ARCHIVED - Telecom - Commission Letter - 8663-C12-200318130 - Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2003-10, Amendments to Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2003-8, Review of price floor safeguards for retail tariffed services and related issues

Our File: 8663-C12-200318130

Ottawa, 16 April 2004

To: Interested Parties

Re: Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2003-10, Amendments to Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2003-8, Review of price floor safeguards for retail tariffed services and related issues - Requests for further response to interrogatories and/or disclosure of responses filed in confidence

This letter addresses requests for disclosure of information filed in confidence with the Commission and for further responses to interrogatories to interested parties filed in the above noted proceeding.

Interrogatories were issued on 20 February 2004 and responses received 12 March 2004. On 19 March 2004, the Commission received requests for further responses to interrogatories and for disclosure of information filed in confidence from Aliant Telecom Inc. (Aliant), Bell Canada, MTS Communications Inc., Saskatchewan Telecommunications, and Télébec, société en commandite (collectively The Companies), TELUS Communications Inc. and TELUS Communications (Québec) Inc. (collectively TELUS and TELUS Québec), Allstream Corporation (Allstream) and Call-Net Enterprises Inc. (collectively The Competitors), Canadian Cable Television Association (CCTA), Rogers Communications Inc. (Rogers), and Xit Telecom Ltd. (Xit).

On 26 March 2004 responses to those requests were received from The Companies, TELUS and TELUS Québec, The Competitors, CCTA, Rogers, Xit, Québecor Media Inc. (QMI), Coalition for Competitive Telecommunications Pricing (CCTP), Telecom Utilities, and LondonConnect Inc.

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.

Requests for public disclosure are addressed in Part 1 below and in Attachment 1 to this letter while requests for further responses are addressed in Part II and in Attachment 2.

Unless otherwise expressly indicated, relevant parties are to file with the Commission all information to be provided pursuant to this letter by 30 April 2004, serving a copy on all interested parties by the same date. These submissions should be received, not merely sent, by that date.

Part 1 - Requests for Disclosure

Requests for disclosure of information for which confidentiality has been claimed are addressed in light of sections 38 and 39 of the Telecommunications Act and section 19 of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure (the Rules). In evaluating a 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 consideration, 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 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. For example, it is considered that specific direct harm might result from disclosure of documents related to research and surveys which were specifically cited by the Companies in their 30 January 2004 submission in support of their position concerning the importance of discounts associated with bundles and the level of discounts that are expected by consumers. However, in the circumstances of this case, it is considered that any such harm is outweighed by the public interest in providing other parties the opportunity to challenge the evidence cited by the Companies in support of their position.

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 filed under a claim of confidentiality in response to the interrogatories listed in Attachment 1 is, to the extent set out in that Attachment, 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, if any, likely to be caused by disclosure would not outweigh the public interest in disclosure.

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 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.

Two Specific Issues Raised in Requests for Further Responses

Cable company bundling

In interrogatories issued 20 February 2004, The Companies and TELUS requested information from several parties regarding service bundles offered by cable companies. The Companies and TELUS claimed that it would be necessary for the Commission to not only examine bundles offered by ILECs that would be subject to the proposed rules, but also similar bundles containing similar services that are offered by other local service providers. They stated that it would be necessary for the Commission to examine the extent to which bundling is used in the marketing of broadcast distribution services in light of requests from CCTA, Rogers, and QMI that ILECs be prohibited from bundling local telephone service with other service offerings. Finally, the ILECs argued that information on bundling would allow parties to obtain a fuller understanding of the potential negative effects of the changes proposed in the Public Notice.

Rogers, CCTA, and QMI indicated that the requested information is irrelevant and unnecessary in making a determination in this proceeding. They stated that the issues in the proceeding deal with the regulatory framework for large ILECs regarding imputation tests, bundling rules and other related retail tariffed service pricing safeguards. Further, the cable companies submitted that the nature of their operations and regulatory treatment is beyond the scope of this proceeding.

It is noted that under the current regulatory regime, cable companies that are Canadian carriers are not subject to the tariffing requirement for their retail services. Accordingly, these carriers are not subject to the requirement to obtain prior approval of their bundles of telecommunications services and non-telecommunications services. ILECs, on the other hand, are required to obtain prior Commission approval of their bundles that encompass a tariffed service and other tariffed or non-tariffed services.

The record of this proceeding contains information concerning bundles offered by ILECs. It is noted that only ILEC bundles that encompass a tariffed service and other tariffed or non-tariffed services, and thus require tariff approval, are at issue in this proceeding. It is considered that information concerning cable company bundles that encompass local exchange services, which would require an approved tariff if offered by an ILEC, is relevant to the issues in this proceeding.

Review of Phase II Costs

In TELUS(Rogers)20Feb04-3 and The Companies(Rogers)20Feb04-3, Rogers asked the ILECs to identify the Phase II costs for all residential phone services by band, disaggregated between loop costs and other costs. The interrogatories also requested the citations indicating where those costs have been approved or submitted to the Commission. Both TELUS and Bell declined to respond to this interrogatory stating that the requested information is irrelevant and unnecessary in making a determination in this proceeding.

In its 19 March 2004 submission, Rogers replied that an issue in this proceeding is whether the current cost-based or the proposed price-based approach to developing safeguards for service bundles would be appropriate. Rogers stated that the Commission relies on Phase II cost information provided by the ILECs to verify that the filings meet the imputation test and bundling rules. Rogers submitted that, because of this, it is relevant to the proceeding for parties to have the opportunity to review the nature of the costing evidence that has been used under the current approach and that the costing information relied upon by the companies be available for review by all parties.

It is noted that a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of using a Phase II versus a price-based approach is within the scope of the proceeding. However, it is considered that a detailed examination of Phase II costs for residential phone services is not required for the purpose of the determinations within the scope of this proceeding.

It is further noted that Bell, in its 26 March 2004 submission, indicated that costing information is available in Restructured bands, revised loops and related rates and related issues, Telecom Decision 2001 238 2, 7 August 2001 and CRTC approves Saskatchewan Telecommunications' revised primary exchange service costs and related loop rates, Telecom Decision 2002 12, 18 February 2002.


Further Process

Commission staff will distribute shortly a letter which will address supplemental interrogatories to certain parties and will provide a revised process for the remaining phase of the Public Notice 2003 10 proceeding.

Sincerely,

Original signed by Scott Hutton


Shirley Soehn
Executive Director
Telecommunications

Attachments

c.c. Dem Magmanlac, CRTC, 819-953-6638



Attachment 1

Disclosure of Confidential Information

Parties are to disclose the information filed with the Commission in confidence, as set out below:

TELUS(Consumer Groups)20Feb04-1
TELUS(CCTA)20Feb04-17a)
TELUS is to disclose the total number of subscribers for all bundles, provided in its response to TELUS(Consumer Groups)20Feb04-1(b)(v). This will also serve to provide a response to TELUS(CCTA)20Feb04-17a).

TELUS(CRTC)20Feb04-1
Aliant(CRTC)20Feb04-1
TELUS and Aliant are to aggregate the information contained in their confidential response to TELUS(CRTC)20Feb04-1 and Aliant (CRTC)20Feb04-1 and disclose the aggregate information in the same format as that in which Bell Canada provided similar information on the public record in response to The Companies(CRTC)20Feb04-1.

The Companies(CCTA)20Feb04-17
The Companies(CCTA)20Feb04-22(A)
The Companies(Allstream/Call-Net)20Feb04-208
The Companies are to disclose those portions of the research reports, including the associated questionnaires and discussion guides, upon which the Companies wish to rely in support of their submission in this proceeding.

The Competitors(The Companies)20Feb04-1
The Competitors(TELUS)20Feb04-2
Allstream is to disclose information provided in The Competitors' response to The Competitors(The Companies)20Feb04-1 for any bundle that would require a tariff, if provided by an ILEC.


Attachment 2
Further Responses to Interrogatories

CCTA(The Companies)20Feb04-1
CCTA(TELUS)20Feb04-2
Québecor(TELUS)20Feb04-2
Rogers(The Companies)20Feb04-1
For each of Rogers Communications Inc., Access Communications Cooperative Limited, Cogeco Inc. and/or Cogeco Cable Canada Inc., Eastlink Telephone, Shaw Communications Inc. and/or Shaw Cablesystems Ltd., and QMI, a further response is to be provided for those bundles that encompass at least one local exchange service, which would be subject to a tariff if it were offered by an ILEC.

CCTA(TELUS)20Feb04-5

Québecor(TELUS)20Feb04-1(c)
CCTA (TELUS)20Feb04-1(c)
The Competitors(TELUS)20Feb04-1(c)
Each of The Competitors, QMI, Rogers Communications Inc., Access Communications Cooperative Limited, Cogeco Inc. and/or Cogeco Cable Canada Inc., Eastlink Telephone, and Shaw Communications Inc. and/or Shaw Cablesystems Ltd. are to provide copies of the requested speeches and presentations presented by the CFO and CEO of each applicable company in the years 2003 and 2004 only, or to a direct website link containing the relevant information. In the case that a website link is provided, each party is required to file with the Commission a hard copy of all the information.

Québecor(The Companies)20Feb04-3

TELUS(CCTA)20Feb04-3

TELUS(CCTA)20Feb04-4

TELUS(CCTA)20Feb04-5

TELUS(CCTA)20Feb04-6

TELUS(CCTA)20Feb04-7

TELUS(Competitors)20Feb04-101

Bell(Allstream/Call-Net)20Feb04-104(a)
Further responses are to be provided to the first two sentences of this interrogatory, although not necessarily in the format requested.

Bell(Allstream/Call-Net)20Feb04-104(b)

Bell(Allstream/Call-Net)20Feb04-211(e)

Bell(Allstream/Call-Net)20Feb04-212(d)

The Companies(CCTA)20Feb04-1

The Companies(CCTA)20Feb04-3

The Companies(CCTA)20Feb04-4

The Companies(CCTA)20Feb04-5

The Companies(CCTA)20Feb04-21(B) and (C)

MTS(CCTA)20Feb04-34

LondonConnect(TELUS)20Feb04-5

Date modified:

2004-04-16