ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter Addressed to Pierre Allard (Cooptel)
This page has been archived on the Web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.
ABRIDGED
Ottawa, 12 February 2018
Our reference: 8740-C41-20180227
BY E-MAIL
Mr. Pierre Allard
Director – Project management and regulation
Cooptel
5521 chemin de l’Aéroport
Valcourt, Quebec J0E 2L0
pallard@cooptel.coop
Re: Tariff Notice 80 – Options associated with basic service
Dear Sir:
On 18 January 2018, the Commission received an application by Cooptel, under Tariff Notice 80 relating to its General Tariff, in which the company proposed changes to portions of its tariff based on similar tariffs approved for other enterprises.
Commission staff is continuing its analysis of this application.
Paragraph 28(1) (a) of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure provides that the Commission may require parties to file information or documents where needed.
Cooptel is requested to provide comprehensive answers, including rationale and any supporting information, to the attached questions by 22 February 2018.
Sincerely,
Original signed by
Michel Murray
Director, Dispute Resolution & Regulatory Implementation
Telecommunications Sector
c.c.: Joanne Baldassi, CRTC, 819-997-3498, joanne.baldassi@crtc.gc.ca
Attachment (1)
ATTACHMENT
Request for information
In its application, Cooptel proposed tariff changes for optional features associated with its residential and business service. Among other things, Cooptel proposed the following revisions:
Residential:
- Solutions. For the Call Display Number feature, Cooptel proposed to introduce a minimum rate of # #. As rationale, Cooptel stated that # #.
Business:
- Solutions. For the Call Display feature, Cooptel proposed to introduce a minimum rate of # #. As rationale, Cooptel stated that # #.
- Multisolutions. For the Exécutif bundle, Cooptel proposed to introduce a minimum rate of # # for two features, # #.
- Multisolutions. For the Productif bundle, Cooptel proposed to introduce a minimum rate of # #, # #.
- Solutions. For the Long Distance Restriction feature, Cooptel proposed to introduce a minimum rate of # #. As rationale, Cooptel stated that # #.
In Regulatory framework for small incumbent local exchange carriers and related matters, Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2013-160 (TRP 2013-160), the Commission approved the use of rate ranges by small ILECs and further stated that for small ILECs’ services other than residential primary exchange service in high cost serving areas, it would be acceptable for the minimum rate in a rate range to be based on a Commission-approved rate for the same service, or on a cost study. The Telecommunications Act defines rate as “an amount of money or other consideration and includes zero consideration”.
Justify how each of the above proposed changes with respect to minimum rates is consistent with the Commission’s determinations in TRP 2013-160, given that:
- for the proposals in i), ii), iii) and iv), # #; and
- for the proposal in v), # #
If Cooptel cannot adequately justify its proposed approaches outlined above, the company is requested to file an amended application pointing to rates for the same features that have already been approved by the Commission, or withdraw the proposed changes identified.
# Confidential #
- Date modified: