ARCHIVED - Telecom Letter - 8638-C12-200515002

Letter

Ottawa, 11 May 2007

Our file: 8638-C12-200515002

By Electronic mail

To: regulatory.affairs@telus.com ; document.control@sasktel.sk.ca ; regulatory.matters@aliant.ca ; iworkstation@allstream.com ; bell.regulatory@bell.ca ; duchesne@consommateur.qc.ca ; jlawford@piac.ca ; napo@napo-onap.ca

Dear Sir/Madam:

Re: Follow-up to Bill management tools - Debt repayment plans, Telecom Decision CRTC 2005-38, 29 June 2005 (Decision 2005-38) - Requests for disclosure and for further responses to interrogatories

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.  

By way of letters dated 4 April 2007 , the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), on behalf of itself and the National Anti-Poverty Organization, and Union des consommateurs (collectively the Consumer Groups) separately requested further responses to interrogatories and public disclosure for information filed confidentially in the above noted proceeding.

By way of letters dated 18 April 2007 , Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership, Bell Canada, MTS Allstream Inc., Saskatchewan Telecommunications, and TELUS Communications Company (collectively, the ILECs) separately responded to the Consumer Groups' requests.

Part I - Requests for Further Responses

With regard to requests for further responses, the requirements of subsection 18(2) of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure (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, Commission staff considers that the information provided by the ILECs in the above noted proceeding is sufficient and no additional responses are required.

Part II - Requests for Public Disclosure

Requests for disclosure of information for which confidentiality has been claimed are assessed in light of sections 38 and 39 of the Telecommunications Act and section 19 of the Rules. In the case of each request, the public interest in disclosure is weighed against the specific direct harm, if any, likely to result from disclosure. In doing so, a number of factors are taken into account, including the following.

The degree of competition that exists in a particular market is an important consideration in assessing requests for disclosure. All things being equal, the greater the degree of competition in a particular market, 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 the 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, in different circumstances.

Having regard to the considerations set out above, the information subject to a claim of confidence in the interrogatories listed in the Attachment is to be placed on the public record of this proceeding by 18 May 2007 . In each case where full or partial disclosure is to occur, it is considered that the specific direct harm likely to be caused by disclosure would not outweigh the public interest in disclosure.

Part III - Revised process

The process for the above noted proceeding, as set out in Commission staff letters dated 23 February 2007 and 22 March 2007 , is amended as follows:

Parties may file written comments with the Commission on the BDRP results filed by the ILECs and on any other matter associated with the permanent implementation of BDRPs, as set out by the Commission in Decision 2005-38, serving a copy on all other parties by 1 June 2007 .

Parties may file reply comments with the Commission, serving a copy on all other parties by 15 June 2007 .

Where a document is to be filed or served by a specific date, the document must be actually received, not merely sent, by that date. Parties can file their submissions electronically or on paper. Submissions longer than five pages should include a summary.

Yours sincerely,

John Macri
A/ Director, Consumer Affairs
Telecommunications

c.c.: Philippe Kent, CRTC (819) 953-4057

Attachment

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

MTS Allstream (CRTC)23February07-105

Provide the recovery rate for debt collections associated with MTS Allstream's collection agencies on the public record.

MTS Allstream (CRTC)23February07-106

Provide the total net increase in new bad debt incurred by subscribers of the pilot BDRP who defaulted during the 18-month pilot period on the public record.   Provide the average amount of new bad debt incurred by subscribers of the pilot BDRP who defaulted during the 18-month pilot period on the public record.

SaskTel(CRTC)23February07-205

Provide the estimated percentage of debt collected during the BDRP pilot period on the public record.   Provide the percentage of debt sent to traditional collection agencies that is returned to SaskTel on the public record.

Date Modified: 2007-05-11