ARCHIVED - Telecom - Commission Letter - 8622-C12-10/00

Letter

Ottawa, 10 April 2001

BY TELECOPIER

To: Interested Parties

Re: Public Notices CRTC 2000-107 & 2000-107-1 - O.N.Tel - Implementation of toll competition and related matters - Requests for disclosure, further responses to Interrogatories and Need for further information

This letter deals with requests for further responses to interrogatories and for disclosure of information filed under claim of confidence by a number of parties to the above-noted proceeding. It also deals with the need for additional information to deal with issues in this proceeding.

Requests were filed by Northern Telephone Limited and the Cochrane Public Utilities Commission (collectively "The Companies") and O.N.Telcom.

Responses to requests were received from AT&T Canada, Bell Canada, Northern Telephone Limited and the Cochrane Public Utilities Commission (collectively "The Companies") and O.N.Telcom.

Requests for public disclosure are addressed in Part I below and in Attachment 1 to this letter, while requests for further responses are addressed in Part II and Attachment 2. Part III and Attachment 3 deal with the need for additional information relevant to the issues in the proceeding.

Unless otherwise expressly indicated in Attachments 1, 2, and 3 relevant parties are to file with the Commission all information to be provided pursuant to this letter by Tuesday, 17 April 2001, serving copies on all interested parties by the same date. This material should be received, and not merely sent, by that date.

This letter reflects the Commission's objective of ensuring that all parties have the benefit of the maximum amount of information placed on the public record at the earliest appropriate stage, in order to facilitate a more efficient and effective proceeding.

Part I - Requests for Public Disclosure

Requests for disclosure of information for which confidentiality has been claimed are assessed in light of sections 38 and 39 of the Telecommunications Act and section 19 of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure (the Rules). In the case of each request, the public interest in disclosure is weighed against the specific direct harm, if any, likely to result from disclosure. In doing so, a number of factors are taken into account, including the following.

The degree of competition that exists in a particular market is an important consideration in assessing requests for disclosure. All things being equal, the greater the degree of competition in a particular market, the greater the specific harm that could be expected to result from disclosure.

Another factor in assessing the extent of harm is the expected usefulness of the information at issue to parties in furthering their competitive position. In this regard, an important consideration is the degree to which the information at issue is disaggregated. Generally speaking, the more aggregated the information, the less the likelihood that harm will flow from its disclosure.

The expectation that specific direct harm might result from disclosure is not, by itself, sufficient to justify maintaining a claim of confidentiality. In certain circumstances, substantial harm from disclosure may still be outweighed by the public interest in disclosure.

Finally, the treatment of confidentiality requests should not be taken as an indication of the manner in which such matters would be dealt with in the future, in different circumstances.

Having regard to the considerations set out above, the information subject to a claim of confidence in the interrogatories listed in Attachment 1 is to be placed on the public record of this proceeding. In each case where full or partial disclosure is to occur, it is considered that the specific direct harm likely to be caused by disclosure would not outweigh the public interest in disclosure.

Accordingly, the party in question is to place on the public record all of the information listed in Attachment 1 that was subject to a claim of confidentiality.

Part II - Requests for Further Responses

With regard to requests for further responses, the requirements of subsection 18(2) of the Rules apply. The general principles enunciated by the Commission in past proceedings include the following:

The major consideration is the relevance of the information requested to the matter at issue.

The availability of the information requested is also a factor, which is balanced against the relevance of the information. If the provision of the information sought would require an effort disproportionate to the probative value of the information itself, further responses will not be required.

Another factor considered is the extent to which an interrogatory answer is responsive to the interrogatory as it was originally asked.

Generally, parties are not required to provide further responses to requests for further information from a party that did not ask the original interrogatory.

Having regard to all of the above considerations, the parties in question are to provide further responses to the extent set out in Attachment 2 to this letter.

Part III - Need for Additional Information

In the present case, some additional information is needed for dealing with the questions in issue in the proceeding. Such additional information has not been sufficiently provided in response to various interrogatories. This information is addressed in Attachment 3.

Accordingly, the parties in question are to provide the additional information requested in Attachment 3.

This letter will be posted on the CRTC's web site in both official languages.

Yours sincerely,

Shirley Soehn
Executive Director
Telcommunications

Attachments

Attachment 1

CONFIDENTIALITIES

(Information to be filed and served by 17 April 2001)
O.N.Telcom(CRTC)26Feb01-1108 Attachment 1

Place on the public record.

O.N.Telcom(CRTC)26Feb01-1200

Disclose the total expense amounts along with the first sentence of each paragraph of explanations for parts b) through g) inclusive.

O.N.Telcom(CRTC)26Feb01-1400

Disclose the assumptions.

O.N.Telcom(CRTC)26Feb01-1404

Place on the public record the entire column labelled "Description".

O.N.Telcom(CRTC)26Feb01-1406

Disclose the first four (4) lines of the response.

Attachment 2

DEFICIENCIES

(Information to be filed and served by 17 April 2001)

Bell(O.N.Telcom)26Feb01-26 d)

For each Bell end office in O.N.Telcom's Toll Serving Area, identify where competitive interconnection could take place under Bell's proposal.

The Companies(O.N.Telcom)26Feb01-4 a)

For each of The Companies' end offices, identify where competitive interconnections could take place under The Companies' proposal.

The Companies(O.N.Telcom)26Feb01-18 c) & d)

Provide a response to parts c) & d).

The Companies(O.N.Telcom)26Feb01-42 a)

Does NTL have the capability to develop its own DC rate?

The Companies(O.N.Telcom)26Feb01-42 c)

Provide a response.

Attachment 3

Need for Additional Information

(Information to be filed and served by 17 April 2001)

The Companies(O.N.Telcom)26Feb01-18 b)

With respect to The Companies' response to The Companies(CRTC)30Nov00-101 a), for each end office, indicate the costs of CCS7.

O.N.Telcom(CRTC)26Feb01-1106

Provide the full revised Phase II cost studies for part a) i & ii.

O.N.Telcom(CRTC)26Feb01-1203

O.N.Telcom is to quantify OTS revenues and costs in response to parts c) and d) and indicate where the revenues and costs are included in the company's SRB results.

Date Modified: 2001-04-10