ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter addressed to Dallas Yeulett (Northwestel Inc.)

Ottawa, 10 October 2014                                   

Our reference: 8740-N1-201401116

By Email

Mr. Dallas Yeulett
Senior Manager, Regulatory Compliance
Northwestel Inc.
PO Box 2727
Whitehorse, Yukon  Y1A 4Y4
regulatoryaffairs@nwtel.ca

RE:   Northwestel Inc. Tariff Notice 904 and Tariff Notice 904A

Dear Sir:

On 4 February 2014, the Commission received an application by Northwestel Inc. (Northwestel) under Tariff Notice 904, which was subsequently amended by Tariff Notice 904A, dated 2 April 2014. Northwestel proposed to introduce General Tariff item 1735, Terrestrial ADSL and Cable Internet services, and item 1736 Terrestrial Enterprise Internet Services.

Paragraph 28(1)(a) of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure provides that the Commission may request parties to file information or documents where needed.

Northwestel is requested to provide responses to the attached questions by 30 October 2014.

Sincerely,

Original signed by

Michel Murray
Director, Regulatory Implementation
Telecommunications Sector

c.c: Joseph Cabrera, CRTC, (819) 934-6352, joseph.cabrera@crtc.gc.ca
Dean Proctor, SSi Group of Companies, (867) 669-7500, regulatory@ssimicro.com
Linda Maljan, Government of the Northwest Territories, (867)920-6205, linda_maljan@gov.nt.ca
Benjamin Sanders, Government of Yukon, benjamin.sanders@gov.yk.ca

Attach. (1)

ATTACHMENT

Request for information – Northwestel Tariff Notice 904 and Tariff Notice 904A

1. Refer to proposed tariff page 275 associated with TN 904A, where the company proposed that customers subscribing to residence and business ADSL service who do not have a telephone subscription will be charged, respectively, a $20 and $30 surcharge per month above the price referred to in the rate table.
   
   1. Confirm whether the company has adopted the methodology approved for calculating the surcharges identified in Telecom Order 2005-415, dated 22 December 2005, for Bell Canada, and Telecom Order 2006-64, dated 27 March 2006, for Saskatchewan Telecommunications.  If so, for each of the residential and business surcharges, provide the step-by-step calculation used to estimate these surcharges, in Excel format. If not, explain why not, with supporting rationale.
      
      
   2. If the response to i) above is negative,
      
      1. Provide the methodology, assumptions with supporting rationale, and source and vintage of data used to estimate the proposed surcharges for each of the residential and business surcharges. The response should provide the step-by-step calculation used to estimate these surcharges, in Excel format.
         
         
      2. Provide the residential and business surcharges estimated by using the methodology approved for calculating the surcharges identified in Telecom Order 2005-415 and Telecom Order 2006-64.  The response should provide, for each of the residential and business surcharges, the step-by-step calculation used to estimate these surcharges, in Excel format.
   3. Explain why the company proposes to apply the surcharge in high-cost areas but not in non-high-cost areas.
      
2. The Commission received comments from the Government of Northwest Territories (GNWT), the Yukon Government, and the SSi Group of Companies (SSi) regarding Northwestel’s proposed Internet services tariff. Among other things, GNWT and the Yukon Government expressed concern about the proposed rates for overage charges – that is, charges for usage that exceeds the amounts included in the subscribed service. GNWT submitted that the proposed overage rates, ranging from $2.50 to $7.50 per gigabyte, were too high and that Northwestel had provided no justification for these rates. The Yukon Government expressed concern that the proposed overage rates were a serious concern for consumers.
   
   Commission staff notes that most Internet service providers in the South provide either unlimited usage or subscription options for consumers to constrain the amounts that they are charged for overage. Further, some service providers notify customers when they are approaching their subscribed usage limits to warn them that they could incur overage charges. For example, MTS Inc. provides unlimited Internet usage for both residence and small business Internet service consumers. Also, Rogers Communications Partnership and Videotron G.P., both offer residential customers unlimited usage as a subscription option.
   
   1. For each non-grandfathered residential and business Internet service, for each of the first six months of 2014, identify the number of customers that exceeded the usage limit for that service and the average additional usage charge paid per month. Also provide the highest and lowest additional usage charge paid per month.
      
      
   2. In light of the response to i. above, provide the company’s justification for the proposed overage rates. The response should provide an explanation on how the overage rates were estimated (i.e. the methodology and assumptions with supporting rationale, and sources and vintage of data).
      
      
   3. Provide the company’s views of various methods for constraining overage charges (including an unlimited subscription option, among other options). The response should explain why the company has not implemented any method for constraining overage charges.  
      
      
   4. Assuming that the company is directed to implement an unlimited subscription option to constrain overage charges, propose a rate that would be associated with unlimited subscription.

Date modified:

2014-10-20