. to the appended interrogatory no later than 3 July 2012;

Téléphone Milot inc. may file its final reply no later than 10 July 2012.

All submissions are to be made in accordance with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure, SOR/2010-277.

Sincerely,

Original signed by

Mario Bertrand

Director  
Competition Implementation and Technology
Telecommunications

Distribution list

Louise Bégin, Téléphone Milot inc., louise.begin@sogetel.com
Roger Choquette, Consultant and Authorized Representative, choquette@comgate.com
Dennis Béland, Québecor Média, dennis.beland@quebecor.com
Gilles Brunet, Vidéotron gilles.brunet@videotron.com
Sylvain Bellerive, Sogetel, sylvain.bellerive@sogetel.com
Paul Frappier, Milot, paul.frappier@telmilot.com
Marc Pilon, CRTC, marc.pilon@crtc.gc.ca

Appendix

Interrogatory - Implementation plan for local competition
Téléphone Milot inc. - Vidéotron

  1. Regarding the proposed cost of implementing the local number portability (LNP) software:
    1. Provide a detailed breakdown of the cost of the LNP software by major component, including equipment, installation and other costs, and the methodology and assumptions used, with supporting rationale.
    2. Explain the difference between the LNP software cost submitted for the Warwick facility and the cost for the Saint-Paulin facility in the proceeding that led to Telecom Decision CRTC 2012-40 (previous proceeding).
    3. Indicate the location of all Milot telephone facilities in its territory, and indicate which of these facilities are equipped with LNP software.
  2. Regarding the cost of implementing staff training:
    1. provide a list and description of activities
    2. provide the number of employees requiring training
    3. provide the training time for each employee
    4. provide the hourly rate and unit cost per employee
    5. explain the costs for personnel training added following the previous proceeding, wherein Milot claimed an amount for the same item. Indicate whether the trained personnel are located specifically at the Warwick facility or at the parent company Sogetel, and whether these personnel serve only the territories of Kingsey Falls, Saint-Albert and Warwick (including Saint-Valère).
  3. Regarding consultation costs:
    1. Provide a detailed breakdown of the cost of consultation, with supporting rationale.
    2. Provide a rationale for consultation costs, given that the implementation plan filed in this proceeding is only an update of the implementation plan filed in the previous proceeding, with some modifications, according to Milot itself. [TRANSLATION] Given that Vidéotron’s needs with regard to the use of the company’s competitor services are nearly identical to those of Cogeco, this update proposes to retain the same terms and conditions approved in Decision 2012-40, with the exception of the points of interconnection and additional implementation costs specific to Vidéotron’s application.1
  4. Regarding the recurrent costs associated with the customer/carrier services group (CSG):
    1. ndicate whether Milot proposes to assign this responsibility to its parent company Sogetel as in the previous proceeding.
    2. If so, provide a rationale for the addition of new costs associated with the CSG following a previous proceeding wherein Milot claimed an amount for the same item. Indicate whether the CSG personnel serving the territories of Kingsey Falls, Saint-Albert and Warwick would be located in the same place as the personnel serving the territories of Charette, Saint-Alexis-des-Monts, Saint-Barnabé and Saint-Paulin.

[1] Implementation Plan, Téléphone Milot inc., 18 May 2012

Date modified: