ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter Addressed to Richard Biron (Téléphone Milot inc.)

Ottawa, 19 December 2016

Our reference:  8740-M4-201506693

BY EMAIL

Mr. Richard Biron
Téléphone Milot inc.
111 rue du 12-Novembre
Nicolet, QC  J3T 1S3
richard.biron@sogetel.com

RE: Téléphone Milot inc. Tariff Notice 80 for direct connect (DC) service – Request for Information

Dear Mr. Biron:

The Commission received responses to the Commission staff requests for information filed on 05 October 2016, by Téléphone Milot inc. (the Applicant).

Commission staff is seeking additional supporting information from the Applicant in the above-noted file and is setting out additional process related to this application. The Applicant is to provide their response to the attached interrogatories, which contain redacted confidential information, by no later than 09 January 2017. Accordingly, any party that has already submitted comments on the above-noted file may comment on the responses by no later than 16 January 2017. The Applicant may reply to the points raised by the interveners by no later than 23 January 2017.   

Parties are reminded that these submissions must actually be received, not merely sent, by that date.

Sincerely,

Original signed by

Lyne Renaud
Director, Competitor Services and Costing Implementation
Telecommunications sector

c.c.: Matthew Alexander, CRTC, 819-934-1511, matthew.alexander@crtc.gc.ca
William Lloyd, CRTC, 819-997-4654, william.lloyd@crtc.gc.ca

Attach. (2)

Distribution List

Allstream inc., regulatory@allstream.com;

Association des compagnies de téléphones du Québec, Serge Désy, sdesy@actq.qc.ca;

Bell Canada, Philippe Gauvin, bell.regulatory@bell.ca;

Bruce Telecom, Faye Hughes, faye.hughes@brucetelecom.com;

CityWest Telephone Corporation, Serina Repole, serina.repole@cwct.ca;

Cochrane Telecom Services, Scott Mitchell, smitch@cochranetel.ca;

CoopTel, coop de télécommunication, Pierre Allard, pallard@cooptel.coop;

Gosfield North Communications Co-operative Limited, Robert Petruk, regulatory@gosfieldtel.ca;

Groupe Maskatel LP, Céline Laporte, celinelaporte@maskatel.qc.ca;

Hay Communications Co-operative Limited, Angela Lawrence, a.lawrence@hay.net;

Huron Telecommunications Co-Operative Limited, Glenn Grubb, grubb@hurontel.on.ca;

Independent Telecommunications Providers Association, Jonathan Holmes, jonathan.holmes@itpa.ca;

La Compagnie de Téléphone de St-Victor, Jean Bélanger, Telvic@telvic.net;

La Compagnie de Téléphone Upton Inc., Jean-Francois Mathieu, j-fmathieu@telupton.qc.ca;

Mornington Communications Co-operative Limited, Kenneth Naylor, knaylor@mornington.ca;

Nexicom Telecommunications Inc., John E. Downs, jdowns@nexicomgroup.net;

Nexicom Telephones Inc., R. Paul Downs, pdowns@nexicomgroup.net;

North Frontenac Telephone Corporation Ltd., Dave Smith, davesmith@frontenac.net;

North Renfrew Telephone Company Limited Trade, Steve Lynn, steve@wtccommunications.ca;

Quadro Communications Co-operative Inc, John DeHeer, john.deheer@quadro.net;

Roxborough Telephone Company Limited, Tim J W Beach, tjwbeach@ontarioeast.net;

Sogetel inc., Richard Biron, richard.biron@sogetel.com;

Téléphone de Courcelles, Richard Biron, richard.biron@sogetel.com;

Téléphone de Lambton, Richard Biron, richard.biron@sogetel.com;

Téléphone de St-Ephrem inc., Lyne Rodrigue, telstep@telstep.net;

The Lansdowne Rural Telephone Company Ltd., William Grier, wagrier@1000island.net;

The Westport Telephone Company, Limited, Steve Lynn, steve@wtccommunications.ca;

Tuckersmith Communications Co-operative Limited, Rob Van Aaken, rob@tccmail.ca;

Wightman Telecom Ltd., Kolos Gugan, kgugan@wightman.ca;

For all questions that follow, please refer to the cost model filed on 05 October 2016 in support of your company’s proposed DC service rate.

Request for Information for Téléphone Milot inc. (Milot):

1. Provide a revised cost study and model for the period 1 January 2015 – 31 December 2019 that incorporates the responses to requested interrogatories, where applicable.
2. Provide on the public record, life estimates for the facilities that are included in the Milot updated cost study.

   Facilities	Service life (years)
   COE Switching
   COE Transmission
   Fibre Cable
   Buildings
   Vehicles and Tools
   Operations Servers (Billing)

3. In response to interrogatory Tariff Notice 80 MILOT(CRTC)22Oct15-10, Milot had indicated that the network maintenance factor, vehicles factor, and property tax factor in the "EXPENSES" tab of the updated cost model is calculated using the Company average of the related maintenance expense accounts and the applicable plant asset accounts for the period 2012-2014.
   1. Remove all TV and Internet expense in the development of the network maintenance factor and provide the network maintenance factor for voice only.
   2. Provide supporting rationale for the inclusion of each of the related expenses and related assets included in the vehicles factor calculation.
   3. Provide supporting rationale for the inclusion each of the related expenses and related assets included in the property tax factor calculation.
   4. Update the cost study and model that was requested in Question 1 to reflect the exclusion of Internet and cable expenses in the network maintenance factor.
4. Refer to  tab “NETWORK ST PAULIN and NETWORK WARWICK”, Tables 3 and 3A, provided in response to interrogatory Tariff Notice 80 MILOT(CRTC)22Oct15-1. Further, refer to the response to Tariff Notice 80 MILOT(CRTC)22Oct15-13 subsection iv. and v. where the company stated that it uses 4 fibre strands in a redundant ring for voice, Internet, and IPTV traffic to each remote.
   1. Using the information provided in each Table 3, calculate and provide the total fibre cost for provisioning 4 fibre strands as follows:
      1. Each segments fibre cost for provisioning 4 fibre strands = $ par fibre km X  Longueur du segment de voie en kilomètres X  4 fibre strands.
      2. Total fibre cost for provisioning 4 fibre strands = sum of all the segment (i.e. St. Paulin segments #    # to #    # and Warwick Segments #   # to #   #) fibre costs.
   2. Confirm whether the total fibre cost for provisioning 4 fibre strands in a) above should equals the total IFC provided in each Table 3A. If not, explain why not with supporting rationale.
   3. Update the IFC for each remotes in each Table 3A such that the total IFC cost equals the total fibre cost for provisioning 4 fibre strands provided in response to a) above.
   4. Update the cost model that was requested in Question 1 accordingly to reflect the responses above.
5. In response to interrogatory Tariff Notice 80 MILOT(CRTC)22Oct15-1, Milot in tab “Max Attainable Capacity O.P.” provided an updated cost study model which included additional tables for IPTV Traffic BH and IPTV Growth. Explain with supporting rationale why the company has assumed the usage per customer with IPTV (refer to Ave MBps per user in the BH in Cell U27) is #         #.
6. In response to interrogatory Tariff Notice 80 MILOT(CRTC)22Oct15-1, Milot in tab “TRAFFIC COMPANY” and in table “Table 2: CCS Analysis ILEC Traffic” provided information in determining total and long distance Centum Call Seconds (CCS) in the busy hour per NAS.
   1. Provide supporting rationale for using different periods used in the calculation of total CCS in the busy hour per network access service (NAS) 
   2. Provide supporting rationale for using of different periods used in the calculation of toll CCS in the busy hour per NAS.  
7. Refer to the company’s cost model and tab “Max Attainable Capacity COE”, where the company calculates the IFC per CCS per NAS for the Max Capacity of the MetaSwitch. Milot provided an updated cost study model that in Cell C28 the Max Capacity MetaSwitch “Licensed Capacity DS-0” was #      # and was less than “P01 capacity Erlangs” of #       # provided in Cell C29.
   1. Provide the Metaswitch model used to estimate the supplier costs in Cell C10.
   2. Provide a detailed explanation how Milot estimated the “P01 capacity Erlangs” from the “Licensed Capacity DS-0”. This explanation should confirm the capacity of DS-0 as well as explain and provide supporting documentation for the calculation to determine the “P01 capacity Erlangs”.
8. In response to interrogatory Tariff Notice 80 MILOT(CRTC)22Oct15-1, Milot in tab “ASSETS” provided information in determining asset factors and investments.
   1. Confirm whether in the estimation of “Investment in Land and Buildings “, the associated Land investment was excluded. If so, provide a revised “Investment in Land and Buildings” to include land investments.
   2. Confirm whether in the estimation of “Investment COE and Outside Plant“, the associated COE excludes all Internet and IPTV investments. If not, provide a revised “Investment COE and Outside Plant” to excludes all Internet and IPTV investments.
   3. Confirm if the life estimates for the COE switching facilities and COE transmission facilities provided in response to Question 2, match the “Durée de vie en années” in column G. If not, provide supporting rationale for the for the life estimates for the COE switching facilities and COE transmission facilities provided in response to Question 2.

Date modified:

2016-12-19