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 - Response to Interrogatory TELUS(CCTA)20Feb04-5

Letter

Our File: 8663-C12-200318130

Ottawa, 27 May 2004

Mr. Willie Grieve
Vice-President
Telecom Policy and Regulatory Affairs
TELUS Communications Inc.
10020 - 100 Street
31 st Floor
Edmonton, AB   T5J 0N5
Fax: (780) 493-6519

Dear Mr. Grieve:

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 - Response to Interrogatory TELUS(CCTA)20Feb04-5

This letter addresses CCTA's letter dated 3 May 2004 requesting that the Commission direct TELUS to file, on the public record, an unabridged version of its interrogatory response to TELUS(CCTA)20Feb04-5 which it filed in confidence to the Commission on 30 April 2004.   In that interrogatory, TELUS was requested to provide the percentage of residential primary exchange subscribers who subscribe to at least one optional local service, for each of the years 1995 to 2003.

Background

In its submission dated 12 March 2004 , TELUS declined to respond to the above noted interrogatory stating that it was not providing a response because the requested information is not relevant nor required by the Commission to render a decision in the proceeding, and that the requested information is confidential.

In its request for further responses and disclosure dated 19 March 2004 , CCTA submitted that TELUS did not provide any support for its claim of confidentiality.   CCTA submitted that the requested information is relevant and necessary to allow the Commission and interested parties to test the basis for claims by TELUS that there is strong competition in the residential telephone market. CCTA submitted that there is substantial public interest in disclosure of the information requested.

CCTA also submitted that the requested information is highly aggregated at the level of TELUS' entire operating territory. CCTA submitted that at such a level of aggregation, there is less specific direct harm that may result from disclosure.

Finally, CCTA stated that the potential for any specific direct harm to TELUS that may result from disclosure of the requested information would be outweighed by the public interest in ensuring that the information is on the public record of the proceeding.

In its responses to requests for disclosure and further responses to interrogatories, submitted on 26 March 2004 , TELUS stated that the information sought by CCTA is commercially sensitive information that is consistently treated in a confidential manner by TELUS and the Commission.   TELUS argued that the specific direct harm to TELUS outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information on the public record.

By   letter dated 16 April 2004 , TELUS was required to provide a further response to TELUS(CCTA)20Feb04-5. TELUS filed a response to this interrogatory in confidence on 30 April 2004 , citing similar reasons for its claim of confidentiality as it previously stated in its submission on 26 March 2004.

CCTA responded with a letter dated 3 May 2004 , requesting that the information filed by TELUS in response to TELUS(CCTA)20Feb04-5 be disclosed on the public record of the proceeding.   CCTA submitted that TELUS has failed to comply with the Commission's explicit directions with respect to the filing of the supplemental response to the interrogatory in question stating that TELUS' claim of confidentiality is contrary to the Commission's explicit direction that supplemental responses be provided with the objective of placing the information on the public record.

In reply dated 19 May 2004, TELUS submitted that it had not failed to comply with the Commission's letter of 16 April 2004. TELUS noted that Part 1 of that letter addressed requirements for public disclosure and Part 2 addressed requests for further responses. TELUS noted that TELUS(CCTA)20Feb04-5 was addressed in Part 2 and that no mention of that interrogatory was made in Part 1, addressing disclosure of confidential information. TELUS stated that it was under no compulsion to provide a response to the interrogatory on the public record. TELUS submitted that it is in full compliance with the letter of 16 April 2004 and that CCTA's request for disclosure should be denied.

Determination

The letter dated 16 April 2004 determined that a further response was required to   TELUS(CCTA)20 Feb04-5. This current letter addresses whether the further response   submitted by TELUS on 30 April 2004 should be disclosed.

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.

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.

It is noted that the information in question is aggregated at the level of TELUS' entire operating territory. It is considered that the specific direct harm, if any, likely to be caused by the disclosure of information contained in response to TELUS(CCTA)20Feb04-5 would not outweigh the public interest in disclosure.

In light of the above, TELUS is to file on the public record, within two business days, its response to TELUS(CCTA)20Feb04-5 that it filed in confidence with the Commission on 30 April 2004, serving a copy on all interested parties by the same date. This submission should be received, not merely sent, by that date.

Sincerely,

Shirley Soehn
Executive Director
Telecommunications

c.c: Interested parties
      Dem Magmanlac, CRTC, 819-953-6638

Date modified: 2004-05-26