ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter - 8678-C12-200605553

Letter

File Number:   8678-C12-200605553

Ottawa, 29 September 2006

To: Distribution List

Dear Sir/Madam:

Re: Review of price cap framework , Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2006-5, 9 May 2006 (Public Notice 2006-5) - Requests for disclosure and for further responses to interrogatories

This letter addresses requests for disclosure of information for which confidentiality was claimed and for further responses to interrogatories to interested parties filed in the above noted proceeding.

On 13 September 2006, the Commission received requests for further responses to interrogatories and for disclosure of information for which confidentiality was claimed by Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership, Bell Canada and Saskatchewan Telecommunications (the Companies), TELUS Communications Company (TELUS), MTS Allstream Inc. (MTS Allstream), the Public Interest Advocacy Centre representing the consumer groups (the Consumer Groups), the Public Interest Law Centre representing CAC/MSOS (CAC/MSOS), l'Union des consommateurs, and the City of Calgary.

On 20 September 2006 , responses to those requests were received from the Companies, TELUS, MTS Allstream and the Consumer Groups.

Except as noted below, requests for public disclosure are addressed in Part I of this letter while requests for further responses are addressed in Part II of this letter.   The Consumer Group's request for disclosure with respect to interrogatory MTS Allstream(Consumer Groups)8Aug06-15 will be dealt with shortly by way of a separate process.

Unless otherwise expressly indicated, parties are to file with the Commission all information to be provided pursuant to this letter by 4 October 2006 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 Consumer Groups have requested service-specific information by Common Language Locator Indicator Code (CLLI code) or any other naming convention utilized by the Companies, TELUS and MTS Allstream. It is noted that much of the requested information is provided to the Commission in preparation of the Telecommunications Monitoring Report .   The Commission will make use of this information to the extent that it is relevant to the Commission's determinations in this proceeding.

Having regard to the considerations set out above, no information for which confidentiality was claimed is to be placed on the public record of this proceeding.    In each case where full or partial disclosure was requested, it was considered that the specific direct harm, if any, likely to be caused by disclosure outweighed 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 1 to this letter.

Yours sincerely,

(Original signed by)

John Macri
Director, Financial and Regulatory Matters

c.c.:   B. Noakes, CRTC (819) 997-4429

c.c.   Parties to Public Notice 2006-5

bell.regulatory@bell.ca;  iworkstation@allstream.com;  regulatory.affairs@telus.com;  regulatory.matters@aliant.ca;  document.control@sasktel.sk.ca;  Regulatory.matters@corp.eastlink.ca;  regulatoryaffairs@nwtel.ca;  cataylor@cyberus.ca;  david.watt@rci.rogers.com;  befro@pilc.mb.ca;  bywil@pilc.mb.ca;  jeffrey.fan@ubs.com;  dma2@telusplanet.net;  dmckeown@viewcom.ca;  piac@piac.ca;  stinsond@comnet.ca;  lefebvre@rogers.com;  crtc@mhgoldberg.com;  abriggs@cogeco.ca;  rob.olenick@tbaytel.com;  ghariton@sympatico.ca;  regulatory@corporate.fcibroadband.com ;  lisangus@angustel.ca;  calgaryregulatory@calgary.ca;  cedwards@ccsa.cable.ca;  duchesne@consommateur.qc.ca;  christian.tacit@cybersurf.com;  reglementa@telebec.com;  regaffairs@quebecor.com;  brovet@yak.ca;  telecom.regulatory@cogeco.com;  andre.labrie@mcc.gouv.qc.ca;

Attachment

Further Responses to Interrogatories

Bell (CAC/MSOS)8Aug06-1(b)

Bell is requested to provide a full response to the interrogatory.

The Companies(Union des consommateurs)8Aug06-3 (c)

The Companies are requested to individually provide a full response to the interrogatory.

The Companies(MTS Allstream)8Aug06-1

The Companies are requested to provide a full response to the interrogatory.

The Companies(MTS Allstream)8Aug06- 6 d)

The Companies are requested to provide a full response to the interrogatory.

MTS Allstream(CAC/MSOS)8Aug06-1(b)

MTS Allstream is requested to provide a full response to the interrogatory.

MTS Allstream(CAC/MSOS)8Aug06-1(c)

MTS Allstream is requested to provide a full response to the interrogatory.

MTS Allstream(CAC/MSOS)8Aug06-1(f)

MTS Allstream is requested to provide a full response to the interrogatory.

TELUS(CAC/MSOS)8Aug06-1(b)

TELUS is requested to provide a full response to the interrogatory.

TELUS(Consumer Groups)8Aug06-4

TELUS is requested to provide abridged versions of the two primary research studies on the public record, disclosing those portions of the market research studies relevant to the issue of the emergence of competition in the local services market.

TELUS(MTS Allstream)8Aug06-5

TELUS is requested to provide a full response to the interrogatory in the context of rate ranges as addressed by MTS Allstream.