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This page has been archived on the Web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, 27 October 2016
Our reference: 8663-S4-201607293
Subject: Sogetel Inc.’s plan to implement local competition in the Nantes exchange
Dear Madam and Sirs:
On 21 October 2016, the Commission received Sogetel’s reply in response to the Commission’s request for information dated 8 September 2016. The Commission requires additional information in order to complete its assessment of Sogetel’s plan to implement local competition in the Nantes exchange.
Sogetel must file its replies to the Commission’s request for information, appended to this letter, by 7 November 2016, serving copies on the parties on the distribution list.
Cooptel and any other party may file comments with respect to the responses of Sogetel to the attached request for information by 14 November 2016 and send a copy of the comments to Sogetel. Sogetel will have until 18 November 2016 to file its final reply.
As set out in Broadcasting and Telecom Information Bulletin CRTC 2010-961, Procedures for filing confidential information and requesting its disclosure in Commission proceedings, any party may designate certain information as confidential. In such cases, the company must provide an abridged version of the document concerned, accompanied by a note explaining how the information removed is confidential.
All submissions are to be made in accordance with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure, SOR/2010-277.
Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Imen Arfaoui at 819-997-4663 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Original signed by
Director, Dispute Resolution and Regulatory Implementation
Roger Choquette, Consultant and Authorized Representative, email@example.com
Isis Thiago de Souza, Sogetel, firstname.lastname@example.org
Sylvain Bellerive, Sogetel, email@example.com
Pierre Allard, CoopTel, firstname.lastname@example.org
Jean-Vincent Dorais, Câble Axion, email@example.com
Marc Pilon, CRTC, firstname.lastname@example.org
Imen Arfaoui, CRTC, imen.arfaoui @crtc.gc.ca
Request for information – Sogetel’s plan to implement local competition for Cooptel, on behalf of Axion
Questions for Sogetel
In response to question 1 of the Commission’s request for information dated 8 September 2016, Sogetel submitted two new connection options, namely, establishing a new point of interconnection (POI) in Nantes (option 1), or using the Lac Etchemin local interconnection region (LIR) and upgrading ring OC-48, which connects Nantes to Beauceville (option 2).
Sogetel stated that even if option 1—the least costly of the three options—is selected, the costs involved are so high that it will be impossible to recover them fully through the cost recovery mechanisms set out in Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2011-291 and that Sogetel will be required to absorb significant amounts.
- Given the limited number of network access services in the Nantes exchange and, therefore, the minimal requirements to allow for local competition to be implemented (e.g., in terms of the required capacity), please identify all other lower-cost technical options available to allow for interconnection from the Nantes POI, as well as the costs associated with each new option identified.
- For each technical solution proposed, please state whether local number portability (LNP) would be a) full, i.e., both porting out and porting in provided; b) partial, i.e., porting out provided only, as per Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-14; or c) impossible to determine.
- Given the limited number of network access services in the Nantes exchange, could the Metaswitch-brand switch be replaced with another switch or a lower-cost set of equipment while ensuring LNP?
- Apart from implementing local competition in Nantes, please identify your plan to replace the current DCO-brand switch at Nantes, which is at the end of its service life, including the associated costs and the date by which Sogetel plans to replace this switch.
- Date modified: