DOCSLIB.ORG

Commission of Inquiry Respecting the Muskrat Falls Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Commission of Inquiry Respecting the Muskrat Falls Project COMMISSION OF INQUIRY RESPECTING THE MUSKRAT FALLS PROJECT Transcript | Phase 1 Volume 49 Commissioner: Honourable Justice Richard LeBlanc Thursday 29 November 2018 November 29, 2018 No. 49 CLERK (Mulrooney): All rise. MR. PEDDIGREW: Yes. This Commission of Inquiry is now open. Dwanda Newman? The Hon. Justice Richard LeBlanc, presiding as MR. BENNETT: Dwanda Newman. Commissioner. MR. PEDDIGREW: Jim Oxford? Please be seated. MR. BENNETT: Jim Oxford. THE COMMISSIONER: Right. Mr. Peddigrew. MR. PEDDIGREW: And Darlene Whalen? Sir, you remain under oath at this time. MR. BENNETT: And Darlene Whalen, yes. MR. BENNETT: Understood. MR. PEDDIGREW: Okay. And that would be the same panel as for the Water Management MR. PEDDIGREW: Thank you, Agreement decision, as well. Is that your Commissioner. Good morning, Mr. Bennett. understanding? MR. BENNETT: Good morning. MR. BENNETT: I – it’s a long-time back, but it’s easy to find out who rendered the decision. MR. PEDDIGREW: First question I have for you this morning is in relation to the PUB MR. PEDDIGREW: Okay. reference decision from March 2012. Be fair to say that Nalcor did not agree with the finding or MR. BENNETT: I know they all sat on the did not – I guess, was not fond of the finding by board. the PUB, that it was unable to make a decision. MR. PEDDIGREW: Okay. Yesterday when I MR. BENNETT: I think that, yeah, we were – was asking you some questions about the we could have expected, or were looking for financing and, I guess, the possibility of more than the decision that was reached, yes. financing without the federal loan guarantee and I think you indicated that you did have financing MR. PEDDIGREW: Right. So in Nalcor’s arranged – view, the Interconnected Option was the least- cost option and the PUB indicated it could not MR. BENNETT: No. reach that conclusion, you disagreed with that conclusion. Would that be fair? MR. PEDDIGREW: – if there was no federal loan? Or – MR. BENNETT: We reached our own – we reached a conclusion that we had, you know, MR. BENNETT: No. from Nalcor’s perspective, provided the supporting documentation to – MR. PEDDIGREW: – there was an agreement on financing? MR. PEDDIGREW: It was different than the PUB’s? MR. BENNETT: No, I didn’t say that. MR. BENNETT: Yes, I agree with that. MR. PEDDIGREW: Okay, if you could you explain then what you did say? MR. PEDDIGREW: Okay. You aware who the panel on the PUB was – who made that decision MR. BENNETT: I think I said that we – that – the four individuals? the project and the financing terms had been presented to rating agencies. MR. BENNETT: Off the top of my head, Mr. Wells was the chair – MR. PEDDIGREW: Had been presented? Commission of Inquiry Respecting the Muskrat Falls Project 1 November 29, 2018 No. 49 MR. BENNETT: Yes. MR. PEDDIGREW: Right. I guess the terms and the amount had not been – MR. PEDDIGREW: Okay, but no – MR. BENNETT: No. MR. BENNETT: I understand that they – a response had been provided, that the project MR. PEDDIGREW: – determined. would be financeable from those same rating agencies. MR. BENNETT: No, not at all. MR. PEDDIGREW: Right. Financeable? MR. PEDDIGREW: Mr. Bennett, just following up on some questions about the MR. BENNETT: Yes. I didn’t say the financing natural gas option and some of Ms. O’Brien’s was arranged. questions for you. MR. PEDDIGREW: Okay. Sorry, I didn’t I think you said that the decision to screen out mean to suggest that it was arranged. Sorry if natural gas was a decision that was made by that was the word I used. But financeable – what yourself and Mr. Martin. Is that correct? – to who – to what amount? Was that discussed? MR. BENNETT: I don’t think that – I think MR. BENNETT: I wasn’t deep into the details. maybe Mr. Keating may have said that at one Mr. Sturge looked after the presentation to the point in time – but certainly we looked at, you rating agencies and the – my understanding of know, we looked at natural gas. It was, you the situation was that the rating agencies had know – the thinking in terms of the merits of indicated that the project, in their view, could be natural gas are documented in our PUB financed. submission. I was generally responsible for the work that went to the PUB and, you know – MR. PEDDIGREW: But financed to what from broad terms, you look at natural gas, if degree? I mean, are we talking that they were you’re thinking of natural gas – domestic natural willing to lend 2 billion, 10 billion? gas. MR. BENNETT: I don’t have the details on the MR. PEDDIGREW: Yes. terms and conditions of those ratings. I wasn’t directly involved in those. MR. BENNETT: Yeah, I was – I’d certainly discussed that conclusion, understood what the MR. PEDDIGREW: So financeable depending puts and takes were, and supported not – not on how much. taking natural gas beyond that initial screening. MR. BENNETT: That the project could be MR. PEDDIGREW: Right. So not taking it to financed. That’s the level of information that I Decision Gate 2 analysis. have. MR. BENNETT: Absolutely. MR. PEDDIGREW: That it could be financed. But you don’t know how much they were MR. PEDDIGREW: Okay. willing to finance. Ms. O’Brien asked you some questions and MR. BENNETT: They were – they weren’t indicated that during Mr. Keating’s evidence lenders, right? They’re the rating agencies who that Mr. Keating felt – or was of the view that were looking at the project and trying to, you natural gas might be less costly than the Isolated know, provide their view on the extent to which Island Option. it could be financed or what those, you know, what the – I guess in general terms – the quality Do you recall those questions? of that financing would look like. MR. BENNETT: Those questions to Mr. Keating? Commission of Inquiry Respecting the Muskrat Falls Project 2 November 29, 2018 No. 49 MR. PEDDIGREW: Well, the questions from I mean, there’s uncertainty in the price of what Ms. O’Brien to you about Mr. Keating saying oil is going to be, would you agree with that? that the option of natural gas may be less costly than the Isolated Island Option. MR. BENNETT: That’s why we were using forecasts. MR. BENNETT: If I recall, that was information from the WoodMac study and I MR. PEDDIGREW: Right. guess we’re looking more at – just to be clear – liquefied natural gas or LNG – There would be forecasts available, I’m assuming, for natural gas as well? MR. PEDDIGREW: Yes. MR. BENNETT: It’s a little less clear for MR. BENNETT: – as opposed to – natural gas. MR. PEDDIGREW: LNG, yes. MR. PEDDIGREW: Right. MR. BENNETT: – right. There’s uncertainty in all – MR. PEDDIGREW: Okay. MR. BENNETT: I – MR. BENNETT: And the point that was being MR. PEDDIGREW: – oil, price of natural gas made there, and as I understood it, was that – all these things have a degree of uncertainty. WoodMac had looked at some cost considerations and made some assumptions as to MR. BENNETT: I think the view with oil and – about what the cost of gas could be. We didn’t refined oil products is that the market is quite have necessarily price information, as I liquid – and I don’t mean that in terms of the understand it. product, I mean in terms of how the market works. That it’s easy to look at a given fuel MR. PEDDIGREW: Okay. I mean, I believe alternative and source it from multiple locations one of the answers you gave yesterday was that and basically the difference is the difference in you did not know the price of LNG – shipping. So I would say at a high level, there’s less market power involved in a supplier for MR. BENNETT: That’s right, we – refined petroleum products than for LNG. MR. PEDDIGREW: – right? MR. PEDDIGREW: Right. MR. BENNETT: – we were of the view that That’s where your – those were your initial we’re not a large-scale LNG customer. The view assessments. It wasn’t done as part of a detailed – and I think that the Ziff study had commentary analysis like it was done with the Isolated Island on this as well – that the price that we would be Option? achieving would be very similar to the Isolated Island case and our supply of distillate fuel; that MR. BENNETT: That’s right; we didn’t run it a seller to us would be looking at gas pricing, to – you know, priced against our alternative fuel source. MR. PEDDIGREW: Right. MR. PEDDIGREW: There’s some uncertainty MR. BENNETT: – we didn’t run it to DG2. in the price of LNG. MR. PEDDIGREW: If I could take you to MR. BENNETT: I’d agree with that. Exhibit P-01204, please. MR. PEDDIGREW: Right okay. THE COMMISSIONER: On the screen. Commission of Inquiry Respecting the Muskrat Falls Project 3 November 29, 2018 No. 49 MR. PEDDIGREW: And if we could scroll MR. PEDDIGREW: Okay. Then does that down a little bit there, Madam Clerk? make it more interesting to make that comparison then between the 10.8 when it gets So I believe this is an exhibit that was put to you down to the low 10s? by Ms. O’Brien, and if we look at the second and the third columns here we see Isolated MR. BENNETT: I think you still should be Island at 10.8 billion; and then the LNG column comparing to the 8.4.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • International Benchmarking of Australian Telecommunications International Services Benchmarking
    telecoms.qxd 9/03/99 10:06 AM Page 1 International Benchmarking of Australian Telecommunications International Services Benchmarking March 1999 Commonwealth of Australia 1999 ISBN 0 646 33589 8 This work is subject to copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, the work may be reproduced in whole or in part for study or training purposes, subject to the inclusion of an acknowledgment of the source. Reproduction for commercial use or sale requires prior written permission from AusInfo. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the Manager, Legislative Services, AusInfo, GPO Box 1920, Canberra, ACT, 2601. Inquiries: Media and Publications Productivity Commission Locked Bag 2 Collins Street East Post Office Melbourne Vic 8003 Tel: (03) 9653 2244 Fax: (03) 9653 2303 Email: [email protected] An appropriate citation for this paper is: Productivity Commission 1999, International Benchmarking of Australian Telecommunications Services, Research Report, AusInfo, Melbourne, March. The Productivity Commission The Productivity Commission, an independent Commonwealth agency, is the Government’s principal review and advisory body on microeconomic policy and regulation. It conducts public inquiries and research into a broad range of economic and social issues affecting the welfare of Australians. The Commission’s independence is underpinned by an Act of Parliament. Its processes and outputs are open to public scrutiny and are driven by concern for the wellbeing of the community as a whole. Information on the Productivity Commission, its publications and its current work program can be found on the World Wide Web at www.pc.gov.au or by contacting Media and Publications on (03) 9653 2244.
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDICES to the Evidence of Michael Piaskoski Rogers Communications Partnership
    EB-2015-0141 Ontario Energy Board IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c.15, (Schedule B); AND IN THE MATTER OF Decision EB-2013-0416/EB- 2014-0247 of the Ontario Energy Board (the “OEB”) issued March 12, 2015 approving distribution rates and charges for Hydro One Networks Inc. (“Hydro One”) for 2015 through 2017, including an increase to the Pole Access Charge; AND IN THE MATTER OF the Decision of the OEB issued April 17, 2015 setting the Pole Access Charge as interim rather than final; AND IN THE MATTER OF the Decision and Order issued June 30, 2015 by the OEB granting party status to Rogers Communications Partnership, Allstream Inc., Shaw Communications Inc., Cogeco Cable Inc., on behalf of itself and its affiliate, Cogeco Cable Canada LP, Quebecor Media, Bragg Communications, Packet-tel Corp., Niagara Regional Broadband Network, Tbaytel, Independent Telecommunications Providers Association (ITPA) and Canadian Cable Systems Alliance Inc. (CCSA) (collectively, the “Carriers”); AND IN THE MATTER OF Procedural Order No. 4 of the OEB issued October 26, 2015 setting dates for, inter alia, evidence of the Carriers. APPENDICES to the Evidence of Michael Piaskoski Rogers Communications Partnership November 20, 2015 EB-2015-0141 APPENDIX A to the Evidence of Michael Piaskoski Rogers Communications Partnership November 20, 2015 Michael E. Piaskoski SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS Eight years in Rogers Regulatory proceeded by 12 years as a telecom lawyer specializing in regulatory, competition and commercial matters. Bright, professional and ambitious performer who continually exceeds expectations. Expertise in drafting cogent, concise and easy-to-understand regulatory and legal filings and litigation materials.
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Planning Document NPA 604 Numbering Relief
    Initial Planning Document NPA 604 Numbering Relief 250 604 CNA Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC Canada) July 27, 1999 As Presented on 24 September 1999 INITIAL PLANNING DOCUMENT NPA 604 NUMBERING RELIEF JULY 27, 1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 1 2. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1 3. CENTRAL OFFICE CODE EXHAUST .................................................................................................... 2 4. CODE RELIEF METHODS...................................................................................................................... 3 4.1. Geographic Split.............................................................................................................................. 3 4.1.1. Definition ...................................................................................................................................... 3 4.1.2. General Attributes ........................................................................................................................ 4 4.2. Distributed Overlay .......................................................................................................................... 4 4.2.1. Definition .....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • PART a Definitions and General Terms 5 ITEM 100
    iTeraTEL Communications CRTC 15190 ACCESS SERVICES TARIFF Original Title Page ACCESS SERVICES TARIFF This Tariff sets out the rates, terms and conditions applicable to the interconnection arrangements provisioned to providers of telecommunications services and facilities. Issue Date: December 2,2019 Effective Date: January 15, 2015 Tariff Notice 1 iTeraTEL Communications Inc. CRTC 15190 ACCESS SERVICES TARIFF Original Page 1 Explanation of Symbols The following symbols are used in this Tariff and have meanings as shown: A Increase in rate or charge C Change in wording D Discontinued rate or regulation F Reformatting of existing material with no change to rate or charge M Matter moved from its previous location N New wording, rate or charge R Reduction in rate or charge S Reissued matter Abbreviations of Companies Names The following companies names are used in this Tariff and have meanings as shown: Aliant Aliant Telecom Inc. Bell Bell Canada Bell Aliant Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership IslandTel Island Telecom Inc. MTS MTS Allstream Inc. MTT Maritime Tel & Tel Limited NBTel NBTel NewTel NewTel Communications NorthernTel NorthernTel, Limited Partnership SaskTel SaskTel TBayTel TBayTel TCBC TELUS Communications Company, operating in British Columbia TCC TELUS Communications Company TCI TELUS Communications Company, operating in Alberta TCQ TELUS Communications Company, operating in Quebec Télébec Télébec, société en commandite Issue Date: December 2,2019 Effective Date: January 15, 2015 Tariff Notice 1 iTeraTEL Communications Inc. CRTC 15190 ACCESS SERVICES TARIFF Original Page 2 Check Page Issue Date: December 2, 2019 Effective Date: January 15, 2020 Tariff Notice 1 iTeraTEL Communications Inc. CRTC 15190 ACCESS SERVICES TARIFF Original Page 3 Table of Contents Page Explanation of Symbols 1 Abbreviations of Companies Names 1 Check Page 2 Table of Contents 3 PART A Definitions and General Terms 5 ITEM 100.
    [Show full text]
  • 49807 Bell AIF Eng Clean
    BELL CANADA ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2001 APRIL 15, 2002 2001 T ABLE OF CONTENTS Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2001 April 15, 2002 Documents Incorporated by Reference . .1 Documents incorporated by reference Part of Annual Information Form in Trade-marks . .1 Document which incorporated by reference Item 1 • Corporate Structure of Bell Canada . .2 Portions of the 2001 Bell Canada Financial Information Item 5 Item 2 • General Development of Bell Canada . .2 Item 3 • Business of Bell Canada . .3 General . .3 Principal Service Area . .5 Subsidiaries and Associated Companies . .5 Regulation . .8 Competition . .12 Capital Expenditures . .15 Environment . .15 Employee Relations . .16 Legal Proceedings . .16 Trade-marks Certain Contracts . .17 Owner Trade-mark Forward-Looking Statements . .18 Bell Canada Rings & Head Design Risk Factors . .18 (Bell Canada corporate logo) Bell Item 4 • Selected Financial Information (Consolidated) . .20 Bell World Item 5 • Management’s Discussion and Analysis . .21 Espace Bell Sympatico Item 6 • Market for the Securities of Bell Canada . .21 Bell ActiMedia Inc. Yellow Pages Item 7 • Directors and Officers of Bell Canada . .21 Bell Mobility Inc. / Bell Mobilité inc. Mobile Browser Item 8 • Additional Information . .23 Manitoba Telecom Services Inc. First Rate Schedule – Directors’ and Officers’ Remuneration . .24 Stentor Resource Centre Inc. / Datapac Centre de ressources Stentor Inc. Megalink SmartTouch AT&T Corp. AT&T MCI Communications Corporation Hyperstream OnStar Corporation Onstar NOTES: (1) Unless the context indicates otherwise, “Bell Canada” refers to Bell Canada and its subsidiaries Yahoo! Inc. Yahoo! and associated companies. (2) All dollar figures are in Canadian dollars, unless otherwise indicated.
    [Show full text]
  • Visions of Electric Media Electric of Visions
    TELEVISUAL CULTURE Roberts Visions of Electric Media Ivy Roberts Visions of Electric Media Television in the Victorian and Machine Ages Visions of Electric Media Televisual Culture Televisual culture encompasses and crosses all aspects of television – past, current and future – from its experiential dimensions to its aesthetic strategies, from its technological developments to its crossmedial extensions. The ‘televisual’ names a condition of transformation that is altering the coordinates through which we understand, theorize, intervene, and challenge contemporary media culture. Shifts in production practices, consumption circuits, technologies of distribution and access, and the aesthetic qualities of televisual texts foreground the dynamic place of television in the contemporary media landscape. They demand that we revisit concepts such as liveness, media event, audiences and broadcasting, but also that we theorize new concepts to meet the rapidly changing conditions of the televisual. The series aims at seriously analyzing both the contemporary specificity of the televisual and the challenges uncovered by new developments in technology and theory in an age in which digitization and convergence are redrawing the boundaries of media. Series editors Sudeep Dasgupta, Joke Hermes, Misha Kavka, Jaap Kooijman, Markus Stauff Visions of Electric Media Television in the Victorian and Machine Ages Ivy Roberts Amsterdam University Press Cover illustration: ‘Professor Goaheadison’s Latest,’ Fun, 3 July 1889, 6. Cover design: Coördesign, Leiden
    [Show full text]
  • Spectrum Maanagement in Australia
    SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT FOR A CONVERGING WORLD: CASE STUDY ON AUSTRALIA International Telecommunication Union Spectrum Management for a Converging World: Case Study on Australia This case study has been prepared by Fabio Leite <[email protected]>, Counsellor, Radiocommunication Bureau, ITU as part of a Workshop on Radio Spectrum Management for a Converging World jointly produced under the New Initiatives programme of the Office of the Secretary General and the Radiocommunication Bureau. The workshop manager is Eric Lie <[email protected]>, and the series is organized under the overall responsibility of Tim Kelly <[email protected]>, Head, ITU Strategy and Policy Unit (SPU). Other case studies on spectrum management in the United Kingdom and Guatemala can be found at: http://www.itu.int/osg/sec/spu/ni/fmi/case_studies/. This report has benefited from the input and comments of many people to whom the author owes his sincere thanks. In particular, I would like to thank Colin Langtry, my Australian colleague in the Radiocommunication Bureau, for his invaluable comments and explanations, as well as for his placid tolerance of my modestly evolving knowledge of his country. I would also like to express my gratitude to all officials and representatives whom I visited in Australia and who assisted me in preparing this case study, particularly to those of the Australian Communications Authority for their availability in providing support, explanations, comments, and documentation, which made up this report. Above all, I am grateful to those who were kind enough to accept this report as a succinct but fair description of the spectrum management framework in Australia.
    [Show full text]
  • Privateline Magazine-November-December-1995.Pdf
    Volume 2, No. 6 Nov ember/December $4.50 rivate line a journal of inquiry into the telephone system Alexander Graham Bell CABLE STATION ... OPERATIONS J • > , t f CANADIAN i TELECOM, - PART2 DIGITAL TELEPHONY BILL UPDATE MICROWAVE PROPAGATION BASICS DEF CON Ill REVIEW INDEX TO PR/VA TE LINE, VOLUME2 As reported oo CBS "60 Mlnu111•: How cortaln de­ vices can slowd own - 1v1nslop - watthour mel11I- Damien Thorn's ceLLULAR+co MPUTERS+TELco+sEcuRrrv :!'~:~d:,,~r~~Jro~: :ii~~~/!l!~~~~~:~ scrlbesm eler creep, overload droop, elc. Plans $29. 1,0, MANUAL,Exte rnal maoneUcwa ys (applled lo the melerlts eH)l o slow down and slopwaltllo ur melers 1 ULTIMATE HACKER 2011 Cruc en t Dr ., P.O . Drawer 537 ;l'~Ed~s ~'io~ ~~~~~r ~e~~~s :~~ ~ Alamogordo , NM 8831 o error modes( many), ANSI Standards, etc.Dem and and ~ (5051 439-1776 439 -8551 · Polyphan Melen. E,perlmcntalresulls l o slow and 8A M _ 7PM MST, Mon_ sai stop metersby others. $19. Any 2, $38. All 3, $59. Ell.!G (5051 434-0234, 434 -1778 (orde,s FILE ARCHIVE ON CD-ROM only;W you g el voice,enler• 111 111· anyUme): 24-hr ATMcrlm11 , abuses,,u ln111blllUn and dalHls 11- Fcea Te c h Byooo n; (relates dlrecUy1 0 your posedl1 00+ methodsd eta!ed, Include:Physka l, Reg. orderor prospectiveOfde~: Tu••· and Thurs. only. E. cipher, PINcompromise. card counterteltino, mao­ lili.lllunJJ tdlltlJl~ ZJ!ll±.AddS5 neticslrlpe, fa lse froo~ TEMrEST, Van Ed<.tapping , 10131s;lffOS: Canada) . Al aemsIn slock. VI SA.M C11dOK. spoollng,Inside lob , •~r-<ool, vfbrallon,pulse, high The entire underground NoCODs °' 'bill me•s.Ne w Catalog (200+ olfersl $2 voltage- olhers.C ase his1<>f1es,law, comlermeasures, order $5'N1! (check or MO).li!l..d.Qlru.
    [Show full text]
  • Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2006-10
    Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2006-10 Ottawa, 7 July 2006 Continued need for the regulatory constraints applicable to toll and toll-free services Reference: 8661-C12-200608672 and 8661-B2-200605719 In this Public Notice, the Commission initiates a proceeding and invites comments on discontinuing certain regulatory constraints with respect to the basic toll services of Aliant Telecom Inc., Bell Canada, MTS Allstream Inc., Ontera, Saskatchewan Telecommunications, Société en commandite Télébec, Sogetel inc., and TELUS Communications Company. Application 1. The Commission received an application dated 9 May 2006 by Bell Canada, filed under Part VII of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure (Bell Canada's Part VII application), seeking an order discontinuing the application of the regulatory constraints applicable to the company's basic toll schedules in its traditional Ontario and Quebec serving territories. 2. Bell Canada noted that in Forbearance – Regulation of toll services provided by incumbent telephone companies, Telecom Decision CRTC 97-19, 18 December 1997, as amended by Telecom Decision CRTC 97-19-1 dated 9 March 1998 (Decision 97-19), the Commission generally forbore from regulating certain incumbent telephone companies'1 toll and toll-free services, but, pursuant to section 24 of the Telecommunications Act (the Act), made the offering and provision of toll services subject to the basic toll constraints set out below (the basic toll constraints): • these telephone companies were to provide to the Commission, and make publicly available, rate schedules setting out the rates for basic toll service. These schedules were to include the 50 percent discount applicable to calls which originated from, and were billed to, the residence service of a registered certified hearing or speech-impaired Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) user.
    [Show full text]
  • Telecommunications Service Providers IAC Codes, Exchange Carrier Names, Company Codes - Telcordia and Regions
    COMMON LANGUAGE® Telecommunications Service Providers IAC Codes, Exchange Carrier Names, Company Codes - Telcordia and Regions Telcordia Technologies Practice BR-751-100-112 Issue 2 April 1999 Proprietary — Licensed Material Possession or use of this material or any of the COMMON LANGUAGE Codes, Rules, and Information disclosed herein requires a written license agreement and is governed by its terms and conditions. For more information, visit www.commonlanguage.com/notices. An SAIC Company BR-751-100-112 TSP IAC Codes, EC names, Company Codes - Telcordia and Regions Issue 2 Copyright Page April 1999 COMMON LANGUAGE® Telecommunications Service Providers IAC Codes, Exchange Carrier Names, Company Codes - Telcordia and Regions Prepared for Telcordia Technologies by: Lois Modrell Target audience: Telecommunications Service Providers This document replaces: BR-751-100-112, Issue 1, March 1998 Technical contact: Lois Modrell To obtain copies of this document, contact your company’s document coordinator or call 1-800-521-2673 (from the USA and Canada) or 1-732-699-5800 (all others), or visit our Web site at www.telcordia.com. Telcordia employees should call (732) 699-5802. Copyright © 1997-1999 Telcordia Technologies, Inc. All rights reserved. Project Funding Year: 1999 Trademark Acknowledgments Telcordia is a trademark of Telcordia Technologies, Inc. COMMON LANGUAGE is a registered trademark of Telcordia Technologies. Proprietary — Licensed Material See confidentiality restrictions on title page. 2 BR-751-100-112 Issue 2 TSP IAC Codes, EC Names, Company Codes - Telcordia and Regions April 1999 Disclaimer Notice of Disclaimer This document is issued by Telcordia Technologies, Inc. to inform Telcordia customers of the Telcordia practice relating to COMMON LANGUAGE® Telecommunications Service Providers IAC Codes, Exchange Carrier Names - Company Codes - Telcordia and Regions.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Radio National Policy on Icts in Education
    • The second promising feature of this project is that National policy on ICTs in education while its operations are outsourced, the government Early this year, the Ministry of Human Resource Develop- retains control over operations. As a result, the profit ment (MHRD) initiated a process of formulating a National goals of the private operators are reasonably balanced Policy on ICT in School Education (NPISE). Given the huge with social objectives. potential and (pedagogical) complexities in using ICTs in Measures for success of the project, as defined by the project education, such policy guidelines are quite necessary. How- itself, include close linkages between development priori- ever, for meaningful policy formulation, it is essential that ties and technology, a good public-private partnership mix, the process be driven by education experts who are familiar and decentralised governance. These appear to have been with the education contexts, challenges and priorities in the achieved to a reasonably satisfactory level by the project, country, and who can visualise how ICTs can assist in mean- which sets a good example for others to follow. ingful academic transactions. In the case of the NPISE, the policy-facilitating process Legal and regulatory framework has been outsourced to private ICT4D12 organisations which do not appear to have the requisite experience in Indian edu- Community radio cation. Moreover, the policy-drafting group is dominated by Experiences in India and in other parts of the world suggest technology vendors, and has very few educationists, even that community radio stations give communities an oppor- though India has a strong and active education commu- tunity to voice issues that are of importance to them.
    [Show full text]
  • The Consumer Case for Telecom Reform and Results-Based Regulation
    Waiting for the Dream: The Consumer Case for Telecom Reform and Results-Based Regulation By: Michael Janigan Public Interest Advocacy Centre 1204 - ONE Nicholas St. Ottawa, ON K1N 7B7 December 2010 1 Copyright 2010 PIAC Contents may not be commercially reproduced. Any other reproduction with acknowledgment is encouraged. The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) Suite 1204 ONE Nicholas Street Ottawa, ON K1N 7B7 Canadian Cataloguing and Publication Data Waiting for the Dream: The Consumer Case for Telecom Reform and Results-Based Regulation ISBN 1-895060-96-6 2 Acknowledgement The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) received funding from Industry Canada’s Contributions Program for Non-profit Consumer and Voluntary Organizations. The views expressed in this report are not necessarily those of Industry Canada or of the Government of Canada. The assistance with research and editing of this report provided by Michael DeSantis, Laman Meshadiyeva, Eden Maher, Amy Zhao and Janet Lo is also gratefully acknowledged. 3 Table of Contents Acknowledgement ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 5 Summary of Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 10 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]