This page has been archived on the Web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, 20 January 2010

Our Reference: 8663-C12-200907321



Dear Madams, Sirs:

Re: Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2009-261, Proceeding to consider the appropriateness of mandating certain wholesale high-speed access services

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 Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2009-261.

On 27 November 2009, the Coalition of Internet Service Providers Inc. (CISP) and Teksavvy Solutions Inc. (Teksavvy) filed requests for further responses to interrogatories and/or requests for disclosure of information for which confidentiality had been claimed.

On 2 December 2009, the following parties filed with the Commission responses to the above requests: Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership, Bell Canada and Télébec Société en commandite (collectively the Bell Companies), MTS Allstream Inc. (MTS Allstream), TELUS Communications Company (TELUS), Bragg Communications Inc. (Bragg), Cogeco Cable Canada Inc. (Cogeco), Quebecor Media Inc. (QMI), Rogers Communications Inc. (Rogers), and Shaw Cablesystems (Shaw) (collectively the Cable Carriers). Bragg also filed a separate response to Teksavvy’s request on 3 December 2009.

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 (Part I) and public disclosure (Part II), are identified in Attachment 3.

Further responses and disclosure of information for which confidentiality was claimed with respect to the interrogatories identified in the attachments are to be filed with the Commission, and served on all interested parties, by 28 January 2010.

The above material must be received, not merely sent, by the above date.

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 extent of competition that exists in a particular market or that is expected to develop. All things being equal, the greater the amount of actual or expected competition in the market, the greater the specific harm that could be expected to result from disclosure.

Another factor in assessing the extent of harm is the extent to which the information at issue could be used by 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 will 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 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. Among the most important of those considerations 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, a further response 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.

Having regard to all of the above considerations, the parties in question are to provide further responses to the extent set out in Attachments1 and 2 to this letter.

Yours sincerely,

Original signed by

Paul Godin
Director General
Competition, Costing and Tariffs

Attachment (3)

Distribution List;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;; ;; ;;;;;;;

Attachment 1

Disclosure of Information Designated as Confidential
Parties are to disclose the information filed with the Commission in confidence, as set out below:

The Bell Companies
The Companies(CRTC)06Nov09-4 and Télébec(CRTC)6novembre09-4
Disclose part (a) - indicate (yes or no) as to whether each of the company’s COs is high-speed DSL-capable.

Bell Canada-Out of Territory(CRTC)06Nov09-10(a)
Disclose the response of this interrogatory in full on the public record.

Telus ILECs(CRTC) 06Nov09-4

Disclose part (a) - indicate (yes or no) as to whether each of the company’s COs is high-speed DSL-capable.


Provide response to this interrogatory on the public record consistent with the level of detail as provided by Rogers or Shaw for the same interrogatory.

Rogers Non-Cable(CRTC)06Nov09-10(a)

Disclose the response to this interrogatory in full on the public record.

Attachment 2

Further Responses to Interrogatories

The Bell Companies
The Companies(CRTC)06Nov09-2(a)

For the total COs identified in ______________(CRTC)17July09-3, provide for the total company the percentage of ATM DSLAMs and Ethernet DSLAMs.

Date modified: