ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter - 8640-C12-200706351

Letter

Ottawa, 25 May 2007

File No.: 8640-C12-200706351

To: Distribution List (attached)

Re:    Application for local forbearance - Requests for disclosure

The Commission is in receipt of requests for disclosure of information [1] filed in confidence by Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership (Bell Aliant), Bell Canada, Saskatchewan Telecommunications and TELUS Communications Company (collectively, the applicant ILECs) with their respective local forbearance applications. Requests for public disclosure were received from:

Execulink Telecom Inc.
Maskatel inc.
MTS Allstream Inc.
Quebecor Media Inc., on behalf of its affiliate Vidéotron Ltd
Téléphone Drummond inc.
9164-3122 Québec inc., carrying on business as Sogetel Numérique (Sogetel)

The Commission is also in receipt of reply to the requests for disclosure of information filed in confidence from:

Bell Aliant
Bell Canada
Saskatchewan Telecommunications
TELUS Communications Company

Request 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 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 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 the likelihood that harm will flow from its disclosure.   In particular, in this proceeding, parties' responses to various interrogatories have been considered from the point of view of whether they could be aggregated so as to provide meaningful information that would not compromise the confidentiality of any individual party's response.

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.

Commission staff has reviewed the various requests for disclosure taking into account the above. Commission staff determination is set out below.

1. Requests for disclosure of local access lines count (by wire centre and by remote) and households count by exchange

Commission staff considers that public disclosure of the total number of residential and business local access lines by wire centre and by remote by the applicant ILECs would provide current and potential competitors with market-specific information that may enable competitors to develop more effective business strategies and could result in specific direct harm to the applicant ILECs. However, Commission staff considers that there is a strong public interest in allowing parties sufficient access to some information regarding local access line counts, which would enable them to effectively participate in these proceedings.

Commission staff notes that for the purposes of a local forbearance application, the local exchange has been defined as the appropriate geographic component of the relevant market. Commission staff considers that disclosure of the local line counts at the exchange level would meet the public interest in allowing effective participation by the parties while avoiding the potential harm from disclosure of the data at the wire centre or the remote level.

Accordingly, Commission staff is of the view that in order to have a fair and efficient local forbearance process, applicant ILECs must provide on the public record the total number of residential and business local access lines [2] by exchange and the total number of households by exchange as estimated by mapping Forward Sortation Areas or postal codes onto local exchange boundaries.

Commission staff considers that any specific direct harm likely to result from disclosure of the above information would not outweigh the public interest in its disclosure.

2.   Requests for the disclosure of the names and the locations of wire centres and remotes

Commission staff considers that public disclosure of the location of wire centres and remotes by the applicant ILECs may provide current and potential competitors with market-specific information that would enable competitors to develop more effective business strategies and could result in specific direct harm to the applicant ILECs. However, Commission staff considers that in order for some competitors, on whose presence the applicant ILEC justifies its forbearance request, to be in a position to provide the information requested by the Commission in Appendix 3 of its letter dated 7 May 2007 and to provide comments, further information must be provided to those competitors.

Accordingly, for each exchange where the applicant ILEC relies on the presence of a competitor who relies on a Local Exchange Carrier's or third parties' leased local access transmission facilities to provide local exchange services, the applicant ILEC is required to provide the name and location of each remote and each wire centre for that exchange to the competitor(s) on whose presence the applicant ILEC justifies its forbearance request in that exchange.

Commission staff considers that any specific direct harm likely to result from disclosure of the above information to specific competitors would not outweigh the public interest in its disclosure.

3.    Disclosure of coverage maps

Commission staff notes that some applicant ILECs have relied upon coverage maps to determine, by visual inspection, the competitor's coverage in an exchange. Commission staff also notes that some of the applicant ILECs have referred to various sources for the coverage maps but have not provided the coverage maps on the record of this proceeding.   Commission staff is of the view that in instances where the applicant ILEC has relied upon coverage maps to support its forbearance request, the applicant ILEC must provide a copy of the coverage map on the public record of the appropriate local forbearance application.

Commission staff considers that any specific direct harm likely to result from disclosure of the above information would not outweigh the public interest in its disclosure.

4.   Requests for the disclosure of evidentiary basis and calculation that it has used to derive market coverage

Commission staff is of the view that the information already filed on the record of the various local forbearance applications and the additional information to be disclosed pursuant to this letter will provide sufficient information to enable competitors to evaluate and comment on the evidence submitted by the applicant ILECs with respect to the basis and calculations used to derive competitive market coverage by the applicant ILECs in support of their respective applications.

Commission staff notes that some parties have argued that some applicant ILECs have failed to provide some of the information requested by the Commission in its letter dated 7 May 2007 , as amended on 15 May 2007 , and should be returned as deficient. Commission staff has reviewed the information provided by the applicant ILECs in response to its request for additional information. In Commission staff's view, applicant ILECs only omitted requested data where it was unavailable. Commission staff is of the view that the information filed on the record of the various local forbearance applications, the supplemental information filed by the applicant ILECs and the information to be provided pursuant to this letter provides sufficient information to all relevant parties at this stage of the process. Commission staff recognizes that issues specific to an exchange may arise. In that instance, the need for additional information or disclosure will be considered in the context of each situation.    

Where directed to do so, applicant ILECs are required to provide the specified information by end of day 28 May 2007 .

Sincerely,

'Original signed by L. Fancy'

Lynne Fancy
A/Director, Competition Implementation and Technology
Telecommunications

c.c.: Mario Bertrand, CRTC (819) 994-0294

[1] Commission staff notes that while some of the requests are for the disclosure of information on the public record, some parties requested disclosure of competitor-specific information to each individual competitor to which the information relates.

[2] Local access lines are measured by NAS. For this purpose, NAS is defined as a wireline connection from a customer location to the PSTN which includes 1) a telephone number, 2) a connection to the PSTN and 3) access for the customer location to the service provider's office.

Distribution List

smacdonald@mtt.ca ;  donald.woodford@bell.ca ;  pdowns@nexicom.net ;  rwi_gr@rci.rogers.com ;  reglementa@telebec.com ;  dmccaffrey@kenora.com ;  regulatory.matters@aliant.ca ;   drew.gordon@bell.ca ;  document.control@sasktel.sk.ca ;  sdrew@globalstar.ca ;  regulatory.affairs@telus.com ;  intervention@newnorth.ca ;  peter.diedrich@tbaytel.com ;  regulatory.aff@fidomobile.ca ;  alain.duhaime@sogetel.com ;  iworkstation@mtsallstream.com ;  andrew@isptelecom.net ;  regulatory@corporate.fcibroadband.com ;  brenda.stevens@rci.rogers.com ; JohnP@mountaincable.on.ca ;  Regulatory@sjrb.ca ;  regaffairs@quebecor.com ;  jesse@vianet.ca ;  regulatory.affairs@telus.com ;  david.watt@rci.rogers.com ;  regulr@bmts.com ; reglementaire@maskatel.qc.ca ;  steve@wtccommunications.ca ;  regulatory@distributel.ca ;  documents@accesscomm.ca ;  ataylor@personainc.ca ;  mlaurent@cooptel.qc.ca ;  lcouture@telwarwick.qc.ca ;   ian.stevens@execulink.com ;  pdowns@nexicom.net ;  natalie.macdonald@corp.eastlink.ca ;  jboutros@globility.ca ; reglementation@xittel.net ; bell.regulatory@bell.ca ; ken.engelhart@rci.rogers.com ;  cataylor@cyberus.ca ;  jeffrey.fan@ubs.com ;  dave.jarrett@sympatico.ca ;  taylor.richard@cb-bc.gc.ca ;  arthur.gottlieb@sympatico.ca ;  icollins@torontohydro.com ;  dmckeown@viewcom.ca ;  piac@piac.ca ;  stinsond@comnet.ca ;  Peter.Rhamey@bmonb.com ;  lefebvre@rogers.com ;  regulatory.affairs@alcatel.com ;  gordonp@lao.on.ca ;  stikeman@tactix.ca ;  kirsten.embree@fmc-law.com ;  pleblanc@iedm.org ;  crtc@mhgoldberg.com ;  antecol@phmlaw.com ;  reglementation@xittel.net ;  amedeo.bernardi@ontera.ca ;  abriggs@cogeco.ca ;  joe.parent@vonage.com ;  ghariton@sympatico.ca ;  regulatory@lya.com ;  calgaryregulatory@calgary.ca ;  reglementation@xittel.net ;  regulatoryca@aol.com ;  christian.tacit@cybersurf.com ;  lisangus@angustel.ca ;  regaffairs@quebecor.com ;  david.kidd@blakes.com ;  regulatory@primustel.ca ;  progers@osler.com ;  benrovet@rogers.com ;  sabray@satat.qc.ca ;  andre.labrie@mcc.gouv.qc.ca ;  rob.olenick@tbaytel.com ;  sdesy@actq.qc.ca ;  Regulatory@sjrb.ca ;  telecom.regulatory@cogeco.com  ; mandrews@amtelecom.ca ; info@ccsa.cable.ca; tsullivan@wightman.ca ; regmat@ntl.sympatico.ca ; regulatoryaffairs@nwtel.ca