ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter - 8740-T66-200503096

Letter

Ottawa, 10 June 2005

File No.: 8740-T66-200503096

By e-mail 

To:   Interested Parties to TELUS Communications Inc. Tariff Notice 0168  

Re:   Follow-up to Competitor Digital Network Services, Telecom Decision CRTC 2005-6, 3 February 2005 - Paragraph 525 - Copper-based Other CO connecting links - TELUS Communications Inc. Tariff Notice 168

This letter deals with requests by Call-Net Enterprises Inc. (Call-Net) dated 29 April 2005 , for the public disclosure of certain information filed in confidence by TELUS Communications Inc. (TCI) in its responses. 

Specifically, Call-Net requested disclosure of the page titled Summary of Revenue and Cost Impacts (found on page 4 of Attachment 1 to TCI's TN 168 application) in its entirety and the disclosure of the overall portfolio factor referred to by TCI in Response to Interrogatory TCI(CRTC)30Mar05-2(a). Call-Net submitted that the level of confidentiality claimed by TCI, with regards to its cost study and interrogatory response, compromised its ability to understand and assess the cost basis for the rates proposed by TCI. 

In its comments dated 9 May 2005, TCI submitted that while the Commission has ordered public disclosure of certain information on the Summary of Revenue and Cost Impacts page filed in support of Category I services on many occasions, the Commission has also consistently upheld the confidentiality claim on Phase II costs provided at the lowest line item level on the Summary of Revenue and Cost Impacts page.   TCI submitted that in this regard, the Commission has stated clearly that the degree to which the information at issue is disaggregated is an important consideration in making public disclosure determinations and that the Commission generally finds that the more disaggregated the information, the more the likelihood that harm will flow from its disclosure.  

TCI submitted that due to the nature of the service and the limited number of cost elements involved, any further disclosure of cost information on the Summary of Revenue and Cost Impacts page would result in disclosure at the most disaggregated line item level, thereby providing detailed cost information that could be applied by competitors to other competitive areas, to the detriment of the company.  

With respect to disclosure of the overall portfolio factor, TCI submitted that its portfolio expense methodology was much more granular than those employed by the other Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs).   TCI noted that the other ILECs use a corporate-wide factor while TCI employs portfolio expense factors specific to a product portfolio associated with the individual service in question.   TCI submitted that disclosure of portfolio expense factors would give the competitors insight into the company's product costs at a disaggregated level thereby causing the company direct and specific harm.

TCI requested that, based on the reasons identified above, the Commission should deny Call-Net's requests for public disclosure of the information on the Summary of Revenue and Cost Impacts page and portfolio expense related factors.  

Factors in the assessment of 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 doing so, a number of factors are taken into account, 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. 

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. 

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. 

Disposition 

In Commission staff's view, while the information requested by Call-Net is relevant, given the limited number of cost elements involved, publ ic disclosure of the information on the Summary of Revenue and Cost Impacts page and the overall portfolio factor would result in disclosure at the most disaggregated line item level.   Commission staff considers that such disclosure would cause TCI direct specific harm, which, in this instance, outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Therefore, Call-Net's requests for disclosure are denied. 

Supplementary Interrogatories 

Commission staff intends to issue supplementary interrogatories to TCI on the matter of the company's proposed application of portfolio expense factors. 

Yours sincerely, 

Original signed by: 

Scott Hutton
Director General
Competition, Costing & Tariffs 

c.c.:   Doug Thurston, CRTC, (819) 997-4579