ARCHIVED - Letter
This page has been archived on the Web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.
Ottawa, 15 January 2009
File No.: 8661-Y6-200804106
By Email
Dear Sir/Madam:
Re: Updated Billing and Collection Service Processing Charges costs-disclosure of information and related matters
This letter addresses requests for disclosure of information filed in confidence with the Commission and for additional costing information regarding the billing and collection service (BCS) processing charges cost studies.
On 28 November 2008, the Commission received from Yak Communications (Canada) Corp. (Yak) requests for disclosure of information filed in confidence and for additional costing information. On 5 December 2008, responses to these requests for disclosure and additional costing information were received from Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership (Bell Aliant), and Bell Canada, (collectively, the Companies), MTS Allstream Inc. (MTS Allstream), Saskatchewan Telecommunications (SaskTel), and TELUS Communications Company (TCC) [collectively the incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs)].
Yak’s requests for public disclosure are addressed in Part I, below, and in Attachment 1 to this letter, while Yak’s requests for additional costing information are addressed in Part II, below. Revised deadlines for this proceeding are further set out in Part III below. Interrogatories seeking additional costing information from each ILEC are set out in Attachment 2.
Yours sincerely,
Original signed by
Yvan Davidson
Senior Manager
Competitor Services and Costing
Distribution List
B.Natraj (Nat Natraj 819-953-5081)
Bell Aliant regulatory@bell.aliant.ca
Bell Canada bell.regulatory@bell.ca
Cybersurf marcel.mercia@cybersurf.com
MTS Allstream iworkstation@mtsallstream.com
Persona dean@personainc.ca
Primus regulatory@primustel.ca
Rogers david.watt@rci.rogers.com
SaskTel document.control@sasktel.sk.ca
Shaw Regulatory@sjrb.ca
Télébec regmat@ntl.sympatico.ca
TCC regulatory.affairs@telus.com
Vidéotron regaffairs@quebecor.com
Yak simonlocke@globalive.com
Part 1: 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 CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure (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.
Further, 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 in Bell Canada et al.'s application to review and vary Telecom Decision 2008-17 with respect to wholesale billing and collection service
Decision 2008-119, 11 December 2008, the Commission confirmed the classification of BCS as an interconnection service for which the pricing is based on Phase II costs plus 15% mark-up.
Commission staff further notes that paragraph 3-82 and, with respect to competitor services for which the mark up is 15%, paragraph 3-83, of the ILECs’ regulatory economic study manual specify the costing information to be placed on the public record.
Accordingly, the Companies and TCC, SaskTel and MTS Allstream are to file on the public record of this proceeding by 18 February 2009, the information as set out in Attachment 1
Requests for disclosure for all other information for which confidentiality has been claimed are denied.
Part II: Requests for further costing details
Commission staff notes that the process established for this proceeding does not contemplate interrogatories posed by parties. Given this, the ILECs are not required to respond to the questions posed by Yak in Appendix 1 of its letter of 27 November 2007. Instead, the ILECs are to respond to the Commission interrogatories set out in Attachment 2 of this letter.
Part III: Revised Deadlines
The ILECs are to file with the Commission, with a copy to be served on all parties, responses to the interrogatories set out in Attachment 2 by 18 February 2009. The information to be provided on the public record in response to these interrogatories should be consistent with the level of disclosure determined to be appropriate in this letter.
All documents must be received, and not merely sent, by the dates indicated.
- Date modified: