ARCHIVED - Letter

Ottawa, 28 October 2009

Our Reference: 8740-B2-200904989
                     8740-B54-200904971

BY E-MAIL

Distribution

RE: Bell Aliant Tariff Notice 242 and Bell Canada Tariff Notice 7181

Dear Madams and Sirs:

This letter addresses requests for disclosure of information for which confidentiality was claimed by Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership (Bell Aliant) and Bell Canada (collectively, the Bell companies), and for further responses to interrogatories filed by the Bell companies, in the proceedings initiated by the above tariff notices.

Requests for disclosure, dated 13 October 2009, were filed by Accelerated Connections Inc., the Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP), EGATE Networks Inc., Execulink Telecom Inc., Managed Network Systems, Inc., AOL Canada, Cybersurf Corp., YAK Communications, Telnet Communications (collectively, the competitors), MTS Allstream Inc. (MTS Allstream), TekSavvy Solutions Inc. (TSI), Union des Consommateurs and the Coalition of Internet Service Providers Inc. (CISP).

Requests for further responses to interrogatories were filed by CISP and l’Union des Consommateurs

On 23 October 2009, the Bell companies filed their responses to the above requests.

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; 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 notes that the information for which disclosure is being requested generally concerns the end-users of the Bell companies’ wholesale GAS customers and not the retail end-users of the Bell companies.

Having regard to all of the above considerations, the information filed under a claim of confidentiality in response to the interrogatories and cost studies listed in the Attachment is, to the extent set out in that Attachment, 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.

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; and

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.

Having regard to all of the above considerations, Commission staff finds the responses provided by the Bell companies to the interrogatories that were the subject of requests for further responses, to be sufficient.

Other matters

Commission staff notes that the information provided on Table 7 of The Companies(CRTC)20Aug09-1 TN 242 & 7181 differs from that which was available on Bell Canada’s website [http//www.bell.ca] as of 27 October 2009. More specifically, (1) the website shows a usage allowance of 2 GB for the 2 Mbps service in Ontario, while Table 7 shows a usage allowance of 20 GB for this speed, (2) for the Bell Internet Performance services, the website shows a download speed of up to 6 Mbps for Ontario and up to 7 Mbps for Quebec, while Table 7 shows Service of 5-6 Mbps, (3) with regards to the Recurring Monthly Rate column in Table 7, Commission staff notes that, with the exception of the Bell Internet Performance (6 Mbps) service in Ontario, Bell Canada’s entries are based on the monthly price after the first twelve months shown on its website for all services included in Table 7. The Bell companies are to provide explanations for the inconsistencies between Bell Canada’s website and Table 7, and/or file a revised Table 7 that identifies where corrections have been made.

Timeframe

The above material is to be filed with the Commission and served on all interested parties, by 3 November 2009. It is to be received, not merely sent, by this date.

Yours sincerely,

Original signed by

Yvan Davidson
Senior Manager
Competitor Services and Costing

c.c.: Richard Pagé, CRTC 819-997-4298, richard.page@crtc.gc.ca
Daphne Fry, CRTC 819-953-5373, daphne.fry@crtc.gc.ca

Attach (1)

Distribution List

Bell Aliant, regulatory@bell.aliant.ca
Bell Canada, bell.regulatory@bell.ca
Canadian Association of Internet Providers, tom.copeland@caip.ca
Union des consommateurs, union@consommateur.qc.ca
The Coalition of Internet Service, regulatory@cfai-cisp.ca
Vaxination Informatique, jfmezei@vaxination.ca
EGATE Networks Inc., info@egate.net
Primus Telecommunications Canada Inc., regulatory@primustel.ca
Ontario Telecommunications Association, jonathan.holmes@ota.on.ca
Execulink Telecom, kstevens@execulink.com
Distributel Communications Limited, regulatory@distributel.ca
Aventures en Excellence Inc (AEI Internet), info@aei.net
MTS Allstream Inc., iworkstation@mtsallstream.com
Cybersurf Corp., marcel.mercia@cybersurf.com
Managed Network Systems, Inc., clayton@MNSi.Net
Yak Communications, lisagoetz@globalive.com
TekSavvy Solutions Inc., info@teksavvy.com
Christian Tacit, ctacit@tacitlaw.com
Acanac Inc., paul@acanac.ca
Electronic Box Inc., regulatory@electronicbox.net
Accelerated Connections, mgarbe@dsl4u.ca
Telnet Communications, regulatory@telnetcommunications.com
AOL Canada Inc., regulatoryca@aol.com

Attachment

Disclosure of Confidential Information

Disclose:

Bell Canada Report on the Economic Evaluation for the Tariff Revision of Gateway Access Service – 16 July 2009

 

• Revenues $ per access (column a) for each line in Table 2 – Revenues and Costs per Access per Month

• Revenues $ per access (column a) for each line in Table 2 – Revenues and Costs for the Lowest Per Access Rate in the Volume / Contract Period Tariff Grid

• All information in Table 3 – Demand Estimates for Gateway Access Service

The Companies(CRTC)20Aug09-1 TN 242 & 7181

 

• Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 9

The Companies(CRTC)20Aug09-8 TN 242 & 7181

• Assumed bandwidth usage increase per year beyond 2009, on page 2 of 2

• 2009 Average Usage (GB per month column) for each of the four services, on page 2 of 2

The Companies(CRTC)20Aug09-15 TN 242 & 7181

• Average GB monthly usage table in part (b), on page 3 of 4

• Average percentage of end-users and their average monthly usage table in part (c), on page 3 of 4

The Companies(CRTC)20Aug09-17 TN 242 & 7181

• Total Monthly Revenues per Access column, for each line, for all four tables, on pages 2 and 3 of 4

• PWOD (Present Worth of Demand) column, for each line, for all four tables, on pages 2 and 3 of 4

• With regards to the Total Monthly Cost per Access shown in the table titled "2009 Cost Study – Excluding Revenues and Costs Causal to the Introduction of Usage Based Billing", indicate whether, for each of Residence Speed 512 Kbps and Residence Speed 5 Mbps, costs have increased or decreased relative to the Total Monthly Costs per Access for the corresponding speed options (Residence Speed 128 Kbps - upgraded to 512 Kbps and Residence Speed 3 Mbps - upgraded to 5 Mbps) shown in the table titled "2004 Cost Study – As Filed".

 

Date modified:

2009-10-28