ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter addressed to various parties interested in the Review of wholesale services and associated policies, Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2013-551 – Requests for Information (second round)

Ottawa, 31 July 2014

Our reference:  8663-C12-201313601

BY EMAIL

Distribution

Re:  Review of wholesale services and associated policies, Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2013-551 – Requests for Information (second round)

Dear Madams/Sirs:

Pursuant to the procedure set out in Review of wholesale services and associated policies, Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2013-551, as amended,^{Footnote 1} attached are the second round of Commission interrogatories associated with this proceeding.

Responses to these interrogatories are to be filed with the Commission, and served on all parties to this proceeding, by 29 August 2014.  Parties are asked to group their responses to these information requests into one document (or, at a minimum, one document per requestor) in order to facilitate accessibility and administrative processing.

As set out in Broadcasting and Telecom Information Bulletin 2010-961, Procedures for filing confidential information and requesting its disclosure in Commission proceedings, companies may designate certain information as confidential. Companies must provide an abridged version of the document involved, accompanied by a detailed explanation on why the information removed is confidential.

Appendix 1 contains the distribution list.

Appendix 2 contains the interrogatories and to whom they are addressed.

Sincerely,

Original signed by

Lyne Renaud
Director, Competitor Services and Costing
Telecommunications Sector

c.c.: Philippe Kent, CRTC, 819 953-4057, philippe.kent@crtc.gc.ca
james.e.dingwell@yahoo.com; nels2510@telus.net; robin.winsor@cybera.ca; steve@openmedia.ca; reza.rajabiun@ryerson.ca; darrellkrahn@shaw.ca; chall2k5@gmail.com; heather.b.gold@ftthcouncil.org; ron.murch@haskayne.ucalgary.ca; jeff_mcnamee@sympatico.ca; harry.sharma@canarie.ca; cedwards@ccsa.cable.ca; regulatory@ssimicro.com; rs@summer.com; john.pecman@cb-bc.gc.ca; jpanter@auroracollege.nt.ca; radams@coquitlam.ca; regulatory@bcba.ca; george.burger@vmedia.ca; rob.olenick@tbaytel.com; jonathan.holmes@itpa.ca; benjamin.sanders@gov.yk.ca; maryanne.bendfled@calgary.ca; blackwell@giganomics.ca; jfmezei@vaxination.ca
aahmed@lynxmobility.com; regulatory@icewireless.ca; lisajackson@globalive.com; gary.wong@mobilicity.ca

Appendix 1

Distribution List:

Competitors
Canadian Network Operators Consortium Inc. (CNOC) ctacit@tacitlaw.com
Distributel Communications Limited (Distributel) regulatory@distributel.ca
Fibernetics Corporation (Fibernetics) regulatory@fibernetics.ca
Primus Telecommunications Canada Inc. (Primus) regulatory@primustel.ca

Cablecos
Bragg Communications Inc. (Eastlink) regulatory.matters@corp.eastlink.ca
Cogeco Cable Inc. (Cogeco) michel.messier@cogeco.com
Québecor Média inc. (Videotron) dennis.beland@quebecor.com
Rogers Communications (Rogers) david.watt@rci.rogers.com
Shaw Cablesystems G.P. (Shaw) regulatory@sjrb.ca

Large incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs)
Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership (Bell Aliant) and Télébec, Limited Partnership (Télébec) regulatory@bell.aliant.ca
Bell Canada; bell.regulatory@bell.ca
MTS Allstream iworkstation@mtsallstream.com
Saskatchewan Telecommunications (SaskTel) document.control@sasktel.com
TELUS Communications Company (TELUS) regulatory.affairs@telus.com

Non-affiliated Wireless Service Providers (WSPs)
Lynx Mobility Inc (Lynx). aahmed@lynxmobility.com
SSI Micro Ltd. (SSI Micro) regulatory@ssimicro.com
Ice Wireless Inc. (Ice) regulatory@icewireless.ca
Globalive Wireless Management Corp. (WIND) lisajackson@globalive.com
Data & Audio Visual Enterprises Wireless Inc. (MOBILICITY) gary.wong@mobilicity.ca

Other Competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs)
Yak Communications (Canada) Corp.(Yak) lisagoetz@globalive.com

Miscellaneous entities
Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB) corinne.pohlmann@cfib.ca  
Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) jfleger@piac.ca
Union des consommateurs (Union) slambert-racine@uniondesconsommateurs.ca;

Appendix 2

Interrogatories to large ILECs (Bell Aliant, Bell Canada, MTS Allstream, SaskTel, Télébec, and TELUS)

1. In regards to your respective company’s business access services:
   1. Provide the total number of commercial buildings in your incumbent serving territory as of the end of 2013, by province and further broken down by rate band, and indicate how many commercial buildings in each rate band are connected with fibre access facilities. Use the following table.

      Province	Rate band	Commercial buildings	Commercial buildings connected with fibre access facilities

   2. For your out-of-territory operations, as of the end of 2013 how many commercial buildings were connected to your company’s network with fibre access facilities, by rate band?  Include separate totals for any affiliates, subsidiaries or acquired companies.
   3. At the end of 2008, how many commercial buildings were connected to your company’s out-of-territory network with fibre access facilities, by province?  Include separate totals for any affiliates, subsidiaries or acquired companies.
   4. Of the fibre access connections to commercial buildings made out-of-territory since 2008, how many resulted from the acquisition of other companies?
   5. Excluding the acquisition of other companies, since 2008 approximately how much capital has your company expended in expanding its out-of-territory fibre access facilities to commercial buildings to provide Ethernet or other retail services based on Ethernet protocol?
   6. What percentage of your out-of-territory business access revenues relies on access facilities leased from another service provider?
2. List each out-of-territory province in which your company subscribes to another ILEC’s CDN access services. In each case, provide the monthly rate per access your company paid to the ILEC for CDN DS-3, OC-3 and OC-12 services, respectively, in 2013 (by rate band if applicable).
3. In regard to unbundled local loops, provide the total residential NAS situated in rates bands A and B in your incumbent serving territory. What percentage of your company’s total in-territory residential NAS does this represent?
4. Provide, by rate band, your company’s total revenues for retail Ethernet services for each year from 2008-2013.

Interrogatories to cablecos (Eastlink, Cogeco, Rogers, Shaw and Videotron)

5. In regards to your respective company’s business access services:
   1. Provide an overview as to your business strategy for business customers. For example, describe your target business customer, the services that you make available to them, and how such services are provisioned within your network.
   2. Provide your company’s total business revenues for 2013. Of those revenues, what percentage is derived from large enterprise customers (i.e. companies with over 500 employees)?
   3. Provide the total number of commercial buildings that are currently connected to your company’s network. Of those, how many are connected with fibre access facilities? Include separate totals for any affiliates, subsidiaries or acquired companies.
   4.  For each census metropolitan area (CMA)^{Footnote 2}  in which your company operates, identify the total number of commercial buildings connected to your company’s network with fibre access facilities. Include separate totals for any affiliates, subsidiaries or acquired companies.
   5. Provide the total number of commercial buildings that were connected to your company’s network at the end of 2008. Include separate totals for any affiliates, subsidiaries or acquired companies.
   6. Of the connections to commercial buildings made since 2008, how many resulted from the acquisition of other companies?
   7. Excluding the acquisition of other companies, since 2008 how much capital has your company expended in expanding its fibre access facilities to commercial buildings to provide Ethernet or other retail data services? 
   8. Approximately what percentage of your retail business access revenues relies on access facilities leased from another service provider?
   9. Provide your company’s total revenues for retail Ethernet services for each year from 2008-2013.
6. In its second intervention CNOC proposed that the Broadband Access Service should be provided by both ILECs and cable carriers and would “serve as a foundation for competition going forward”.  Comment on the feasibility providing a disaggregated cable-based wholesale high-speed access service that would correspond to the Broadband Access Service proposed by CNOC.  Provide the company’s view on the service configuration and an estimate of the cost to implement such a service, with supporting rationale.
7. With reference to _____ (CRTC)28Mar14- 19, provide the additional information requested below at year-end 2013 and forecast by year for 2014, 2015, and 2016:
   1. the total number of homes/premises passed by FTTP,
   2. the total number of homes/premises passed by FTTN,
   3. the total number of homes/premises passed by legacy DSL,
   4. the total number of homes/premises passed by FTTN excluding homes also passed by FTTP,
   5. the total number of homes passed only by FTTP (exclude homes also passed by FTTN and/or legacy DSL),
   6. the total number of homes passed only by FTTN (exclude homes also passed by FTTP and/or legacy DSL),
   7. the total number of homes/premises passed only by legacy DSL (exclude homes also passed by FTTN and/or FTTP).

      Where applicable, indicate which specific information the company has already provided in the referenced interrogatory.

Interrogatories to large ILECs (Bell Aliant, Bell Canada, MTS Allstream, SaskTel, Télébec, and TELUS) and cablecos (Eastlink, Cogeco, Rogers, Shaw and Videotron)

8. At paragraphs 105-108 of its 27 June 2014 submission, CNOC proposes that, in the event that a competitive ISP wins a retail customer served over incumbent FTTP facilities, the ISP concerned would buy the fibre drop wire and related equipment from the incumbent. CNOC further proposes that in the event the customer subsequently changes its service provider, the new provider of service would acquire ownership of the fibre drop and related equipment from the ISP. Comment on the viability of CNOC’s proposal, specifically addressing the operational issues that may be involved, as well as the impact that acceptance of the proposal would have on the financial case for the incumbent’s investments in FTTP facilities.
9. For each of the years 2009 to 2013,
   1. Provide, by province, the total number of retail Internet service customers served by the company and the associated revenue. In addition provide, by province, a breakdown of the retail Internet service demand by speed and associated revenue for each year.
   2. Provide, by province the total number of wholesale high-speed access (HSA) service end-users served by the company and the associated revenue . In addition provide by province a breakdown of the end-user HSA service demand by speed and associated revenue for each year.
10. For each of the years 2014 to 2016,
    1. Provide by province, a forecast of the total number of retail Internet service customers served by the company and the associated revenue. In addition provide by province, a breakdown of the retail Internet service demand by speed and associated revenue for each forecast year.
    2. Provide, by province, a forecast of the total number of wholesale HSA service end-users served by the company and the associated revenue. In addition provide, by province, a breakdown of the end-user wholesale HSA service demand by speed and associated revenue for each forecast year.

Interrogatories to large ILECs (Bell Aliant, Bell Canada, MTS Allstream, SaskTel, Télébec, and TELUS) and large Cablecos (Cogeco, Rogers, Shaw, and Videotron)

11. Update the responses to the following requests for information (as appropriate) with full year 2013 data: Bell Aliant(CRTC)15Oct13-105; Bell Canada(CRTC)15Oct13-105; MTS Allstream(CRTC)15Oct13-105; SaskTel(CRTC)15Oct13-105; Télébec(CRTC)15Oct13-105; TELUS(CRTC)15Oct13-105; Cogeco(CRTC)15Oct13-105; Rogers(CRTC)15Oct13-105; Shaw(CRTC)15Oct13-105; Videotron (CRTC)15Oct13-105.
12. Update responses to the following requests for information (as appropriate) so as to provide full year 2013 totals for capital expenditures and homes passed for the network technologies identified pursuant to the following requests for information (as appropriate): Bell Aliant (CRTC)15Oct13-201 b) and c); Bell Canada(CRTC)15Oct13-201 b) and c; MTS Allstream(CRTC)15Oct13-201 b) and c; SaskTel(CRTC)15Oct13-201 b) and c; Télébec(CRTC)15Oct13-201 b) and c; TELUS(CRTC)15Oct13-201 b) and c; Cogeco(CRTC)15Oct13-201 b) and c; Rogers(CRTC)15Oct13-201 b) and c; Shaw(CRTC)15Oct13-201 b) and c; Videotron (CRTC)15Oct13-201 b) and c.
13. For each of the years 2009 to 2013, provide the number of subscribers that are connected and receiving service via each of the major network technologies identified pursuant to your respective responses to (CRTC)15Oct13-201 a). In addition, for each of the years 2014 to 2016 provide a forecast of the total number of subscribers that would be connected and receiving services via each of the major network technologies identified pursuant to your respective responses to (CRTC)15Oct13-202 a).
14. In ______(CRTC)15Oct13-202 the company provided the costs to connect a fibre drop for its FTTP service. Provide the costs for an FTTP fibre drop broken down by the cost of each type of required equipment and installation costs.

