ARCHIVED - Letter
This page has been archived on the Web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.
Our file No: 8640-B2-200909757
Ottawa, 6 November 2009
By E-mail
Distribution List
Re:Part VII Application by Bell Canada requesting forbearance from the regulation of Bell Canada’s high-speed intra-exchange digital network access (DNA) services in specific wire centres in Ontario and Québec
Dear Madams, Sirs:
On 26 June 2009, Bell Canada filed the above-mentioned Part VII Application, requesting that the Commission forbear from regulating high-speed intra-exchange digital network access (high-speed DNA) services in 35 wire centres in Ontario and Quebec.
On 16 October 2009, Bell Canada filed a revised application. In its revised application, Bell Canada provided a revised list of buildings connected to its high-speed DNA-capable network at speeds of DS-3 or greater. Bell Canada also requested clarification of the definition that competitors used to identify the buildings connected to their high-speed DNA-capable network at speeds of DS-3 or greater.
A) Bell Canada’s revised list of buildings
Commission staff notes Bell Canada’s acknowledgement of its inadvertent omission of some buildings from its original list. Commission staff considers that Bell Canada’s revised list is an accurate representation of the number of buildings connected to its high-speed DNA-capable network at speeds of DS-3 or greater and, accordingly, will use the revised list to conduct the high-speed DNA services forbearance calculations.
B) Requirement to file revised data
Commission staff notes that Bell Canada identified two possible interpretations of what constitutes a building connected to a high-speed DNA-capable network at speeds of DS-3 or greater:
Definition A - Buildings connected to the competitor’s network at speeds of DS-3 or greater, or
Definition B - Buildings connected to the competitor’s network at speeds of DS-3 or greater with equipment located in the building.
Commission staff considers that, given the clarification question raised by Bell Canada in their revised application, it is necessary for the competitors to file additional data for this proceeding. Accordingly, the Commission addresses this interrogatory to all competitors that, in reply to Bell Canada’s application for forbearance of high-speed DNA services in 35 wire centres in Ontario and Quebec, indicated that they had a high-speed DNA-capable network in some of those wire centres:
1) Competitors that provided a list of buildings connected to their high-speed DNA-capable network at speeds of DS-3 or greater must identify whether their list was provided with the assumption that a building was considered as connected to their network based on equipment located within such building.
If a competitor assumed that only buildings with equipment located in the building were considered connected to its high-speed DNA network, it must provide a list of buildings connected to its high-speed DNA network at speeds of DS-3 or greater in the 35 wire centres where Bell Canada is requesting forbearance irrespective of whether there is equipment located in those buildings.
Conversely, if a competitor assumed that buildings were considered connected to its high-speed DNA network irrespective of whether there was equipment located in those buildings, it must provide a list of buildings connected to its high-speed DNA network at speeds of DS-3 or greater in the 35 wire centres where Bell Canada is requesting forbearance only for such buildings where there is equipment located in those buildings.
Accordingly, Commission staff requires the competitors identified below to identify which definition of a connected building it used and to file revised lists of buildings:
- Atria Networks L.P. (Atria Networks)
- Cogeco Cable Inc.
- Hydro One Telecom
- MTS Allstream
- Quebecor Media/Videotron Ltd.
- Rogers Communications Inc.
- TELUS Communications Company (TCC)
Responses to this interrogatory must be received by 20 November 2009.
C) Further interrogatories addressed to Atria Networks, MTS Allstream, and TCC
In comparing the lists of buildings provided by Atria Networks[1], MTS Allstream, and TCC in this proceeding to the lists of buildings provided in the proceeding that led to Framework for forbearance from regulation of high-speed intra-exchange digital network access services, Telecom Decision CRTC 2007-35, 25 May 2007 (Decision 2007-35), Commission staff notes some discrepancies which require explanation.
In light of the above, Commission staff is issuing the following interrogatory to Atria Networks, MTS Allstream, and TCC with regard to several of the wire centres where Bell Canada is requesting forbearance from the regulation of high-speed DNA services. Responses to these interrogatories must be received by 20 November 2009:
2) Atria Networks, MTS Allstream, and TCC are to explain the difference between the list of connected buildings they provided in the proceeding leading to Decision 2007-35, provided in confidence in Attachment 1 to this interrogatory letter, and the list of connected buildings they provided to the Commission in Bell Canada’s current Part VII application for forbearance in 35 wire centres in Ontario and Quebec, for the wire centres provided in confidence in Attachment 2 to this letter.
Atria Networks, MTS Allstream, and TCC are requested to reconcile both lists and provide rationale for any discrepancy between the lists. If appropriate, revised lists, consistent with the criteria for revised lists provided in section B) of this letter, should be provided to the Commission.
Documents to be filed and served in accordance with the above process are to be received, not merely sent, by the dates indicated. Copies of the documents should also be sent to the following email address: kevin.pickell@crtc.gc.ca.
Yours sincerely,
Original signed by Bill Mason on behalf of
Bill Mason for /
Mario Bertrand
Director
Competition Implementation and Technology
Telecommunications
cc: Kevin Pickell, CRTC, kevin.pickell@crtc.gc.ca
[1] With regard to Atria Networks, Commission staff notes that FibreWired Hamilton provided a list of buildings connected to its high-speed DNA capable network in the Decision 2007-35 proceeding. Commission staff also notes that on 8 January 2008, Atria Networks acquired the assets of FibreWired Hamilton from the Hamilton Utilities Corporation.
- Date modified: