ARCHIVED - Telecom - Commission Letter - 8663-C12-05/01 - Public Notice 2001-61 -New regulatory framework for small independent telephone companies and relatedissues - Requests for further response to interrogatories and/or disclosure ofresponses to interrogatori
This page has been archived on the Web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.
LetterOur file: 8663-C12-05/01
Ottawa, 12 September 2001
To: Interested Parties
Re: Public Notice 2001-61 - New regulatory framework for small independent telephone companies and related issues - Requests for further response to interrogatories and/or disclosure of responses to interrogatories filed in confidence
This letter deals with requests for disclosure of information filed under claim of confidence by a number of parties and for further responses to interrogatories to the above-noted proceeding.
Requests were received from Bell Canada and TELUS on 31 August 2001.
Responses to those requests were then received from the CAPTS, Northern Telephone Limited, O.N.Telcom, OTA and SATAT on 7 September 2001 and from CityTel on the 10 September 2001.
Requests for public disclosure are addressed in Part I below and in the first part of Attachment 1 to this letter, while requests for further responses are addressed in Part II and the second part of Attachment 1. A request for supplementary information to Amtelecom of the OTA is addressed in the third part of the same Attachment.
Unless otherwise expressly indicated, relevant parties are to file with the Commission all information to be provided pursuant to this letter by Monday, 17 September 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, unless otherwise expressly indicated in Attachment 1, 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 considerations.
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 1 to this letter. Unless otherwise indicated, these responses are to be provided on the public record.
c.c.: Jacques Therrien, CRTC, (819) 997-4673
Questions regarding procedure or electronic information should be addressed to:
DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
FURTHER RESPONSES TO Interrogatories
CAPTS(Bell) 27Jul01-13 a)
2001 In response to OTA(CRTC)27July01-200 NRF, Amtelecom identified its Manitowaning and Mindemoya - Host wire centres as remote (i.e., Band H). In the event the two wire centres are not classified as remote, provide the number of remote Band I Residential NAS for each wire centre, where the individual NAS is remote, but not the wire centre.
- Date modified: