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This page has been archived on the Web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, 30 April 2018

Our references: 8740-B2-201700055, 8740-B2-201700542, 8740-B2-201703463, 8740-C6-201700097,
8740-C6-201701392, 8740-R28-201700071, 8740-V3-201700063


To Distribution List:

Re:Extension Request Associated with Follow-up to Telecom Order CRTC 2016-396 and Telecom Order CRTC 2016-448 and Follow-up to Telecom Decision CRTC 2016-379 – Requests for information (Disaggregated wholesale HSA service)

The Commission is in receipt of a letter, dated 25 April 2018, from Bell Canada requesting an extension for submission of responses to the requests for information posed to parties by the Commission on 2 March 2018 in the above proceedings.

Bell Canada submitted that it had discovered certain errors, omissions, or other required revisions to some of its costs studies and due to the complexity of the models and to ensure that accurate information is filed, it will not be able to complete their responses by 4 May 2018 and requested an extension to 18 May 2018.

The Commission is in receipt of letters, dated 26 April 2018, from Rogers Communications Canada Inc. (RCCI), Cogeco Communications Inc (Cogeco), and Saskatchewan Telecommunications (SaskTel), where RCCI, Cogeco, and SaskTel did not object to Bell Canada’s extension request.

Commission staff acknowledges Bell Canada’s rationale to seek for an extension which is specifically to address errors, omissions and other required revisions to a number of its cost studies, mainly for its disaggregated wholesale high-speed access service.

In this regard, Commission staff notes Bell Canada’s commitment to submit an Appendix to their responses to the RFIs explaining each of these errors, omissions and other required revisions. For efficiency purposes and to allow for a meaningful record, Commission staff expects that the Appendix to be filed by Bell Canada will reflect the level of detail as identified in Attachments 1, 2 and 3.

In light of these circumstances, Commission staff considers that the extension request is reasonable. This determination applies to the process related to the follow-up to Telecom Decision 2016-379 and also applies to all parties.

The process for filing responses to the requests for information and subsequent requests for disclosure of information that is designated as confidential in the responses is revised as follows:

Further process associated with the relevant tariff filings will be established after the disclosure process is completed.

Where a document is to be filed or served by a specific date, the document must be actually received, not merely sent, by that date.

Please contact Abderrahman El Fatihi ( at (819) 953-3662, Tom Vilmansen ( at (819) 997-9253 or myself ( at (819) 953-5414 should you have any questions in regards to this letter.


Original signed by

Lyne Renaud
Director, Competitor Services and Costing Implementation
Telecommunications Sector

Attach. (3)


Lyne Renaud, CRTC, ;
Abderrahman El Fatihi, CRTC, ;
David Mah, CRTC, ;
Ramin Adim, CRTC,;
Pilon Marc, CRTC,
Bell Canada:;
MTS Inc.:;
Zayo Canada Inc.:;
Saskatchewan Telecommunications: ;
TELUS Communications Company: ;
Cogeco Cable Inc.: ;
Quebecor Media Inc. (Videotron): ;
Rogers Communications Canada Inc.: ; ;
Nathan Jarret:;  ;
Shaw Cablesystems G.P.: ;
CNOC Regulatory: ;
TekSavvy Solutions Inc.: ;
Vaxination Informatique: ;
VMedia Inc.: ;
Steve Sorochan: ;
Darren Parberry: ;
Marcus Schultze: ;
Kathleen Turnsek: ;
Eastlink: ;
Tacit Law: ;
Distributel Communications Limited:;
Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC);


Summary of Cost Changes in each Cost Study as applicable
Cost Study Present Worth (PW) of Total Proposed Cost PW of Total Revised Proposed Cost Percent Change
DBS-FTTP access monthly recurring charge      
DBS-FTTP installation charge      
DBS-FTTN access monthly recurring charge      
Speed Change service charge with premises visit;      
Speed Change service charge without premises visit;      
DBS CO Migration service charge      
DCBB monthly recurring charge per 50 Mbps increment      
DCBB service charge per Customer per CO, initial order of one or more 50 Mbps increments in a single CO      
End-user in-service Report service charge per customer per Request      
DBS-FTTN Bonded Access monthly recurring charge      
DBS-FTTP installation charge      
DBS-FTTN Bonded Access installation charge      


All changes within each revised cost study as applicable
Cost Study Description
(Note 1)
Specify Error, Omission or Required Revision Existing Value Revised Value Related RFIs
e.g. GAS- FTTN Access monthly e.g. Capital unit cost e.g. error e.g. +$10K/Mbps e.g. +$8K/Mbps  
e.g. Maintenance cost e.g. omission e.g. +$0K e.g. +$10K  
e.g. W&D factor e.g. revision e.g. 2% e.g. 1.7%  
e.g. GAS-FTTN Bonded Access monthly e.g. Capital unit cost e.g. error e.g. +$10K/Mbps e.g. +$8K/Mbps  
e.g. Maintenance cost e.g. omission e.g. +$0K e.g. +$10K  
e.g. W&D factor e.g. revision e.g. 2% e.g. 1.7%  


For each error, omission or revision identified in the table in Attachment 2 above:

  1. A description of the error, omission or required revision.
  2. An explanation of what led to the identification of error, omission or required revision.
  3. An explanation of how the error/omission has been corrected or how the required revision has been made, as applicable. 

    (Explanation should include: (i) if any cost are revised, these should be supported with evidence and rationale, and if any methodology and assumptions are changed, these should be supported with detailed explanations and (ii) if any new costs are included as a result of omission, provide methodology, assumptions and supporting rationale.

  4. A table comparing existing value and revised value:
    Table comparing existing value and revised value
    Description Specify unit of measure
    (i.e. $, %, $ / Mbps, etc.)
    Specify Error, Omission or Required Revision Cost Study Existing Value Revised Value
    e.g. Capital Unit Cost e.g $ / Mbps e.g. error e.g. DBS - FTTP Access monthly e.g. +$10K/Mbps e.g. +$8K/Mbps
Date modified: