Search

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This page has been archived on the Web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.

Archived

This page has been archived on the Web.

Ottawa, 2 June 2014

Our Reference No.: 8690-E17-201401455

BY EMAIL

Ms. Natalie MacDonald
Vice President, Regulatory Matters
Eastlink
8th Floor, 6080 Young Street
Halifax
Nova Scotia  B3K 5M3
RegulatoryMatters@corp.eastlink.ca

Dear Ms. MacDonald,

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, Bragg Communications Inc. operating as Eastlink (Eastlink) is to file by 17 June 2014, responses to the interrogatories set out in the Attachment, serving a copy on Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership (Bell Aliant).

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

Yours sincerely,

Original signed by

Mario Bertrand
Director, Dispute Resolution
Telecommunications

c.c: Jesslyn Mullaney, CRTC, jesslyn.mullaney@crtc.gc.ca
Bell Aliant,  regulatory@bell.aliant.ca

Attachment

  1. Provide a copy of the letter from Bell Aliant dated 4 February 2013, that Eastlink referenced in paragraph 20 of its application.
  2. With the purchase of poles from Newfoundland Power by Bell Aliant and without Bell Aliant’s census of the service poles, would Eastlink have been able to provide Bell Aliant with the number of the service poles used by Eastlink?
  3. Given that Bell Aliant can charge the unreported attachment charge for unreported attachments on service poles, explain why the identification of service poles in Newfoundland and Labrador is not relevant.
  4. In reference to the letter dated 9 February 2000, filed as Attachment 2 to Bell Aliant’s answer, provide evidence that Eastlink objected to Bell Aliant’s interpretation to charge for “non-last poles”.
  5. Comment on how the use of Eastlink’s error rate would impact on a going-forward basis the application of the unauthorized attachment charge and unreported attachment charge.
  6. Provide a copy of invoices, letters and any correspondence from Bell Aliant that sets out the Late Payment Charges/Interest.
Date modified: