ARCHIVED - Letter

Ottawa, 17 February 2010

Our Reference: 8740-T8-200910580

By E-Mail

Distribution

Re: TBayTel Tariff Notice 151 – Determination with respect to Disclosure Requests
Dear Madams, Sirs:

On 13 January 2010, the Commission received responses to interrogatories concerning the introduction of Wireless Service Provider (WSP) E9-1-1 Network Access Service and enhancements to its 911 Public Emergency Reporting Service. In a letter to the Commission, dated 19 January 2010, Shaw Telecom G.P. (Shaw) requested that TBayTel provide disclosure of certain information filed in confidence by TBayTel in its interrogatory responses and that the Commission set out a process to allow all parties to file final comments on TBayTel Tariff Notice 151. In a letter to the Commission dated 12 February 2010, TBayTel reiterated its position regarding the confidentiality of the responses to the interrogatories.

Requests for disclosure of information for which confidentiality was 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. In making this evaluation, a number of factors are taken into consideration, including the degree of competition that exists in a particular market or that is expected to occur. All things being equal, the greater the degree of actual or expected competition, the greater the specific direct harm that could be expected to result from disclosure. Another factor taken into consideration 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 specific direct harm will flow from its disclosure.

Even where specific direct harm may result, this harm must be balanced against, and outweigh the public interest in disclosure in order to qualify for confidentiality. In certain circumstances, specific direct harm from disclosure may still be outweighed by the public interest in disclosure.

Confidentiality requests are treated on a case-by-case basis and determinations in this instance should not be taken as an indication of the manner in which such matters would be dealt with in the future under different circumstances.

Having regard to the considerations set out above and that the provision of the 9-1-1 Public Emergency Reporting Service in the Thunder Bay exchange is not in a competitive market as it is a mandated service, Commission staff have determined, based on all the material before it, that no specific direct harm would likely result from disclosure, or that the public interest in disclosure outweighs any specific direct harm that might result from disclosure, of the information specified below.

With respect to the response to TBayTel (CRTC) 18December09-1 911 Public Emergency Reporting Service (911 Service), TBayTel is to place on the public record the following:

a) the total hardware and software upgrades or replacement costs for PSAP (i.e. the sum of the individual costs provided in parts a) i) and ii) on pages 2 and 3 of the response);

b) the total hardware and software upgrades or replacements costs for ALI (i.e. the sum of the individual costs provided in parts a) iii) and iv) on page 3 of the response) and;

c) the total other development and implementation costs required for the 911 services (i.e. the sum of the individual costs provided in part a) vii) on page 4).

With respect to the response to TBayTel (CRTC) 18December 09-2 911 Public Emergency Reporting Service (911 Service)), TBayTel is to place on the public record the forecast information for Competitor Wireline Telephone Numbers (column iii) and Competitor Wireless Working Telephone Numbers (column iv).

TBayTel is to serve a copy on all interested parties. These submissions must be received, not merely sent, by 19 February 2010.

With respect to Shaw’s request that the Commission set out a process to allow parties to file final comments on TBayTel’s Tariff Notice 151, parties are reminded that in a letter issued on 5 February 2010, additional process was set out.

Yours sincerely,

Original signed by

Yvan Davidson
Senior Manager
Competitor Services and Costing
Telecommunications
c.c: Marc Pilon, CRTC, marc.pilon@crtc.gc.ca

Distribution List

bell.regulatory@bell.ca; regulatory.affairs@telus.com; reglementa@telebec.com ; document.control@sasktel.sk.ca ; regulatory@bell.aliant.ca ; david.wilkie@tbaytel.com; regulatoryaffairs@nwtel.ca; iworkstation@mtsallstream.com ; donald.woodford@bell.ca; intervention@newnorth.ca; alain.duhaime@sogetel.com; stephen.scofich@tbaytel.com; dreynard@kmts.biz; grubb@hurontel.on.ca; rbanks@mornington.ca; a.schneider@hay.net; m.baron@brktel.on.ca; bob.gowenlock@firstnetworks.ca; pgillis@dryden.ca; scoffey@dryden.ca; adimaio@lynxmobility.com; don.falle@inukshuk.ca; regulatory.aff@fidomobile.ca; dave.baxter@quadro.net; sbell@globalstar.ca; rwi_gr@rci.rogers.com; pdowns@nexicom.net; lisagoetz@globalive.com ; ybarzakay@comwave.net; dmckeown@viewcom.ca;

Date modified:

2010-02-17