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This page has been archived on the Web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, 1 November 2012
Our Files: 8740-B20-201208249 - 8740-T78-201208273
BY EMAIL
Mr. Denis Henry
Vice-President - Regulatory
Government Affairs and Public Law
Bell Aliant Regional Communications, L.P.
160 Elgin Street, 19th Floor
Ottawa, Ontario K2P 2C4
regulatory@bell.aliant.ca
Mr. Philippe Gauvin
Senior Counsel
Regulatory Law and Policy
Bell Canada
160 Elgin Street, 19th Floor
Ottawa, Ontario K2P 2C4
bell.regulatory@bell.ca
Mr. Michel Gilbert
Director – Regulatory Affairs
Télébec, Société en commandite
87 rue Ontario Ouest, 5ème étage
Montréal, Québec H2X 1Y8
bell.regulatory@bell.ca
Dear Sirs:
RE: Bell Canada Tariff Notice 925 and Télébec, and Société en commandite Tariff Notices 451 and 451A
On 11 July 2012, Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership (Bell Aliant); Bell Canada; and Télébec, Société en commandite (Télébec) (collectively, the Bell companies) filed Bell Canada Tariff Notice (TN) 925 and Télébec TN 451. On 27 September 2012, the Bell companies filed Télébec TN 451A.
On 10 August 2012, Bragg Communications Inc., carrying on business as EastLink; Cogeco Cable Inc.; Rogers Communications Partnership; Shaw Communications Inc.; and Quebecor Media Inc., on behalf of its affiliate Videotron G.P. (collectively, the Cable carriers); and MTS Inc. and Allstream Inc. (collectively, MTS Allstream) filed comments.
Commission staff has reviewed the information on the record and determined that additional information is required to properly assess the applications. Accordingly, the Bell companies are requested to provide by 22 November 2012, responses to the questions set out in the Attachment, serving copies on all parties.
Other parties may file comments on the Bell companies’ responses by 6 December 2012, serving copies on all parties. The Bell companies may file reply comments by
17 December 2012, serving copies on all parties.
Where a document is to be filed or served by a specific date, the document must be actually received, not merely sent, by that date.
Yours sincerely,
Original signed by
Mario Bertrand
Director Dispute Resolution & Decisions
Telecommunications
c.c. : EastLink : regulatory.matters@corp.eastlink.ca
Cogeco Cable Inc.: telecom.regulatory@cogeco.com
Quebecor Media Inc.: regaffairs@quebecor.com
Rogers Communications Partnership : RCI.Regulatory@rci.rogers.com
Shaw Communications Inc. : Regulatory@sjrb.ca
MTS Allstream : iworkstation@mtsallstream.com
Attachment
1. In Bell Canada’s National Services Tariff (NST) Item 901.4(o) and Télébec’s Tarif Général (TG) Chapitre 10.3, Article 10.3.4(15), the Bell companies propose to include a reference to negotiated commercial agreements which would supersede the approved monthly charge for use of a service pole.
a. Pursuant to what authority would a commercial agreement supersede the Commission approved monthly charge for use of a service pole set out in the Bell companies’ Support Structure tariffs?
b. Provide a list of the commercial agreements, if any, that have been negotiated with Licensees.
c. Describe in what instances a commercial agreement would be used. Indicate whether the proposed unreported attachment charge would apply in these instances.
2. For a particular region, if the Bell companies have a negotiated commercial agreement and then conduct a census of that region, would the service pole rate be applied retroactively to 4 July 2011 to the difference between the actual number of service poles as per the census and the number of service poles per the negotiated commercial agreement?
3. In paragraph 6 of the 11 July 2012 application, the Bell companies state
.. the proposed unreported attachment charge of $100 would only apply subsequent to “knowledge of the use of service poles’ which would need to be established through either a census .....or through notification of service pole use in a given area by Licensees themselves.” [emphasis added]
Reconcile paragraph 6 to Bell Canada NST Item 901.5(a)(2) and Télébec TG Article 10.3.5(1)(a)(ii), where it states that the unreported attachment charge would only apply subsequent to a census of service poles in a specific area.
4. Bell Canada NST Item 901.5(a) (1) and Télébec TG Article 10.3.5(1)(a)(i) set out when the unauthorized attachment charge does not apply. Explain why the proposed wording in Bell Canada NST Item 901.5(a)(2) and in Télébec TG Article 10.3.5(1)(a)(ii) does not contain similar wording setting out when the proposed unreported attachment charge does not apply.
5. In paragraph 9 of the Bell companies’ 11 July 2012 tariff notice application, the Bell companies stated that as they conduct censuses, they will implement unique identifiers for each service pole.
a. Describe in detail, with examples, the unique identifiers.
b. Indicate whether the unique identifier for each service pole on which a Licensee has a subscriber drop wire will be provided to the Licensee.
c. Indicate how the unique identifiers for the service poles enable a Licensee to validate the location of the service pole?
d. If the unique identifiers are not provided to the Licensee, provide an example of what information would be provided.
e. Indicate how the information referenced in d above, other than the unique identifiers, enables a Licensee to validate the location of the service pole.
6. At paragraph 9 of their reply comments dated 20 August 2012, the Bell companies propose to amend the proposed language in Bell Canada NST Item 901.4(o) so as to state that in no case shall retroactive charges exceed $100 per service pole.
a. Confirm that this proposed amendment would also apply to Télébec TG Article 10.3.4(15).
b. Provide the exact wording that would be added to Bell Canada NST Item 901.4(o) and Télébec TG Article 10.3.4(15) to provide that in no case shall retroactive charges exceed $100 per service pole.
7. In Bell Canada NST Item 901.4(o) and Télébec TG Article 10.3.4(15), the Bell companies propose to delete the following wording “When a Licensee has an existing presence on a Support Structure, ...”.
Explain why the deletion of this wording is necessary in relation to the other proposed changes.
- Date modified: