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This page has been archived on the Web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, 26 November 2012
Our Reference: 8663-S4-201213131
BY E-MAIL
Recipients: See appended distribution list
Subject: Sogetel inc. local competition implementation plan
Dear Sir or Madam:
On 22 October 2012, the Commission received a local competition implementation plan from Sogetel inc. (Sogetel) 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 in the Beauceville exchange.
The Commission requires additional information in order to complete its assessment of Sogetel’s local competition implementation plan.
Sogetel must file its replies to the Commission’s interrogatory, appended to this letter, by
10 December 2012.
Any other party may file comments with respect to the responses of Sogetel to the attached interrogatory by 17 December 2012. Sogetel will have until 9 January 2013to file its final reply.
As set out in Broadcasting and Telecom Information Bulletin CRTC 2010-961, Procedures for filing confidential information and requesting its disclosure in Commission proceedings, Sogetel may designate certain information as confidential. The company must provide an abridged version of the document involved, accompanied by a note explaining how the information removed is confidential.
All submissions are to be made in accordance with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure, SOR/2010-277.
Yours sincerely,
Original signed by
Mario Bertrand
Director, Dispute Resolution and Decisions
Telecommunications
Distribution list
Roger Choquette, Consultant and Authorized Representative, choquette@comgate.com
Isis Thiago de Souza, Sogetel, isis.tdesousa@sogetel.com
Sylvain Bellerive, Sogetel, sylvain.bellerive@sogetel.com
Dennis Béland, Québecor Média, dennis.beland@quebecor.com
Gilles Brunet, Vidéotron gilles.brunet@videotron.com
Marc Pilon, CRTC, marc.pilon@crtc.gc.ca
Sylvie Labbé, CRTC, sylvie.labbe@crtc.gc.ca
Appendix
Interrogatory – Local competition implementation plan by Sogetel for Vidéotron
1. In paragraph 3 of its local competition implementation plan for Vidéotron (the plan), Sogetel indicated that Vidéotron’s application would generate additional costs, given the aspects of wireless number portability (WNP), in addition to the terms previously approved in Telecom Decision CRTC 2012-42.
Indicate, with supporting rationale, what specific aspects related to WNP could generate costs in addition to those associated with local number portability (LNP) approved by the Commission in Telecom Decision CRTC 2012-42.
2. In paragraph 8 of its plan, Sogetel proposed using a consultant to implement the WNP system and associated supplementary procedures.
a. Indicate what the company means by “WNP system.”
b. Indicate, with supporting rationale, what supplementary procedures associated with WNP differ from the procedures associated with LNP.
3. In paragraph 9 of its plan, Sogetel proposed that the company modify its A2S platform for data exchange.
Indicate, which supporting rationale, what additional expenses Sogetel expects to incur to modify its A2S platform, given the fact that the Commission already granted funds to modify the same platform in Telecom Decision CRTC 2012-42.
4. In paragraph 27 of its plan, Sogetel indicated that the company planned to implement its plan within 180 days of its approval.
Indicate, which supporting rationale, the reasons for which Sogetel proposed a time period similar to that approved in Telecom Decision CRTC 2012-42, given that local competition, including number portability, should be implemented in this exchange, and that several components should already be present in the exchange to enable Vidéotron to provide its services.
5. Provide a detailed breakdown of the capital expenditures for each major component, including the cost of materials, service life of equipment, cost of installation, etc., methodology used and hypotheses with supporting rationale for the setup of the following capital:
a. Interchange materials and installation
b. Other capital
6. Regarding consulting costs:
a. indicate the nature of the consulting – describe the primary activities for which the consulting firm will be responsible;
b. provide an estimate of the number of hours for each primary activity, with supporting rationale, taking into account the resources approved in Telecom Decision CRTC 2012-42 for this aspect.
7. Regarding personnel training:
a. provide a list and description of training activities
b. provide the number of employees to be trained in each training activity
c. provide the training time for each employee
d. provide the hourly rate and unit cost for each employee
e. provide rationale for the supplementary resources proposed in this proceeding, taking into account the resources approved in Telecom Decision
CRTC 2012-42 for this aspect.
8. Regarding the modification of internal systems, provide a description of the planned modifications and associated costs, with supporting rationale, taking into account the resources approved in Telecom Decision CRTC 2012-42 for this aspect.
9. Regarding SS7 transit fees:
a. describe the functionality and activities associated with this aspect
b. provide the details required to calculate the costs associated with this aspect, including hypotheses, with supporting rationale
c. indicate, with supporting rationale, the reasons for which Sogetel proposed fees for this aspect, given that the company did not claim any in the proceeding that led to Telecom Decision CRTC 2012-42.
10. In Telecom Decision CRTC 2012-42, the Commission approved costs associated with a full-time employee for carrier service group (CSG) functions. These resources were allocated based on the size of the company and the expected number of disconnect orders. In its plan, Sogetel proposed to add a part-time resource for this activity.
a. Identify the type of additional resource person required to operate the CSG (for example, office employee, professional employee), the percentage of time that the additional resource person would have to devote to CSG tasks in a work week, and provide all the costs related to the employment of this resource person (such as annual salary and benefits).
b. Taking into account the resources approved in Telecom Decision
CRTC 2012-42 and the number of additional disconnect orders expected within this proceeding, provide rationale for the proposed supplementary resources associated with CSG functions.
11. Provide a detailed description of the methodology used by the company to develop its market share loss projections (for example, trends and totals after five years) for both its residential and business subscribers. Provide all studies and relevant data, with supporting rationale; outline your hypotheses.
Sogetel inc. – Implementation of local competition for Cogeco Cable Inc., Telecom Decision
CRTC 2012-42, 24 January 2012.
- Date modified: