ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter addressed to various parties interested in the procedural issues related to the direct connect (DC) service rate submissions of small incumbent local exchange carriers (SILECs)

Ottawa, 19 August 2015

Our references:  8740-N24-201506586, 8740-N23-201506594, 8740-N7-201506503, 8740-N10-201506742, 8740-U2-201506536, 8740-W3-201506578, 8740-B6-201506643, 8740-C1-201506627, 8740-C4-201506701, 8740-G2-201506635, 8740-H3-201506552, 8740-H4-201506495, 8740-L2-201506718, 8740-L3-201506528, 8740-M4-201506693, 8740-M5-201506510, 8740-Q2-201506544, 8740-R3-201506669, 8740-S4-201506726, 8740-S6-20150667, 8740-S7-201506651, 8740-T7-201506619

BY EMAIL

Distribution List

RE: Procedural issues related to the direct connect (DC) service rate submissions of small incumbent local exchange carriers (SILECs)

Dear Madams, Sirs:

On 22 June 2015, Brooke Telecom Co-operative Ltd., Cochrane Telecom Services, Téléphone de Courcelles, Gosfield North Communications Co-operative Limited, Hay Communications Co-operative Limited, HuronTel, Téléphone de Lambton, The Lansdowne Rural Telephone Company Ltd., Téléphone Milot inc., Mornington Communications Co-op Ltd., Nexicom Telecommunications, Nexicom Telephones, North Frontenac Telephone Corp., North Renfrew Telephone Company Limited o/a NRTC Communications, Quadro Communications Co-operative Inc., Roxborough Telephone Company Limited, Sogetel inc., Téléphone de St-Ephrem, La Compagnie de Téléphone de St-Victor, Tuckersmith Communications Co-operative Limited, La Compagnie de Téléphone Upton Inc., and WTC Communications (collectively, the SILECs) filed for Commission approval tariff pages for direct connect (DC) service in which the proposed rates were supported by cost studies. The applications, interventions, and replies raised a number of procedural issues that will be addressed in this letter.

Submissions that were not accompanied by abridged versions properly redacted for the public record

Certain information was provided to the Commission in confidence pursuant to section 39 of the Telecommunications Act.  NRTC Communications, WTC Communications, Nexicom Telephones, Nexicom Telecommunications, La Compagnie de Téléphone Upton Inc., Téléphone de St-Ephrem , Téléphone Milot Inc., Sogetel Inc., La Compagnie de Téléphone de Lambton Inc., and La Cie de Téléphone de Courcelles Inc. (collectively, these SILECs) filed submissions that were not accompanied by abridged versions properly redacted for the public record. On 17 July 2015, 23 July 2015, or 27 July 2015, Commission staff wrote to these SILECs to reiterate the following requirements set out at section 32 the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure:

(1)   The party that designates information as confidential must provide reasons, as well as any supporting documents, why the disclosure of the information would not be in the public interest, including why the specific direct harm that would be likely to result from the disclosure would outweigh the public interest; and

(2) The party must either file with the Commission an abridged version, intended to be made available to the public, of the document that contains the information or provide reasons, as well as any supporting documents, why an abridged version cannot be filed.

Accordingly, these SILECs were requested to provide, by 24 July 2015, 30 July 2015, or 3 August, abridged submissions for the public record or reasons for which abridged versions could not be filed.

Commission staff recognizes that interveners were unable to comment on the information that was filed in confidence in the absence of abridged submissions. In the interest of developing a fulsome record, Commission staff considers it appropriate that interested parties have an opportunity to comment on the information that has been filed in response to the request from Commission staff. Accordingly, interested parties may file interventions on this information until 21 September 2015, and these SILECs may file reply comments until 1 October 2015.

Bell’s request to add an interrogatory round

On 23 July 2015, Bell Canada (Bell) submitted an intervention requesting that the Commission add an interrogatory round of questioning to the tariff notice review process to allow parties to pose questions to all of the SILECs on their DC cost studies. Bell submitted that an interrogatory round is necessary because they are unable to assess whether the proposed DC rates are just and reasonable due to a lack of detail in the associated cost studies.

