ARCHIVED - Letter

Ottawa, 9 July 2010

Our Reference:  8663-C12-201000653

BY E-MAIL

(See 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 – Interrogatories addressed to small incumbent local exchange carriers (small ILECs)

This letter addresses requests for disclosure of information for which confidentiality was claimed and for further responses to certain interrogatories to the small ILECs filed in the proceeding initiated by Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2010-43.

On 30 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; Saskatchewan Telecommunications (SaskTel); and TELUS Communications Company (TCC).

On 6 July 2010, the following parties filed responses to the above requests: the Association des Compagnies de Téléphone du Québec (ACTQ); Bragg Communications Inc. (Bragg); City West Cable and Telephone (City West); the Ontario telecommunications Association and TBayTel (the OTA and TBayTel).

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.

In addition, Dryden Municipal Telephone System (Dryden) has not yet provided responses to interrogatories Dryden(CRTC)20May10-101, 102 and 103.  Dryden is to provide responses to these interrogatories by the date set out below.

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.

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:

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; bruno.orsini@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; sbray@deloitte.ca;

Disclosure of Information Designated as Confidential

Bragg(Bell Aliant)20May10-2

Bragg is to provide, on the public record, a response to the interrogatory with the information aggregated for Amtelecom Limited Partnership and People’s Tel Limited Partnership in the same format as the response to interrogatory OTA/TBayTel(Bell Aliant)20May10-2.

OTA/TBayTel(Bell Canada)20May10-1

OTA and TBayTel are requested to provide, on the public record, the number of  residential network access services as of 31 July 2005 and 31 December 2009 for each small ILEC by high cost service area band/sub-band.

Further Responses to Interrogatories

ACTQ(TELUS)20May10-5

OTA/TBayTel(TELUS)20May10-4

ACTQ, OTA and TBayTel are requested to provide a full response to their respective interrogatory.

ACTQ(TELUS)20May10-3

OTA/TBayTel(TELUS)20May10-3

ACTQ, OTA and TBayTel are requested to provide a full response to their respective interrogatory.

These interrogatories are set out in a Commission staff letter dated 4 June 2010.

Date modified:

2010-07-09