ARCHIVED - lou

Letter

File No.:   8661-C12-200507973

Ottawa, 28 September 2005

To: Parties to Bell Digital Voice Service , Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2005-9, 7 July 2005 (PN 2005-9)

Dear Sir / Madame:

Re:   Bell Digital Voice Service , Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2005-9, 7 July 2005 (PN 2005-9)  

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 6 September 2005, the Commission received requests for further responses to interrogatories and for disclosure of information filed in confidence from MTS Allstream Inc. (MTS Allstream), Primus Telecommunications Canada Inc. (Primus), and Xit télécom inc., Télécommunications Xittel inc. and 9141-9077   Québec inc. (individually and collectively Xit).

On 13 September 2005, responses to those requests were received from Bell   Canada.

Requests for public disclosure are addressed in Part I, below, while requests for further responses are addressed in Part II.   The Commission's determinations with regard to the requests are addressed in the Attachment to this letter.

Unless otherwise expressly indicated, parties are to file with the Commission all information to be provided pursuant to this letter by 30 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. 

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 S. Bédard '

Suzanne Bédard
Senior Manager, Tariffs

Attachment

c.c.   Bob Martin, CRTC, 819-953-3361

Further Responses

Bell Canada is to provide further responses to the interrogatories, as set out below:

Bell(MTS Allstream)29Jul05-5 PN 2005-9, part c)

Bell Canada is to file the estimated percentage of Bell Digital Voice customers that are expected to be provided over Bell's "naked" Sympatico high-speed Internet service.   Bell may file this information with the Commission in confidence.

Bell (Xit)29Jul05-3 PN 2005-9

Bell Canada is to describe the circumstances in which the equipment used to convert from PES to digital voice service is not located in the same place as the equipment used for bill and keep interconnections between Bell Canada and the CLEC.