On 4 August 2015, the SILECs responded that Bell had ample information on the public record to provide its views on the reasonableness of the SILECs’ cost studies and that Bell’s proposed inclusion of an interrogatory round is unnecessary.

The Commission will evaluate the SILEC’s cost studies to determine whether the proposed rates are just and reasonable. Commission staff considers that the benefits of allowing parties to pose questions would not be commensurate with the increased burden on the SILECs. Accordingly, Bell’s request to allow parties to pose questions to all of the SILECs on their DC cost studies is denied.

Bell’s request that SILECs provide detailed cost information

Bell submitted that, for wholesale service cost studies, the Commission requires all carriers to provide the detailed cost information set out in a letter dated 12 July 2013 (re: Information to be provided in support of wholesale service tariff applications), and that the same information should be provided by all SILECs to allow Bell to conduct a more meaningful assessment of the SILEC’s cost studies.

The SILECs responded that the Commission’s requirement to provide detailed information as set out in the 12 July 2013 letter applies to large incumbent local exchange carriers and cable carriers, but not to SILECs.

Commission staff confirms that the requirements set out in the 12 July 2013 letter apply to ILECs and cable carriers. Accordingly, the SILECs are not required to provide the detailed cost information described in the 12 July 2013 letter at this time.   

Information filed in the SILECs’ reply comments

Bell and Allstream Inc. (Allstream) submitted that additional information would be required to meaningfully assess the proposed DC rates and associated cost studies. Bell noted that there is a wide dispersion in the proposed DC rates across the SILECs, and the lack of information makes it impossible to ascertain what precisely is causing differences in the proposed rates. Allstream submitted that it is unclear how certain inputs were calculated or why certain cost factors vary considerably.

In response, the SILECs provided information to explain variations in the proposed DC rates, and submitted that the information attached to its reply comments demonstrates that any variability between proposed DC rates is reasonable.

Commission staff considers that the information that was added to the public record through the SILECs’ reply, specifically the information that purports to demonstrate that the variability between proposed DC rates is reasonable, allows for the applications to be analysed in a manner that was not previously possible. In the interest of developing a fulsome record, Commission staff considers it appropriate that interested parties have an opportunity to comment on this information. Accordingly, interested parties may file interventions on this information until 31 August 2015, and the SILECs may file reply comments until 8 September 2015.

Sincerely

Original signed by Doug Thurston for

Lyne Renaud
Director, Competitor Services and Costing Implementation
Telecommunications sector

c.c.: Matthew Alexander, CRTC, 819-934-1511, matthew.alexander@crtc.gc.ca
Martin Brazeau, CRTC, 819-997-1028, martin.brazeau@crtc.gc.ca
Greg Milosek, CRTC’ 819-953-4720, gregory.milosek@crtc.gc.ca

Attach. Distribution List

Distribution List

Allen Trafford, iworkstation@mtsallstream.com
Angela Lawrence, a.lawrence@hay.net
Dave Smith, davesmith@frontenac.net
Glenn Grubb, grubb@hurontel.on.ca
Jean Bélanger, Telvic@telvic.net
Jean-Francois Mathieu, j-fmathieu@telupton.qc.ca
Jim Janssens, jim@brooketel.ca
John DeHeer, john.deheer@quadro.net
John E. Downs, jdowns@nexicomgroup.net
Lyne Rodrigue, telstep@telstep.net
Philippe Gauvin, bell.regulatory@bell.ca
R. Paul Downs, pdowns@nexicomgroup.net
Richard Banks, rbanks@mornington.ca
Rob Van Aaken, rob@tccmail.ca
Robert Petruk, regulatory@gosfieldtel.ca
Scott Mitchell, smitch@cochranetel.ca
Steve Lynn, steve@wtccommunications.ca
Sylvie Neault, sylvie.neault@sogetel.com
Tim J W Beach, tjwbeach@ontarioeast.net
William Grier, wagrier@1000island.net

Date modified:

2015-08-19