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This page has been archived on the Web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, 30 July 2010

 

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


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 – Requests for Public Disclosure and Requests for Further Responses


This letter addresses requests for further responses to interrogatories and 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 19 July 2010, the following parties filed requests for further responses and/or disclosure of information for which confidentiality had been claimed: MTS Allstream Inc., Primus Telecommunications Canada Inc., Rogers Communications Inc. and TekSavvy Solutions Inc.


On 26 July 2010, Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership and Bell Canada (collectively, the Bell companies) filed with the Commission their responses to the above requests.

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 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


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.


Having regard to all of the considerations set out above, the information filed under a claim of confidentiality in response to the 28 May 2010 interrogatories 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.


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 Bell companies are to provide further responses to the extent set out in Attachment 2 to this letter.


Filing Requirement


The information to be disclosed by the Bell companies, as set out in Attachment 1, or further responses to be provided, as set out in Attachment 2 is to be filed with the Commission and served on all interested parties, by 12 August 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


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


Encl.: Attachments (2)

Attachment 1


Disclosure of Information Designated as Confidential


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:


The Companies(CRTC)28May10-1 c)
All information for which confidentiality was claimed in Tables 3 and 4.


The Companies(CRTC)28May10-1 d)
All information for which confidentiality was claimed in Table 5.


The Companies(CRTC)28May10-2 b)
All information for which confidentiality was claimed in Table 1.


The Companies(CRTC)28May10-3 Attachment
All information for which confidentiality was claimed under the columns “Feeder, Distribution or Both”, “Cable Gauge”, “Cable Growth or Cable Replacement”, “If Replacement, due to FTTN Initiative”, and “loops Available to CLECs with rationale”.


The Companies(CRTC)28May10-5 Attachment 1
All information for which confidentiality was claimed under the column labelled “Total/m” for each band.


The Companies(CRTC)28May10-7 c)
The weighted average number of lines per Outward Order for CLEC Loops.


The Companies(CRTC)28May10-9
All information for which confidentiality was claimed.


The Companies(CRTC)28May10-11 a) and d)
The CLEC order issuance occurrence rate.


The Companies(CRTC)28May10-12
All information for which confidentiality was claimed.


The Companies(CRTC)28May10-13
All information for which confidentiality was claimed.


The Companies(CRTC)28May10-15, Table 1
The truck roll minutes under the rows labelled Residential CLEC (2009) and Business CLEC (2009).


The Companies(CRTC)28May10-19
All information for which confidentiality was claimed in part b) i).


The Companies(MTS Allstream)28May10-1 a)
Provide all information for which confidentiality was claimed in the row labelled “Total” of Tables 1 and 2 of The Companies(CRTC)23Dec09-2.

Attachment 2


Further responses to Interrogatories


The Bell companies are to provide further responses to the interrogatories identified below, to the extent set out below:


The Companies(Rogers)28May10-9 c)
Confirm that the CLEC unit costs for customer premises visits and additional NID work included in the PWAC in Tables 3a), 3c), 3e), and 3g) of Appendix 3, Attachment 1 of the Bell companies’ 2 June 2009 submission reflect the occurrence rates provided in response to The Companies(CRTC)23Dec09-21. If not, provide for CLEC costs only, revised Tables 3a), 3c), 3e), and 3g), using the occurrence rates provided in response to The Companies(CRTC)23Dec09-21.


The Companies(Rogers)28May10-16
For each band, the percentage difference between the total copper cable cash flows associated with in service demand at the start of the 2009 cost study and the total Net Book Value associated with the copper cables in the access network at year end 2008.


The Companies(Rogers)28May10-17 b) and c)
Full response.


The Companies(Primus)28May10-17 a)
Provide a list of wire centres where there are existing COTs or legacy channel banks.

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: