ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter - 8678-C12-200402313 - Requests for further responses to interrogatories and for disclosure of information filed

Our File: 8678-C12-200402313

Ottawa, 23 September 2004

To Parties to Review and disposition of deferral accounts for the second price cap period , Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2004-1, 24 March 2004

Dear Sir/Madam:

Re: Requests for further responses to interrogatories and for disclosure of information filed

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.

Relevant parties are to file with the Commission all information to be provided pursuant to this letter by Friday, 1 October 2004 , serving copies on all interested parties by the same date.   This material should 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 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 evaluating a request, an assessment is made as to whether there is any specific direct harm likely to result from disclosure of the information in question.  Further, in order to justify a claim of confidence, any such harm must be sufficient as to outweigh the public interest in disclosure.  In making this evaluation, 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 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.

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 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 1 to this letter.

At this time, staff is also issuing a supplemental interrogatory to TELUS Communications (Québec) Inc. , as set out in Attachment 2 of this letter.   Responses to this interrogatory are to be filed with the Commission, serving copies on all parties by 1 October 2004 .   Responses are to be actually received, and not merely sent, by this date.

Yours sincerely,

Chris Seidl
Senior Manager
Telecom Policy Decisions
Telecommunications

c.c.  Parties to PN 2004-1
        Mervin Grywacheski, CRTC, 819-997-4676

Attachment 1

Further responses to interrogatories

Bell(MTS Allstream)23Jun04-101(b)

Provide an update, in respect of each of the municipalities listed in Table 1 of Appendix 1 of Bell Canada 's 19 May 2004 submission, to report whether or not Bell Canada has partaken in any RFP or bidding activity for any portion of the broadband initiative proposed for that community.

TELUS(CCTA)23Jun04-11(b)

Provide the forecast SIP expenditures for 2005 for HCSAs and non-HCSAs.

Call-Net(TELUS)23Jun04-7(b) and (c)

Provide the information requested, as indicated in paragraphs 9 and 10 of Call-Net's letter to the Commission, dated 30 August 2004

TELUS(ARCH)23Jun04-1

Provide a description of the activities that TELUS has undertaken to ensure that persons with disabilities, other than visually and hearing impaired subscribers, have equal and full access to telecommunications services and products, as indicated by TELUS in paragraph 2 of its letter dated 1 September 2004.

TELUS(ARCH)23Jun04-3

Provide details concerning TELUS' services to "other" disabled subscribers, as indicated by TELUS in paragraph 4 of its letter dated 1 September 2004 .

Attachment 2

TELUS Communications (Québec) Inc.

1.   Refer to the response to interrogatory TCQC(CRTC)23juin2004-7 and Implementation of Price regulation for Télébec and TELUS Québec , Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-43, 31 July 2002 (Decision 2002-43), paragraph 266. In that paragraph, the criteria for exogenous events are set-out.

a)   Assume that the company's current rates reflect a contribution revenue percent charge of 1.4%.   Provide, in a tabular schedule, the amount that the company would have to transfer into its deferral account using going-in Utility segment revenues and the difference between the contribution revenue percent charge of 1.4% and the applicable contribution revenue percent charge for 2003, (1.1%), 2004, (1.1%) and the interim rate for 2005 (1.1%).

b)   Provide an estimate of the impact, with supporting calculations, that the amount calculated in a) would have on the company's rate of return on common equity for each of the years.

c)   In paragraph 266 of Decision 2002-43, the criteria for an exogenous event are set-out as follows:

i)   they are legislative, judicial or administrative actions which are beyond the control of the company;

ii)   they are addressed specifically to the telecommunication industry; and

iii)   they have a material impact as measured against the total company.

d) It appears, on a prima facia basis, that the contribution percent charge reduction meets the criteria for an exogenous event. Provide the company's view with supporting rationale: i) as to whether the contribution percent charge reductions meets the criteria for an exogenous event, and ii) whether the determination in b) above has a material impact as measured against the total company, as it relates to the third criteria for an exogenous event.

Date modified:

2004-09-23