ARCHIVED - Letter

Ottawa, 23 April 2010

Our Reference:  8663-C12-200907321

BY E-MAIL

Distribution

Dear Madams, Sirs:

Re:  Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2009-261, Proceeding to consider the   appropriateness of mandating certain wholesale high-speed access services – Request for disclosure of information filed in confidence and for further responses

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 9 April 2010, Teksavvy Solutions Inc. (Teksavvy) and TELUS Communications Company (TELUS) filed requests for further responses to interrogatories and/or requests for disclosure of information for which confidentiality had been claimed.

On 16 April 2010, 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), 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 Companies) and British Columbia Broadband Association.

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.

With respect to the following Commission interrogatories, TELUS and Rogers are to provide further and better responses as set out below:

TELUS

Telus ILECs(CRTC)1March-204 f)

For part f), provide on the public record, an estimate of the price a high-speed Internet customer would pay using such a wireless plan and also estimate the price a high-speed Internet customer would pay using an appropriate Telus wireline plan.  The response provided for Telus(CRTC)1Mar10-202 c), indicates that certain wireless plans offered by Telus would accommodate the usage profile identified in the interrogatory.

ROGERS

Rogers(CRTC)1Mar10-204 a), b)

For part a), provide the access speed available to end-users rather than the theoretical speeds that the technology can support. Provide any assumptions.

For part b), provide the end-user data user profile assumptions made in the simultaneous user estimate per cell reported.

Additional Commission interrogatories are set out in Attachment 3.  Interrogatories are addressed to the Bell Companies, MTS Allstream Inc. (MTS Allstream), Saskatchewan Telecommunications (SaskTel), TELUS, the Cable Companies, Execulink Telecom Inc (Execulink), Primus Telecommunications Canada Inc. (Primus) and Teksavvy.

Pursuant to the deadlines set out in Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2009-261-7 as amended, further responses and disclosure of information for which confidentiality was claimed with respect to the interrogatories identified in the attachments and set out above are to be filed with the Commission and served on all interested parties by 3 May 2010.

Responses to the additional interrogatories are to be filed with the Commission and served on all interested parties by 10 May 2010.

The above material must be received and 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 is, to the extent set out in the 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 is likely to be caused by disclosure and 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 Attachment 2 to this letter.

Yours sincerely,

Original signed by

Lynne Fancy
Director General
Competition, Costing and Tariffs
Telecommunications

Distribution List

regulatoryaffairs@nwtel.ca;  bell.regulatory@bell.ca;  reglementa@telebec.com;  document.control@sasktel.sk.ca;  iworkstation@mtsallstream.com;  regulatory@bell.aliant.ca;  Regulatory.Matters@corp.eastlink.ca;  Regulatory@sjrb.ca;  marcel.mercia@cybersurf.com;  reglementation@xittel.net ;  regulatory@distributel.ca;  lisagoetz@globalive.com;  regulatory@primustel.ca;  telecom.regulatory@cogeco.com;  regaffairs@quebecor.com;  ken.engelhart@rci.rogers.com;  regulatory.affairs@telus.com;  crtc@mhgoldberg.com;  eric@rothschildco.com;  gfletcher@incentre.net;  berzins@nucleus.com;  babramson@mccarthy.ca;  regulatory@execulink.com;  ctacit@tacitlaw.com;  abriggs@cogeco.ca;  slavalevin@ethnicchannels.com;  crtc@les.net;  LBC_Consulting@live.ca;  andre.labrie@mcccf.gouv.qc.ca;  bob.Allen@abccomm.com;  ghariton@sympatico.ca;  lefebvre@rogers.com;  kirsten.embree@fmc-law.com;  bruce@brucebuchanan.net;  jonathan.holmes@ota.on.ca;  cataylor@cyberus.ca;  chris.allen@abccomm.com;  regulatory@vianet.ca;  piac@piac.ca;  tom.copeland@caip.ca ;  hemond@consommateur.qc.ca;  blackwell@giganomics.ca;  jhpratt@msn.com;  crtc@paul.ca;  pris@pris.ca ;  regulatory@lya.com;  regulatory@teksavvy.com;  dmckeown@viewcom.ca;  David.Wilkie@tbaytel.com;  regulatory@fibernetics.ca;  jfmezei@vaxination.ca;  stephen.scofich@tbaytel.com;  regulatory@bcba.ca;  crtcmail@gmail.com;  telecom@gov.bc.ca;

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)1 March10-201 d)

Disclose the information filed in confidence on the public record.

The Companies(CRTC) 1 March10-202

Disclose paragraph 3 of your response on the public record.

The Companies(CRTC) 1 March10-204 a) and b)

Disclose the entire paragraph 3 of the response to part a) and b) on the public record.

The Companies(Teksavvy) 1 March10-5

File in confidence with the Commission and Teksavvy, the number of Teksavvy end customers served by the Companies’ aggregated ADSL services broken down by central office.

Bragg

Cable Carriers(Teksavvy)1March10-7

Disclose the percentage filed for Bragg (Eastlink) in the “Cable Companies Market Share of High-Speed Internet Subscribers” table.

Further Responses to Interrogatories

Bragg, Cogeco, QMI, Rogers and Shaw

Cable Carriers(TekSavvy)1March10-1

Each of the Cable Carriers is to provide the date and amount of each rate increase for a high-speed Internet service or service bundle that includes high-speed Internet services of which its retail customers were advised since the date for which this information was provided by the company in response to (Teksavvy)17Jul09-2.

Additional Commission Interrogatories

Interrogatories to the Bell Companies

1. Refer to Table 2.3 of the Companies’ response to the interrogatory, The Companies(CRTC)1Mar10-105 TNC 2009-261 Confidential, where the Companies provided their study results regarding their proposed investment in FTTN facilities in Ottawa.  Explain whether an end-customer subscribing to both of the Companies’ IPTV and Internet services would be counted as one or two RGUs.

2. Refer to the Companies’ response to part b) of the interrogatory, The Companies(CRTC)1Mar10-110 TNC 2009-261 Confidential, where the Companies provided their study results regarding their proposed investment in FTTN facilities in Ottawa.  Provide a complete response to the questions posed in part b), items i. to iv., of this interrogatory, specifying for each of the base scenario as well as the three alternative scenarios identified in the interrogatory, the following information:

a) the assumed FTTN investments and operating expenses,

b) the individual services included (retail and wholesale),

c) for each of the services included,  the assumed demand, revenues, costs, and associated rates, and,

d) any other relevant assumptions (e.g., cost of capital) used to determine the NPV value.

3. Refer to the company’s interrogatory responses to part b) of The Companies(CRTC)01Mar10-101 TNC Confidential  and to part e) of The Companies (CRTC)01Mar10-102 TNC 2009-261 Confidential.  Identify the major types of equipment and facilities that are included under each of the DSL, FTTN and FTTH technologies identified in the response.  Also explain whether any additional Common infrastructure equipment and / or facilities are required to provide services using these three different infrastructures, and if so, describe them and explain why they were excluded.

4. The Companies submitted that in order for CO-based ADSL access service to be able to provide competitors with access to all ILEC end-users, all DSLAM end-user traffic terminating at that CO should transit through the new Ethernet layer 2 switch. Therefore, there is a necessary migration step that must be completed to migrate the traffic from DSLAMs that does not already transit via the Ethernet layer 2 switch.

In a separate response, the Companies submitted that IPTV-capable NAS are only supported by Ethernet DSLAMs.

a) Describe whether the IPTV service end-customers would be required to terminate via the Ethernet layer 2 switch.

b) Describe whether the necessary migration step identified above, would be necessary to offer IPTV service to all IPTV-capable NAS.

c) Based on the response above, if applicable, revise the response to The Companies(CRTC)17July09-5 c) i) and ii).

d) Of the list of co-located COs provided in response to __(CRTC)17July09-3, Identify the number of COs that will be IPTV capable by 2012 in each company’s serving territory.

5. With reference to Bell Canada’s response to __(CRTC)17July09-3, specifically with reference to the Ottawa COs identified in Attachment 1, provide the maximum access speed offered to retail residential high-speed Internet service customers in those CO serving areas that corresponds to the vintage of the demand provided, specifying the vintage of the data. The response should also identify the number of customers subscribing to access speeds above 5 mbs.

Interrogatories to TELUS

1. Refer to the company’s interrogatory responses to part b) of TELUS(CRTC)01Mar10-101 TNC Confidential  and to part e) of TELUS(CRTC)01Mar10-102 TNC 2009-261 Confidential.  Identify the major equipment and facilities that are included under each of the technologies, including Common infrastructure.  Also explain whether the capital expenditures provided under each technology represents access only, network only, or both access and network.

2. Telus in its submission identified the need for a gateway function to convert the traffic originating from ATM-based DSLAMs and Ethernet-based DSLAMs used across its network to a common Ethernet interconnection for hand-off to competitors at each local CO, to support the CO-based ADSL access service.  Telus in its submissions indicated that this gateway function could be performed at a local CO or at specific COs that are already equipped with gateway equipment.  For local COs not equipped with the necessary gateway equipment, Telus provided an estimate of costs to install the necessary equipment.

a)Of the list of co-located COs provided in response to __(CRTC)17July09-3, identify the number of COs that will be IPTV capable by 2012 in each of your territories of incumbency.

b) Describe whether there will be a need for the gateway function described above, to offer  the new CO-based ADSL access service in these IPTV capable COs.
c) With reference to its response to Telus(CRTC)01Mar10-401 a) and b), Telus filed an arrangement in confidence on how IPTV and wholesale connectivity for ISPs can be implemented.  Similarly, file the arrangement on how IPTV and Telus high-speed Internet service is or will be implemented, and identify at what point in its network and how Telus would separate its retail Internet traffic from its IPTV traffic for the same end-customer.

Interrogatories to MTSAllstream,

1. Refer to the company’s interrogatory response to part b) of MTS Allstream(CRTC)01Mar10-101 TNC Confidential, where the company provided its broadband capital expenditure for the years 2000 to 2009.  As requested, provide an estimated breakdown of the investment by major type of infrastructure technologies (e.g., DSL, FTTN, and FTTH).  Identify the major types of equipment and facilities that are included under each type of infrastructure technology.  Also explain whether any additional Common infrastructure equipment and / or facilities are required to provide services using these different infrastructures, and if so, describe them and explain why they were excluded.  Further explain whether the capital expenditure provided under each technology represents access only, network only, or both access and network.

2. Refer to the company’s interrogatory response to part e) of MTS Allstream(CRTC)01Mar10-102 TNC Confidential, where the company provided its broadband capital expenditure forecast for the years 2010 to 2012, by different categories.  Identify the major equipment and facilities that are included under each of the infrastructure technologies identified in the response.  Also explain whether any additional Common infrastructure equipment and / or facilities are required to provide services using these different infrastructures, and if so, describe them and explain why they were excluded.  Further explain whether the capital expenditure provided under each technology represents access only, network only, or both access and network.

3. Refer to the company’ response to MTS AllstreamOOT (CRTC)1Marc10-104 regarding demand and revenue information.  In order for the Commission to better understand the demand forecast provided, a further response as described below is sought.

Under the assumption that scenario described in b ii) and b iii) are both implemented, provide the following breakdown for each of 2010, 2011 and 2012:

a) The demand forecast for each of CO-based ADSL access, local head-end based cable high-speed access, aggregated ADSL access with matching speed, aggregated TPIA to a single POI per region.

b) For the total wholesale access based high-speed demand forecasted above, provide a breakdown by incumbent territories.

c) With respect to your response to b) above, provide rationale for differing growth forecasts in different incumbent regions, if any.

4. In its response to MTS Allstream(CRTC)01Mar10-401 a) MTS Allstream indicated that its premises modem gateway bridges customer premises high-speed Internet and IPTV traffic and routes the traffic  using a single IP address, and there is currently no way to physically or logically separate the Internet traffic from the IPTV traffic. Provide the network diagram and describe at what point in its network and how MTS Allstream would separate its retail Internet traffic from its IPTV traffic for the same end-customer.

Interogatories to SaskTel

1. Refer to the company’s interrogatory response to part b) of SASKTEL(CRTC)01Mar10-101 TNC Confidential, where the company provided its broadband capital expenditure for the years 2000 to 2009.  Identify the major types of infrastructure technologies (DSL, FTTN, etc.) included in these expenditures, as well as the major equipment and facilities that are included under each of the infrastructure technologies identified in the response.  Also explain whether any additional Common infrastructure equipment and / or facilities are required to provide services using these different infrastructures, and if so, describe them and explain why they were excluded.  Further explain whether the capital expenditure provided under each technology represents access only, network only, or both access and network.
2. Refer to the company’s interrogatory response to part e) of SASKTEL(CRTC)01Mar10-102 TNC Confidential, where the company provided its broadband capital expenditure forecast for the years 2010 to 2012, by different technologies.  Identify the major equipment and facilities that are included under each of the infrastructure technologies identified in the response.  Also explain whether any additional Common infrastructure equipment and / or facilities are required to provide services using these different infrastructures, and if so, describe them and explain why they were excluded.  Further explain whether the capital expenditure provided under each technology represents access only, network only, or both access and network.

Interrogatories to Bragg, Cogeco, QMI, Rogers and Shaw

1. Refer to the Cable Carriers’ response to ____________(CRTC)1Mar10-304  TNC 2009-261.  For each cable carrier, assume that the competitors’ TPIA traffic across all cable head-ends can be aggregated and transported through the company’s shared network to a common point or points similar to the manner by which the company aggregates and transports the traffic of its own retail high-speed Internet end-customers for hand-off to the Internet.  Provide an estimate of the costs of modifying the company’s existing network to support a TPIA service that would use such transport and aggregation with hand-off through a single centralized point of interconnection (to be identified by the cable carrier).  The response should also break down the costs by major cost element and include a breakdown of the required major resources and activities along with underlying assumptions.
2. See interrogatory to Bragg, Cogeco, QMI and Rogers
3. See interrogatories to Shaw (below)
4. See interrogatories to Shaw (below

Interrogatories to Bragg, Cogeco, QMI and Rogers

2. Refer to the company’s interrogatory responses to part b) of ____(CRTC)1Mar10-101 TNC Confidential and to part e) of ____(CRTC)1Mar10-102 TNC Confidential, where the company provided its advanced digital services capital expenditures, including forecast, for the years 2000 to 2012., by five categories of Capital Expenditures.

 

For each of the five categories of Capital Expenditures,

(i) provide the major types of equipment and facilities that are associated with the company’s Internet access services, and

(ii) comment on the extent to which  the total capital expenditures are primarily due to high-speed Internet access service.

Interrogatories to Shaw

3. Refer to the company’s interrogatory responses to part b) of ____(CRTC)1Mar10-101 TNC Confidential where the company provided its advanced digital services capital expenditures, including forecast, for the years 2000 to 2009., by five categories of Capital Expenditures.

For each of the five categories of Capital Expenditures,

(i) provide the major types of equipment and facilities that are associated with the company’s Internet access services, and

(ii) comment on the extent to which  the total capital expenditures are primarily due to high-speed Internet access service

4. Refer to the company’s interrogatory responses to part b) of ____(CRTC)1Mar10-102 TNC Confidential where the company provided its advanced digital services capital expenditures forecast, for the years 2010 to 2012.  Comment on the extent to which the forecast capital expenditures are primarily due to the company’s high-speed Internet access service.

Interrogatories to Execulink, Primus, TekSavvy 

1. Refer to the company’ response to __(CRTC)1Marc10-104 regarding demand and revenue information.  In order for the Commission to better understand the demand forecast provided, a further response as described below is sought.

Under the assumption that scenario described in b ii) and b iii) are both implemented, provide the following breakdown for each of 2010, 2011 and 2012:

a) The demand forecast for each of CO-based ADSL access, local head-end based cable high-speed access, aggregated ADSL access with matching speed, aggregated TPIA to a single POI per region.

b) For the total wholesale access based high-speed demand forecasted above, provide a breakdown by incumbent territories.

c) With respect to your response to b) above, provide rationale for differing growth forecasts in different incumbent regions, if any.

2. See interrogatory to Execulink and Primus (below)

Interrogatory to Execulink and Primus

1. Refer to the company’s response to part c) of the interrogatory, ____(CRTC)1Mar10-101 TNC 2009-261 Confidential, where, for the years 2010 to 2012, the company provided estimates of total capital expenditure that the company plans to invest to provision  its retail Internet services, under four different scenarios.  Confirm whether or not the company’s planned investments provided in response to part c) iii  (relating to the company’s planned investment  in the event that the Commission mandates a wholesale CO-based / head-end-based Internet access service)  also included the company’s planned investment as posed in part c) ii (relating to a mandated wholesale aggregated ADSL / TPIA matching speed service).

Date modified:

2010-04-23