ARCHIVED - Telecom Procedural Letter addressed to Distribution List

This page has been archived on the Web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.

Ottawa, 2 October 2015

Our reference:  8740-T66-201503970


Distribution List

Re:  TELUS Communications Company Tariff Notice 494

The purpose of this letter is to set out additional process seeking comment on certain aspects of Tariff Notice (TN) 494, filed by TELUS Communications Company (TCC) on 1 May 2015. In TN 494, TCC proposed to revise its monthly pole rate from $1.44 (established in Telecom Decision CRTC 2010-900 ) to $1.60 on a retroactive basis as a result of the determinations of Telecom Decision CRTC 2014-645.

In its intervention of 22 May 2015, Shaw Cablesystems G.P. (Shaw) argued that, with TN 494, TCC is seeking to review and vary Telecom Decision 2010-900. Shaw submitted that TN 494 should be treated as a review and vary application because, among other things, the TN alleges that the pole rate established in Telecom Decision 2010-900 was incorrect at the time it was established and TCC is seeking a retrospective rate adjustment.

In its reply to interventions dated 10 June 2015, TCC submitted that TN 494 does not seek to review and vary Telecom Decision 2010-900 as it does not question the correctness of that decision or the costs it entitles TCC to recover.

In Telecom Information Bulletin 2011-214,  the Commission outlined the criteria it would use to distinguish review and vary applications from new applications. The Commission further set out the criteria it would use to determine whether to exercise its discretion pursuant to section 62 of the Telecommunications Act (the Act) to review and vary previous Commission decisions.

Commission staff requests that TCC and the interveners in the TN 494 proceeding besides Shaw, being Bragg Communications Inc. carrying on business as Eastlink, and Allstream Inc. comment on the following, having regard to Telecom Information Bulletin 2011-214:

Parties may file their responses within 10 business days of the date of this letter.  Thereafter, Shaw may reply within 10 business days of the response deadline.

Original signed by

Lyne Renaud
Director, Competitor Service & Costing Implementation
Telecommunications Sector
c.c.:  Curtis Eagan, Analyst, CRTC, 819-953-4947,

Distribution List:
TELUS Communications Company,
Shaw Cablesystems G.P.,
Bragg Communications Inc., d/b/a Eastlink,
Allstream Inc., 

Review of the large incumbent local exchange carriers’ support structure service rates, Telecom Decision CRTC 2010-900, 2 December 2010

Revised guidelines for review and vary applications, Telecom Information Bulletin CRTC 2011-214, 25 March 2011

Date modified: