ARCHIVED - Telecom - Commission Letter - 8661-C12-10/02 - Competitor Digital Network Access service proceeding: Aggregated responses and further process
This page has been archived on the Web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.
Our File: 8661-C12-10/02
Ottawa, 30 October 2003
To: Parties to Public Notice CRTC 2002-4
Re: Competitor Digital Network Access service proceeding: Aggregated responses and further process
By letter dated 21 February 2003 Commission staff set out its determinations with respect to requests for further responses and disclosure of information filed under claim of confidence received by the Commission with respect to interrogatories addressed on 11 October 2002 to parties in the proceeding initiated by Competitor Digital Network Access service proceeding, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2002-4, 9 August 2002 (PN 2002-4) (the CDNA proceeding). Responses to these interrogatories were submitted on 20 December 2002.
In the 21 February 2003 letter, Commission staff stated that it would address supplementary interrogatories and stated further that it intended to aggregate some of the information sought related to facilities supply and to place the aggregated information on the public record, assuming this could be accomplished so as to provide meaningful information that did not compromise the confidentiality of the party-specific data in question.
The supplementary interrogatories referred to in the 21 February 2003 letter were addressed to certain parties on 20 March 2003. More specifically, interrogatories 1001 to 1005 of the Part A series of the 20 March 2003 interrogatories were addressed to Allstream (formerly, AT&T Canada), Call-Net Enterprises Inc. (Call-Net), fciBroadband (formerly Futureway), LondonConnect Inc. (LondonConnect) and to each of the following incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) in respect of its out of territory operations, whether or not they were conducted through an affiliate: Aliant Telecom Inc., Bell Canada, MTS Communications Inc., Saskatchewan Telecommunications (Bell Canada et al.) and TELUS Communications Inc. (TELUS). Interrogatories 1006 and 1007 of the Part A series of the 20 March 2003 interrogatories were also addressed to Allstream, Call-Net, fciBroadband, LondonConnect, the ILECs and to Rogers Wireless Inc. on behalf of itself and Rogers Cable Inc.
Interrogatories 1001 to 1005 of the Part B series of the 20 March 2003 interrogatories were addressed to the ILECs.
In Procedural determination in the Competitor Digital Network Access service proceeding with respect to an application made by the Canadian Cable Television Association, Telecom Decision CRTC 2003-52, dated 1 August 2003, the Commission addressed interrogatories 1006 and 1007 contained in Part A of the Attachment to the 20 March 2003 letter to EastLink, Cogeco Cable Canada Inc., Shaw Communications Inc., Rogers Cable Inc. (cable companies) and Vidéotron Télécom ltée (Vidéotron Télécom). The responses of the cable companies and Vidéotron Télécom form part of the record of the CDNA proceeding.
Responses to the 20 March 2003 supplemental interrogatories were received on 30 April 2003. After reviewing these responses Commission staff addressed additional interrogatories to certain parties on 25 July 2003 and responses were received from these parties by 26 September 2003. On 30 September 2003, London Connect Inc. filed a revision to its response dated 29 August 2003. In certain cases, Commission staff sought clarification, by letter dated 30 September 2003, of the information provided with respect to the way in which Indefeasible Rights of Use were incorporated in various responses and responses were received from these parties by 8 October 2003.
The letter accompanying the 20 March 2003 Commission staff supplementary interrogatories also noted that the process for comment and reply comment established in PN 2002-4 as amended would be revised. That letter further stated Commission staff's expectation that a revised schedule would be established at the time aggregated responses to the 20 March 2003 interrogatories were placed on the public record.
Accordingly, the next section of this letter addresses issues of confidentiality associated with the aggregated responses and the subsequent section sets out further process and invites parties to comment on the issues.
The Attachment to this letter places on the public record twelve tables that contain aggregated information relating primarily to the provision and use of facilities by competitors (the aggregated information). In the title of Tables 1 to 9, "competitors" includes ILECs in respect of their out-of-territory operations.
In the 4000 series of interrogatories, contained in the supplementary interrogatories dated 20 March 2003, Commission staff asked ILECs and competitors providing information in response to the 1000 series of interrogatories to comment on Commission staff's proposals with respect to the aggregation and disclosure of information provided by those parties. With certain exceptions, parties generally agreed with Commission staff's proposals in this area.
In making determinations with respect to the information that it would be appropriate to place on the public record, the specific direct harm, if any, likely to result from disclosure was weighed against the public interest in disclosure. Given the high degree of specific direct harm that could flow from the disclosure of a respondent's detailed data, Commission staff undertook to aggregate information in order to provide parties with a more complete record while upholding a respondent's claim of confidentiality in respect of the detailed information provided in its responses.
Based on its review of the parties' submissions with respect to Commission staff's proposals, its review of the information submitted having regard to the issues under consideration in this proceeding and taking into account the relatively small number of respondents and the fact that not all respondents operate in all areas of the country, Commission staff considers that specific direct harm, if any, likely to result from the disclosure of the information contained in the Attachment does not outweigh the public interest in its disclosure. It is further considered that the specific direct harm likely to result from the disclosure of more detailed information would outweigh the public interest in its disclosure.
The aggregated information generally reflects the proposals relating to aggregation and disclosure of information on which Commission staff sought comment.
The aggregated information is a Commission staff compilation of information provided by ILECs and competitors in response to Commission interrogatories, amended only to ensure that the correct exchange names are used and to ensure that exchanges are assigned correctly to Bands. Commission staff emphasizes that the information contained in the Attachment is solely an aggregation of information filed by parties in the CDNA proceeding and shall not be attributed to the Commission.
Commission staff notes that Aliant will file responses to Commission staff's 29 July 2003 interrogatories by 7 November 2003. Commission staff also notes
that, by letters dated 17 June 2003 and 12 September 2003, Allstream and Call-Net (Allstream et al.) made various requests for disclosure of information filed under claim of confidence. By letter dated 8 October 2003, TELUS made various
requests with respect to information filed by the cable companies and Vidéotron Télécom. Commission staff sought comments on Allstream et al.'s requests by letter dated 30 September 2003 and sought comments on TELUS' requests by letter dated 21 October 2003. Commission staff intends to issue its determinations with respect to the requests made by Allstream et al. and by TELUS in the near future and intends to request the provision or disclosure by 7 November 2003 of any further information that is to be provided or to be placed on the public record. Accordingly, it is anticipated that the record of the CDNA proceeding will be complete by 7 November 2003.
However, Commission staff considers that the record of the CDNA proceeding is substantially complete with the release of the aggregated data attached to this letter. Staff further considers that it is appropriate to set out further process at this time in order to provide parties with as much time as possible to consider the record and to develop their comments.
Parties are reminded that, in addition to the issues set out in Public Notice 2002-4, other issues have been raised during the course of this proceeding that they may comment on. These issues include submissions made in the proceeding that led to Part VII application by Call-Net Enterprises Inc. with respect to the Interim Competitor Digital Network Access service, Telecom Decision CRTC 2003-60, dated 29 August 2003 and, in particular, the condition on the resale of the CDNA service proposed by Bell Canada et al., Allstream's submission regarding restrictions on the use of the CDNA service and Call-Net's request that the ILECs should pay interest on any monies that may be refunded to competitors as a result of the Commission's determinations in the CDNA proceeding.
In the context of considering the final classification of Optical Carrier (OC) services, parties are invited to provide, with reasons, their views on considerations that may relate particularly to the classification of OC services at various speeds as Competitor Services (including, for example, considerations related to the relative capacity requirements of end-customers requiring these services).
further invited to comment on all advantages and disadvantages ILECs, other competitors and third party suppliers may have in provisioning access, link, intra-exchange, channelization and digital inter-exchange services at the various capacity levels and in various Bands, exchanges or wire centres. Parties are invited to illustrate their submissions with diagrams of network configurations as appropriate.
Parties are reminded that the Commission will address the following TNs in its decision in the CDNA proceeding:
o Bell Canada TN 6621 dated 18 October 2001 and TN 6621A dated 26 August 2003;
o Bell Canada TN 6753 dated 28 May 2003 and TN 6753A dated 29 August 2003;
o TELUS TN 57 dated 14 June 2002;
o TELUS TN 63 dated 2 October 2002 and
o TELUS TN 119 dated 25 September 2003.
Parties may submit comments, serving a copy on other parties, by 12 December 2003.
Parties may submit comments in reply, serving a copy on other parties, by 23 December 2003.
Parties are reminded that comments must be received, not merely sent, by the dates indicated.
Original signed by
Acting Director General
Competition, Costing and Tariffs
c.c.: CRTC - Daphne Fry (819) 953-5373
- Date modified: