ARCHIVED - Letter

Ottawa, 2 June 2014

Our Reference No.: 8690-E17-201401455

BY EMAIL

Ms. Suzanne Morin
General Counsel - Regulatory & Privacy Chief
Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership
Floor 19, 160 Elgin Street
Ottawa, Ontario  K2P 2C4
regulatory@bell.aliant.ca

Dear Ms. Morin:

RE: Eastlink Part 1 application – Bell Aliant Support Structure Invoices

The Commission requires additional information in order to complete its assessment of the above noted Part 1 application. Accordingly, Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership (Bell Aliant) is to file by 17 June 2014 responses to the questions set out in the Attachment, serving a copy on Bragg Communications Inc., operating as Eastlink (Eastlink).

Eastlink may file comments in regard to Bell Aliant’s responses by 27 June 2014, serving a copy on Bell Aliant. Bell Aliant may file reply comments by 3 July 2014, serving a copy on Eastlink.

Yours sincerely,

Original signed by

Mario Bertrand
Director, Dispute Resolution
Telecommunications

c.c: Jesslyn Mullaney, CRTC, jesslyn.mullaney@crtc.gc.ca

Eastlink RegulatoryMatters@corp.eastlink.ca

Attachment

1. Provide an executed copy of the Support Structure License Agreement between Bell Aliant and Eastlink dated 31 December 2000 and any subsequent amendments or changes.
2. Provide an executed copy of the Master Service Agreement between Bell Aliant and Eastlink dated 16 July 2012 and any subsequent amendments or changes.
3. The letter dated 9 February 2000, filed as Attachment 2 to Bell Aliant’s answer states that in the case of multiple poles connecting a subscriber’s premises the “non-last poles supporting a subscriber drop wire only are considered a rental pole” (non last pole).
1. Provide any available evidence (e.g., paid invoices or correspondence) that Eastlink accepted Bell Aliant’s interpretation to charge for “non-last poles”.
2. In Telecom Decision 2011-406,[1] the incumbent local exchange carriers submitted that they did not have the records required to bill a service pole-specific rate as service poles have not been billed to date. How did Bell Aliant determine the number of “non-last poles” to charge a licensee?
4. In order to better understand the impact of the arguments, using the attached chart, separately for Nova Scotia (NS) and Prince Edward Island (PEI), provide, where appropriate, detailed information regarding the charges set out in:
1. the invoices dated 24 June 2012 that Bell Aliant provided to Eastlink;
2. the invoices dated 24 June 2012 as they would look if all the corrections[2] are made, i.e., corrections for retroactive billing, cross-over poles, and multiple poles, detailing the total number of poles moved from one row in the chart to another row in the same chart for each type of correction; and
3.  the invoices dated 24 June 2012 as they would look if only the corrections for retroactive billing and cross-over poles are made, and the multiple poles are left in the service pole category (i.e., using Eastlink’s interpretation of a service pole in this case), detailing the total number of poles moved from one row in the chart to another row in the same chart for each type of correction.

Chart

1. The one-time back billing of pole attachments for identified licensees not previously billed on a monthly basis (but for which a permit already exists) to a maximum of 12 months.
2. The one-time back billing of pole attachments, retroactive to 4 July 2011, in accordance with Decision 2011-406.

5. Using the chart below, provide the information based on
1. the invoices dated 24 December 2013 that Bell Aliant provided to Eastlink regarding census charges, separately for NS, PEI, and Newfoundland and Labrador
2. the invoices dated 24 December 2013 revised under the two following scenarios, separately for NS and PEI:
1. from the completed chart in 4(b); and
2.  from the completed chart in 4(c).

Chart

6. Provide the details of the late payment charges and/or interest that Bell Aliant claims is owed by Eastlink regarding outstanding balances. Include any credit adjustments.
7. In the proceeding leading to Telecom Order 2013-114,[3] the record indicated that during the census in Atlantic Canada, certain pole attributes were collected, including GPS coordinates for each pole. In view of this, comment on the feasibility of a billing format for the use of support structures based on the Municipal Census Division boundaries.
8. In the invoice to Eastlink for census charges in Newfoundland and Labrador, did Bell Aliant use the definition of service pole that was used for the census charges in NS and PEI?
9. Provide, separately for NS and PEI, the number of mainline poles that Eastlink was paying for prior to the invoices of 24 June 2012.
10. In its answer, Bell Aliant stated that it “counted all of the multiple poles connecting a subscriber premise as service poles when in fact only the last pole connecting to the subscriber’s premises should have been billed as a service pole”.
1. For the multiple poles that are non-last poles, indicate whether Bell Aliant intends to impose unauthorized attachment charges.
2. If the answer to (a) is yes, explain how the unauthorized attachment charge would apply in view of the wording of Item 901.5 (a) (1)[4] of the National Services Tariff for support structure service regarding the requirement for a permit.

11. In the proceeding that led to Telecom Decision 2010-900, Bell Aliant was requested in interrogatory Bell Aliant(CRTC)1Mar10-11 TNC 2009-432 to explain the differences between service poles and non-service poles. In response, Bell Aliant provided the following:

    “Service poles are poles that do not support cables and strand, but support service wire connections to customer premises.  Poles used to provide structural support to pole lines in the form of guying and anchoring are also counted as service poles. By contrast, non-service poles provide support for main feeder or distribution cables along the right-of-way.”

    In view of the above, explain Bell Aliant’s position that in the case of multiple poles connecting to the subscriber’s premises, only the last pole is considered to be a service pole.