ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter - 8640-C12-200706351

Letter

Ottawa, 7 June 2007

File No.: 8640-C12-200706351

To: Distribution List (attached)

Re: Application for local forbearance - Requests for disclosure of competitors   information

The Commission is in receipt of requests from Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership, Bell Canada, MTS Allstream Inc. and Saskatchewan Telecommunications (the requesting parties) for disclosure of information [1] filed in confidence with the Commission by competitors identified by Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs) in their respective local forbearance applications.

The Commission is also in receipt of replies to the requests for disclosure of information from:

Bragg Communications Inc., carrying business as Eastlink
Mountain Cablevision Ltd.
MTS Allstream Inc.
Primus Telecommunications Canada Inc.
Quebecor Media Inc., on behalf of its affiliate, Videotron Ltd.
9164-3122 Québec inc., carrying business as Sogetel Numérique

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 notes that the competitors from whom the requesting parties are seeking public disclosure submitted that the requests for disclosure should be denied for the following reasons:

• the information sought to be disclosed is both competitive and commercially sensitive and would provide existing and potential competitors with insight for a very specific and disaggregated geographic market; and
  
• the information can directly undermine a new entrant's position in the marketplace by opening up opportunities for targeted and pre-emptive responses.

In addition, Mountain Cablevision Ltd. argued that privately-held companies are not required to publicly disclose detailed financial and operational information and should be under no obligation to disclose detailed financial and operational information to those who have no ownership interests. Commission staff notes that Mountain Cablevision Ltd. operates in a regulated environment and, as such, may be required from time to time to disclose some information on the public record to ensure fair proceedings and efficient regulations.

Commission staff has reviewed the various requests for disclosure having regard to the above and has made the following determinations.  

1.   Requests for disclosure by competitors using their own facilities to provide local exchange services of the total number of households capable of being served with local exchange services for each wire centre in the exchange (Appendix 2, item 1a)) and the total number of business local access lines capable of being served with local exchange services (Appendix 2, item 1)b))

Commission staff notes that parties that did file information on the number of households and business access lines, as applicable, capable of being served with local exchange services have provided the information by exchange and not by wire centre within the exchange as requested in the Commission's letter dated 7 May 2007. Given that this information may not be required for the consideration of all forbearance applications and considering the difficulties identified by competitors in gathering the information by wire centre, Commission staff has determined that it will not seek the information by wire centre at this time.

Commission staff considers that there is a strong public interest in allowing parties sufficient access to some information regarding the total number of households and business access lines capable of being served with local exchange services, which would enable the applicant ILEC to effectively assess and comment on the information provided by competitors.

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 total number of households capable of being served with local exchange services at the exchange level would meet the public interest in allowing effective participation by the parties.

Accordingly, Commission staff is of the view that in order to have a fair and efficient local forbearance process, competitors listed below, using their own facilities to provide local exchange services, must provide on the public record the total number of households and business access lines capable of being served with local exchange services (or the proxy used by the competitor in its response to the Commission), as applicable, by exchange except in the situation described below.

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 in situations where the competitor is capable of serving at least 50% of the total number of households and business access lines. Where competitors are capable of serving less than 50% of the total number of households and business access lines, the above information does not have to be filed on the public record.

2.  Request for disclosure of each ILEC wire centre in each exchange where a competitor offers service (Appendix 3, item 1)

Commission staff considers that public disclosure of the wire centres where they offer service by the competitors may provide other telecommunications service providers (TSPs) with market-specific information that would enable those TSPs to develop more effective business strategies and could result in specific direct harm to the disclosing competitors. However, Commission staff considers that in order for the applicant ILECs to be in a position to effectively comment on the competitors' arguments, further information must be provided to the applicant ILECs.

Accordingly, competitors, who rely on a LEC's or third parties' leased local access transmission facilities to provide local exchange services and on whose presence the applicant ILEC justifies its forbearance in that exchange, are required to identify to the respective applicant ILEC each wire centre in each exchange where it offers local exchange services.

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.  Request for disclosure by competitors who rely on LEC ' s or third parties' leased local access transmission facilities to provide local exchange services of the total number of residential and business local access lines, as applicable, capable of being served with local exchange services by wire centre and by remote (Appendix 3, item 2)

Commission staff notes that some competitors provided none of the requested information and that those competitors that did provide the information did so at the exchange level rather than by wire centre and by remote. Commission staff notes the arguments by the various competitors for not providing the requested information.   Although Commission staff recognizes that there are difficulties in gathering this information, it is of the view that competitors should be in a position to, at a minimum, provide fairly accurate estimates at the exchange level [2] .  

Accordingly, the competitors listed below who rely on LEC's or third parties' lease local access transmission facilities to provide local exchange services are requested to provide, on the public record, the estimated total number of residential and business local access lines, as applicable, capable of being served with local exchange services by exchange except in the situation describe below. A full description of the assumptions and methodology used to develop the estimate must be provided.

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 in situations where the competitor is capable of serving at least 50% of the total number of residential and business local access lines . Where competitors are capable of serving less than 50% of the total number of residential and business local access lines, the above information does not have to be filed on the public record.  

Commission staff notes that where there is no information or evidence provided to either confirm or contest the applicant ILECs' evidence submitted in their respective local forbearance applications, it will be required to rely on the information filed on the record of this proceeding by the applicant ILECs

Requested information not provided

Commission staff notes that a number of competitors named by applicant ILECs in their respective local forbearance applications have not filed the requested information as directed in the Commission's letter dated 7 May 2007 .   Therefore, in addition to the information to be filed on the public record of the local forbearance applications, the following companies are requested to provide the information set out in Appendix 2, 3, or 4, as applicable, of the Commission's letter dated 7 May 2007, as amended by the present letter.

Commission staff notes that in a situation where a competitor provides a statement indicating that it is capable of serving at least 75% of the number of residential or business local exchange service lines, as applicable, in an exchange for which an ILEC has filed forbearance from regulation, the competitor is not required to provide the above information. However, a statement indicating otherwise must be supported with the above evidence and any other relevant information. Commission staff notes that it is in the best interest of all competitors involved in these local forbearance applications that the Commission has a complete record.   The failure to present all relevant information may result in an adverse inference to be drawn by the Commission.

Where directed to do so, parties are required to provide the specified information by end of day 8 June 2007 .

Sincerely,

Lynne Fancy
A/Director, Competition Implementation and Technology
Telecommunications

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

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

Date Modified: 2007-06-07