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This page has been archived on the Web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, 10 June 2013
File No.: 8665-C12-201303536
By e-mail
Bell Canada & Bell Aliant Regional Communications, L.P.
Floor 19
160 Elgin Street
Ottawa, ON K2P 2C4
Bell.regulatory@bell.ca
regulatory@bell.aliant.ca
Re: Issues related to the feasibility of establishing a video relay service Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2013-155
On 15 April 2013 Commission staff received the responses submitted by Bell Canada and Bell Aliant in Ontario and Québec (collectively, the Companies) to the request for information dated 27 March 2013. The responses to this request for information were intended to update the responses to a similar request for information sent by Commission staff on 25 May 2012. After reviewing these responses, Commission staff notes that the following sections were incomplete, or require clarification, and therefore requests that the responses to the following questions be submitted by 28 June 2013 to complete the original request.
1. Refer to the company’s response to The Companies(CRTC)27Mar13-4.
a. For years 2011 and 2012, for all segments, and for each serving territory, confirm that the values for the number of Network Access Service (NAS) and the associated revenues are correct. For example, the Companies’ response indicates that it had # # wireline NAS in its Bell Canada territory in 2011 which generated # $ # in revenues. Where necessary, provide the corrected figures.
b. For the year 2012, provide the number of NAS and associated revenues that were labeled “TBD” in the company’s response.
2. Refer to the The Companies(CRTC)27Mar13-5 and The Companies(CRTC)25May12-5. The Companies submit that $5.82M was drawn down from Bell Canada’s deferral account for IPRS start-up costs. Explain which year these start-up expenses were incurred and indicate the amounts included in the costs submitted.
3. Commission staff notes that the Companies stated in note 2 of The Companies(CRTC)27Mar13-6, for the table representing IPRS traffic, that “no breakdown between wholesale and retail usage is available”. However, in The Companies(CRTC)27Mar13-7, average annual statistics for IPRS call distribution were submitted. In this distribution, separate statistics were submitted for retail (residential & business) and wholesale service. Please explain why the distinction between retail and wholesale is possible for call distribution but not aggregate call data. Please submit the breakdown between wholesale and retail usage, as requested in question 6.
Please contact Kay Saicheua (kay.saicheua@crtc.gc.ca) at (819) 934-1358 should you have any questions in regard to this letter.
Yours sincerely,
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY/
Nanao Kachi
Director, Social and Consumer Policy
- Date modified: