ARCHIVED - Letter

Ottawa, 12 May 2010

Our Reference: 8740-B2-200908569
                     8740-B54-200908543

BY E-MAIL

Mr. Denis E. Henry
Vice-President
Regulatory and Government Affairs
Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership
160 Elgin Street, 19th Floor
Ottawa, Ontario K2P 2C4
regulatory@bell.aliant.ca

Mr. Mirko Bibic
Senior Vice-President
Regulatory & Government Affairs
Bell Canada
160 Elgin Street, 19th Floor
Ottawa, Ontario K2P 2C4
bell.regulatory@bell.ca

Dear Sirs:

Re: Bell Aliant Tariff Notice 269 and Bell Canada Tariff Notice 7205 – Proposed unbundled local loop rate increases – Request for disclosure of costing information filed in confidence

This letter addresses requests for disclosure of information for which a claim of confidentiality has been made in the proceeding initiated by Bell Aliant Tariff Notice 269 and Bell Canada Tariff Notice 7205.

On 26 April 2010 and 27 April 2010, the following parties filed requests for disclosure of information for which confidentiality had been claimed: MTS Allstream Inc., Primus Telecommunications Canada Inc. (Primus), Rogers Communications Inc. and TekSavvy Solutions Inc.

On 6 May 2010, Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership and Bell Canada (the Bell companies) filed with the Commission their responses to the above requests.

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

It should be noted that 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.

In addition, in the circumstances of this case, the extent to which similar information was disclosed on the public record of proceedings initiated by Public Notice CRTC 2001-119, CRTC to review revised loop and primary exchange service filings and Telecom Public Notice 2007-4, Review of certain Phase II costing issues was considered.

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 Attachment 1 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.

Primus’ Request

In its 26 April 2010 submission, Primus submitted that if the Commission was not inclined to order disclosure of the information Primus requested, then the Commission should order confidential access to this information for Primus’ external advisors and legal and regulatory staff. Primus submitted that this type of access is necessary to allow Primus to be able to participate meaningfully in this proceeding.

Commission staff notes that, given the extent of disclosure of information as set out in Attachment 1, it would not be appropriate for the Commission to order confidential access to that information in the manner proposed by Primus.

Other Matters

Commission staff notes that in several interrogatory responses, certain requested information was either not provided, was not properly labelled or was inconsistent between tables in the same response. Accordingly, the Companies are to revise their responses to 23 December 2009 interrogatories to reflect the directions specified in Attachment 2.

Commission staff further notes that it is not appropriate for a party to ask for further responses to Commission interrogatories. According to the process set out in this proceeding, parties will have the opportunity to request that information in the form of an interrogatory on 28 May 2010.

Filing Requirement

The information to be disclosed by the Bell companies, as set out in Attachment 1, or to be revised, as set out in Attachment 2, is to be filed with the Commission and served on all interested parties, by 17 May 2010. The above material must be received, not merely sent, by this date. Copies of the documents should also be sent to thomas.hui@crtc.gc.ca.

Yours sincerely,

Original signed by

Lynne Fancy
Director General
Competition, Costing and Tariffs
Telecommunications

cc: Yvan Davidson, yvan.davidson@crtc.gc.ca
Thomas Hui, thomas.hui@crtc.gc.ca

Attachment 1

Disclosure of Confidential Information

The Bell companies are to disclose the information that they filed with the Commission under a claim of confidentiality in response to the interrogatories identified below, to the extent set out below:

2 June 2009 Submission Attachment A,
All information for which confidentiality was claimed in paragraphs 56, 64, 65, and 66; Tables 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14 and 15.

2 June 2009 Submission Attachment A,
Table 10 and 11: Total row.

2 June 2009 Submission Attachment 1
All information for which confidentiality was claimed in paragraph 39.

2 June 2009 Submission Appendices 1 and 2, Table 3
Type A All Carriers Loop Demand by year, by band and total for Bell Canada and Bell Aliant-Central.

2 June 2009 Submission Appendix 4
All information for which confidentiality was claimed in Tables 1, 2, and 3.

The Companies(CRTC)12Aug09-1 d) and g)
d) All information for which confidentiality was claimed.
g) % Pending Facilities (PF).

The Companies(CRTC)12Aug09-2 b), f) and g)
All information for which confidentiality was claimed.

The Companies(CRTC)10Sep09-1 Attachment, Tables 1, 2
All information for which confidentiality was claimed.

The Companies(CRTC)23Dec09-2 d) Tables 4 and 5
All information for which confidentiality was claimed.

The Companies(CRTC)23Dec09-2 f) Tables 8 and 9
All information for which confidentiality was claimed.

The Companies(CRTC)23Dec09-2, Attachment 1 and 2, Tables 6
All information for which confidentiality was claimed.

The Companies(CRTC)23Dec09-4 a) Tables 1, 2 and 3
All information for which confidentiality was claimed.

The Companies(CRTC)23Dec09-5 Attachment 1 and 2
All information for which confidentiality was claimed.

The Companies(CRTC)23Dec09-6, Attachment 1
For each of 1999 and 2009, total cost per meter column.

The Companies(CRTC)23Dec09-7, Tables 2, 3 and 4
All information for which confidentiality was claimed.

The Companies(CRTC)23Dec09-9 a)
For each of Ontario drop wire IFC and Quebec drop wire IFC, the proportion of aerial drop wire and buried service wire assumed in the calculation.

The Companies(CRTC)23Dec09-11 c), Attachments 1 and 2
All information for which confidentiality was claimed.

The Companies(CRTC)23Dec09-16 b)
The proportion of Copper Maintenance costs attributable directly to ADSL.

The Companies(CRTC)23Dec09-19 Attachments 2 and 3
All information for which confidentiality was claimed.

The Companies(CRTC)23Dec09-19 d)
The number of held orders due to the unavailability of COTs and those orders that are held due to a legacy remote where the COT solution will not apply.

The Companies(CRTC)23Dec09-20 a), Attachment Tables 1 and 2
The Per Order and Per Loop Service Provisioning Cost PWAC for ILEC and CLEC demand for Residence and Business.

The Companies(CRTC)23Dec09-20 Attachment Tables 3, 4, 5 and 6
The occurrence rate for additional work at customer facing side of NID.

The Companies(CRTC)23Dec09-21
For the CLECs, for Residence and Business, the % of Loop Orders Requiring Premises Visit and the % of Those Premises Visits Requiring Additional Work; all information in response to b).

The Companies(CRTC)23Dec09-23
The occurrence rate for additional work at the customer facing side of the NID for CLEC loop orders.

The Companies(CRTC)23Dec09-26
The % of CLEC loop orders impacted by additional work required to repair service entrance wire and the increase in the number of minutes to do the additional work.

The Companies(CRTC)23Dec09-27
For each of Bell Canada and Bell Aliant, the estimated time associated with truck rolls for CLEC residential and business loop orders.

Attachment 2

Other Matters

In reviewing the Bell companies’ interrogatory responses, Commission staff notes that certain requested information was either not provided, was not properly labelled or was inconsistent between tables in the same response. Accordingly, the Bell companies are to revise the information that they filed with the Commission in response to the interrogatories identified below, to the extent set out below:

The Companies(CRTC)23Dec09-5
Provide an additional column in Table 6 of Attachments 1 and 2 to quantify the cost changes due to the differences in loop lengths between the 2000 and 2009 cost submissions.

The Companies(CRTC)23Dec09-6
Provide a description of the “In-building Adjustment”.

The Companies(CRTC)23Dec09-18, Attachment 5
Specify the column headings in the associated table; further provide the same table (with column headings) for Bell Aliant-Central or indicate that Bell Aliant-Central uses Bell Canada expenses as a proxy.

The Companies(CRTC)23Dec09-20
The tables on pages 3 and 4 are identical. Revise the response as required.

The values for Bell Canada per order unit costs for residence and business provided in Table 1 of the Attachment are inconsistent with the values provided in Tables 3 and 6 in the same attachment. Provide the revised corrected values as required.

Distribution List

bell.regulatory@bell.ca ; regulatoryaffairs@nwtel.ca; regulatory.affairs@telus.com; reglementa@telebec.com; document.control@sasktel.sk.ca; iworkstation@mtsallstream.com; regulatory@bell.aliant.ca; pdowns@nexicom.net; telstep@telstep.net; a.schneider@hay.net; alain.duhaime@sogetel.com; nantel@tellambton.net; j-fmathieu@telupton.qc.ca; gcordeau@maskatel.qc.ca; jpatry@telcourcelles.qc.ca; nfrontenac@kw.igs.net; sachuter@tcc.on.ca; tracy.cant@ontera.ca; rroy@telwarwick.qc.ca; pwightman@wightman.ca; telvic@telvic.net; dreynard@kmts.biz; scoffey@dryden.ca; paul.frappier@telmilot.com; m.baron@brktel.on.ca; regulatory@brucetelecom.com; lisa.marogna@citywest.ca; dave.baxter@quadro.net; rob.olenick@tbaytel.com ; roxboro@ontarioeast.net; steve@wtccommunications.ca; rbanks@mornington.ca; wagrier@1000island.net; grubb@hurontel.on.ca; gosfield@gosfieldtel.com; regulatory@execulink.com; pllard@cooptel.qc.ca; jonathan.holmes@ota.on.ca; michel.messier@cogeco.com ; andrew@isptelecom.net; JohnP@mountaincable.on.ca; regaffairs@quebecor.com; documents@accesscomm.ca; ataylor@personainc.ca; Regulatory.Matters@corp.eastlink.ca; jboutros@globility.ca ; regulatory@distributel.ca; regulatory@telnetcommunications.com; sbishay@iristel.com; cedric.tardif@derytelecom.ca; ingenierie@axion.ca; tim@cabletv.ca; regulatory@vianet.ca; bazilewichr@westmancom.com; dmckeown@viewcom.ca; Regulatory@sjrb.ca; regulatory.aff@fidomobile.ca; rmccaffrey@seaside.ns.ca; reglementation@xittel.net ; lisagoetz@globalive.com; regulatory@primustel.ca;rwi_gr@rci.rogers.com; ctacit@tacitlaw.com; Alexander.Adeyinka@rci.rogers.com; regulatory@teksavvy.com

Date modified:

2010-06-04