Interrogatories to large ILECs (Bell Aliant, Bell Canada, MTS Allstream, SaskTel, Télébec, TELUS), Cablecos (Cogeco, Eastlink, Rogers, Shaw, Videotron) and Competitors (CNOC members, Distributel, Primus, and Fibernetics)

15. Several parties have raised concerns about the impact that mandating a wholesale service may have on network investments by either the suppliers of the service or the associated users. Provide your views whether and how concerns regarding the potential negative impact that mandating a wholesale service could have on network investments should be incorporated into the Commission’s wholesale service policy. In addition, to what extent, if any, should time constraints (e.g. sunset provisions or moratoriums) be contemplated when a decision is made to mandate a wholesale service, and, if so, how in and in what context?
16. Some parties in this proceeding have indicated that the rates for wholesale services approved by the Commission have in some instances been flawed, either because the rate setting approach (based on Phase II costs plus a markup) is flawed, or because the process used to approve the rates is flawed.
    1. Identify, with full rationale, any specific concerns regarding the rate setting principles applied by the Commission, or concerns regarding the process used by the Commission to review the costs provided by parties.
    2. Provide, with full rationale, any improvements that should be made to the Commission’s rate setting principles, or improvements to the process for reviewing rate proposals of incumbents.
    3. Provide, with full rationale, suggestions for improving the consistency of incumbent provided costs.  Specifically comment on the potential for improving the consistency of cost information provided by incumbents through the development of approved guidelines for network driven and other costs.
    4. At paragraphs 218- 220 of its 31 January 2014 submission, CNOC has proposed that the Commission establish a CISC Costing Working Group, composed of Commission staff and industry participants, to promote greater transparency, understanding and consistency in the wholesale rate setting process.
       1. Provide, with complete rationale, your views on the merits of CNOC’s proposal for a CISC Costing Working Group.
       2. Provide, with complete rationale your view on the feasibility and merits of CNOC’s proposal for establishing a single cost model for ILECs and another for cable carriers based on the costs of an efficient operator (for example cost models for the wholesale high-speed access services).  Further, provide your views on how such cost models could be developed.
    5. Provide your views on the merits of a rating approach where the incumbent would maintain a minimum margin between its wholesale and retail service rates. Further comment on the appropriateness of setting this minimum margin such that an efficient competitor can continue to offer these services to consumers and earn an appropriate return, while at the same time maintain wholesale service rates at a level that would preserve incumbent investment incentives.
    6. Comment on the potential to improve the rate setting process used to establish rates for wholesale services by supplementing the current rate setting approach with alternative approaches to inform the Commission such as (i) ‘top down’ costing models, (ii) common ‘bottom up’ costing models based on an efficient operator or (iii) retail service prices and the costs that are likely to be incurred by an efficient competitor.  
17. Regarding the use of negotiated agreements for the purpose of establishing wholesale service rates, provide your views as to the following:
    1. Should the Commission contemplate mandating certain wholesale services solely through commercially negotiated rates (i.e. absent ex ante wholesale rate regulation), and, if so, under what conditions and circumstances? For which services, if any, would such an approach be appropriate?
    2. Should a Commission mediation and/or arbitration process be contemplated to supplement a negotiated agreement framework, and, if so, under what conditions and circumstances?
    3. What would be a reasonable amount of public disclosure, balancing the desire for transparency, the need to properly guard against breaches of subsection 27(2) of the Telecommunications Act, the objectives of minimizing interference with market forces and minimizing the regulatory burden, associated with your answers above?
18. If the Commission were to reverse forbearance from the regulation of high-speed CDN access and wholesale Ethernet access services, in part or in whole, comment on the appropriateness of applying a similar forbearance framework to the one established for retail DNA services in Telecom Decision 2007-35 (i.e., where Ethernet access services would remain forborne in those ILEC exchanges that have been forborne pursuant to that decision).

