ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter - 8640-C12-200505076

Letter

Our file: 8640-C12-200505076

Ottawa, 1 September 2005

To: Parties to Forbearance from regulation of local exchange services , Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2005-2, 28 April 2005 (Public Notice 2005-2 )

Dear Sir/Madam:

Re: Forbearance from regulation of local exchange services , Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2005-2, 28 April 2005 (Public Notice 2005-2 )

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.

On 22 August 2005, the Commission received requests for further responses to interrogatories and for disclosure of information filed in confidence from Aliant Telecom Inc. (Aliant Telecom), Bell Canada and Télébec, société en commandite (collectively, the Companies), MTS Allstream Inc. (MTS Allstream) Saskatchewan Telecommunications (SaskTel), Telus Communications Inc. (TCI), the Competition Bureau, the Canadian Cable Telecommunications Association (CCTA), and Xit telecom inc. (Xit).

On 26 August 2005, responses to those requests were received from Aliant Telecom, the Companies, MTS Allstream, SaskTel, TCI,   the Competition Bureau, CCTA, Cogeco Cable Canada Inc. (Cogeco), the Consumer Groups, EastLink, Primus Telecommunications Canada Inc. (Primus), Quebecor Media Inc. (QMI), Rogers Communications Inc. (Rogers), Shaw Cablesystems (Shaw),UTC Canada (UTC), and Xit.  

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 in Attachment 2 to this letter.

Unless otherwise expressly indicated, parties are to file with the Commission all information to be provided pursuant to this letter by 8 September 2005 , serving a copy on all interested parties by the same date.   These submissions must be received, not merely sent, by that date.

Part I - 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, an assessment is made as to whether there is any specific harm likely to result from the 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 or that is expected to occur is an important consideration in assessing requests for disclosure.   All things being equal, the greater the degree of actual or expected competition, 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 within the future in different circumstances.

The Competition Bureau has requested disclosure solely to itself and the Commission of the complete answers to the interrogatories which it posed to several parties including any information filed with the Commission in confidence. If the Competition Bureau's request were to be granted it would be the only party to the proceeding who would have access to all parties' confidential responses to the Competition Bureau's interrogatories. To the extent that the information sought by the Competition Bureau is relevant to this proceeding, it is necessary to consider whether such a selective disclosure is, in the circumstances of this case, in accordance with the duty of procedural fairness. One of the essential principles of procedural fairness is that the parties affected by a potential decision or action must know the case to be met and have a fair opportunity to respond to evidence and submissions alleged in opposition to their interests.   While the Competition Bureau, itself, is not adverse in interest to any of the other parties to the proceeding the submissions it proposes to make based on the information it requested be provided to it will likely be in opposition to the interest of some or all of the other parties to the proceeding. In the circumstances of this case, it would be a breach of the duty of procedural fairness to allow selective disclosure to the Competition Bureau. Accordingly to the extent that parties have not responded to the Competition Bureau's interrogatories and to the extent that the requested information is relevant to the proceeding, parties are being directed to file that information in confidence with the Commission .

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 to 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,

(Original signed by Chris Seidl)

Chris Seidl
Senior Manager, Telecommunications

Attachment

c.c. H. MacDonald, CRTC, 819-997-9231

Attachment 1

Disclosure of Confidential Information

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

Aliant(CRTC)20Jul05-808 (C) (iii) Attachment 4 PN 2005-2   Aliant is directed to file its estimated entrants' share of local customers by LIR on the public record.

Bell (CRTC)20Jul05-205 PN 2005-2   Bell is directed to file the assumptions used in the CSA projections on the public record as per its proposal in reply to MTS Allstream's request for disclosure of the excerpted page.   Bell is also directed to file the full study in confidence.

EastLink(CRTC)20Jul05-905 PN 2005-2   EastLink is directed to   file the 2003 and 2004 historical information on the public record.

EastLink(CRTC)20Jul05-907 PN 2005-2 EastLink is directed to   file the 2003 and 2004 historical information on the public record.

EastLink(CRTC)20Jul05-802 PN 2005-2    EastLink is directed to file a new abridged version of the response which only excludes the NAS numbers.

Rogers(CRTC)20Jul05-212 (a) PN 2005-2   Rogers is directed to file the information requested pertaining to its current service offerings, on the public record.

Rogers(CRTC)20Jul05-802 (a) PN 2005-2   Rogers is directed to include the first sentence of its interrogatory response on the public record.

Shaw(CRTC)20Jul05-905 PN 2005-2   Shaw is directed to file the 2003 and 2004 historical information on the public record.

Shaw(CRTC)20Jul05-907 PN 2005-2   Shaw is directed to file the 2003 and 2004 historical information on the public record.

TELUS(CRTC)20Jul05-205 PN 2005-2   TELUS is directed to file, on the public record, a description, or title, of the information it filed in confidence for item 1 of its response.   No disclosure of the data is required.

TELUS(CRTC)20Jul05-214 (A) Attachment 1 PN 2005-2     Telus is directed to file, on the public record, the information in Attachment 1 of Telus(CRTC)20July05 -214 PN 2005-2.

Attachment 2

Further Responses to Interrogatories :

Aliant(Bureau)20Jul05-14 PN 2005-2 Aliant is directed to file residential monthly subscriber growth rates and churn rates as requested on a confidential basis to the Commission.

Aliant(MTS Allstream)20Jul05-111 PN 2005-2 Aliant is directed to file its number of residential lines by exchange for all exchanges in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island for year end 2004 and an estimate for year end 2005, which may be filed in confidence to the Commission.

Aliant(MTS Allstream)20Jul05-212 (a ) PN 2005-2   Aliant is directed to file the RBC Capital Markets report in (a) on the public record.

Aliant(MTS Allstream)20Jul05-214   PN 2005-2 Aliant is directed to file a full response to this interrogatory, on the public record.   In addition, Aliant is to file its estimate of EastLink's geographic reach by LIR and by local calling area.

Aliant(CRTC)20Jul05-803(c) PN 2005-2   Aliant is directed to file the 2003 and 2004 data in Excel format to the Commission in confidence.

Aliant(CRTC)20Jul05-807 PN 2005-2   Aliant is directed to file all market research studies and any updates that Aliant has carried out which support Aliant's claim that EastLink loses few of the local telephone customers that sign up for its service. This may be filed in confidence.

Aliant(CRTC)20Jul05-808 PN 2005-2 Aliant is directed to   file the 2000 to 2004 information by exchange in Excel format in confidence to the Commission.   Aliant is also directed to file the information in Attachment 2 for the years 2000 to 2004 in Excel format on the public record.

Bell(Consumer Groups)20Jul05-7 PN 2005-2   Bell is directed to file the requested information in parts b, c, d and e of the interrogatory in relation to services subscribed to by customers from Bell or an affiliate of Bell and that the information may be filed in confidence.

Bell(Consumer Groups)20Jul05-9(a) PN 2005-2 The Companies are directed to respond fully to this question and file examples of credible harm, how such harm could be manifested, and impact to consumers.

Bell(MTS Allstream)20Jul05-202 PN 2005-2    Bell Canada is directed to file the Lemay-Yates report, on the public record

Bell(CRTC)20Jul05-907 PN 2005-2   Bell is directed to file, on the public record,   NBI/Michael Sone Associates, Canadian Local Telecommunications Services Market Report , 2004 Edition, November 2004, as well as any updates since the time of filing. Bell is also directed to file, on the public record, NBI/Michael Sone Associates, Canadian Mobile Wireless Communications Services Market Report, December 2004, as well as any updates since the time of filing.

Cogeco(Bureau)20Jul05-24 PN 2005-2   Cogeco is directed to file the requested information in confidence with the Commission.

Cogeco(CRTC)20Jul05-907 PN 2005-2   Cogeco is directed to update the confidential version of Cogeco(CRTC)20Jul05-907 for 2005 to 2007 in light of the supplemental response to interrogatory Cogeco(CRTC)20Jul05-907.

EastLink(Aliant)20Jul05-117 PN 2005-2 EastLink is directed to develop an approximate estimate of the number of residential lines and share of the total number of residential lines for all exchanges within Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island for end of year 2004 and 2005 to be filed in confidence with the Commission.

EastLink(Aliant)20Jul05-122 PN 2005-2 EastLink is directed to file a breakdown of the customer acquisition cost in confidence.   An abridged version is to be filed on the public record.  

EastLink(CRTC)20Jul05 - 806 PN 2005-2   EastLink is directed to file the titles and a brief description of the documents on the public record, and file the complete documents in confidence to the Commission.

MTS Allstream(CRTC)20Jul05-802(a) PN 2005-2   MTS is directed to file clarification as to whether or not it has any business plans to file residential local exchange services in Aliant territories of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island from 2005 to 2007.

Primus(CRTC)20Jul05-902 PN 2005-2 Primus is directed to file a full response to the interrogatory.  

Primus(CRTC)20Jul05- 904 PN 2005-2   Primus is directed to file a   full response to the interrogatory.

Primus(CRTC)20Jul05 - 905 PN 2005-2   Primus is directed to file a full response to the interrogatory.

QMI(Bureau)20Jul05-24 (f) PN 2005-2   QMI is directed to file the requested information in confidence with the Commission.

Rogers (Bureau)20Jul05-9 PN 2005-2 Rogers is directed to respond to the request, and may claim confidentiality for those portions that it deems necessary.

Rogers (Bureau)20Jul05-24 PN 2005-2   Rogers is directed to file the requested information in confidence with the Commission.

Shaw(Bureau)20Jul05-22 PN 2005-2   Shaw is directed to file the requested information in confidence with the Commission.

TELUS(MTS Allstream)20Jul05-101 PN 2005-2   TELUS is directed to file a full response to the interrogatory.

TELUS(CCTA)20Jul05-7 PN 2005-2 TELUS is directed to file a complete response on the public record.  

TELUS(Consumer Groups)20Jul05-29(a) PN 2005-2   TELUS is directed to file a full and complete response to TELUS(Consumer Groups)20July05-29(a), by providing the risks of forbearing too early for each item in paragraphs 148 to 157 of Dr. Weismen's arguments for early forbearance.

TELUS(CRTC)20Jul05-303 PN 2005-2

TELUS(CRTC)20Jul05-304 PN 2005-2

TELUS(CRTC)20Jul05-902 PN 2005-2   Telus is directed to file a full response to the interrogatory.

TELUS(CRTC)20Jul05- 905 PN 2005-2   Telus is directed to file household estimates for the geographic areas identified by the Commission for 2003 to 2007 by September 21, 2005 .

Date Modified: 2005-09-08