ARCHIVED - Telecom - Commission Letter - 8638-C12-67/02 - Decision 2002-34 - Process for review of Access Tandem Service Rates - Disclosure of Confidential Information

Ottawa, 1 October 2002

File No: 2002.8638.C12.67

BY TELECOPIER

To: Interested Parties to Decision 2002-34

Re: Decision 2002-34 - Process for review of Access Tandem Service Rates - Disclosure of Confidential Information

This letter deals with requests for the disclosure of information that was submitted under claim of confidence by TELUS Communications Inc. (TCI) in their Tariff Notices (TNs) 494 and 4182 filed 17 July 2002 and in the access tandem (AT) cost studies submitted by Aliant Telecom Inc. (Aliant), Bell Canada, MTS Communications Inc. (MTS) Saskatchewan Telecommunications (collectively, the Companies) originally filed 17 July 2002 and subsequently revised 23 July 2002, pursuant to Regulatory Framework for Second Price Cap Period, Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-34, 30 May 2002 (Decision 2002-34).

By letters dated 31 July 2002 and 7 August 2002, Call-Net Enterprises Inc. (Call-Net) and AT&T Canada Corp on behalf of itself and AT&T Canada Telecom Services Company, (collectively, AT&T Canada), respectively, filed requests for disclosure of certain information submitted in confidence by the Companies, and TCI. The Companies, and TCI provided their replies in letters dated 4 September 2002.

Parties are to file with the Commission all information to be provided pursuant to this letter by Wednesday, 2 October 2002, serving copies on interested parties by the same date.

This letter reflects the Commission's objective 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.

Requests for Public Disclosure

Overall arguments opposing further disclosure

The ILECs noted that the level of information provided in their cost submissions for the AT service is consistent with past rulings by the Commission regarding the disclosure of this type of information. The ILECs argued that release of the information at the level of detail requested by AT&T would provide existing and potential competitors (including AT&T) with competitively sensitive disaggregated information about the costs related to the toll services of the ILECs which would assist them in formulating more effective business and marketing strategies.

TCI further submitted that the public release of the confidential costing information associated with the AT service is not only competitively harmful of and by itself, but more so in light of other costing information that has already been placed on the public record.

Factors in the assessment of 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.

Further, 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.

Conclusion

The information sought pursuant to the requests for disclosure by Call-Net and AT&T is relevant to the issue of the appropriate levels of the AT rates. In their submissions, Call-Net, supported by AT&T, indicated that the AT service was a critically important Category I Competitor service, that rates for the costs for AT service had not been examined by the Commission since the proceeding leading to Decision 97-6, and that past proceedings had demonstrated the crucial assistance that intervener involvement has brought to generating records adequate for decision-making and in providing informed assessments of ILEC costing methods and results. Call-Net further submitted that the AT service was a bottleneck service offered by the ILECs that was among the least potentially competitive. Call-Net and AT&T requested that the maximum amount of information possible should be disclosed on the public record in order to allow interested parties to properly assess the ILECs' AT cost estimates.

The disclosure of the information to be provided pursuant to this letter will afford parties a meaningful opportunity to examine the ILECs' proposals in this proceeding and will contribute to the development of a fuller and complete record.

Having regard to the considerations set out above, the information subject to a claim of confidence listed in the enclosed Attachment 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.

Yours sincerely,

Original signed by Shirley Soehn

Shirley Soehn
Executive Director,
Telecommunications

Attachment

c.c. Yvan Davidson, CRTC, (819) 953-5414

The Companies

1. In respect of the detailed AT cost study summaries of Table 6.4.5-1 provided in the attachment of the 23 July 2002 submission, for each of Aliant Telecom - NB, Aliant Telecom - NL, Aliant Telecom - NS, Aliant Telecom - PEI, Bell Canada, MTS, and SaskTel, disclose all line items for each of (i) the Present Worth/PWAC within study period and (ii) $ per-minute estimates.

   TCI

2. In respect of the detailed cost study summaries provided in Attachment 1 of the AT cost studies associated with TNs 494 and 4182, for each of TCI-Alberta and TCI- British Columbia, disclose all line items for each of (i) the Present Worth/PWAC within study period and (ii) $ per-minute estimates.
   
3. In respect of the demand estimates provided at page 1 of 2 of Attachment 1 of the AT cost studies associated with TNs 494 and 4182, for each of TCI-Alberta and TCI- British Columbia, disclose the annual demand estimates.

Date modified:

2002-10-01