ARCHIVED - Telecom - Commission Letter - 8640-C12-200507618 & 8640-B2-200401506

Letter

Our file: 8640-C12-200507618 and 8640-B2-200401506

Ottawa, 22 December 2005

To: Interested Parties to Framework for forbearance from regulation of high-speed intra-exchange digital services , Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2005-8, 30 June 2005 (PN 2005-8)

Dear Sir/Madam:

Re: Framework for forbearance from regulation of high-speed intra-exchange digital services , Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2005-8, as amended by Public Notice 2005-8-1 and Public Notice 2005-8-2 (PN 2005-8)  

This letter addresses requests for disclosure of information for which a claim for confidentiality has been asserted and for further responses to interrogatories from interested parties filed in the above noted proceeding.   In addition, this letter includes a further interrogatory directed to Bell Canada and Télébec, société en commandite (collectively, the Companies).

On 25 November 2005 , the Commission received requests for further responses to interrogatories and for disclosure of information filed in confidence from the Companies and MTS Allstream Inc. (MTS Allstream).

On 9 December 2005, responses to those requests were received from the Companies, MTS Allstream, Quebecor Media Inc. (QMI), Rogers Communications Inc. (Rogers), TELUS Communications Inc. (TCI), United Telecom Council of Canada (UTC) and Xit telecom inc., on behalf of Xit telecom inc., Xittel telecommunications inc. and 9141-9077 Quebec inc. (collectively, Xit).  

Parties are to file with the Commission all information to be provided pursuant to this letter by 13 January 2006, serving a copy on all interested parties by the same date.   These submissions must be received, not merely sent, by that date.

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 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 direct 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 with in the future, under different circumstances.

Having regard to the considerations set out above, requests for disclosure of information filed with the Commission under a claim of confidentiality have been denied. However, parties that have provided partial responses or no response to interrogatories on the ground that the information requested was confidential are required to provide the information on the public record of this proceeding to the extent set out in the Attachment to this letter. 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.

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 the Attachment to this letter.

Additional Interrogatory

As set out in the Attachment to this letter, the parties in question are to provide, on a confidential basis with the Commission, the information requested in the Companies interrogatory Parties(The Companies)14Oct05-1.   However, in order for the Commission to have a complete record of the information sought in this interrogatory, the Companies are also directed to file a response to this interrogatory for all exchanges in the provinces of Ontario and Québec on a confidential basis with the Commission.

Yours sincerely,
Original signed by

Paul Godin
A/Director General
Competition, Costing and Tariffs
Telecommunications 

Attachment 

cc: M. Bertrand, CRTC, (819) 994-0294

Attachment 

Bell(MTS Allstream)14Oct05-4 PN 2005-8   Bell is directed to file, on the public record, a full response to this interrogatory.   

Bell(MTS Allstream)14Oct05-5 PN 2005-8   Bell is directed to file, on the public record, a full response to this interrogatory for 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 (actuals).    

MTS Allstream(The Companies)14Oct05-1 PN 2005-8

QMI(The Companies)14Oct05-1 PN 2005-8

Rogers(The Companies)14Oct05-1 PN 2005-8

Xit(The Companies)14Oct05-1 PN 20058 

M TS Allstream, QMI, and Rogers are directed to file a full response to this interrogatory for all exchanges in the provinces of Ontario and Québec on a confidential basis to the Commission. 

Xit is directed to file a response to sub section c) of this interrogatory for all exchanges in the provinces of Ontario and Québec on a confidential basis to the Commission. 

UTC(The Companies)14Oct05-1 PN 2005-8

Cobourg(The Companies)14Oct05-1 PN 2005-8 

UTC and Cobourg Networks Inc. are directed to file a response to sub section c) of this interrogatory for all exchanges in the provinces of Ontario and Québec on a confidential basis to the Commission. 

Bell(MTS Allstream)14Oct05-32 c) PN 2005-8 Bell is directed to file a response to this interrogatory on a confidential basis to the Commission.

Date Modified: 2005-12-22