ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter Addressed to Stan Thompson (Northwestel Inc.)

This page has been archived on the Web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, 8 February 2019

Our reference: 1011-NOC2018-0214 1011-NOC2010-0214


Stan Thompson
Chief Financial Officer and Vice-President
Northwestel Inc.
301 Lambert Street
Whitehorse, YK Y1A 4Y4

Re: Review of the price cap and local forbearance regimes, Telecom Notice of Consultation 2018-214Footnote1 – Requests for information

Dear Mr. Thompson

Attached are requests for information from the Commission.

Responses to these requests for information are to be filed with the Commission by 15 February 2019. The responses must be received, not merely sent, by that date.


Original signed by

John Macri
Director,Policy Framework
Telecommunications Sector

c.c.: Christine Brock, CRTC, (873) 353-5852,

attach (1)

Requests for information addressed to Northwestel Inc. (Northwestel)

  1. Assume that the Commission allows technological flexibility in the provision of stand-alone primary exchange service in regulated exchanges as proposed by Northwestel.  Explain, with supporting rationale, whether the customer or the incumbent local exchange carrier would have the choice in deciding which technology to use in any exchange.
  2. At paragraph 109 of its intervention, Northwestel submitted that, if the Commission does not approve its proposal to recover the residential DSL Internet service revenue shortfall through a subsidy from the new Broadband Fund, then the company should be permitted to increase these rates to the levels that existed prior to Telecom Decision 2015-78.Footnote2

    Given the magnitude of the increases (approximately 11% and 43%), explain with supporting rationale whether it would it be appropriate to allow for incremental increases over a period of two to three years to transition to the proposed rates.

  3. Currently, Northwestel’s terrestrial retail Internet services are assigned to an Internet Services basket which is capped overall such that the weighted average price of all services in the basket are not allowed to increase annually. Within that basket, services are assigned to two sub-baskets: 1) the Residential Internet Services sub-basket where the rates are capped at existing rates, and 2) the Business Internet Services sub-basket which has an annual overall constraint of 0% with a rate element constraint of 5%.

    At paragraph 115 of its intervention, Northwestel proposes that the current Internet services be combined into a single basket with an overall constraint of 0%. In addition, following the proposed rate adjustments as set out in its intervention, there would be specific annual rate element constraints for Band H1 residential Internet services (0%), Band D residential Internet services (5%), and business Internet services (10%).

    1. If the Commission were to grant the company’s proposed rate increases to the residential Internet services, explain with supporting rationale why it would not be appropriate for the Commission to retain the current retail Internet service basket structure and pricing constraints.
    2. Explain with supporting rationale what has changed in the retail Internet services market that would warrant permitting the flexibility to increase for rates annually for residential Internet services in Band D by 5% and for business Internet service by 10%.
Date modified: