ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter - 8678-C12-200615578

Letter

Ottawa, 30 March 2007

File No: 8678-C12-200615578

BY E-MAIL

To:   Interested parties to Public Notice CRTC 2006-15

Re:    Review of proposals to dispose of the funds accumulated in the deferral accounts , Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2006-15 - Interrogatories

Dear Sir/Madam:

Pursuant to the procedure specified at paragraph 25 of Review of proposals to dispose of the funds accumulated in the deferral accounts , Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2006-15, 30 November 2006 , as amended by Commission staff letter dated 11 January 2007 , attached are interrogatories related to this proceeding, as follows:

• Appendix A - interrogatories to incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) and alternative broadband service providers (ABSPs) related to broadband expansion - ABSPs should note that the first section of Appendix A includes questions numbered 1013 to 1014 that are addressed simultaneously to multiple organizations, and which should be answered by all identified parties ;
  
• Appendix B - interrogatories to ILECs and other parties related to improving accessibility to telecommunications services for persons with disabilities.

All parties named in Appendix A and/or B are to provide their response(s) to the interrogatory(ies) to the Commission, and serve a copy on all interested parties to this proceeding, by 4 May 2007.   Responses are to be received, and not merely sent, by this date.   In providing responses, the parties are requested to provide separate responses for each sub-part of each question addressed to them.

Yours sincerely,

''Original signed by S. Bédard''

Suzanne Bédard
Senior Manager, Tariffs
Telecommunications

Encl.

cc:    Michel Murray, CRTC   (819) 997-9300 michel.murray@crtc.gc.ca

E-MAIL ADDRESSES

regulatory.affairs@telus.com ;  bell.regulatory@bell.ca ;  iworkstation@allstream.com ;  document.control@sasktel.sk.ca ;  jemclaren@rogers.com ;  AGARAND1@SASKTEL.NET ;  s.milers.neverlose@hotmail.com ;  richard.mcnicoll@crim.ca ;  che76.bo@telus.net ;  jacquesracicot@surdite.org ;  chloe.corcoran@usask.ca ;  stark.chris@rogers.com ;  cbergbusch@sasktel.net ;  xmasflower1257@hotmail.com ;  leonorjohnson@hotmail.com ;  ;  gphoeppner@shaw.ca ;  takachin_69@hotmail.com ;  deaftravel11@hotmail.com ;  harveyca21@yahoo.com ;  kdurs@shaw.ca ;  humptyj@hotmail.com ;  ctbelleau@yahoo.ca ;  kdurs@shaw.ca ;  boydmcwilliam@shaw.ca ;  howardn@douglas.bc.ca ;  ramsayrama@shaw.ca ;  bkapsa@cogeco.ca ;  m.gregory@sympatico.ca ;  bcgrey_bear@hotmail.com ;  bsk@valkyrieriders.com ;  morin_sm@yahoo.ca ;  dpingitore@lightspeed.ca ;  sturner99@rogers.com ;  elbrt4@rogers.com ;  tmcampbell@rogers.com ;  verstraete@shaw.ca ;  kc.2020@hotmail.com ;  gerichard@rogers.com ;  rikerstarr@yahoo.com ;  sharonkalk@shaw.ca ;  whbford2000@yahoo.com ;  sniven@shaw.ca ;  sp_cathcart@yahoo.ca ;  whisperingbreeze@hfx.eastlink.ca ;  lizwarren@sasktel.net ;  jeffviguers@nf.sympatico.ca ;  melbablunden@eastlink.ca ;  Davobergeron@yahoo.ca ;  anderson4200@shaw.ca ;  jboutros@globility.ca ;  bettyj@sasktel.net ;  wilsonchristine@rogers.com ;  rfee34@msn.com ;  cpresley@rogers.com ;  kasearson@rogers.com ;  sg3birley@hotmail.com ;  mlmabarkes@hotmail.com ;  eeadie@mts.net ;  mark@mcsnet.ca ;  justdidit@generation.net ;  ruwruw@gmail.com ;  hmsinet@hmsinet.ca ;  brant.jeffery@mycanopy.net ;  serge@serbernet.com ;  lbcconsulting@hotmail.com ;  deafwanderer@hotmail.com ;  dunkley9@yahoo.com ;  mecbell@rogers.com ;  craigloehr@yahoo.ca ;  jlarose.aptn@gmail.com ;  david.watt@rci.rogers.com ;  cataylor@cyberus.ca ;  aliciaponciano@shaw.ca ;  merv.bev.sanders@sasktel.net ;  macinniscarol@hotmail.com ;  alandcharlenequirk@hotmail.com ;  timz24@hotmail.com ;  d_horychun@hotmail.com ;  jonathanguinta@shaw.ca ;  isgeja@hotmail.com ;  merv.bev.sanders@sasktel.net ;  richmane@gov.ns.ca ;  leon.ally.vv@sasktel.net ;  gmkennedy@cogeco.ca ;  justin.debaie@ns.sympatico.ca ;  nmcquaidj@pei.sympatico.ca ;  dar.pam@shaw.ca ;  robert_weppler@msn.com ;  carver@shaw.ca ;  calvinpoortinga@hotmail.com ;  smithtr_@hotmail.com ;  angel_jayden19@hotmail.com ;  sheilapacket@hotmail.com ;  sheilapacket@hotmail.com ;  fordgk@shaw.ca ;  gmkennedy@cogeco.ca ;  mgshipley@hotmail.com ;  timkaringrieman@yahoo.ca ;  freedom_1992@hotmail.com ;  waltsask@shaw.ca ;  sophiet@sasktel.net ;  elainemanning@gmail.com ;  dez.rayzak@ontario.ca ;  todd.tobin@statcan.ca ;  ottawadeafcentre@rogers.com ;  newfiedjh@yahoo.com ;  jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca ;  jeremy.wells@sympatico.ca ;  aaron.walsh@sympatico.ca ;  adlund@mobility.blackberry.net ;  dmomotiuk@smd.mb.ca ;  mpotvin@ccbnational.net ;  kier@cailc.ca ;  laurie@ccdonline.ca ;  dave@damar.net ;  daans@ns.sympatico.ca ;  bmd@accesswave.ca ;  deafmb@mts.net ;  suehanley@fntc.info ;  oadpresident@gmail.com ;  jj@deafontario.ca ;  garyb@neilsquire.ca ;  joweber@accesscomm.ca ;  Silvergirl46@hotmail.com ;  Dodie865@hotmail.com ;  cqda@videotron.ca ;  editt@shaw.ca ;  rmschmid@sasktel.net ;  rlhutchinson@sasktel.net ;  fordgk@shaw.ca ;  wegcap@netidea.com ;  mbach@cacl.ca ;  dennis.mudryk@gov.ab.ca ;  jacki.andre@usask.ca ;  maxine.kinakin@usask.ca ;  John.Mackay@ontario.ca ;  d_stienstra@umanitoba.ca ;  kjdit86@shaw.ca ;  dalebirley@yahoo.ca ;  leona@sdhhs.com ;  rimmer@nlad.org ;  danrob1000@shaw.ca ;  vchauvet@shaw.ca ;  gmalkowski@chs.ca ;  gkane@stikeman.com ;  lshemrock@reztel.net ;  derek.barr@opensourcesolutions.ca ;  beverley@sentex.ca ;  r.martell@ns.sympatico.ca ;  tdobie@pop.kin.bc.ca ;  westm@douglas.bc.ca ;  masters@widhh.com ;  jjickels@telus.net ;  lunn@bcinternet.net ;  dave@elkvalley.net ;  smacfayd@vcc.ca ;  amadill@hwy16.com ;  bmykle@telus.net ;  kristen.pranzl@gov.bc.ca ;  jodi.birley@gov.bc.ca ;  bruce@sis.ca ;  james@sis.ca ;  terry@netago.ca ;  stacy@digicomts.com ;  boris@coool.ca ;  nratcliffe@skyrydernet.com ;  matthewa@bcwireless.net ;  ine@ccdonline.ca ;  mybow@legalaid.mb.ca ;  regulatory@bell.aliant.ca ;  blackwell@giganomics.ca ;  ronpegfee@telus.net ;  marcia.cummings@rci.rogers.com ;  johnm@barrettxplore.com ;  billm@barrettxplore.com ;  chet@pathcom.ca ;  agaimer@wildroseinternet.ca ;  dma2@telusplanet.net ;  dunbar@johnstonbuchan.com ;  canreg.affairs@alcatel-lucent.com ;  gordonp@lao.on.ca ;  icollins@torontohydro.com ;  dmckeown@viewcom.ca ;  rob.olenick@tbaytel.com ;  regulatory@lya.com ;  support@bcpiac.com ;  cshaw@nwtel.ca ;  regmatters@telesat.ca ;  steve@wtccommunications.ca ;  Regulatory@sjrb.ca ;  kurt@chha.on.ca ;  telecom.regulatory@cogeco.com ;  andre.labrie@mcc.gouv.qc.ca ;  pdowns@nexicom.net ;  cathy.moore@cnib.ca ;  Tho0151@attglobal.net ;  art.hillcox@usask.ca ;  alkanji@yahoo.com ;  chodgins@cad.ca ;  deafmb@mts.net ;  dotsofthings@hotmailcom ;  jroots@cad.ca ;  regaffairs@quebecor.com ;  kstevens@execulink.com ;  rollie.evans@axia.com ;  cedwards@ccsa.cable.ca ;  reglementation@xittel.net ;  christian.tacit@cybersurf.com ;  lisangus@angustel.ca ;  pris@pris.ca ;

APPENDIX A
BROADBAND EXPANSION
PAGE 1 of 28

Interrogatories to Alternative Broadband Service Providers

This section contains interrogatories addressed to alternative broadband service providers (ABSPs) or parties who have filed submissions on behalf of ABSPs.   While most questions are addressed to a specific party, some are addressed to multiple parties.   Parties are requested to review the entire section and respond to all questions addressed to them.

In responding, please use the following format:

Responding Party Name(CRTC)30Mar07-10xx, where "10xx" refers to the numbers from 1001 to 1015 assigned below to each question.

A.B.C. Allen Business Communications Ltd (ABC)

1001   Refer to ABC's submission dated 18 February 2007 .

a)   In the case of the communities where ABC currently provides broadband services, and the communities where it has firm plans to provide such services, specify ABC's current and expected network reliability (e.g., network is up and running X% of the time); and

b)   Provide evidence such as a resolution of ABC's Board of Directors that its plans to begin providing broadband services during an ILEC's planned roll-out period have been approved.   In the case where no Board of Directors exists, or no Board approval is required for this type of expansion, provide a statement to this effect and any other such evidence indicating the firmness of ABC's plans.

Barrett Xplore Inc. (BXI)

1001   Refer to BXI's submission dated 16 February 2007 .  

a)   In the case of the communities where BXI currently provides broadband services, and the communities where it has firm plans to provide such services, specify BXI's current and expected network reliability (e.g., network is up and running X% of the time); and

b)   Provide evidence such as a resolution of BXI's Board of Directors that its plans to begin providing broadband services during an ILEC's planned roll-out period have been approved.   In the case where no Board approval is required for this type of expansion, provide a statement to this effect and any other such evidence indicating the firmness of BXI's plans.

1002    Refer to BXI's 16 February 2007 submission.   BXI indicates at paragraph 15 that although the clients are typically within a 20 km limit, the coverage footprint is designed with a radius of 8 km to 20 km from the Access Point cluster.   BXI states at paragraph 28 that the maps in its Appendix C are based on a 20 km radius.   Describe the factors that impact the coverage radius in the communities identified in BXI's submission, and justify the use of a constant 20 km radius in the maps.

1003    Refer to BXI's submission dated 16 February 2007 .   At paragraph 26, BXI indicates that it has not addressed those areas that are included in any of the ILECs' supplemental plans.   Provide the information requested in paragraph 9 of PN 2006-15 with respect to those supplemental plans.   If BXI elects not to address the supplemental plans at this time, explain why.

Blue Sky Net (BSN)

1001    Refer to BSN's submission dated 19 January 2007 .

a)   For each community currently served by BSN, Muskoka Community Network (MCN) and/or NEOnet, that also appears on an ILEC's list of identified communities, provide:

i)    the size of the community being served;
ii)    the number of subscribers being served;
iii)   maps showing coverage for the communities currently served; and
iv)   a more detailed description of each of BSN's, MCN's and NEOnet's current service offering(s), including all relevant rates, terms and conditions, and network reliability (e.g., network is up and running X% of the time).   With respect to the request for additional information related to "terms and conditions", provide either a written description of the terms and conditions associated with each of BSN's, MCN's and NEOnet's service offering(s), or provide sample blank services agreement contracts.

b)   For each community that appears on an ILEC's list of identified communities, where BSN, MCN and/or NEOnet are not currently providing broadband services to customers, but have firm plans to begin providing such services during an ILEC's planned roll-out period for its broadband expansion program, provide:

i)    the size of the community;
ii)   maps showing coverage of the communities that are planned to be served; and
iii)   a more detailed description of each of BSN's, MCN's and NEOnet's planned offering(s), including all relevant rates, terms and conditions (as specified above) and network reliability (as specified above).

c)   Provide evidence such as a resolution of each of BSN's, MCN's and NEOnet's Boards of Directors that their plans to begin providing broadband services during an ILEC's planned roll-out period have been approved.   In the case where no Board of Directors exists, or no Board approval is required for this type of expansion, provide a statement to this effect and any other such evidence which indicates the firmness of BSN's, MCN's and NEOnet's plans.

Canadian Cable System Alliance Inc. (CCSA)

1001    Refer to CCSA's submission dated 19 February 2007 on behalf of several of its member companies.

a)   For each alternative broadband service provider (ABSP) listed in CCSA's submission, provide evidence such as a resolution of the ABSP's Board of Directors that its plans to begin providing broadband services during an ILEC's planned roll-out period have been approved. In the case where no Board of Directors exists, or no Board approval is required for this type of expansion, provide a statement to this effect and any other such evidence which indicates the firmness of the ABSPs' plans;

b)   CCSA has filed in confidence the information pertaining to the communities where its member companies are planning to offer broadband services.   Some of the information requested in paragraph 9 b) of PN 2006-15 has not been provided for some of CCSA's members.   For each ABSP which has indicated 'communities planned to be served' in Appendix A, B, C and/or D to CCSA's submission, provide all information that may be missing consistent with paragraph 9b)i-iv, of Public Notice 2006-15, including planned coverage maps.   In responding, CCSA is requested to take into consideration the level of detail requested in the requests for further information addressed to specific CCSA members below; and

c)   With respect to the request for additional information related to "terms and conditions", provide either a written description of the terms and conditions associated with each ABSP's service offering(s), or provide a sample blank service agreement contract.

1002   CCSA - Amtelcom Cable Limited Partnership (Amtelcom)

For the communities where Amtelcom currently provides broadband services:

a)   provide further details about Amtelcom's service offering with respect to each individual speed and its associated rate;

b)   specify Amtelcom's terms and conditions for its service offering(s); and

c)   provide maps showing coverage for the communities it currently serves.

1003      CCSA - Cable Axion Digitel Inc. (Cable Axion)

For the communities where Cable Axion currently provides broadband services:

a)   provide further details about Cable Axion's service offering with respect to each individual speed and its associated rate;

b)   specify Cable Axion's terms and conditions for its service offering(s);

c)   specify Cable Axion's network reliability (e.g., network is up and running X% of the time); and

d)   provide maps showing coverage for the communities it currently serves.

1004    CCSA - Cable Cable

For the communities where Cable Cable currently provides broadband services:

a)   provide further details about Cable Cable's service offering with respect to each individual speed and its associated rate;

b)   specify Cable Cable's terms and conditions for its service offering(s); and

c)   provide maps showing coverage for the communities it currently serves.

1005      CCSA - Cable TV of Camrose / Syban.net (Cable TV of Camrose)

For the communities where Cable TV of Camrose currently provides broadband services:

a )   specify Cable TV of Camrose's terms and conditions for its service offering(s); and

b)   provide maps showing coverage for the communities it currently serves.

1006    CCSA - Compton Cable TV

For the communities where Compton Cable TV currently provides broadband services:

a)   specify Compton Cable TV's terms and conditions for its service offering(s); and

b)   provide maps showing coverage for the communities it currently serves.

1007    CCSA - Execulink Telecom (also considering Execulink's stand-alone submission)

For the communities where Execulink currently provides broadband services, and the communities where it has firm plans to provide such services, provide further details about Execulink's service offering with respect to each individual speed and its associated rate.

1008    CCSA - Lake Broadcasting Corp. ( Lake Broadcasting )

For the communities where Lake Broadcasting currently provides broadband services:

a)   provide further details about Lake Broadcasting 's service offerings with respect to each individual speed and its associated rate;

b)   specify Lake Broadcasting 's terms and conditions for its service offering(s); and

c)   provide maps showing coverage for the communities it currently serves.

1009    CCSA - Mascon Communications / AirSpeed Wireless (Mascon)

For the communities where Mascon currently provides broadband services:

a)   specify Mascon's terms and conditions for its service offering(s); and

b)   provide maps showing coverage for the communities it currently serves.

1010    CCSA - Persona

For the communities where Persona currently provides broadband services:

a)   specify Persona's terms and conditions for its service offering(s);

b)   provide maps showing coverage for the communities it currently serves; and

c)   provide the size of the communities currently served and the number of subscribers wherever 'N/A' was indicated in CCSA's 19 February 2007 submission.

1011    CCSA - Source Cable Limited (Source Cable)

For the communities where Source Cable currently provides broadband services:

a)   provide further details about Source Cable's service offerings with respect to each individual speed and its associated rate;

b)   specify Source Cable's terms and conditions for its service offering(s); and

c)     provide maps showing coverage for the communities it currently serves.

1012    CCSA - Ucluelet Video Services

For the communities where Ucluelet Video Services currently provides broadband services:

a)   provide Ucluelet Video Services terms and conditions for its service offering(s); and

b)   provide maps showing coverage for the communities it currently serves.

Cogeco Cable Inc. (Cogeco)

1001    Refer to Cogeco's submission dated 19 February 2007 .

a)   For each community currently served by Cogeco that also appears on an ILEC's list of identified communities:

i)    identify the extent to which Cogeco's service is available to the entire community (taking into account capacity limitations), and if the service is not available to the entire community, the extent to which it will be during the ILEC's planned roll-out period (taking into account capacity limitations);
ii)   provide maps showing the actual coverage of communities currently served;
iii)   specify Cogeco's network reliability (e.g., network is up and running X% of the time).

b)   For each community that appears on an ILEC's list of identified communities, where Cogeco is not currently providing broadband services to customers, but has firm plans to begin providing such services during an ILEC's planned roll-out period for its broadband expansion program:

i)    identify the extent to which Cogeco's service will be available to the entire community (taking into account capacity limitations), and Cogeco's detailed roll-out plan by year;
ii)   specify Cogeco's expected network reliability (e.g., network is up and running X% of the time); and
iii)   provide maps showing coverage of the communities that are planned to be served.

c)  Provide evidence such as a resolution of Cogeco's Board of Directors that its plans to begin providing broadband services during an ILEC's planned roll-out period have been approved.   In the case where no Board approval is required for this type of expansion, provide a statement to this effect and any other such evidence which indicates the firmness of Cogeco's plans.

Crossroads Gas Co-op (Crossroads), Cochrane Lake Gas Co-op ( Cochrane Lake ) and Federation of Alberta Gas Co-ops (Federation) (together referred to as " Crossroads et al.")

1001    Refer to Crossroads et al.'s submission dated 12 February 2007 .   For each community that appears on an ILEC's list of identified communities, where Crossroads, Cochrane and/or any Federation members have firm plans to begin providing such services during an ILEC's planned roll-out period:

a)   provide the name, location, and size of all communities in question for each of Crossroads, Cochrane Lake , and any Federation member;

b)   identify the extent to which the services of Crossroads, Cochrane Lake or any Federation member mentioned in a) above will be available to the entire community (taking into account capacity limitations), and the detailed roll-out plan by year for each organization (including the number of potential customers to whom the service will be available, per community);

c)   specify the expected network reliability for each organization (e.g., broadband network is up and running X% of the time); and

d)   for each of Crossroads, Cochrane or any Federation member mentioned above, provide evidence such as a resolution the Board of Directors that the plans to begin providing broadband services during an ILEC's planned roll-out period have been approved.   In the case where no Board of Directors exists, or no Board approval is required for this type of expansion, provide a statement to this effect and any other such evidence which indicates the firmness of the plans.

1002    Refer to Crossroads et al.'s submission dated 12 February 2007 .   Crossroads et al. noted that f or the past year, Crossroads and Cochrane Lake have worked with various groups in Alberta attempting to obtain government support and funding through such initiatives as the Alberta Municipal Infrastructure Program (AMIP), the Alberta Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund, the Agricultural Initiatives Program, and the Rural Development Fund.   Crossroads et al. indicated that, as of yet, these efforts are ongoing and have not resulted in any funding though the response from Industry Canada and the Government of Alberta have been encouraging.   Indicate whether funding has now been confirmed for Crossroads et al.'s broadband deployment plan, and if it has been, specify the source of that confirmed funding.

GPN Wireless Solutions Ltd. (GPN)

1001    Refer to GPN's submission dated 16 February 2007 .   For each community currently served by GPN that also appears on an ILEC's list of identified communities, and for communities where GPN has firm plans to provide such services:

a)   provide the number of subscribers being served;

b)   provide further details about GPN's service offering(s) with respect to each individual speed and its associated rate;

c)   provide a description of GPN's terms and conditions. With respect to the request for additional information related to "terms and conditions", provide either a written description of the terms and conditions associated with GPN's service offering(s), or provide a sample blank services agreement contract;

d)   specify GPN's current and expected network reliability (e.g., network is up and running X% of the time); and

e)   provide evidence such as a resolution of GPN's Board of Directors that its plans to begin providing broadband services during an ILEC's planned roll-out period have been approved.   In the case where no Board of Directors exists, or no Board approval is required for this type of expansion, provide a statement to this effect and any other such evidence which indicates the firmness of its plans.

Grant Internet Communications (Grant)

1001    For each community currently served by Grant that also appears on an ILEC's list of identified communities:

a)   provide the number of subscribers being served, per community;

b)   identify the extent to which Grant's service is available to the entire community (taking into account capacity limitations), and if the service is not available to the entire community, the extent to which it will be during the ILEC's planned roll-out period (taking into account capacity limitations) and the detailed roll-out plan by year (including the number of potential customers to whom the service will be available);

c)   provide either a written description of the terms and conditions associated with Grant's service offering(s), or provide a sample blank services agreement contract;

d)   specify Grant's current and expected network reliability (e.g., network is up and running X% of the time); and

e)   provide evidence such as a resolution of Grant's Board of Directors that its plans to begin providing broadband services during an ILEC's planned roll-out period have been approved.   In the case where no Board of Directors exists, or no Board approval is required for this type of expansion, provide a statement to this effect and any other such evidence which indicates the firmness of Grant's plans.

Netago Wireless (Netago)

1001    Refer to Netago's submission dated 15 February 2007 .

a)   For each community currently served by Netago that also appears on an ILEC's list of identified communities:

i)    provide the size of the community being served;
ii)   provide the number of subscribers being served;
iii)   identify the extent to which Netago's service is available to the entire community (taking into account capacity limitations), and if the service is not available to the entire community, the extent to which it will be during the ILEC's planned roll-out period (taking into account capacity limitations); and provide Netago's detailed roll-out plan by year (including the number of potential customers to whom the service will be available); and
iv)   specify Netago's current network reliability (e.g., network is up and running X% of the time) .

b)   For each community that appears on an ILEC's list of identified communities, where Netago is not currently providing broadband services to customers, but has firm plans to begin providing such services during an ILEC's planned roll-out period for its broadband expansion program:

i)    provide the size of the community;
ii)   identify the extent to which Netago's service will be available to the entire community (taking into account capacity limitations), and the detailed roll-out plan by year (including the number of potential customers to whom the service will be available); and
iii)   specify Netago's expected network reliability (as specified above).

c)   Provide evidence such as a resolution of Netago's Board of Directors that its plans to begin providing broadband services during an ILEC's planned roll-out period have been approved.   In the case where no Board of Directors exists, or no Board approval is required for this type of expansion, provide a statement to this effect and any other such evidence which indicates the firmness of Netago's plans.

NetKaster Satellite Internet (NetKaster)

1001      Refer to NetKaster's submission of 19 February 2007 .   For the communities where NetKaster currently provides broadband services and the communities where it has firm plans to provide such services:

a)   provide either a written description of the terms and conditions associated with NetKaster's service offering(s), or provide a sample blank services agreement contract;

b)   provide NetKaster's current and expected network reliability (e.g., network is up and running X% of the time) ;

c)   provide maps showing coverage for the specific communities it currently provides service and where it has plans to provide service; and

d)   provide evidence such as a resolution of NetKaster's Board of Directors that its plans to begin providing broadband services during an ILEC's planned roll-out period for its broadband expansion program have been approved.   In the case where no Board of Directors exists, or no Board approval is required for this type of expansion, provide a statement to this effect and any other such evidence which indicates the firmness of NetKaster's plans.

1002      With respect to NetKaster's satellite service, provide an estimate of the average sustained download speed attainable during general usage associated with the high speed residential service that provides downstream speeds up to 1.5 Mbps.

1003      Indicate the technical or other constraints that NetKaster is encountering or expects to encounter in attempting to provide broad coverage to potential customers' premises in each community that it plans to serve.

Nexicom Inc. (Nexicom)

1001      Provide evidence such as a resolution of Nexicom's Board of Directors that its plans to begin providing broadband services during an ILEC's planned roll-out period for its broadband expansion program have been approved.   In the case where no Board of Directors exists, or no Board approval is required for this type of expansion, provide a statement to this effect and any other such evidence which indicates the firmness of Nexicom's plans.

Open Source Solutions

1001    Refer to Open Source's submission dated 15 February 2007 .

a)   For each alternative broadband service provider (ABSP) listed in Open Source's submission, provide evidence such as a resolution of the ABSP's Board of Directors that its plans to begin providing broadband services during an ILEC's planned roll-out period have been approved.   In the case where no Board of Directors exists, or no Board approval is required for this type of expansion, provide a statement to this effect and any other such evidence which indicates the firmness of each ABSP's plans; and

b)  With respect to the requests below for additional information related to "terms and conditions" for each alternative broadband service provider, provide either a written description of the terms and conditions associated with their service offering(s), or provide a sample blank services agreement contract.

1002   Open Source Solutions - 100 Mile Netshop

For each community that appears on an ILEC's list of identified communities, where 100 Mile Netshop has firm plans to begin providing broadband services during an ILEC's planned roll-out period for its broadband expansion program.   Provide a description of 100 Mile Netshop's planned service offering, including specific rates and speed levels (upload and download) for the areas in question, terms and conditions, and expected network reliability (e.g., network is up and running X% of the time) .

1003   Open Source Solutions - Elk Valley Networks ( Elk Valley )

For each community that appears on an ILEC's list of identified communities, where Elk Valley has firm plans to begin providing broadband services during the ILEC's planned roll-out period for its broadband expansion program:

a)   provide the size of the community;

b)   identify the extent to which Elk Valley's service will be available to the entire community (taking into account capacity limitations) and the number of potential customers to whom the service will be available; and

c)   provide a description of Elk Valley's planned service offering, including specific rates and speed levels (upload and download) for the areas in question, terms and conditions, and expected network reliability (e.g., network is up and running X% of the time) .

1004    Open Source Solutions - Highway 16 Internet (Highway 16)

For the communities where Highway 16 currently provides broadband services, and the communities where it has firm plans to provide such services, provide a description of Highway 16's terms and conditions, and specify its current and expected network reliability (e.g., network is up and running X% of the time).

Quebecor Média inc. (QMI)

1001    Refer to QMI's submission dated 20 February 2007.

a)   For the communities where Vidéotron ltée (Vidéotron) currently provides broadband services, and the communities where it has firm plans to provide such services, quantify Vidéotron's current and expected level of network reliability e.g., network is up and running X% of the time); and

b)   Provide evidence such as a resolution of Vidéotron's Board of Directors that its plans to begin providing broadband services during an ILEC's planned roll-out period have been approved.   In the case where no Board approval is required for this type of roll-out, provide a statement to this effect and any other such evidence which indicates the firmness of Vidéotron's plans.

Reztel Broadband (Reztel)

1001   Refer to Reztel's submission dated 9 February 2007 .

a)   For the communities where Reztel currently provides broadband services, and the communities where it has firm plans to provide such services, specify its current and expected network reliability (e.g., network is up and running X% of the time); and

b)   Provide evidence such as a resolution of Reztel's Board of Directors that its plans to begin providing broadband services during an ILEC's planned roll-out period have been approved.   In the case where no Board of Directors exists, or no Board approval is required for this type of expansion, provide a statement to this effect and any other such evidence which indicates the firmness of Reztel's plans.

Rogers Communications Inc. (RCI)

1001   Refer to RCI's submission dated 19 February 2007 .

For the communities where RCI currently provides broadband services, and the communities where it has firm plans to provide such services:

a )   specify RCI's current and expected network reliability (e.g., network is up and running X% of the time);

b)   provide maps showing coverage for the communities it currently serves and where it has plans to provide services; and

c)   provide evidence such as a resolution of RCI's Board of Directors that its plans to begin providing broadband services during an ILEC's planned roll-out period have been approved.   In the case where no Board approval is required for this type of expansion, provide a statement to this effect and any other such evidence which indicates the firmness of Rogers ' plans.

Shaw Communications Inc. (Shaw)

1001   Refer to Shaw's submission dated 19 January 2007 .

a)   For each community currently served by Shaw that also appears on an ILEC's list of identified communities, provide the number of customers being served;

b)   For the communities where Shaw currently provides broadband services, and the communities where it has firm plans to provide such services, specify Shaw's current and expected network reliability (e.g., network is up and running X% of the time);

c)   Provide maps showing coverage for the communities it currently serves and where it has plans to provide services; and

d)   Provide evidence such as a resolution of Shaw's Board of Directors that its plans to begin providing broadband services during an ILEC's planned roll-out period have been approved.   In the case where no Board approval is required for this type of expansion, provide a statement to this effect and any other such evidence which indicates the firmness of Shaw's plans.

Wild Rose Internet (Wild Rose)

1001   Refer to Wild Rose's submission dated 15 February 2007 .

a)   For each community that appears on an ILEC's list of identified communities, where Wild Rose is not currently providing broadband services to customers, but has firm plans to begin providing such services during an ILEC's planned roll-out period for its broadband expansion program, provide Wild Rose's detailed roll-out plan by year and the number of potential customers to whom the service will be available;

b)   For the communities where Wild Rose currently provides broadband services, and the communities where it has firm plans to provide such services, provide maps showing current and planned coverage, and Wild Rose's current and expected network reliability (e.g., network is up and running X% of the time);

c)   Provide either a written description of the terms and conditions associated with Wild Rose's service offering(s), or provide a sample blank services agreement contract; and

d)   Provide evidence such as a resolution of Wild Rose's Board of Directors that its plans to begin providing broadband services during an ILEC's planned roll-out period have been approved.   In the case where no Board of Directors exists, or no Board approval is required for this type of expansion, provide a statement to this effect and any other such evidence which indicates the firmness of Wild Rose's plans.

Télécommunications Xittel inc. (Xittel)

1001   Refer to Xittel's submission dated 19 February 2007.

a)   For the communities where Xittel currently provides broadband services and the communities where it has firm plans to provide such services , provide Xittel's current and expected network reliability (e.g., network is up and running X% of the time);

b)   Provide evidence such as the resolution by the Board of Directors mentioned in paragraph 24 of Xittel's submission that its plans to begin providing broadband services during an ILEC's planned roll-out period have been approved

1002      With respect to the high-speed Internet access services using Xittel's wireless technology, provide an estimate of the average sustained speed during general usage for any residential service offered by Xittel that provides downstream speeds up to 1.5 Mbps.

1003      In Section 2 (Geographical Coverage) of the Peace Region Internet Society (PRIS) submission, dated 19 February 2007, PRIS comments on the difficulties providing 100% coverage with wireless technology.   At paragraphs 26 and 27 of its 19 February 2007 submission, Xittel submits that it is achieving more than 80% coverage within 15 km using its technology.   In addition, in Section 1.0 of the submission of GPN Wireless Network Solutions Ltd. (GPN), dated 16 February 2007 , GPN notes that coverage from its towers is normally limited to approximately a 2 km radius.   With respect to Xittel's wireless services:

a)   Provide Xittel's views regarding these comments of PRIS and GPN in relation to the coverage area that Xittel is achieving or expecting to achieve with its wireless technology; and

b)   Indicate the technical or other constraints (including distance and line-of-sight constraints) that Xittel is encountering or would expect to encounter in attempting to achieve broad coverage in order to provide service to user homes in each community that Xittel plans to serve.

ABC; BXI; Blue Sky Net (separate response required for BSN, MCN and NEOnet); CCSA on behalf of its member companies; Crossroads et al. (response required for each organization); Execulink; GPN Wireless; Grant; Netago; Nexicom; NRTC Communications; Open Source Solutions on behalf of its member companies; PRIS; Reztel; Rogers; Wild Rose

1013      With respect to your company's fixed wireless service or the fixed wireless service of each of the companies you represent, provide an estimate of the average sustained download speed attainable during general usage associated with the high speed residential service that provides downstream speeds up to 1.5 Mbps.

1014      In Section 2 (Geographical Coverage) of the Peace Region Internet Society (PRIS) submission, dated 19 February 2007 , PRIS comments on the difficulties providing 100% coverage with fixed wireless technology.   At paragraphs 26 and 27 of Télécommunications Xittel (Xittel) 19 February 2007 submission, Xittel submits that it is achieving more than 80% coverage within 15 Kms using its technology.   In addition, in Section 1.0 of the submission of GPN Wireless Network Solutions Ltd, (GPN), dated 16 February 2007 , GPN notes that coverage of its towers is normally limited to approximately 2 Km radius.   With respect to your company's fixed wireless service or the fixed wireless service of each of the companies you represent:

a)   Provide your views regarding these comments of PRIS, Xittel and GPN in relation to the coverage area that you are achieving or expecting to achieve with your fixed wireless service using your technology; and

b)  Indicate the technical or other constraints that your organization is encountering or would expect to encounter (including but not limited to distance and line of sight constraints) in attempting to provide broad coverage to potential customers' premises in each community that you plan to serve.

Interrogatories to TELUS Communications Company (TELUS)

Community selection

1001   Refer to TELUS' Broadband Expansion Proposal dated 1 September 2006 , Tables 2a, 2b, and 2c.   Also refer to the submissions from alternative broadband service providers' (ABSPs) dated February 2007.

a)   Reproduce the tables noted above, replacing the last three columns (technology backbone outside plant, technology backbone electronics, and technology access) with two columns entitled Competitor Current and Competitor Proposed.   The first column would indicate by community the names of the ABSPs that are currently providing broadband service in those communities that TELUS has proposed to serve.   The second column would indicate by community the names of the ABSPs that are planning to provide broadband service in the communities that TELUS has proposed to serve; and

b)   provide the company's assessment of the current and planned presence of ABSPs, and the impact that their presence should have on the company's roll-out plan.

1002      Refer to TELUS' Broadband Expansion Proposal dated 1 September 2006 .   Provide two types of maps of TELUS' broadband expansion plan that would assist the Commission and ABSPs to better assess whether the company's roll-out plan for each community targets the same areas where ABSPs currently provide or plan to provide broadband service.

a)   for type 1 maps, the company should use a MapInfo 6.5 or higher format, and indicate the geographic location of the wire centre(s) and the associated serving area(s), including roads/streets, and any other detail that would be useful; and

b)   for type 2 maps, which would be used to assist ABSPs without access to MapInfo software, the company should use a PDF format with a larger scale and indicate the geographic location of the wire centre(s) and the associated serving area(s), including distribution serving areas (DSAs), roads/streets, relevant geographic details, well-known landmarks, and any other detail that would be useful.

1003      Provide any other information that in the view of the company could help contrast the areas proposed by TELUS for broadband expansion with the communities that competitors currently serve or plan to serve, such as subscriber postal codes, central office/exchange boundaries or community phone number NNX codes, street names with or without range of street numbers, etc.

1004      In paragraph 197 of Decision 2006-9, the Commission directed ILECs to "submit a proposal to provide broadband service to the customer premises in communities located primarily in Bands E and F in HCSA exchanges .".   In its 1 September 2006 submission, TELUS identified several communities from Bands C and D as part of its broadband expansion proposal.   Explain the extent to which the company's broadband proposal in Bands E and F depends on funding from the deferral account being approved for:

a)   backbone facilities in Bands C and D; and

b)   access facilities in Bands C and D.

1005      Refer to TELUS' Broadband Expansion Proposal dated 1 September 2006 and Industry Canada 's website file entitled Broadband Community Demographics located at broadband.gc.ca/maps/province.html.   After selecting a sample of proposed communities from the company's roll-out plan and comparing them to the same communities listed in the Broadband Community Demographics file, it appears that some communities that the company proposes to serve currently have broadband infrastructure in place, as shown in the table below:

a)   indicate whether the company has compared its roll-out plans to Industry Canada's file described above before submitting them to the Commission; if not, amend the table above and list all communities in the company's roll-out plan that currently have infrastructure in place according to Industry Canada's file;

b)   further to (a) above, indicate whether the company is already providing service in any of the communities listed above, either in part or all of the community; if so indicate the extent in the table in (a) above; and

c)   referring to the answers in (a) and (b) above, indicate whether the company's roll-out plan should be amended to remove any of the communities listed in the table as amended.   If so, provide details as to the adjustments that would be required to the plan.

1006    Refer to A.B.C. Allen Business Communications Ltd.'s (ABC) 18 February 2007 submission in which ABC claimed at page 5 that Centennial Road in Bouchie Lake ( British Columbia ) does not contain a single dwelling.   Provide the company's view with respect to ABC's claim.

1007    Refer to Shaw's submission dated 19 February 2007 and the submission from Crossroads Gas Co-op, Cochrane Lake Gas Co-op and the Federation of Alberta Gas Co-ops (Crossroads et al.) dated 12 February 2007 .

a)   at paragraph 7 of its submission, Shaw requested that the Commission exclude TELUS' request to expand service to communities in Alberta on the basis that they are already served by Alberta SuperNet.   At paragraph 46 of their submission, Crossroads et al. requested that a number of communities be excluded from TELUS' proposal as they plan to serve them via the SuperNet.   Provide the company's views with respect to Shaw's and Crossroads et al.'s requests; and

b)   at paragraph 8, Shaw requested that the Commission exclude TELUS' request to expand service to certain communities in British Columbia that appear to be included in the BC Provincial broadband expansion program called NetWork BC.   Provide the company's views with respect to Shaw's request.

1008      Refer to paragraphs 9 and 10 of TELUS' 1 September 2006 submission.   Indicate whether TELUS is planning to use deferral account funds to build or augment backbone facilities in any community where there is already an Alberta SuperNet access point.   If that is the case, identify the communities in question and provide details with respect to the existing SuperNet facilities and the facilities that TELUS is planning to build.   In addition, provide TELUS' rationale for using deferral account funds to build or augment backbone facilities in such communities.

1009      In Section 2 (Geographical Coverage) of the Peace Region Internet Society (PRIS) submission, dated 19 February 2007 , PRIS comments on the difficulties providing 100% coverage with fixed wireless technology.   At paragraphs 26 and 27 of Télécommunications Xittel (Xittel) 19 February 2007 submission, Xittel submits that it is achieving more than 80% coverage within 15 Kms using its technology.   In addition, in Section 1.0 of the submission of GPN Wireless Network Solutions Ltd, (GPN), dated 16 February 2007 , GPN notes that coverage of its towers is normally limited to approximately 2 Km radius.   Provide your views regarding these comments of PRIS, Xittel and GPN in relation to the coverage area that TELUS believes are achievable using fixed wireless technology.

Roll-out plan

2001    Refer to TELUS' Broadband Expansion Proposal dated 1 September 2006 , Tables 2a, 2b, and 2c.   Assuming that some communities are removed from the company's proposed expansion plans due to competitor presence or other reasons, provide the company's proposed guidelines to redesign its roll-out plans.   For example, should planned communities from later years be moved up in priority before adding communities from the supplemental plan?

Technology/financial information

3001    Refer to TELUS' interrogatory response TELUS(CRTC)5 Dec06-302. Provide the number of premises in each community that have been excluded from TELUS' proposal because of technical limitations.

3002    With reference to the cost studies for TELUS' broadband roll-out, for each of TELUS' three regions ( Alberta , British Columbia and Quebec ) summarized in Table 1 of Appendix 4b, provide a revised Table 1 (TELUS' broadband roll-out plan) and a separate Detailed Summary of Phase II Costs tables by region for the following two scenarios:

a)   assume that all capital expenditure categories have an End of study value of zero and that all equipment is non fungible; and

b)   assume that the equipment included in the outside plant capital expenditure category is non fungible with an End of study value of zero and that the remaining equipment is fungible with an End of study value not equal to zero.

3003    With reference to the response to TELUS(CRTC)5Dec06-306, TELUS has provided information on backbone costs that are causal to increased IP traffic in the core network, which represent 0.6 per cent of the PWAC of the total backbone cost.   For the remaining backbone costs which are "part of the upfront capital costs not driven by the gradual increase in customer subscriptions", specify the major resource components, provide the unit costs, the cost drivers, identify the vintage of the data used to develop each unit cost, and explain the methods used to express each of the unit costs in current dollars.

3004    With reference to TELUS(CRTC)5Dec06-307, provide the information that was requested in TELUS(CRTC)5Dec06-307 part a) for newly-deployed fibre facilities and related support structures for both:

a)   fibre facilities and supporting structures in the access network; and

b)   fibre facilities and supporting structures in the backbone network

3005    For each of the technologies proposed by TELUS for its deferral account-funded broadband services, specify the company's expected network reliability (e.g., network is up and running X% of the time).

3006    Refer to TELUS' letter dated 15 May 2006 regarding Decision 2006-9: Updated Deferral Account Schedule.   Update Attachment 1 to reflect the current balance of funds available in the company's deferral account .

Competitor services

4001    Refer to TELUS' interrogatory response TELUS(CRTC)5 Dec06-402:

a)   In its response TELUS indicates that it will provide its Deferral Account Competitor Service to the first ABSP in a deferral account community.   In several of the TELUS deferral account communities, more than one ABSP has indicated, in this proceeding, its intention to offer service.

i)   Provide TELUS' criteria for determining, in such cases, which ABSP would be provided with the Deferral Account Competitor Service, and the rationale for these criteria;
ii)   Provide TELUS' views with respect to the impact on its Broadband Expansion Proposal, assuming that it would be required to provide its Deferral Account Competitor Service to all ABSPs who request it.

b)  In its response TELUS states "(I)n those communities where ISPs use TELUS' Deferral Account Competitor Services, TELUS will determine the uneconomic costs as the difference between Phase II costs (plus a mark-up) and the amount that will be recovered from ISPs through rates for Deferral Account Competitor Services."   Provide TELUS' justification with respect to the level of mark-up that should be used.

Interrogatories to Bell Canada

Community selection

1001    Refer to Bell Canada 's Broadband Expansion Proposal dated 1 September 2006 , Tables 2A, 2A Supplemental, 2B, and 2B Supplemental.   Also refer to the submissions from alternative broadband service providers' (ABSPs) dated February 2007.

a)   reproduce each of the tables noted above, replacing the last two columns (technology backbone and technology access) with two columns entitled Competitor Current and Competitor Proposed.   Column one would indicate by community the names of the ABSPs that are currently providing broadband service in those communities that Bell Canada has proposed to serve.   Column two would indicate by community the names of the ABSPs that are planning to provide broadband service in the communities that Bell Canada has proposed to serve; and

b)   provide the company's assessment of the current and planned presence of ABSPs and the impact that their presence should have on the company's roll-out plan.

1002    Refer to Bell Canada 's Broadband Expansion Proposal dated 1 September 2006 .   Provide two types of maps of Bell Canada 's broadband expansion proposal that would assist the Commission and ABSPs to better assess whether the company's roll-out plan for each community targets the same areas where ABSPs currently provide or plan to provide broadband service.

a)   for type 1 maps, the company should use a MapInfo 6.5 or higher format, and indicate the geographic location of the wire centre(s) and the associated serving area(s), including roads/streets, and any other detail that would be useful; and

b)   for type 2 maps, which would be used to assist small ABSPs without access to MapInfo Software, the company should use a PDF format with a larger scale and indicate the geographic location of the wire centre(s) and the associated serving area(s), including distribution serving areas (DSAs), roads/streets, relevant geographic details, well-known landmarks, and any other detail that would be useful.

1003    Provide any other information that in the view of the company may be required to further help contrast the areas proposed by Bell Canada for broadband expansion with the communities that competitors currently serve or plan to serve, such as subscriber postal codes, central office/exchange boundaries or community phone number NNX codes, street names with or without range of street numbers, etc.

1004    In paragraph 197 of Decision 2006-9, the Commission directed ILECs to "submit a proposal to provide broadband service to the customer premises in communities located primarily in Bands E and F in HCSA exchanges .".   In its 1 September 2006 submission, Bell Canada identified several communities from Bands C and D as part of its broadband expansion proposal.   Explain the extent to which the company's broadband proposal in Bands E and F depends on funding from the deferral account being approved for:

c)   backbone facilities in Bands C and D; and

d)   access facilities in Bands C and D.

1005    Refer to Bell Canada 's Broadband Expansion Proposal dated 1 September 2006 and Industry Canada 's website file entitled Broadband Community Demographics located at broadband.gc.ca/maps/province.html.   After selecting a sample of proposed communities from the company's roll-out plan and comparing them to the same communities listed in the Broadband Community Demographics file, it appears that some communities that the company proposes to serve may currently have broadband infrastructure in place serving all or part of the communities, as shown in the table below:

a)   indicate whether the company has compared its roll-out plans to Industry Canada's file described above before submitting its plans to the Commission; if not, amend the table above and list all communities in the company's roll-out plan that currently have infrastructure in place according to Industry Canada's file;

b)   further to (a) above, indicate whether the company is already providing service in any of the communities listed above, either in part or all of the community; if so indicate the extent in the table in (a) above; and

c)   referring to the answers in (a) and (b) above, indicate whether the company's roll-out plan should be amended to remove any of the communities listed in the table as amended.   If so, provide details as to the adjustments that would be required to the plan.

1006    Refer to Nexicom's submission dated 3 February 2007 enclosing an attachment dated 12 February 2007 .   At paragraph 40 of its attachment, Nexicom claimed that the village of Havelock is already served by Bell Canada and that the Commission may wish to remove it from Bell Canada 's proposal.   Provide the company's view with respect to Nexicom's claim.

1007   Refer to Rogers ' submission dated 19 February 2007 .

a)   at paragraphs 14 and 15, Rogers claimed that the community of Tillsonburg is already served by Rogers with high speed Internet services.   Provide the company's views with respect to Rogers ' claim; and

b)   at paragraph 18, Rogers claimed that there are 11 communities where Rogers has an obligation under licence to offer broadband service using the Inukshuk wireless broadband network.   Provide the company's views with respect to Rogers ' claim.

1008    Refer to Shaw's submission dated 19 February 2007 .

a)   at paragraph 5, Shaw requested that the Commission exclude Bell Canada 's proposal for expansion to the Sault Ste. Marie Airport on the basis that use of deferral account funds to expand broadband services into a commercial centre does not fall within the definition of rural and remote communities as set out in Decision 2006-9.   Provide the company's views with respect to Shaw's request; and

b)   at paragraph 6, Shaw requested that the Commission exclude Bell Canada 's proposal for expansion to Pickle Lake on the basis that the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund will already provide funding to develop broadband infrastructure in Pickle Lake .   Provide the company's views with respect to Shaw's request.

1009    Refer to Quebecor Média inc.'s (QMI) submission dated 20 February 2007, paragraphs 10 to 19, in which QMI expressed concerns with certain aspects of the methodology used by Bell Canada in developing its broadband expansion proposal.   Provide Bell Canada 's views regarding the concerns expressed by QMI.

1010    With respect to Bell Canada 's fixed wireless service, provide an estimate of the average sustained download speed attainable during general usage associated with the high speed residential service that provides downstream speeds up to 1.5 Mbps.

1011    In Section 2 (Geographical Coverage) of the Peace Region Internet Society (PRIS) submission, dated 19 February 2007 , PRIS comments on the difficulties providing 100% coverage with fixed wireless technology.   At paragraphs 26 and 27 of Télécommunications Xittel (Xittel) 19 February 2007 submission, Xittel submits that it is achieving more than 80% coverage within 15 Kms using its technology.   In addition, in Section 1.0 of the submission of GPN Wireless Network Solutions Ltd, (GPN), dated 16 February 2007 , GPN notes that coverage of its towers is normally limited to approximately 2 Km radius.   With respect to Bell Canada 's fixed wireless service:

a)   Provide Bell Canada's views regarding these comments of PRIS, Xittel and GPN in relation to the coverage area that Bell Canada is achieving or expecting to achieve with its fixed wireless service using its technology; and

b)   Indicate the technical or other constraints that Bell Canada is encountering or would expect to encounter (including but not limited to distance and line of sight constraints) in attempting to provide broad coverage to potential customers' premises in each community that it plans to serve using fixed wireless technology.

Roll-out plan

2001    Refer to Bell Canada 's Broadband Expansion Proposal dated 1 September 2006 , Tables 2A, 2A Supplemental, 2B, and 2B Supplemental.

a)   Assuming that some communities are removed from the company's proposed expansion plans due to competitor presence or other reasons, provide the company's proposed guidelines to redesign its roll-out plans.   For example, should planned communities from later years be moved up in priority before adding communities from the supplemental plan; and

b)   refer to the response to interrogatory Bell Canada(CRTC)5Dec06-301 PN 2006-15 page 3 of 5.   Bell Canada stated that DSAs with less than 75 lines were excluded form Bell Canada 's proposed expansion plan.   In light of the presence of competitors with respect to areas currently proposed by Bell Canada and the fact that these DSAs with less than 75 lines may represent areas that are unlikely to be served in the near future by ABSPs, provide Bell Canada's views with respect to now including these areas in its expansion plans.

Technology/financial information

3001    Refer to Bell Canada 's interrogatory response Bell Canada (CRTC)5 Dec06-302.   Provide the estimated number of subscribers in each community that have been excluded from Bell Canada 's proposal because of technical limitations.

3002    In Reference to Bell Canada(CRTC)05Dec06-311 PN 2006-15, Attachments 1 to 7, Detailed   Summary of Phase II Costs tables and Bell Canada(CRTC)05Dec06-308 PN 2006-15 Attachment Table 1, provide the present worth of demand.

3003    With reference to the cost studies in Bell Canada's proposed broadband expansion proposal, Appendix 5, submitted on 1 September 2006, provide a revised Table 1 and a separate Detailed Summary of Phase II Cost table (including present worth of demand) with the assumption that the equipment included in the outside plant capital expenditure category is non fungible with an End of study value of zero and that the remaining equipment is fungible with an End of study value not equal to zero.

3004    An end of study (EOS) value is assigned to plant expected to continue to provide useful service beyond the end of the study period and thus generate revenues.   In the case of the broadband expansion proposal, explain the rationale for not assigning an EOS value to the capital equipment when revenues are expected to be generated beyond the end of the study period using this equipment for which the company has recovered all the costs.

3005    For each of the technologies proposed by Bell Canada for its deferral account-funded broadband services, specify the expected network reliability (e.g., network is up and running X% of the time).

3006    Refer to Bell Canada 's letter dated 15 May 2006 regarding Decision 2006-9: Follow-up item regarding the deferral account balance.   Update Attachment 1 to reflect the current balance of funds available in the company's deferral account .

Competitor services

4001    Refer to paragraph 27 of Barrett Xplore Inc.'s (BXI) submission of 16 February 2007 wherein BXI requests that Bell Canada provide more information with respect to Broadband Expansion Service (BES) as it relates to:

i)    How Bell Canada will administer a "first come first serve" competitive access arrangement based on a "best effort" quality of service philosophy; and
ii)   Why the capacity of the backbone service will have a restriction of two ABSPs, whereas wholesale backbone services such as SuperNet in Alberta are not restricted to such a limitation.

a)   Provide Bell Canada 's response to BXI's requests; and

b)   Provide Bell Canada 's views with respect to the impact on its Broadband Expansion Proposal, assuming that it is required to provide its BES to all ABSPs who request it.

4002    With reference to Bell Canada(CRTC)5Dec06-402, on page 5 of its response, Bell Canada stated that "the proposed BES would allow for localized traffic transport, in terms of bandwidth, from a deferral account-funded community's serving wire centre to another serving wire centre, namely, the nearest local hub site".   Provide details on the characteristics of the transport connection for BES, specifying how the bandwidth would be provided (e.g., on a dedicated fixed bandwidth connection (SONET based), or on a shared packet-based or Ethernet-based connection). In addition specify the amount of bandwidth to be provided to a competitor and indicate whether a competitor would be allowed to select different amounts of bandwidth for the service.

Interrogatories to MTS Allstream Inc. (MTS Allstream)

Community selection

1001   Refer to MTS Allstream's Broadband Expansion Proposal dated 1 September 2006 , Table 2 and 2 Supplemental.   Also refer to the submissions from alternative broadband service providers' (ABSPs) dated February 2007.

a)   reproduce the tables noted above, replacing the last three columns (technology backbone outside plant, technology backbone electronics, and technology access) with two columns entitled Competitor Current and Competitor Proposed.   Column one would indicate by community the names of the ABSPs that are currently providing broadband service in those communities that MTS Allstream has proposed to serve.   Column two would indicate by community the names of the ABSPs that are planning to provide broadband service in the communities that MTS Allstream has proposed to serve; and

b)   provide the company's assessment of the current and planned presence of ABSPs and the impact that their presence should have on the company's roll-out plan.

1002   Refer to MTS Allstream's Broadband Expansion Proposal dated 1 September 2006 .   Provide two types of maps of MTS Allstream's broadband expansion plan that would assist the Commission and ABSPs to better assess whether the company's roll-out plan for each community targets the same areas where ABSPs currently provide or plan to provide broadband service.

a)   for type 1 maps, the company should use a MapInfo 6.5 or higher format, and indicate the geographic location of the wire centre(s) and the associated serving area(s), including roads/streets, and any other detail that would be useful; and

b)   for type 2 maps, which would be used to assist small ABSPs without access to MapInfo Software, the company should use a PDF format with a larger scale and indicate the geographic location of the wire centre(s) and the associated serving area(s), including distribution serving areas (DSAs), roads/streets, relevant geographic details, well-known landmarks, and any other detail that would be useful.

1003    Provide any other information that in the view of the company may be required to further help contrast the areas proposed by MTS Allstream for broadband expansion with the communities that competitors currently serve or plan to serve, such as subscriber postal codes, central office/exchange boundaries or community phone number NNX codes, street names with or without range of street numbers, etc.

1004    In paragraph 197 of Decision 2006-9, the Commission directed ILECs to "submit a proposal to provide broadband service to the customer premises in communities located primarily in Bands E and F in HCSA exchanges .".   In its 1 September 2006 submission, MTS Allstream identified communities from Band D as part of its broadband expansion proposal.   Explain the extent to which the company's broadband proposal in Bands E and F depends on funding from the deferral account being approved for:

a)   backbone facilities in Band D; and

b)   access facilities in Band D.

1005      Refer to MTS Allstream's Broadband Expansion Proposal dated 1 September 2006 and Industry Canada 's website file entitled Broadband Community Demographics located at broadband.gc.ca/maps/province.html.   After selecting a community from the company's roll-out plan and comparing it to the same community listed in the Broadband Community Demographics file, it appears that this community that the company proposes to serve may currently have broadband infrastructure in place serving all or part of the community, as shown in the table below:

a)   indicate whether the company has compared its roll-out plans to Industry Canada's file described above before submitting its plans to the Commission; if not, amend the table above and list all communities in the company's roll-out plan that currently have infrastructure in place according to Industry Canada's file;

b)   indicate whether the company is already providing service in any of the communities listed above, either in part or all of the community; if so indicate the extent in the table in (a) above; and

c)   referring to the answers in (a) and (b) above, indicate whether the company's roll-out plan should be amended to remove any of the communities listed in the table as amended.   If so, provide details as to the adjustments that would be required to the plan

1006    With respect to MTS Allstream's fixed wireless service, provide an estimate of the average sustained download speed attainable during general usage associated with the high speed residential service that provides downstream speeds up to 1.5 Mbps.

1007    In Section 2 (Geographical Coverage) of the Peace Region Internet Society (PRIS) submission, dated 19 February 2007 , PRIS comments on the difficulties providing 100% coverage with fixed wireless technology.   At paragraphs 26 and 27 of Télécommunications Xittel (Xittel) 19 February 2007 submission, Xittel submits that it is achieving more than 80% coverage within 15 Kms using its technology.   In addition, in Section 1.0 of the submission of GPN Wireless Network Solutions Ltd, (GPN), dated 16 February 2007 , GPN notes that coverage of its towers is normally limited to approximately 2 Km radius.   With respect to MTS Allstream's fixed wireless service:

a)   Provide the company's views regarding these comments of PRIS, Xittel and GPN in relation to the coverage area that MTS Allstream is achieving or expecting to achieve with its fixed wireless service using its technology; and

b)   Indicate the technical or other constraints that your organization is encountering or would expect to encounter (including but not limited to distance and line of sight constraints) in attempting to provide broad coverage to potential customers' premises in each community that MTS Allstream plans to serve using fixed wireless technology.

Roll-out plan

2001    Refer to MTS Allstream's Broadband Expansion Proposal dated 1 September 2006 , Table 2 Roll-out plan and Table 2 Supplemental plan.   Assuming that some communities are removed from the company's proposed expansion plans due to competitor presence or other reasons, provide the company's proposed guidelines to redesign its roll-out plans.   For example, should planned communities from later years be moved up in priority before adding communities from the supplemental plan?

Technology/financial information

3001    In reference to the answer to MTS Allstream(CRTC)05Dec06-310 PN 06-15, Attachment 1 and MTS Allstream(CRTC)05Dec06-308(a) Attachment 1:

a)   For the sensitivity scenario that incorporates a 20% increase in average revenue, explain why the PWAC of costs increased and the present worth of demand changed from the initial proposal filed on 20 October 2006; and

b)   For the sensitivity scenario that incorporates a 20% reduction in operating expenses, explain why the PWAC of costs increased and the present worth of demand changed from the initial proposal filed on 20 October 2006 .

3002   With reference to the cost studies for MTS Allstream's proposed broadband roll-out plan summarized in Attachment 2, Table 1, submitted on 20 October 2006 , provide a revised Table 1 (MTS Allstream broadband roll-out plan) and a separate Detailed Summary of Phase II Cost table for the following two scenarios:

a)   assume that the equipment   associated with all capital expenditure categories are non fungible and have an End of study value of zero; and

b)   assume that the equipment associated with the outside plant capital expenditure category is non fungible with an End of study value of zero and the remaining equipment is fungible with an End of study value not equal to zero.

3003    Refer to MTS Allstream's letter dated 15 May 2006 regarding Decision 2006-9: Updated Deferral Account Schedule.   Update Attachment 1 to reflect the current balance of funds available in the company's deferral account .

3004    For each of the technologies proposed by MTS Allstream for its deferral account-funded broadband services, specify the company's expected network reliability (e.g., network is up and running X% of the time).

APPENDIX B
ACCESSIBILITY
PAGE 1 of 7

Interrogatories to multiple parties representing consumers and persons with disabilities

This section contains interrogatories addressed to multiple parties.   Parties are requested to review the entire section and respond to all interrogatories addressed to them.   In responding, parties must number their responses using the following format:  
Responding Party Name (CRTC)30Mar07-xxxx.

ARCH Disability Law Centre, Canadian Association of the Deaf, Canadian Hearing Society, Canadian Hard of Hearing Association, Association of Visual Language Interpreters of Canada - Jacques Racicot, Assistant to the Director - Centre de communication adaptée, Centre québécois de la déficience auditive

Responding Party Name (CRTC) 30Mar07- 5001

In Bell Canada's response to interrogatory Bell Canada(CRTC)5Dec06-605, Bell Canada stated that "In Bell Canada's view, the following will be required in order to appropriately monitor the quality of service for IPR and VRS: (.) VRS Supervisors of Interpreters to be qualified Langue des signes québécoise (LSQ) and/or American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters (.)".   Describe in detail the qualifications and/or experience that your organization believes should be required of VRS interpreters and their supervisors.

ARCH Disability Law Centre, University of Toronto Adaptive Technology Resource Centre, Canadian Association of the Deaf, Canadian Hearing Society, Canadian Council of the Blind, Council of Canadians with Disabilities, International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication, CNIB, Neil Squire Society, Dis-It Research Alliance University of Manitoba, Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians, Canadian Hard of Hearing Association, Canadian Association for Community Living - Jacques Racicot, Assistant to the Director - Centre de communication adaptée, Centre québécois de la déficience auditive

Responding Party Name (CRTC) 30Mar07- 5002

Bell Canada , TELUS, MTS Allstream and SaskTel each proposed to establish a fund or set funds aside to support future initiatives to improve accessibility to telecommunications services by persons with disabilities.   Provide your views as to how such funds to support future initiatives should be managed, including the structures and mechanisms to be put in place to develop and assess future accessibility initiatives, the parties/groups that would be involved, the criteria to be used for the selection of proposals, and any reporting requirements that should be imposed on the ILECs.

Interrogatories to TELUS Communications Company (TELUS)

Proposed accessibility initiatives

6001    In TELUS(CRTC)5Dec-06-601, TELUS notes that the details of its proposed IPR trial have not yet been finalized with the expected contractor.   In order for the Commission to consider proposals in this proceeding, sufficient detail about the proposal must be made available to permit a full understanding of how the ILEC is proposing to spend the deferral account funds.   Provide TELUS' estimate of the date that these negotiations will be completed with the expected contractor, and when the details of the trial will be submitted to the Commission and served on the parties to this proceeding for comments.   If TELUS does not propose to seek comments from interested parties, provide justification as to why such input is not required.  

6002    Refer to TELUS' response to interrogatory TELUS(CRTC)5Dec06-601c) wherein TELUS stated that it "anticipates incurring implementation challenges (.)."   With respect to IPR service, provide further details on each anticipated challenge in the implementation and ongoing operation of IPR service listed in TELUS' response to this interrogatory.   Also, provide TELUS' proposed means of overcoming these challenges.

6003    In TELUS(CRTC)5Dec-06-602, TELUS notes that the details of its proposed VRS trial have not yet been finalized with the expected contractor.   In order for the Commission to consider proposals in this proceeding, sufficient detail about the proposal must be made available to permit a full understanding of how the ILEC is proposing to spend the deferral account funds. Provide TELUS' estimate of the date that these negotiations will be completed with the expected contractor, and when the details of the trial will be submitted to the Commission and served on the parties to this proceeding for comments.   If TELUS does not propose to seek comments from interested parties, provide justification as to why such input is not required.

6004    Refer to TELUS' response to interrogatory TELUS(CRTC)5Dec06-602e).   With respect to VRS service, provide further details on each anticipated challenge in the implementation and ongoing operation of VRS listed in TELUS' response to the interrogatory.   Also, provide TELUS' proposed means of overcoming these challenges.

6005    In TELUS(CRTC)5Dec-06-603, TELUS notes that it will conduct a trial of IPR service and VRS in both French and English.   Confirm that TELUS will conduct the VRS trial in both ASL and LSQ.

6006    Refer to TELUS' response to interrogatory TELUS(CRTC)5Dec06-605 PN 2006-15 relating to TELUS' proposed Special Needs Centre.    Specify if between the TELUS Special Needs Centre section and other sections of its website conforming to W3C guidelines, customers with disabilities would have access to all of the same information and functionalities as other customers have.   If not, provide specific details as to the information that would not be accessible.   Further, provide the company's justification for not making all of the same information and functionalities accessible to all customers.

6007    In a letter dated 14 February 2007 , the Canadian Hearing Society (CHS) provides an attachment outlining the draft criteria of a VRS communication accessibility checklist for the provision of VRS.   Provide TELUS' views with respect to the appropriateness of these draft criteria.

6008    In Bell Canada's response to interrogatory Bell Canada(CRTC)5Dec06-605, Bell Canada stated that "In Bell Canada's view, the following will be required in order to appropriately monitor the quality of service for IPR and VRS: (.) VRS Supervisors of Interpreters to be qualified Langue des Signes Québécoise (LSQ) and/or American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters (.)".   Describe in detail the qualifications and/or experience that TELUS believes should be required of VRS interpreters and their supervisors.

6009    In TELUS(CRTC)5Dec-06-606 b) and at Paragraph 80 of TELUS' 1 September 2006 submission, TELUS seeks approval for the use of deferral account funds for the introduction of future services as outlined in confidence in paragraphs 69 to 72 of the confidential version of TELUS' 1 September 2006 submission.   In order for the Commission to consider proposals in this proceeding, sufficient detail about the proposal must be made available to permit a full understanding of how the ILEC is proposing to spend the deferral account funds.   Provide TELUS' justification for seeking Commission approval of a draw-down from the deferral account without submitting full details of the proposal to the Commission and serving it on parties to this proceeding for comments.

6010    Bell Canada , TELUS, MTS Allstream and SaskTel each proposed to establish a fund or set funding aside to support future initiatives to improve accessibility to telecommunications services by persons with disabilities.   Provide your views as to how such funds to support future initiatives should be managed, including the structures and mechanisms to be put in place to develop and assess future accessibility initiatives, the parties/groups that would be involved, the criteria to be used for the selection of proposals, and any reporting requirements that should be imposed on the ILECs.

6011    In TELUS(CRTC)5Dec-06-608, TELUS provides the composition of its Accessibility Committee.   Provide TELUS' views with respect to adding representatives of organizations representing persons with disabilities to this committee.

Interrogatories to Bell Canada

Proposed accessibility initiatives

6001    In a letter dated 14 February 2007 , the Canadian Hearing Society (CHS) provides an attachment outlining the draft criteria of a VRS communication accessibility checklist for the provision of VRS.   Provide Bell Canada 's views with respect to the appropriateness of these draft criteria.

6002    Refer to response to interrogatory Bell Canada(CRTC)5Dec06-603 PN 2006-15 wherein Bell Canada stated that:   "The Company anticipates that there will be a number of challenges associated with ensuring that users of the Companies' IPR and VRS services are qualified to use the service (.).   The Company must also balance the interests of business clients versus residential clients."   Indicate in what respect the company needs to balance the interests of business clients versus residential clients.

6003    In Bell Canada's response to interrogatory Bell Canada(CRTC)5Dec06-605, Bell Canada stated that "In Bell Canada's view, the following will be required in order to appropriately monitor the quality of service for IPR and VRS: (.) VRS Supervisors of Interpreters to be qualified Langue des Signes Québécoise (LSQ) and/or American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters (.)".   Describe in detail the qualifications and/or experience that Bell Canada believes should be required of VRS interpreters and their supervisors.

6004    Refer to Bell Canada 's response to interrogatory Bell Canada (CRTC)5Dec06-606a) relating to Bell.ca Special Needs Centre initiative.   Bell Canada noted that the on-line account information and ordering functionalities do not conform to World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) accessibility guidelines and hence, may not be accessible by individuals with visual disabilities.   Except for the on-line account information and service ordering functionality, specify whether customers with disabilities would have access to all of the same information and functionalities as other customers have through Bell Canada 's website.   If not, provide specific details as to the information that would not be accessible.   Further, provide the company's justification for not making all of the same information and functionalities accessible to all customers.

6005   Bell Canada , TELUS, MTS Allstream and SaskTel each proposed to establish a fund or set funding aside to support future initiatives to improve accessibility to telecommunications services by persons with disabilities.   Provide your views as to how such funds to support future initiatives should be managed, including the structures and mechanisms to be put in place to develop and assess future accessibility initiatives, the parties/groups that would be involved, the criteria to be used for the selection of proposals, and any reporting requirements that should be imposed on the ILECs.

Interrogatories to MTS Allstream Inc. (MTS Allstream)

Proposed accessibility initiatives

6001    Refer to MTS Allstream's response to interrogatory MTS Allstream(CRTC)05Dec06-601b) wherein MTS Allstream stated that   "Ongoing website and content update processes will include measures to ensure that content posted on the MTS Allstream website meets accessibility standards.   MTS Allstream plans to put in place quality control, including periodic reviews of the website, ensuring ongoing accessibility for people with disabilities."

a)   Describe in detail what measures would be put in place to ensure that content posted on the MTS Allstream website meets accessibility standards; and

b)   Indicate whether the accessibility standards refer to W3C standards.   If not, specify to which standards MTS Allstream is referring.

6002    Bell Canada , TELUS, MTS Allstream and SaskTel each proposed to establish a fund or set aside funding to support future initiatives to improve accessibility to telecommunications services by persons with disabilities.   Provide your views as to how such funds to support future initiatives should be managed, including the structures and mechanisms to be put in place to develop and assess future accessibility initiatives, the parties/groups that would be involved, the criteria to be used for the selection of proposals, and any reporting requirements that should be imposed on the ILECs.

Interrogatories to Bell Aliant Regional Communications,
Limited Partnership ( Bell Aliant)

Proposed accessibility initiatives

6001   In Bell Aliant's response to interrogatory Bell Aliant(CRTC)5Dec06-601 relating to Aliant.net Special Needs Centre.   Bell Aliant noted that the company's on-line account information does not conform to World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) guidelines and hence, may not be accessible by individuals with visual disabilities.   Except for the on-line account information, specify whether customers with disabilities would have access to all of the same information and functionalities as other customers have through Bell Aliant's website.   If not, provide specific details as to the information that would not be accessible.

6002   Bell Canada , TELUS, MTS Allstream and SaskTel each proposed to establish a fund or set aside funding to support future initiatives to improve accessibility to telecommunications services by persons with disabilities.   Provide your views as to how such funds to support future initiatives should be managed, including the structures and mechanisms to be put in place to develop and assess future accessibility initiatives, the parties/groups that would be involved, the criteria to be used for the selection of proposals, and any reporting requirements that should be imposed on the ILECs.

Financial information

7001    In Bell Aliant(CRTC)05Dec-06-701, Bell Aliant advised that a detailed cost study outlining the costs to enhance accessibility to its website had not been undertaken. In order for the Commission to consider proposals in this proceeding, sufficient detail about the proposal must be made available to permit a full understanding of how the ILEC is proposing to spend the funds.   Provide Bell Aliant's estimate of the date that this study will be submitted to the Commission and served on the parties to this proceeding for comments.   If Bell Aliant does not propose to seek comments from interested parties, provide justification why such input is not required.

Interrogatories to Saskatchewan Telecommunications (SaskTel)

Proposed accessibility initiatives

6001    I n SaskTel(CRTC)5Dec06-601, SaskTel states that it has not yet undertaken an in-depth analysis of its current Special Needs section of its website to determine what improvements it would make, but that it intends to do so if it receives approval for funding this project.   Provide SaskTel's justification for seeking Commission approval of a draw-down from the deferral account without submitting full details of the proposal to the Commission and serving them on parties to this proceeding for comments.   If Saskel does not propose to seek comments from interested parties, provide justification why such input is not required.

6002    Refer to SaskTel's response to interrogatory SaskTel(CRTC)5Dec06-602a).    Also refer to SaskTel's 1 September 2006 submission, Appendix C, product and service enhancement initiatives.   In its response to the interrogatory, SaskTel stated that "(.) given the number of different customers that may be covered under the umbrella of "disabilities" it is nearly impossible to provide a service that will not result in challenges to one or more groupings of disabled persons.   These challenges are very dependant on the type of disability a person has (.)."   With respect to SaskTel's proposed service enhancement initiative, identify the groups of people that may not be able to use the service, and describe what steps SaskTel would take to ensure that the proposed service is as widely accessible as possible.

6003    In SaskTel(CRTC)5Dec06-604, SaskTel submits that there should be no requirement to seek Commission approval for the use of deferral account funds that might be set aside for future initiatives.   In light of this proposal:

a)   Provide SaskTel's justification for seeking Commission approval of draw-downs from the deferral account without submitting full details of the proposal on the record for review; and

b)  Provide SaskTel's view regarding the appropriate means to ensure that interested parties associated with these initiatives will be provided the opportunity to provide input regarding SaskTel's proposal. If SaskTel does not propose to seek comments from interested parties, provide justification why such input is not required.