ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter - 8652-C12-200704636

This page has been archived on the Web

Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. Archived Decisions, Notices and Orders (DNOs) remain in effect except to the extent they are amended or reversed by the Commission, a court, or the government. The text of archived information has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Changes to DNOs are published as “dashes” to the original DNO number. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats by contacting us.

Letter

Ottawa, 30 July 2007

File no.: 8652-C12-200704636

BY E-MAIL

To: Parties to PN 2007-4

Subject: Review of certain Phase II costing issues, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2007-4, 30 March 2007 (Public Notice 2007-4) - 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 proceeding initiated by Public Notice 2007-4.

On 13 July 2007, the following parties filed requests for further responses to interrogatories and/or requests for disclosure of information for which confidentiality had been claimed : Cybersurf Corp. (Cybersurf), MTS Allstream Inc. (MTS Allstream), Rogers Communications Inc. (Rogers), and Cogeco Cable Canada Inc. (Cogeco), Quebecor Media Inc. (QMI), Rogers, and Shaw Cablesystems (Shaw) (collectively the Cable Companies).

On 20 July 2007 , the following parties filed with the Commission responses to the above requests: Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership ( Bell Aliant), and Bell Canada (collectively, the Companies), MTS Allstream, Saskatchewan Telecommunications (SaskTel) and TELUS Communications Company (TCC).

Requests for public disclosure are addressed in Part I, below, and in Attachment 1 to this letter, while requests for further responses are addressed in Part II below, and in Attachment 2 to this letter.   Interrogatories, in respect of which information is to be provided resulting from requests that sought both further responses and public disclosure, are identified in Attachment 3.

The date by which information is to be filed with the Commission, and served on all interested parties, as a result of the further responses/public disclosure process, is revised from 7 August 2007 to the dates set out below.

Further responses with respect to the interrogatories identified by asterisk in Attachment 2, are to be filed with the Commission, and served on all interested parties, by 31 August 2007 .   Further responses and disclosure of information for which confidentiality was claimed with respect to the remaining interrogatories and position papers identified in the attachments are to be filed with the Commission, and served on all interested parties, by 17 August 2007 .

The above material must be received, not merely sent, by these dates.

Except for the above revisions, the deadlines remain as set out in Public Notice 2007-4.

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 with in the future in different circumstances.

Having regard to the considerations set out above, the information filed under a claim of confidentiality in response to the interrogatories and position papers listed in Attachment 1 and 3 is, to the extent set out in those Attachments, to be placed on the public record of this proceeding.   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.

Part II - Requests for Further Responses

With regard to requests for further responses, the requirements of subsection 18(2) of the Rules apply.   The merits of arguments both for and against the filing of further responses have been taken into account, as well as the general principles enunciated by the Commission in past proceedings which 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.

Also, further responses to be provided pursuant to this letter and the round of supplementary interrogatories addressed by the Commission in the near future will afford parties a meaningful opportunity to examine the Phase II costing information in this proceeding and will ensure that a full and complete record is produced.

Having regard to all of the above considerations, the parties in question are to provide further responses to the extent set out in Attachments 2 and 3 to this letter.

Other matters

Consistent with the determinations made with respect to interrogatory TELUS(MTS Allstream)25May07-503 a) PN 2007-4, SaskTel(MTS Allstream)25May07-503 PN 2007-4, The Companies(MTS Allstream)25May07-505 PN 2007-4, and The Companies(MTS Allstream)25May07-506 PN 2007-4, MTS Allstream is to serve on all interested parties by 17 August 2007 abridged copies of the most recent depreciation studies associated with all proposed asset lives approved earlier than Decision 98-2 to the extent that the asset lives changed by 20 percent or more. Unabridged copies of these depreciation studies are to be filed in confidence with the Commission by the same date.

Further, consistent with MTS Allstream's undertaking in this proceeding to disclose comparable information if the other companies were directed to disclose same, MTS Allstream is to disclose by 17 August 2007, the totals, expressed as percentages of total operating expense, for each of the direct/indirect, VCC, FCC and portfolio expense classifications in its position paper, Attachment 1.

Yours sincerely,

'Original signed by P. Godin'

Paul Godin
Director General
Competition, Costing and Tariffs
Telecommunications
819-997-4617

Attachments

Attachment 1
Page 1 of 1

Disclosure of Confidential Information

Parties are to disclose the information filed with the Commission in confidence, as set out below:

Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership and Bell Canada (collectively, the Companies)

Bell Canada and Bell Aliant Position Paper re: Portfolio Expenses, Attachment 2 - 2005 Operating Expenses by Category

  • Re Bell Aliant: disclose the totals, expressed as percentages of total operating expense, for each of the direct/indirect, VCC, FCC and portfolio expense classifications.
  • Re Bell Canada : disclose the totals, expressed as percentages of total operating expense, for each of demand-driven and service-driven expenses combined, non-service-specific portfolio expenses and non-service-specific non-portfolio expenses.

The Companies(MTS Allstream)25May07-101a) PN 2007-4
Disclose the percentage breakdown of the LUC into components associated with activity rate expenses, associated indirect expenses and associated loadings.

The Companies(Cybersurf)25May07-3 d) PN 2007-4
Disclose the proportion in terms of percentage of the associated indirect component of LUC relative to the activity rate for each of the company's job functions.

The Companies(CRTC)25May07-402, Attachments 2-4, 6 & 7.PN 2007-4
Disclose the information for which confidentiality was claimed.

Saskatchewan Telecommunications

SaskTel Position Paper, Attachment 3 - Classification of 2005 Operating Expenses
Disclose the totals, expressed as percentages of total operating expense, for each of the direct/indirect, VCC, FCC and portfolio expense classifications.

SaskTel(CRTC)25May07-402, Attachments 1-7 PN 2007-4
Disclose the information in the financial summary section and the additions/retirements history in the account detail section of each of the attachments.

SaskTel(MTS Allstream)25May07-503, Attachments 1-10 PN 2007-4
Disclose the information in the financial summary section of each of the attachments and the additions/retirements history in the account detail section of each of the attachments 1, 2, 3, 4, and 10.

TELUS Communication Company

TELUS(CRTC)25May07-402 PN 2007-4
Disclose the information for which confidentiality was claimed.

Attachment 2
Page 1 of 1

Further Responses to Interrogatories

Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership and Bell Canada (collectively, the Companies)

* The Companies(Cybersurf)25May07-5 a) and b) PN 2007-4
Provide a complete response to parts a) and b) of the interrogatory.

The Companies(MTS Allstream)25May07-104 b) PN 2007-4
Provide a detailed description of the methods used to develop OTS costs.

The Companies(Rogers)25May07-3 PN 2007-4
Provide a complete response to the interrogatory.

TELUS Communication Company

TELUS(Cybersurf)25May07-1 c) PN 2007-4
Provide a hard copy of the Phase II manual dated May 2002 or, to the extent there is one, a link to the electronic copy.

* TELUS(Cybersurf)25May07-2 parts a) to j) PN 2007-4
Provide a complete response to parts a) to j) of the interrogatory.

* TELUS(Cybersurf)25May07-3 parts a) to h) PN 2007-4
Provide a complete response to parts a) to h) of the interrogatory .

* TELUS (MTS Allstream)25May07-204 parts a), b) c), f) & h) PN 2007-4
Provide a complete response to the parts a), b), c), f) and h) of the interrogatory.

TELUS(Rogers)25May07-3 PN 2007-4 PN 2007-4
Provide the requested information for the years 1998 to 2000.

Attachment 3
Page 1 of 1

Further Responses to Interrogatories and Disclosure of Confidential Information

Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership and Bell Canada (collectively, the Companies)

The Companies(MTS Allstream)25May07-301b) & d) PN 2007-4
Provide a complete response to the interrogatory.   Further provide the requested updates in confidence to the Commission and disclose the totals, expressed as percentages of total operating expense, for each of demand-driven and service-driven expenses combined, non-service-specific portfolio expenses and non-service-specific non-portfolio expenses.

The Companies(MTS Allstream)25May07-505 PN 2007-4, and
The Companies(MTS Allstream)25May07-506 PN 2007-4
Provide abridged copies of the most recent depreciation studies associated with all proposed asset lives approved earlier than Decision 98-2 to the extent that the asset lives changed by 20 percent or more. Further provide unabridged copies of the depreciation studies in confidence to the Commission.

Saskatchewan Telecommunications

SaskTel (MTS Allstream)25May07-305 PN 2007-4
Provide a complete response to the interrogatory.   File the requested updates with the Commission in confidence and provide revised abridged versions for the public record that disclose the totals, expressed as percentages of total operating expenses, for each of direct/indirect, portfolio, VCC and fixed common.

TELUS Communication Company

TELUS(MTS Allstream)25May07-503 a) PN 2007-4
Provide abridged copies of the most recent depreciation studies associated with all proposed asset lives approved earlier than Decision 98-2 to the extent that the asset lives changed by 20 percent or more. Further provide unabridged copies of the depreciation studies in confidence to the Commission.

Date Modified: 2007-07-30
Date modified: