ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter - 8663-C12-200717738

Letter

Ottawa, 24 April 2008

File No.:   8663-C12-200717738

By email

To: Distribution list (see attached)

Re:   Follow-up to Telecom Decision CRTC 2007-125: CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee - Non-Consensus Report on a Functional Architecture for the Implementation of Nomadic VoIP 9-1-1 Service in Canada (Decision 2007-125)

The Commission is in receipt of letters from Cogeco Cable Inc. dated April 14 2008 and letters from Quebecor Media Inc., Rogers Communications Inc., Shaw Communications and MTSAllstream Inc. (collectively, the Access Service Providers (ASPs)), and Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership, Bell Canada, Saskatchewan Telecommunications, and TELUS Communications Company (collectively, the Companies) dated 15 April 2008.

These letters were filed in response to comments filed by Comwave dated 9 April 2008, Primus Canada and Xittel Telecommunications Inc. dated 10 April 2008, and the Canadian Association of Voice Over IP Providers (CAVP) dated 11 April 2008. CAVP, Comwave, Primus and Xittel are collectively referred to in this letter as the VoIP service providers (VISPs).

The VISPs made a request for the Companies and ASPs to disclose certain cost information filed under claim of confidence in their economic evaluations.   As well, they submitted that, if the Commission granted their request, they would need an extension of ten business days to review the new information and develop and file their interrogatories.

Part 1: Requests for Public Disclosure

General arguments in support of further disclosure

The VISPs submitted that the public interest in disclosure of the information filed in confidence outweighed the concerns raised by the Companies and ASPs regarding the specific direct harm that could result from disclosure.   The VISPs also argued that the requested information was aggregated to the extent that any such harm was likely to be minimal or none, and that no company would be disadvantaged in relation to the others.

The VISPs submitted that there was significant public interest in disclosing on the public record some of the costing-related information for a variety of reasons, including:

a)   A bsent the disclosure of the information requested, they would not be able to ask meaningful interrogatories to the ASPs and the Companies because all of the capital and expense cost information contained in their respective economic studies had been abridged;

b)   The disclosure of the aggregated totals would not reveal confidential information on costs either internal to the companies or obtained in quotes from third parties;

c)   The disclosure would meet the requirement for transparency in decision-making and recognise the need to offer all parties a fair and meaningful opportunity to understand the case to be met, and

d)   VISPs could not reasonably formulate a position regarding the cost recovery proposals without the disclosure of the requested information, as they did not know the magnitude of these costs.

The ASPs agreed to disclose the information requested by the VISPs.

General arguments opposing further disclosure

The Companies submitted that while the nomadic VoIP 9-1-1 service solution in this proceeding has been costed on a Category I basis as a public good service, the Companies submitted that the Commission's assessment of the appropriate level of disclosure applicable to other Category 1 service proceedings did not imply that the same level of disclosure would be required in this proceeding.

The Companies noted that the purpose of this proceeding was to consider the implementation costs of the Canadian i2 solution and how such costs would be recovered.   They therefore submitted that the Commission was not conducting a proceeding to review rates the Companies had filed for approval and that there was no tariff filing at issue in this proceeding.   The Companies stated that the rates and associated tariffs would be filed at a later stage and that these submissions would be subject to the Commission's rules regarding the disclosure on the public record of such supporting evidence.

The Companies submitted that their decision to file information in confidence with the Commission in this proceeding reflected the specific circumstances of this proceeding, including the fact that several key elements of the Companies' Canadian i2 proposal could be offered by competitors.

The Companies further submitted that the information they had filed in confidence was competitively valuable and sensitive.   Disclosure of cost and demand related information on the public record would provide existing and potential competitors valuable information which could assist them in elaborating service development, marketing and sales strategies to the detriment of the Companies.  

The Companies further submitted that the purpose of this proceeding was for the Commission to assess the economic viability of the Canadian i2 implementation, not the VISPs or the cable companies.   The Companies submitted that they had provided the Commission with all of the information it needed to determine the economic viability of the Canadian i2 implementation.  

Commission staff analysis and determination

Commission staff has reviewed the requests for disclosure by the various parties and the responses to these requests by the Companies and ASPs.

Commission staff considers that the primary purpose of this proceeding is to evaluate the economic viability of the Canadian i2 proposal, as well as to identify cost recovery proposals for the parties providing the various components of this service.  

Commission staff considers that in order to ensure the development of a full and complete record it is vital for all parties to have the necessary information to afford them a meaningful opportunity to examine the Canadian i2 cost studies provided in this proceeding.

Commission staff notes that 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 CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure .   In the case of each request, public interest in the disclosure is weighed against the specific direct harm, if any, that is likely to result from the disclosure.

Commission staff further notes that the assessment of the extent of harm is based on the degree of competition that exists in a particular market and the degree to which the information at issue is aggregated so as not to enable other parties to use that information to further their competitive position. 

Based on this assessment, Commission staff determines that the Companies and the ASPs are required to disclose the following information contained in their economic evaluations, to the extent submitted in confidence pursuant to Decision 2007-125, as applicable:

a)   Total present worth of all costs (sum of parts b, c, d, e below)
b)   Total present worth of capital costs causal to the service
c)   Total present worth of capital costs causal to the demand
d)   Total present worth of expenses causal to the service
e)   Total present worth of expenses causal to the demand
f)   Present worth of demand
g)   The corresponding monthly or annual rates.

Commission staff notes that the provision of this information takes into account Commission staff's past rulings with respect to the cost information to be disclosed for   services priced at Phase II costs plus a 15 percent mark-up.

Part II: Request for extension and Revised Process

Commission staff notes the VISPs submitted that if their request for disclosure of certain confidential information were granted, they would need an extension of ten business days to review the new information and develop and file their interrogatories.   Commission staff notes that none of the parties objected to this request, although some noted that a long extension was not warranted.

In light of the above, the procedure established in Telecom Decision CRTC 2007-125 as amended in the Commission staff process letter, dated 13 February 2008 , is hereby amended as follows:

All material must be filed with the Commission and served on all interested parties and must be received and not merely sent by these dates.

Yours truly,

Original signed by Suzanne Bédard

for Paul Godin
Director General
Competition, Costing and Tariffs
Telecommunications

cc. Marc Pilon (819) 997 4535

Distribution List:  

Cogeco Cable Inc.
Quebecor Media Inc.
Rogers Communications Inc.
Shaw Communications Inc.
Bell Canada
Bell Aliant
TELUS
MTSAllstream Inc.
SaskTel
Comwave
Primus Canada
Xittel Telecommunications Inc.
CAVP
Interested parties