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This page has been archived on the Web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.
Ottawa, 1 May 2012
File No.: 8740-Q2-201204750
BY EMAIL
Mr. Barry Stone
Carrier Relations and Regulatory Affairs
Quadro Communications Co-operative Inc.
1845 Road 164
P.O. Box 101
Kirkton , Ontario
N0K 1K0
barry.stone@quadro.net
RE: Quadro Communications Co-operative Inc. Tariff Notice 29 – Bundle
Dear Sir:
On 20 April 2012, the Commission received an application by Quadro Communications Co-operative Inc. (Quadro), under cover of Tariff Notice 29, in which the company proposed to introduce six new residential and six new business bundled services. The company indicated that its application was filed as a Group B tariff filing.
Commission staff notes that Section 22(2) of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure sets out the information that applicants must include in their applications, and that Section 8 provides that the Commission may return an application or close a file that does not meet these requirements. Commission staff also notes that pursuant to Approval processes for tariff applications and intercarrier agreements, Telecom Information Bulletin CRTC 2010-455, 5 July 2010 (Information Bulletin 2010-455), Group B filings must be made by filing, among other things, any supporting documentation required by the practice of the Commission.
Commission staff notes that the Commission has sometimes deemed it acceptable for small ILECs to propose rates for new services in the fourth basket, pursuant to Decision 2001-756 and as reiterated in Decision 2006-141, based on rates that the Commission has already
approved for another ILEC for the same service instead of submitting cost data. Additionally, the Commission directed that such applications should reference when and where the Commission approved the rate. Commission staff notes that the company did not provide sufficient information in support of the proposed rates for the majority of its proposed service bundles.
Because Quadro’s application does not comply with the Commission requirements pertaining to tariff applications described in Information Bulletin 2010-455, nor with Decisions 2001-756 and 2006-14, this file is closed. The company may file a new application providing all the required information under the cover of a new tariff notice.
Yours sincerely,
Original signed by M. Murray
Michel Murray
Director, Decisions & Operations
Telecommunications
cc: Bob Martin, CRTC (819) 953-3361, robert.martin@crtc.gc.ca
[1] Regulatory framework for the small incumbent telephone companies, Decision CRTC 2001-756, 14 December 2001, and Revised regulatory framework for the small incumbent local exchange carriers, Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-14, 29 March 2006
- Date modified: