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This page has been archived on the Web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, 17 August 2009

File No.: 8690-C12-200910408

BY E-MAIL

Parties to Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2009-432

Subject: Call for comments - Review of the large incumbent local exchange carriers’ support structure service rates, Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2009-432, 21 July 2009 - Request for disclosure of costing information

Dear Madams and Sirs:

By letter dated 27 July 2009, Bragg Communications Inc., the Canadian Cable Systems Alliance, Cogeco Cable Inc., Rogers Communications Inc., Shaw Communications Inc., and Quebecor Media Inc., on behalf of its affiliate Videotron Ltd (collectively, the Cable Carriers) requested disclosure of cost information and interrogatory responses filed as confidential by Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership (Bell Aliant), Bell Canada, Télébec, Société en commandite (Télébec), and TELUS communications Company (TCC) (collectively, the incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs)) in the proceeding initiated by Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2009-432, Call for comments – Review of the large incumbent local exchange carriers' support structure service rates, 21 July 2009 (the notice). The Cable Carriers also requested consequential adjustments to the dates established by the notice for the other procedural steps.

By letter dated 4 August 2009, parties to the proceeding were invited to file comments and reply comments in response to the Cable Carriers’ request for disclosure of information for which the ILECs claimed confidentiality and for consequential procedural changes. In addition, the date for addressing interrogatories to the ILECs, as set out in the notice, was suspended.

On 10 August 2009, Bell Aliant, Bell Canada and Télébec (collectively, the Companies), and TCC filed comments. Télécommunications Xittel Inc. also filed comments generally supporting the Cable Carriers’ request for disclosure.

On 12 August 2009, the Cable Carriers filed reply comments.

The Cable Carriers’ request for public disclosure of ILEC cost information is addressed below, and in the Annex to this letter.

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 direct 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; and

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 also notes that, in their comments, the Companies indicated that they would be prepared to disclose their updated unit cost estimates, which were originally filed in confidence, consistent with the information that TCC placed on the public record. Commission staff further notes that the Companies indicated that from a consistency perspective, if the Commission were to require disclosure of this information, then the same disclosure requirement should apply to MTS Allstream Inc. (MTS Allstream) as well, even though the Cable Carriers had not in their 27 July submission requested that MTS Allstream be directed to disclose any of the information it filed in confidence in its related submissions.

Commission staff notes the Cable Carriers’ submission that the market for support structure services remains a monopoly as it was in 1995, and that in classifying support structure services as a public good service, the Commission has determined that these services are not provided on a competitive basis. Commission staff notes that in Revised regulatory framework for wholesale services and definition of essential service, Telecom Decision 2008-17, 3 March 2008, the Commission stated that it would not be in the public interest to engage in the construction of duplicate support structures as this would result in the inefficient use of public and private resources and would be an inconvenience to the public.

Having regard to all of the considerations set out above, the information filed under a claim of confidentiality in response to the interrogatories and cost studies listed in the Annex is, to the extent set out in that Annex, to be placed on the public record of this proceeding, subject to the process set out below for MTS Allstream. 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.

The date by which information is to be filed with the Commission by Bell Aliant, Bell Canada, Télébec and TCC, and served on all interested parties, as a result of this public disclosure process is 28 August 2009. The above material must be received, not merely sent, by this date.

MTS Allstream may, by 25 August 2008, show cause why it should not disclose the information identified in the Annex. Commission staff notes that in order to show cause, MTS Allstream must be able to demonstrate that the circumstances in its case are substantially different as to justify retaining the information in confidence despite disclosure of such information by the Companies and TCC.

Alternatively, MTS Allstream may, by 28 August 2009, file with the Commission, and serve on all interested parties, the information identified in the Annex. The material must be received, not merely sent, by this date.

Other procedural matters

As previously noted, the Cable Carriers requested consequential adjustments to the dates established by the notice for the other procedural steps. As a result of this letter, an amendment to the notice will be issued shortly setting out the revised deadlines for the remaining process.

Yours sincerely,

Original signed by

Paul Godin

Director General

Competition, Costing and Tariffs

Telecommunications

Annex (2)

Annex 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

Bell Aliant Report on the Economic Evaluation of Support Structure Service,

1 April 2009

Disclose the Table 3.

Disclose the “Present Worth within Study Period” and “$ per unit per month” for each of the following lines in Tables 5a-5f:

Total costs (PWACs)
Expenses causal to the service
Capital causal to the service
Capital causal to demand
Expenses causal to demand
Present worth of demand
Present Worth of End of Study Value

Bell Canada

Bell Canada Report on the Economic Evaluation of Support Structure Service, 1 April 2009

Disclose the Table 3.

Disclose the “Present Worth within Study Period” and “$ per unit per month” for each of the following lines in Tables 5a-5f:

Total costs (PWACs)
Expenses causal to the service
Capital causal to the service
Capital causal to demand
Expenses causal to demand
Present worth of demand
Present Worth of End of Study Value

MTS Allstream Inc.

MTS Allstream Inc. report on the Economic Evaluation of a Tariff Revision for Support Structure Service

Disclose Table 5.2-1.

Disclose for each of the following lines, the figures for Poles, Strands and Conduit in Tables 6.4.5-1 and 6.4.5-2, and the figures in the columns “Present Worth within Study Period” and “$ Per Access Per Month” in Table 6.4.5-3:

Total cost impacts (PWACs)
Expenses causal to the service
Capital causal to the service
Capital causal to demand
Expenses causal to demand
Present worth of monthly demand
Present Worth of End of Study Value

Télébec, Société en commandite

Economic study for support structures, Attachment 1:

Disclose Table 5.2.

Disclose the figures for Poles, Strands and Conduit for each of the following lines in Tables 6.5-1, and 6.5-2:

Present value of annual costs
Expenses causal to the service
Capital causal to the service
Capital causal to demand
Expenses causal to demand
Present Worth of Demand
Present Worth of End of Study Value

TELUS Communications Company

Disclose the Poles (attachers) and Strand demand information contained in rows entitled Other Carrier Attachers and Other Carrier Strand for each of AB, BC and QC in Table 3A.

Disclose the Conduit Competitor demand information contained in rows AB, BC, QC, and Total in Table 3B.

Disclose the “Present Worth within Study Period” and “$ per attacher per month” for each of the following lines in Tables 5a-5g: