ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter Addressed to Suzanne Morin (Bell Aliant Regional Communications, L.P.) and Philippe Gauvin (Bell Canada)

Ottawa, 30 July 2014

Our reference:  8740-B54-201406281 and 8740-B2-201406299

BY EMAIL

Ms. Suzanne Morin
Bell Aliant Regional Communications, L.P.
160 Elgin Street, 19th floor
Ottawa, Ontario K2P 2C4
regulatory@bell.aliant.ca

Mr. Philippe Gauvin
Bell Canada
160 Elgin Street, 19th floor
Ottawa, Ontario K2P 2C4
bell.regulatory@bell.ca

RE: Bell Aliant Tariff Notice No. 488 and Bell Canada Tariff Notice 7436

Dear Madam, Sir:

On 3 July 2014, the Commission received an application from Bell Aliant Regional Communications, L.P. and Bell Canada (the Bell companies) associated with Tariff Notices 488 and 7436, respectively.  In their applications, the Bell companies proposed a revision to their Access Service Tariff (AST) Item 122 – Ethernet Central Office Connecting Links (ECCL), to provide a new 10 Gigabit Ethernet (GE) ECCL service, in Ontario and Quebec. 

The Bell companies proposed to amend tariff Item 122 such that the rate for the 10GE ECCL service is the same as the rate for the 1GE ECCL service.

The Bell companies are requested to provide responses to the attached interrogatories, by 3 September 2014.

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.

Sincerely,

Original signed by

Lyne Renaud
Director, Competitor Services & Costing
Telecommunications Sector

c.c.:  Trichur Krishnan, CRTC, 819-953-9584, trichur.krishnan@crtc.gc.ca

Attachment

Bell Aliant Tariff Notice No. 488 and Bell Canada Tariff Notice 7436 10GE Ethernet Central Office Connecting Link Service Interrogatories

1. Refer to the Bell companies’ tariff applications, dated 3 July 2014, for the 10GE ECCL service.
   1. Provide, for each of the Bell companies, an economic evaluation study with an associated report (study report) for the 10GE ECCL service. Each study report should also include the detailed cost information outlined in the staff letter dated 13 September 2013 titled “Information to be provided in support of wholesale service tariff applications”.
   2. Further to the response provided in question 1a), explain why the rate for the 10 GE ECCL service should not be based on the study report. Provide a revised one-time service charge for the 10GE ECCL service based on this study report. 
   3. Provide the Bell companies’ view, with supporting rationale, as to why the recovery of 10GE ECCL service costs should remain as a one-time service charge, as opposed to recovery on a monthly rate basis similar to the approach for other link^{Footnote 1} services.
   4. Assuming that the costs for the 10GE ECCL service are to be recovered on a monthly basis, provide a proposed monthly rate for this service based on the study report in question 1a) above.
2. In the Bell companies’ covering letter to these applications, the Bell companies indicated that “...since the proposed 10GE ECCL will use exactly the same facility, we propose to amend that tariff to indicate that the current rate for the 1GE ECCL also applies to the new 10GE ECCL”. Based on this statement, confirm whether the  one-time service charge or recurring monthly rate for the 10GE ECCL service, calculated based on the study report filed in response to question 1a), would also apply to the 1GE ECCL service.  If not, explain why not with supporting rationale.

Date modified:

2014-07-30