ARCHIVED - Letter

Ottawa, 7 July 2010

Our Reference:  8663-C12-201000653

 BY E-MAIL

To: Distribution List

Re:  Obligation to serve and other matters, Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2010-43 – Requests 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 2010-43.

On 22 June 2010, the following parties filed requests for further responses to interrogatories and/or requests for disclosure of information for which confidentiality had been claimed: Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership (Bell Aliant); Bell Canada; Cogeco Cable Inc., Rogers Communications Inc., Shaw Communications Inc. and Quebecor Media Inc., on behalf of its affiliate Videotron Ltd. (collectively, the Cable Carriers); MTS Allstream Inc. (MTS Allstream); the Ontario Telecommunications Association and TBayTel (OTA and TBayTel); and TELUS Communications Company (TCC).

On 29 June 2010, the following parties filed responses to the above requests:  the Association des Compagnies de Téléphone du Québec (ACTQ); Barrett Xplore Inc. (Barrett Xplore); Bell Aliant; Bell Canada; Bragg Communications Inc. (Bragg); the Cable Carriers; City West Cable and Telephone (City West); MTS Allstream; the OTA and TBayTel; Saskatchewan Telecommunications (SaskTel); and TCC.

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 response to interrogatory Bell Aliant(CRTC)20May10-105, Bell Aliant is requested to provide estimates of revenues per residential NAS per month associated with Bell Aliant’s toll services in its high-cost serving areas by province by band.  With respect to the response to interrogatory KMTS/NorthernTel(CRTC)20May10-101, KTMS is requested to provide its revenues per residential NAS per month associated with optional local services, network access charges and toll services.  As requested in these interrogatories, Bell Aliant and KMTS are required to provide detailed descriptions of the methodology used in the development of these estimates, including all assumptions and relevant data.

In addition, Kincardine Cable T.V. Ltd. (Kincardine) has not yet provided a response to interrogatory Kincardine(CRTC)20May10-101.  Kincardine is requested to provide a response to this interrogatory.

Pursuant to the deadlines set out in Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2010-43-2, 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 13 July 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 (the 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 public interest in disclosure outweighs the specific direct harm, if any, likely to be caused by disclosure.

Other considerations

In certain instances, parties requested that if a party objected to responding to the question on the grounds that the information sought is confidential, at the very least, the information should be required to be filed with the Commission.   Commission staff notes that a variety of information is collected from telecommunications service providers on an annual basis, the majority of which is collected using the Commission's data collection survey forms.  If disclosure of the requested information is not required and the information has already been filed with the Commission via the data collection process, the information will not be required to be filed again in this proceeding.  In that event, the information in question will form part of the record of this proceeding.

Reminder

Commission staff reminds parties that claims of confidentiality made pursuant to section 39 of the Act must specifically identify the information that is the subject of the claim and must be supported by detailed reasons that address the balance between specific direct harm arising from public disclosure and the public interest in disclosure.   Failure to do so may result in insufficient rationale to justify the claim for confidentiality for the information in question.

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,

John Macri
Director
Telecommunications Policy

Distribution List

david.watt@rci.rogers.com;  Regulatory.Matters@corp.eastlink.ca;  grubb@hurontel.on.ca;  wagrier@1000island.net;  rbanks@mornington.ca;  steve@wtccommunications.ca;  roxboro@ontarioeast.net;  sachuter@tcc.on.ca;  jpatry@telcourcelles.qc.ca;  nantel@tellambton.net;  telstep@telstep.net;  pdowns@nexicom.net;  pwightman@wightman.ca;  a.schneider@hay.net;  sylvain.bellerive@sogetel.com;  regulatoryaffairs@nwtel.ca;  j-fmathieu@telupton.qc.ca;  gcordeau@maskatel.qc.ca ;  lisa.marogna@cwct.ca;  nfrontenac@kw.igs.net;  rob.olenick@tbaytel.com ;  tracy.cant@ontera.ca;  regulatory@execulink.com;  telvic@telvic.net;  dreynard@kmts.biz;  scoffey@dryden.ca;  m.baron@brktel.on.ca;  reglementa@telebec.com;  pallard@cooptel.qc.ca;  Regulatory.Matters@corp.eastlink.ca;  nicolet@puc.net;  jdowns@nexicomgroup.net;  Regulatory.Matters@corp.eastlink.ca;  regulatory@brucetelecom.com;  dave.baxter@quadro.net;  regulatory@bell.aliant.ca;  bell.regulatory@bell.ca ;  iworkstation@mtsallstream.com;  michel.messier@cogeco.com ;  document.control@sasktel.sk.ca;  Regulatory@sjrb.ca;  regulatory.affairs@telus.com;  regaffairs@quebecor.com;  reglementa@telebec.com;  angusoliver320@gmail.com;  dmckeown@viewcom.ca;  cataylor@cyberus.ca;  henryvlug@telus.net;  whitehead@johnstonbuchan.com;  anderson@sfu.ca;  eric@rothschildco.com;  crtc@mhgoldberg.com;  babramson@mccarthy.ca;  abriggs@cogeco.ca;  regulatory@fibernetics.ca;  dave.ehman@axia.com;  lmilton@fasken.com;  david.kidd@blakes.com;  sdesy@actq.qc.ca;  LBC_Consulting@live.ca;  cedwards@ccsa.cable.ca;  regulatory@lya.com;  blackwell@giganomics.ca;  andre.labrie@mcccf.gouv.qc.ca;  jonathan.holmes@ota.on.ca;  regaffairs@quebecor.com;  steve.rose@gov.yk.ca;  jwhite"cep.ca;  bmilligan@mediac.ca;  cjprudham@barrettxplore.com;  ldunbar@fasken.com;  telecom@gov.bc.ca;  linda_maljan@gov.nt.ca;  rebecca.mustard@townofws.ca;  ptemple@pelmorex.com;  reglementation@xittel.net ;  mario.mota@cftpa.ca;  mastin@cftpa.ca;  douellette@cablovision.com;  yboily@inukshuk.ca;  stephen.scofich@tbaytel.com;  regulatory@bcba.ca;  jderwinsky@galaxybroadband.ca;  bwalden@tnt21.com;  duncan@cimamusic.ca;  tisrael@cippic.ca;  regulatory@teksavvy.com;  regulatory@ssimicro.com;  sramchandar@gobcn.ca;  regulatory@primustel.ca;  mlynn@omniglobe.com;  sdrouin@adisq.com;  piac@piac.ca;  jhpratt@msn.com;  hemond@consommateur.qc.ca;  documentcontrol@cwta.ca ;  george.doubt@twu-canada.ca;  ctacit@tacitlaw.com;  gosfield@gosfieldtel.com;  choquette@comgate.com;  sabray@deloitte.ca;  rroy@telwarwick.qc.ca;  paul.frappier@telmilot.com;  nantel@tellambton.net; 

Disclosure of Information Designated as Confidential

OTA/TBayTel(Cable Carriers)20May10-5
MTS(Cable Carriers)20May10-6
Bell Aliant(Cable Carriers)20May10-6
OTA and MTS are to provide, on the public record, the information in their respective responses.  Bell Aliant is requested to provide, on the public record, a full response to the interrogatory.

Bell Aliant(MTS Allstream)20May10-2
Bell Aliant(MTS  Allstream)20May10-3
Bell Canada(MTS Allstream)20May10-12
Bell Canada(MTS Allstream)20May10-13
Bell Aliant and Bell Canada are to provide, on the public record, responses to their respective interrogatories in a format similar to the responses to interrogatories

SaskTel(MTS Allstream) 20May10-2 and 3 (i.e., use residential NAS counts to provide the percentage of customers by rate band category that have access to broadband services).

Further Responses to Interrogatories

ACTQ(Bell Canada)20May10-6
Bragg(Bell Canada)20May10-6
CityWest(Bell Canada)20May10-6
OTA(Bell Canada)20May10-6
ACTQ, Bragg, City West and OTA are to provide a full response to their respective interrogatory.

ACTQ(Cable Carriers)20May10-5
ACTQ is to file an abridged version of the attachment to the interrogatory.

OTA(Cable Carriers)20May10-2(d)
OTA is to provide a full response to the interrogatory.

ACTQ(TELUS)20May2010-2
OTA(TELUS)20May2010-2
TBayTel(TELUS)20May2010-2
ACTQ, OTA and TBayTel are to provide a full response to their respective interrogatory.

Barrett Xplore(MTS)20May10-1
Barrett Xplore is to provide a full response to the interrogatory.  Barrett Xplore may file their response in confidence with the Commission, providing an abridged version for the public record. 

Barrett Xplore(MTS)20May10-2
Barrett Xplore is to provide, for the public record, the total amount of public funding received from 2005 to 2009 for broadband infrastructure.

Requests for further responses to interrogatories and for public disclosure pursuant to the Commission staff letter dated 4 June 2010 will be dealt with in a separate letter.

The request by TCC regarding the response to interrogatory PIAC(TELUS)20May10-3 will be dealt with in a separate letter.

Date modified:

2010-07-07