ARCHIVED - Letter

Our reference:  8643-C12-201105297

BY E-MAIL

To:  Distribution List

Re:  Proceeding to review network interconnection matters:  requests for disclosure of information designated as confidential and further responses to interrogatories

Dear Madam, Sir:

This letter addresses requests for disclosure of information designated as confidential and further responses to interrogatories made in the proceeding to review network interconnection matters.

On 31 August 2011, the following parties filed requests for disclosure of information designated as confidential or further responses to interrogatories:  Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership, Bell Canada and Télébec, Société en commandite (collectively the Bell companies), Data & Audio‐Visual Enterprises Wireless Inc., carrying on business as Mobilicity (Mobilicity), MTS Allstream Inc. (MTS Allstream), Public Mobile Inc. (Public Mobile), Rogers Communications Partnership (Rogers) and TELUS Communications Company (TELUS).

On 8 September 2011, the Bell companies, the Canadian Independent Telephone Company Joint Task Force (the JTF), Canadian Network Operators Consortium Inc. (CNOC), Distributel Communications Limited (Distributel), Mobilicity, MTS Allstream, Public Mobile, Quebecor Media Inc. (QMI), Rogers, Saskatchewan Telecommunications (SaskTel), Shaw Communications Inc. (Shaw), and TELUS filed with the Commission their responses to the above requests. The Commission did not receive responses from Bragg Communications Inc., carrying on business as EastLink (EastLink), Cogeco Cable Inc. (Cogeco), Fibernetics Corporation (Fibernetics), Globalive Wireless Management Corp., carrying on business as WIND Mobile (WIND Mobile), or Yak Communications (Canada) Corp. (Yak)

Disclosure

Requests for disclosure of information designated as confidential are addressed in light of sections 38 and 39 of the Telecommunications Act (the Act) and sections 30 and following of the CRTC Rules of Practice and Procedure (the Rules). In evaluating a request, an assessment is made as to whether the information falls into a category of information that can be designated confidential pursuant to section 39 of the Act. An assessment is then made as to whether there is any specific direct harm likely to result from the disclosure of the information in question and whether any such harm outweighs the public interest in disclosure. In making this evaluation, a number of factors are taken into consideration, including the degree of competition and the importance of the information for the purpose of obtaining a fuller record. The factors considered are discussed in more detail in Broadcasting and Telecom Information Bulletin CRTC 2010-961 Procedures for filing confidential information and requesting its disclosure in Commission proceedings. 

Having regard to all of the considerations set out above, parties are to place on the public record of this proceeding the information designated as confidential in response to the interrogatories listed in Attachment 1, to the extent set out in that Attachment. 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.

Further Responses

Parties are also to file further responses to interrogatories and additional information, either in response to a request from another party, or as a result of a Commission review of the interrogatory responses. In doing so, it is considered that this further response is necessary in order to have a fuller record. Parties are to provide further responses as set out in Attachment 2.

Further Responses/Disclosure

For the same reasons stated above, parties are also to file, on the public record, further responses to interrogatories and additional information as set out in Attachment 3.

Filing Requirements

The information to be disclosed by parties and further responses as identified in Attachments 1, 2, and 3 are to be filed with the Commission and served on all parties, by 23 September 2011.

The above material must be received, not merely sent, by this date.

Yours sincerely,

Original signed by

John Macri
Director, Telecommunications Policy

c.c.:  Bob Martin (CRTC) robert.martin@crtc.gc.ca

Attachments (3)

DISTRIBUTION LIST:

Regulatory@sjrb.ca; david.watt@rci.rogers.com; regulatory.affairs@telus.com; sdesy@actq.qc.ca; bell.regulatory@bell.ca; cedwards@ccsa.cable.ca; iworkstation@mtsallstream.com; jonathan.holmes@ota.on.ca; regaffairs@quebecor.com; document.control@sasktel.sk.ca; regulatory@globility.ca; lisagoetz@globalive.com; regulatory@ssimicro.com; reglementa@telebec.com; telecom.regulatory@cogeco.com; regulatory@cnoc.ca; piac@piac.ca; Jamie.greenberg@publicmobile.ca; regulatory@distributel.ca; Regulatory.Matters@corp.eastlink.ca; regulatory@fibernetics.ca; awood@windmobile.ca; gary.wong@mobilicity.ca; regulatory@bellaliant.ca;

Disclosure of information designated as confidential

Refer to TELUS(MTS Allstream)30June11-203 a)

TELUS is to provide, on the public record, its response to the interrogatory.

Refer to TELUS(Rogers)30June11-2 d)

TELUS is to provide, on the public record, its response to the interrogatory.

Further responses

Refer to Cogeco(MTS Allstream)30Jun2011-104

Cogeco is to provide a full response to the interrogatory.

Refer to CNOC(The Companies)30June11-3

CNOC is to provide a full response to the interrogatory.

Refer to EastLink(MTS Allstream)30Jun2011-4

EastLink is to provide a full response to the interrogatory.

Refer to JTF(Rogers)30Jun11-10

The JTF is to provide a full response to the interrogatory.

Refer to JTF(Rogers)30Jun11-19

The JTF is to provide a full response to the interrogatory.

Refer to MTS Allstream(TELUS)30June11-3 c)

MTS Allstream is to provide a full response to the interrogatory.

Refer to Quebecor Media(MTS Allstream)30Jun2011-104

QMI is to provide a full response to the interrogatory.

Refer to TELUS(Rogers)30June11-1 f), h)

TELUS is to provide, a full response to part f) of the interrogatory.

TELUS is to provide, in response to part h) of the interrogatory, for the period 2011 to 2015, its best estimate of the percentage of forecast capital to be spent on:  (i) IP network and facilities; and (ii) new TDM networks and facilities.

Refer to TELUS(MTS Allstream)30June11-203 c)

TELUS is to provide a full response to the interrogatory with the same level of detail as was provided by the Bell companies and SaskTel.

Refer to The Companies(Public Mobile)30Jun11-1 ii)

The Bell companies are to provide a revised response to the interrogatory to apportion the decline of revenues from each category to the percent revenue decline that includes Bell Mobility revenues.

Refer to The Companies(Rogers)30Jun11-1 h), i)

The Bell companies are to provide, in response to part h) of the interrogatory, for the period 2005-2010 their best estimate of the percentage of total capital spent on:  (i) IP networks and facilities; and (ii) new TDM networks and facilities.

The Bell companies are to provide, in response to part i) of the interrogatory, for the period 2011 to 2015 their best estimate of the percentage of forecast capital to be spent on:  (i) IP network and facilities; and (ii) new TDM networks and facilities.

Further Responses/Disclosure

Refer to Rogers(Mobilicity&WIND)30June11-1

Rogers is to provide, on the public record, a full response to the interrogatory.

Refer to SaskTel(Mobilicity_WIND)30June11-1

SaskTel is to provide, on the public record, a full response to the interrogatory.

Refer to TELUS(WIND)30June11-101

TELUS is to provide, on the public record, a full response to the interrogatory consistent with the level of detail and of disclosure provided by the Bell companies and MTS Allstream.

Proceeding to review network interconnection matters, Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2011-206, 23 March 2011, as amended by Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2011-206-1, 3 May 2011, and Commission staff letter dated 9 August 2011

Date modified:

2011-09-16