19. Provide your views on the Policy Brief published by CFIB in May 2014 entitled “Calling for Change: Small- and medium-sized enterprises’ perspective on the telecommunications industry in Canada” (http://www.cfib-fcei.ca/cfib-documents/5576.pdf).
20. Provide your views on the report published by Wall Communications Inc. in July 2014 entitled “Price Comparisons of Wireline, Wireless and Internet Services in Canada and with Foreign Jurisdictions 2014 Update” (http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/publications/reports/rp140714.htm)

Interrogatories to MTS Allstream, SaskTel, Télébec, TELUS, Cablecos (Cogeco, Eastlink, Rogers, Shaw, Videotron) and Competitors (CNOC members, Distributel, Primus, and Fibernetics

21. In its first intervention, Bell Canada proposed that the Commission refrain from any further reduction in the wholesale rates for legacy services (e.g. ULLs, DSL, and low-speed CDN services), in order to encourage a broader transition to next generation facilities and services (refer to paragraphs 218 to 229 of Bell Canada’s 31 January 2014 intervention). Provide your views or any additional comments with respect to this proposal.

Interrogatory to Bell Aliant, Bell Canada and TELUS

22. Refer to tables A (CDN DS-3 Access), B (CDN OC-3 Access) and C (CDN OC-12 Access) in your company’s response to request for information ______CRTC28Mar14-23. For each service, provide:
    1. The list of companies that subscribed to the service in 2013;
    2. The number of accesses each company leased in 2013, by rate band;
    3. The total revenue received from each company in 2013, by rate band;
    4. The monthly rate per access (or average monthly rate if applicable) charged to each company, by rate band, in 2013;
    5. The reasons behind the variance between the low and high rates.

Interrogatory to Bell Aliant, Bell Canada and TELUS

23. Refer to table F (CDN CO Channelization) in your company’s response to request for information ______CRTC28Mar14-23.  Provide the following with respect to CO Channelization service:
    1. The list of companies that subscribed to the service in 2013;
    2. Total revenue received from each company in 2013 by rate band;
    3. The monthly rate each company paid by rate band, in 2013;
    4. The reasons behind the variance between the low and high rates.

Interrogatory to CNOC, Cablecos (Cogeco, Eastlink, Rogers, Shaw, Videotron) and MTS Allstream

24. Considering the responses to (CRTC)28Mar2014-26, provide your views as to whether the Ethernet (or equivalent services) identified by the large cable companies are within the same product market as the Ethernet services identified by the large ILECs.

Interrogatory to Shaw

25. In regards to the company’s Go WiFi service:
    1. Provide the total amount of capital and operating expenditures, or nearest estimate, that Shaw has spent in deploying its Go WiFi service since its inception.
    2. Is Shaw’s Go WiFi service available as a stand-alone service (i.e. without subscribing to the company’s wireline internet service)? If so, in which markets and at what monthly fee? If not, are there plans to make the Go WiFi service available as a stand-alone service, and, if so, in which markets and at what monthly fee?
    3. Is Shaw’s Go WiFi service capable of delivering services to business customers? If so, what would be the comparable DS-x or OC-x speed equivalent?

Interrogatory to CFIB

26.  Refer to the Policy Brief published by CFIB in May 2014 entitled “Calling for Change: Small- and medium-sized enterprises’ perspective on the telecommunications industry in Canada” (http://www.cfib-fcei.ca/cfib-documents/5576.pdf).
    1. In light of the CFIB’s findings in this report, provide any additional comments, expanded views or further evidence the CFIB might have with respect to the amount of choice available for business customers in the market for retail business telecommunications services, particularly for fibre-based services such as high-speed Digital Network Access services and Ethernet services, and what measures the Commission ought to take, if any, to improve competitive options available to SMEs.
    2. Refer to Appendix A.1 of the report. If available, provide a list and percent breakdown of the “Other” companies providing wired internet services in Ontario and Quebec.

Interrogatory to Rogers

27. Refer to Rogers’ response to Rogers(CRTC)15Oct13-105. Explain the differences between the services labeled “Ethernet”, “Ethernet Over Cable” and “Rogers Ethernet Services”.

Interrogatory to Bell Canada

28. Refer to Bell Canada’s response to The Companies(CRTC)15Oct13-103.  Provide the percentage of revenues from “Competitor Digital Network (CDN) Services – Non Regulated” that were associated with CDN access services (for each year).
29. Refer to Tables 1, 2 and 3 in your company’s 27 June 2014 intervention.  For each date listed, provide the corresponding retail rate charged by Bell Canada for stand-alone 6 Mbps DSL service.
30. Does Bell Canada have, and make use of, a location-specific footprint prioritization model, as described in Bell Aliant’s 27 June 2014 submission (or a comparable model) to assess the business case for FTTP investment in its serving territory? If yes, could this model be adapted to assess the impact of mandated wholesale access to FTTP facilities on the financial case for FTTP investment in Bell Canada’s serving territory, as Bell Aliant has done?
31. Refer to table J (Ethernet Transport) in your company’s response to request for information Bell Canada(CRTC)28Mar14-23.  For each “Path Burstable” service, provide the following:
    1. The list of companies that subscribed to the service in 2013;
    2. Total revenue received from each company in 2013 by rate band;
    3. The monthly rate each company paid by rate band, in 2013;
    4. The reasons behind the variance between the low and high rates for the “Path Burstable” offerings and why the same degree of variance is not found in the “Path Dedicated” offerings.

Interrogatory to Bell Aliant

32. At paragraph 49 of its 27 June 2014 submission Bell Aliant indicates that a regulatory requirement to provide wholesale access over FTTP facilities will have a significantly negative effect on the company’s business case for FTTP investment. This submission is supported by a financial analysis of the business case for expanding FTTP investment in 21 locations (FTTP investment), and the effect that mandating FTTP access would have on the business case for those 21 locations.
    1. Provide an electronic copy of the “location specific footprint prioritization model” (the model) that has been used to develop this financial analysis.
    2. Is the model that was used to develop this analysis an Incremental Value Assessment (IVA) model as defined in the company’s Phase II costing manual. If not, provide a complete and detailed description of the differences between this model and an IVA model.
    3. Are the financial parameters and tax rates used in the analysis consistent with the parameters and tax rates currently approved in the company’s Phase II cost manual? If not, provide the financial parameters and tax rates used in the analysis, using the format that is used in a Phase II cost analysis. 
    4. Are the 21 locations used in the analysis the only locations in Bell Aliant’s operating territory where the company was considering FTTP investment on the basis of a positive Net Present Value (NPV) in 2014? If not, provide the names of other locations where the company is considering investment in FTTP, and explain why these locations were not included in the analysis.
    5. For each of the 21 locations used in the analysis: (i) what is the number of households in the location that are forecast to be passed by the company’s  FTTP facilities, and what percent of total households in the community does this represent; (ii) of the households passed by the company’s FTTP facilities, what percent are forecast to take telecom  services from the company over these facilities, and (iii) provide the company’s best estimate of its current retail market share for Internet services in these locations.  
    6. The company has identified a list of ten (10) assumptions that were overlaid on the reference plan (no FTTP investment) to arrive at the alternate plan results (FTTP investment with mandated wholesale access to FTTP).  Provide the alternate plan results, in the format of Attachment 1, for each of the variations described below:

       Scenario 1: Wholesale penetration to addressable households reaches 5% by year six; all other assumptions remain as posited in the company’s submission;
       Scenario 2: 90% of retail customers served by wholesale ISPs transfer from service providers other than Bell Aliant; all other assumptions remain as posited in the company’s submission. 

    7. How would the financial impact of mandated wholesale access to FTTP facilities be affected by the  acceptance of CNOC’s proposal that competitive ISPs buy from incumbents the fibre drop wire and related equipment  serving ISP end customers? (CNOC’s proposal is described at paragraphs 105 to 108 of its 27 June 2014 submission.)

Interrogatory to MTS Allstream

33. Refer to MTS Allstream’s response to MTS Allstream(CRTC)15Oct13-105.  Provide the percentage of revenues from “CDN Services (Forborne in 2013)” that were associated with CDN access services (for each year).

Interrogatory to PIAC & Union

34. ILEC billing and collection revenues have declined steadily over the past several years, from a total of $13.6 million in revenues in 2008 to just over $3.6 million in 2013. Provide your views as to the impacts that consumers, or particular consumer segments, might face if carriers were no longer mandated to offer Billing and Collection services? Provide any available data supporting your views.
35. Describe any impacts that consumers, or particular consumer segments, might face if the Commission were to adopt TELUS’ proposal of an “orderly unwind” of the requirement to provide Equal Access.
36. Provide your views with respect to the report published by Wall Communications Inc. in July 2014 entitled “Price Comparisons of Wireline, Wireless and Internet Services in Canada and with Foreign Jurisdictions 2014 Update” (http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/publications/reports/rp140714.htm).

Interrogatory to CNOC and Fibrenetics

37. Refer to paragraph 58 of CNOC’s 27 June 2014 intervention. Provide additional details regarding “the introduction of unique IPTV offerings” including which companies offer IPTV and how the service is configured/delivered to customers.  For each company that provides IPTV services, provide the revenue and number of subscribers for the year 2013.
38. For each CNOC member with access facilities connected to commercial buildings, provide, using the following table:
    1.  the total number of commercial buildings that are currently connected to your company’s network with fibre access facilities;
    2. the number of commercial buildings that were connected to your company’s network with fibre access facilities in each of the years 2008-2013;
    3. the percent (or best estimate) of commercial buildings currently connected with fibre access facilities that are located in census metropolitan areas (CMAs).^{Footnote 3}

       Company	Commercial buildings connected with fibre access facilities							Percent in CMAs
       	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	Current

39. Does your company plan to expand its fibre access footprint? If so, provide a brief description of the extent, timeframe and geographic areas of such expansion.

Interrogatory to non-affiliated WSPs (Lynx, SSI Micro, Ice, WIND, MOBILICITY)

40. Under the current rules regarding WSPs’ interconnection with ILECs, WSPs are permitted to interconnect either directly or indirectly. For direct network interconnection, a WSP can either (i) become a type II CLEC (i.e. a wireless CLEC) or (ii) subscribe to the ILEC’s wireless access service. Alternatively, the WSP could establish an indirect network interconnection with the ILEC through interconnection arrangements that the WSP has established with another local exchange carrier, which has established local network interconnection arrangements with that ILEC.

    Provide your views with respect to TELUS’ proposal that wireless access service no longer be mandated for ILECs.

Interrogatory to Competitors (CNOC, Distributel, Fibrenetics, and Primus) and Yak

41. Pursuant to TELUS’ proposal, certain Switching and Aggregation Services (notably direct connect for the purpose of toll call origination), Access Tandem Services (for call origination and call termination), Transit and EAS Transport Services, and Co-location Services (other than for interconnection with the ILEC) should no longer be mandated (Refer to section 5.2 of TCC’s 31 January 2014 intervention and sections 3.1 to 3.5 of TCC’s 27 June 2014 intervention).

    Provide your views with respect to TELUS’ proposal that such interconnection services no longer be mandated for ILECs.

Date modified:

2014-07-31