ARCHIVED - Telecom - Commission Letter - 8663-C12-200509846

Letter

Ottawa, 28 October 2005

Our Files:  8663-C12-200509846 - Reference: 8663-C136- 200509201

To:   Interested Parties PN 2005-10

Re:   Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2005-10 - Review of regulatory framework for the small incumbent local exchange carriers (PN 2005-10) - Request for Disclosure of Confidential Information and Further Responses to Interrogatories

This letter addresses a request from Bell Canada ( Bell ) dated 20 October 2005 for disclosure of confidential information and for further responses to interrogatories filed in the proceeding initiated by PN 2005-10.

The Canadian Independent Telephone Company Joint Task Force (the SILECs) filed a response to Bell 's request.

Requests for public disclosure are addressed in Part I and in Attachment 1, while requests for further responses are addressed in Part II and in Attachment 1.

The SILECs are to file with the Commission all information to be provided pursuant to this letter by 2 November 2005 , serving copies on all interested parties by the same date.   This material should be received, and not merely sent, by that date.

As such, paragraphs 18, 19 and 20 of PN 2005-10 are modified as follows:

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 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 direct harm likely to result from disclosure of the information in question.  Further, in order to justify a claim of confidentiality, 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 develop 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 requests for disclosures 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 specific 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 information from a party that did not ask the original interrogatory.

Having regard to all of the above considerations, the SILECs in question are to provide further responses to the extent set out in Attachment 1 to this letter.

Yours sincerely,

ORIGINAL SIGNED

John Macri
Director, Financial & Regulatory Matters

c.c.   PN 2005-10 - Interested parties        
K. Taylor - CRTC, (819) 997-1849

Date Modified: 2005-10-28