ARCHIVED - Letter

This page has been archived on the Web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, 25 June 2010

Our Reference: 8690-C12-200910408

BY E-MAIL

Parties to Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2009-432

Dear Madams and Sirs:

Re:Call for comments - Review of the large incumbent local exchange carriers’ support structure service rates, Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2009-432, 21 July 2009 - Request for disclosure of costing information filed in confidence and for further responses

This letter addresses requests for disclosure of information for which a claim of confidentiality has been made and requests for further responses to interrogatories in the above-referenced proceeding.

The Commission received requests dated 11 June 2010 from Bragg Communications Inc., the Canadian Cable Systems Alliance, Cogeco Cable Inc., Rogers Communications Inc., Shaw Communications Inc., and Quebecor Media Inc., on behalf of its affiliate Videotron Ltd. (collectively, the Cable Carriers) for disclosure of information for which a claim of confidentiality has been made.

In their 11 June 2010 submission, the Cable Carriers requested disclosure of costing information for which a claim of confidentiality has been made and further responses to interrogatory responses filed on 28 May 2010 by Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership (Bell Aliant) and Bell Canada (collectively, the Bell companies), MTS Allstream Inc. (MTS Allstream), Télébec, Société en commandite (Télébec) and TELUS Communications Company (TELUS). The Commission also received a request dated 11 June 2010 from Xittel Telecommunications Inc. on behalf of the Regroupement québécois des utilisateurs de structures de soutènement (Xittel) for a further response from the Bell companies.

Bell Aliant, the Bell companies, MTS Allstream, Télébec and TELUS filed responses dated 18 June 2010 to the above requests.

Part I - 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

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.

In addition, the fact that certain companies disclosed the information in question in the proceeding was considered in assessing the validity of a claim of harm by other companies. Further, with respect to the level of disclosure of historical cost information, it is noted that Telecom Order CRTC 2009-731 required the disclosure on the public record of historical and updated costs by type of support structure. Information to be disclosed pursuant to this letter is consistent with the level of disclosure required in Order CRTC 2009-731.

Having regard to all of the considerations set out above, the information for which a claim of confidentiality was made 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 by Bell Aliant, the Bell companies, MTS Allstream, Télébec and TELUS. 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.

The information to be disclosed, as set out in Attachment 1, is to be filed with the Commission and served on all interested parties by 30 June 2010.

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. Further, in certain instances, the information sought was provided after the request was received.

Having regard to all of the above considerations, further responses, as set out in Attachment 2 to this letter, are to be filed with the Commission by Bell Aliant, the Bell companies, MTS Allstream, Télébec and TELUS and served on all interested parties by
30 June 2010

Part III – Other

The following additional information is to be filed with the Commission and served on all interested parties by 30 June 2010:

Télébec - the study that estimates the percentage of in-service poles referred to in response to The Companies(Cable companies)28April10-24(a); if Télébec claims confidentiality with respect to information in the study, it is to also provide a version for the public record abridged in a manner consistent with the level of disclosure determined to be appropriate in both Telecom Order CRTC 2009-731 and this letter;

TELUS - if available, Attachment 2 of SRCI(CRTC)15Dec93-1 (former BCTEL).

All material to be filed with the Commission and served on interested parties by 30 June 2010 must be received, not merely sent, by that date.

Yours sincerely,

Original signed by

Lynne Fancy
Director General
Competition, Costing and Tariffs
Telecommunications

c.c.: Yvan Davidson, CRTC, (819) 953-5414, yvan.davidson@crtc.gc.ca
Richard Pagé, CRTC, (819) 997-4298, richard.page@crtc.gc.ca
Daphne Fry, CRTC, (819) 953-5373, daphne.fry@crtc.gc.ca
Pamela Cormier, CRTC, (819) 953-9675, pamela.cormier@crtc.gc.ca

Encl. Attachments (2)

List of Parties

ACTQ: sdesy@actq.qc.ca
AGBriggs Consulting: abriggs@cogeco.ca
Bell Aliant: regulatory@bell.aliant.ca
Bell Canada: bell.regulatory@bell.ca
Bragg: regulatory.matters@corp.eastlink.ca
CCSA: cedwards@ccsa.cable.ca
Cogeco: michel.messier@cogeco.com
CS de la Moyenne-Côte-Nord: marius-richard@csmcn.qc.ca
CS du Pays-des-Bleuets: bilodeaust@cspaysbleuets.qc.ca
Distributel Communications Limited: regulatory@distributel.ca
Giganomics Consulting Inc.: blackwell@giganomics.ca
Maskatel and Drummond: gcordeau@maskatel.qc.ca
Ministère de la Culture et des communications: andre.labrie@mcccf.gouv.qc.ca
MTO Telecom: kfischer@mtotelecom.com
MTS Allstream: iworkstation@mtsallstream.com
O.N. Tel: tracy.cant@ontera.ca
OTA: jonathan.holmes@ota.on.ca
RCI: hslawner@rci.rogers.com
david.watt@rci.rogers.com
Shaw: Regulatory@sjrb.ca
Télébec: reglementa@telebec.com
TELUS: regulatory.affairs@telus.com
Tacit, Christian: ctacit@tacitlaw.com
TBayTel: rob.olenick@tbaytel.com
David.Wilkie@tbaytel.com
TekSavvy: regulatory@teksavvy.com
Vidéotron: regaffairs@quebecor.com
View Communications: dmckeown@viewcom.ca
Wall Communications Inc.: lefebvre@rogers.com
Xittel: reglementation@xittel.net

Attachment 1

Disclosure of information designated as confidential

Each party is to disclose the information that it filed with the Commission under a claim of confidentiality in response to the interrogatories identified below, to the extent set out below:

The Companies(CRTC)28Apr10-6