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This page has been archived on the Web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, 11 March 2014
Our reference: 8740-E25-201311240
BY EMAIL
Distribution
Re: Execulink Telecom Inc. Tariff Notice No. 72, 72A, 72B and 72C – Revision of Direct Connect (DC) Service
Dear Sir/Madam:
On 2 August 2013, Execulink Telecom Inc. (Execulink) filed Tariff Notice (TN) 72 to revise Execulink's rate for DC service. The company undertook a review of the cost study and filed revisions to its initial submission as TN 72A, further amended as TN 72B and TN 72C.
Pursuant to the procedural letter[1] issued on 25 February 2014 to set up a process to conduct a review of Execulink’s cost study, Execulink is required to provide responses to the attached interrogatories which are to be filed with the Commission and served on all parties by 25 March 2014.
The information provided in response to the interrogatories should be disclosed in accordance with the guidelines established in Confidentiality of information used to establish wholesale service rates, Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2012-592, dated 26 October 2012.
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. Copies of the documents should also be sent to abderrahman.elfatihi@crtc.gc.ca
Sincerely,
Original signed by D. Thurston for
Lyne Renaud
Director, Competitor Services & Costing
Telecommunications Sector
c.c.: Mohammed Omar, CRTC, 819-934-6378, mohammed.omar@crtc.gc.ca
Attach. (1)
Execulink Telecom Inc - Tarrif Notice 72C
Revision of Direct Connect (DC) Service Rate
Refer to Execulink E E DC Model dated 20 December 2013 filed in confidence with the Commission in support of Tariff Notice No 72C.
1. Refer to the TAB “Capacity Cost O.P.”
a) Further refer to the “CCS per NAS in BH” value provided for various wire centres in Cells P57, P63, P67, P72 and P77.
i) Provide the methodology, assumptions with supporting rationale, source and vintage of data used to estimate the “CCS per NAS in BH” values for the various wire centres.
ii) Explain with supporting rationale why there is a significant variation in the “CCS per NAS in BH” values among various wire centres.
iii) For each wire centre, for each of the last two preceding historical years, specifying the years, provide the “CCS per NAS in BH” value.
b) Further refer to the “# fibres for voice” provided in Cell G57. Provide the methodology and assumptions with supporting rationale, used to estimate the number of fibres for voice traffic.
c) Further refer to the “Fibre link Remote underground 12” and “Fibre link Remote underground 24” installation cost per kilometer (km) provided in Cells E14 and E15. Provide the methodology, assumptions with supporting rationale, source and vintage of data used to estimate the installation costs per km.
2. Refer to the TAB “COE COMPANY”
a) Further refer to the “COE Switching Core (variable per CCS)” cost provided in Cell C16.
i) Provide a description of the system architecture for the COE Switching Core.
ii) Using the format of the table provided in Cells A1 to M10 in the TAB “Capacity Cost COE” provide the breakdown of the COE Switching Core cost into its major components (i.e. Chassis, Power, Interface cards, etc). Further, for each of these major components provide the unit of capacity (e.g. DS-0 or traffic volume) used for provisioning.
b) Further refer to the “Transmission equipment SONET (variable per CCS)” cost provided in Cell C22. Provide the methodology, assumptions with supporting rationale, source and vintage of data used to estimate this cost.
c) Further refer to the “COE common” percent provided in Cell C30 in TAB “COE COMPANY”. Explain with supporting rationale why the COE common expenses are assumed to be causal to providing DC traffic and included in the cost study.
d) Further refer to “COE Tx Uplink” costs provided in Cells F101, F111, F120 and F130 in TAB “COE COMPANY”. Explain with supporting rationale why these COE transmission Uplink costs have been doubled.
e) Further refer to “COE Tx Uplink” costs associated with Port Franks and Burgessville provided in Cells F136 and F137. Provide the methodology, assumptions with supporting rationale, source and vintage of data used to estimate these costs.
3. Refer to the TAB “TRAFFIC COMPANY”.
Further refer to “Table 1: Busy-Hour CCS ILEC Traffic”, “Table 2: CCS Analysis ILEC Traffic” and the monthly Busy Hour information provided for the year 2012 in Cells F17 to L29.
a) Provide a detailed explanation of how frequently busy hour traffic and toll traffic are measured and how the busy hour is estimated.
b) Using the format of Table 1, Table 2 and the monthly Busy Hour information provided in Cells F17 to L29, provide the same information (as provided for year 2012) for each of the years 2010 and 2011.
4. Refer to the TAB “ASSETS”
Further refer to “Capital Assets” provided for year 2012. Update the information in this TAB (by adding columns) to include 2010 and 2011 “Capital Asset” information (in the same format as provided for the year 2012) and provide a revised copy (Excel format) of the TAB “ASSETS”.
5. Refer to the TAB “EXPENSES”.
a) Further refer to the “COE Tx Equipment Maintenance Factor” provided in Cell E263. Provide the methodology, assumptions with supporting rationale, source, and vintage of data used to estimate this factor. Also, provide this factor for each of the last two preceding historical years, specifying the years.
b) Further refer to the calculation of various factors (such as network maintenance, vehicles, etc) factors in Cells B225 to H255. Update the information in this TAB to include the calculation of all 2010 factors (in the same format as provided for the calculation of 2011 and 2012 factors) and provide a revised copy (Excel format) of the TAB “EXPENSES”.
6. Refer to the TAB “TABLE 1 RATE PER MIN”.
Further refer to the “Rate per Minute” provided for Direct Connect (DC) in Cell I19.
a) Confirm that the DC rate per minute is the DC rate per conversation minute consistent with the current approved DC rate documented in Item 1.03 of Execulink Tarrif Page. If not, explain why not with supporting rationale; also propose a DC rate per conversation minute.
b) If in response to a) above, a DC rate per conversation minute is proposed, provide the following:
i) Toll conversation minutes for both Execulink and Bell Canada for each year of the cost study.
ii) Methodology and assumptions with supporting rationale used to convert the “Toll minutes” provided in Cells G21 to L23 in TAB “Demand Company” to conversation minutes provided in response to i) above.
Distribution List
Parties to TNC 2011-348-4
regulatory@itpa.ca regulatory@gosfieldtel.ca grubb@hurontel.on.ca wagrier@1000island.net steve@wtccommunications.ca timbeach@ontarioeast.net jpatry@telcourcelles.qc.ca tellambton@tellambton.net telstep@telstep.net Paul.frappier@sogetel.com pdowns@nexicomgroup.net a.schneider@hay.net j-fmathieu@telupton.qc.ca guycordeauavocat@bellnet.ca nfrontenac@kw.igs.net telvic@telvic.net pallard@cooptel.qc.ca kgugan@wightman.ca barry.stone@quadro.net pdowns@nexicomgroup.net keith.stevens@execulink.com sophie.houde@sogetel.com regulatory@tcc.on.ca regulatory@brucetelecom.com carlo.dondero@wtccommunications.ca jim@brooketel.ca Louise.robichaud@cochranetel.ca rbanks@mornington.ca Heather.bishop@cwct.ca mjboivin@telebec.com jsalina@dryden.ca mjboivin@telebec.com tracy.cant@ontera.ca Regulatory.Matters@corp.eastlink.ca rob.olenick@tbaytel.com sdesy@actq.qc.ca dennis.beland@quebecor.com david.watt@rci.rogers.com regulatory@bell.aliant.ca bell.regulatory@bell.ca regulatory.affairs@telus.com piac@piac.ca iworkstation@mtsallstream.com regulatory@sjrb.ca Slambert-racine@uniondesconsommateurs.ca
Small ILECs represented by the JTF
Brooke Telecom Co operative Ltd, Bruce Telecom,
CityWest Telephone Corporation, Cochrane Telecom Services,
CoopTel, Dryden Municipal Telephone System,
Execulink Telecom Inc, Gosfield North Communications Co operative Limited,
Hay Communications Co operative Limited,
Huron Telecommunications Co operative Limited,
La Cie de Téléphone de Courcelles Inc, La Compagnie de Téléphone de Lambton Inc,
La Compagnie de Téléphone de St Victor, La Compagnie de Téléphone Upton Inc,
Lansdowne Rural Telephone Co. Ltd, Le Téléphone de St Éphrem inc,
Mornington Communications Co operative Limited, Nexicom Telecommunications Inc,
Nexicom Telephones Inc, North Frontenac Telephone Corporation Ltd,
NRTC Communications, Ontera, Quadro Communications Co operative Inc,
Roxborough Telephone Company Limited, Sogetel inc, Téléphone Guèvremont inc,
Téléphone Milot inc, Tuckersmith Communications Co operative Limited,
Wightman Telecom Ltd, WTC Communications
[1] Refer to this letter for all procedural deadlines
- Date modified: