ARCHIVED - Telecom - Commission Letter - 8660-C12-200315095 - PN CRTC 2003-9 Finalization of the Quality of Service rate adjustment plan for competitors

Our File: 8660-C12-200315095

BY FAX

Ottawa, 19 April 2004

TO: PN 2003-9 Interested Parties List

Re: PN CRTC 2003-9 Finalization of the Quality of Service rate adjustment plan for competitors

Dear Sir/Madam:

This letter deals with requests for further responses to interrogatories and for public disclosure of information filed under claim of confidence by a number of parties in the above-noted proceeding.

Requests were filed by Allstream Corp. on behalf of itself, Call-Net Enterprises Inc., FCI Broadband (a division of Futureway Communications Inc.), and LondonConnect Inc. (collectively, the Competitors), by Bell Canada on behalf of itself, Aliant Telecom Inc. (Aliant), MTS Communications Inc. (MTS), Saskatchewan Telecommunications and Télébec, Limited Partnership (collectively, the Companies), and by TELUS Communications Inc. on behalf of itself and TELUS Communications (Québec) Inc. (collectively, TELUS), on 5 April 2004.

Responses to the requests were filed by the Companies, the Competitors, and TELUS on 13 April 2004.

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.

Unless otherwise expressly indicated, the parties concerned are to file with the Commission all information to be provided pursuant to this letter by Monday, 26 April 2004, serving copies on all interested parties by the same date. This material shall 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 that process, a number of factors are taken into account.

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.

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.

Yours sincerely,

Paul M. Godin
Director
Competition Implementation and Technology
Telecommunications

Attachments


Disclosure of information


TELUS ILEC(the Competitors)1Mar04-3

TELUS is to provide the information on the public record.


Further responses to interrogatories

The Companies:Bell(Allstream et al)1Mar04-10h)
Bell et al:Aliant(The Competitors)1Mar04-10h)
The Companies:MTS(Allstream et al)1Mar04-10h)

The above noted ILECs are to provide the requested information.


Bell et al:Aliant(The Competitors)1Mar04-12
The Companies:Bell(Allstream et al)1Mar04-12
The Companies:MTS(Allstream et al)1Mar2004-12

The above noted ILECs are to provide the requested information.



MTS(Allstream et al)1Mar04-1b)

MTS is to provide the requested information separately for 2002 and 2003 - at the same level of dissaggregation as Aliant and Bell Canada.



Aliant(The Competitors)1Mar04-3a)
Bell(Allstream et al)1Mar04-3a)
MTS(Allstream et al)1Mar04-3a)

Aliant, Bell Canada and MTS are to provide a response to the examples given by the Competitors for which the Business Rules provided do not clearly state an answer and to describe how staff are instructed on how to deal with these particular examples. Aliant, Bell Canada and MTS are to also provide any documentation associated with these instructions to staff.



Aliant(The Competitors)1Mar04-6 to 8
Bell(The Competitors)1Mar04-6 to 8
MTS(The Competitors)1Mar04-6 to 8
TELUS ILEC(The Competitors)1Mar04-6 to 8

The above noted ILECs are to provide the requested information.


TELUS ILEC(The Competitors)1Mar04-2

TELUS is to provide a re-calculated percentage based on all rates paid by a competitor on the month for unbundled loops.


Competitors(CRTC)1Mar04-10a)

The Competitors are to provide the information as undertaken.

Date modified:

2004-04-19