Telecom Procedural Letter Addressed to Michelle Dupuis (TELUS Communications Inc.)
Ottawa, 24 January 2019
Our reference: 8740-T66-201810656
Ms. Michelle Dupuis
Senior Regulatory Legal Counsel
Telecom Policy & Regulatory Affairs
TELUS Communication Inc.
215 Slater Street
Ottawa, Ontario K1C 6Y3
RE: Tariff Notice 543 – Payphone Per Call Compensation
Dear Ms. Dupuis:
On 30 November 2018, the Commission received an application by TELUS Communications Inc., (TELUS) under Tariff Notice (TN) 543, proposing to increase the current rate for its Carrier Access Tariff (CRTC 21462) - Item 205, Payphone Per Call Compensation to $0.5482 as of January 16, 2019.
In order to assist in the analysis of the application, TELUS is to provide a response to the attached request for information (RFIs) by 7 February 2019
Original signed by
Director, Competitor Services & Costing Implementation
c.c.: Nat Natraj, CRTC, 819-953-5081, firstname.lastname@example.org
Request for Information
- Refer to paragraph 4 of TELUS letter dated 30 November 2018 regarding TN 543 - Payphone Per Call Compensation Service and provide:
- TELUS’ assessment of demand and cost of the service showing that the decline in demand does not result in a proportional decline in service costs, leading to a cost-per-call that is above the unit cost used to estimate the current tariff rate.
- For each of the last 5 years, the number of TELUS payphones, the average call volume per payphone, and maintenance costs (of booths and phone sets).
- Comparison of current rate and cost of providing Payphone Per Call Compensation Service.
- Refer to paragraph 5 of TELUS letter dated 30 November 2018 regarding TN 543 - Payphone Per Call Compensation Service. Explain with supporting rationale:
- Why TELUS considers it reasonable not to have to comply with the filing of a cost study to support the proposed rate increase for the Payphone Per Call Compensation (from $0.2630 to $0.5482).
- Why TELUS believes that using a proxy such as Bell Canada’s approved Payphone Per Call Compensation rate would be a more appropriate alternative to the filing of a cost study.
- Date modified: