ARCHIVED - Letter

Ottawa, 5 October 2011

File numbers:

8663-C41-200813800
8663-G1-200813776
8663-L2-200813742
8663-S4-200813833
8663-S6-200813726
8663-S7-200813718
8663-M4-200813841
8663-U2-200813784

BY E-MAIL

Distribution list

Dear Sir/Madam:

Subject: Local competition in SILEC territories—Disclosure of information filed under claim of confidentiality

This is in response to information disclosure requests subject to a claim of confidentiality by small incumbent local exchange carriers (SILECs) as part of applications for the implementation of local competition in their serving territories.

In its comments of September 14, 2011, on the local competition implementation plans filed by SILECs, Telus Communications Company (TCC) also requested that certain information filed confidentiality by SILECs be filed on the public record.

In its reply to TCC dated September 30, 2011, the Association des Compagnies de Téléphone du Québec (ACTQ) responded to TCC's requests concerning the disclosure of certain information filed confidentially by the SILECs.

Requests for disclosure of information designated as confidential are addressed in light of sections 38 and 39 of the Telecommunications Act (the Act). First, it is important to know whether the information falls into a category of information that can be designated confidential pursuant to section 39 of the Act. An evaluation then follows to determine 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 obtaining a more complete file. The factors are discussed in more detail in the Broadcasting and Telecom Information Bulletin CRTC 2010-961 entitled Procedures for filing confidential information and requesting its disclosure in Commission proceedings.

Commission staff notes that in certain cases, information for which disclosure had been requested was subsequently placed on the public file. 

Commission staff notes that the total recurring and non-recurring costs for number portability and for the implementation of local competition were filed on the public record by the ILECs that had already implemented local competition and number portability in their serving territories.

Commission staff considers that it would be reasonable for TCC and Cogeco to examine in detail the costs that they will have to pay for SILECS of less than 3,000 Network Access Services (NAS).

Bearing in mind the considerations set out above, Commission staff has determined, on the basis of all the material before it, that it is unlikely any specific direct harm would result from disclosure, or that the public interest in disclosure of the information in Appendix 1 outweighs any specific direct harm that might result from disclosure.

The parties concerned must place on the public record all the information requested in Appendix 1 no later than October 7, 2011, and serve a copy to all interested parties by the same date.

Additional requests for information

Commission staff also requests that the ACTQ file its replies to the Commission's requests for information contained in Appendix 2 no later than October 12, 2011.

Changes to procedure

TCC and Cogeco may file comments regarding the additional information that will be filed by the SILECs no later than October 18, 2011.

The ACTQ may file its reply no later than October 20, 2011.

All submissions are to be made in accordance with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure, SOR/2010-277.

These submissions must be received, not merely sent, by the said dates.

Yours sincerely,

Senior Manager, Tariffs Telecommunications
Original signed by S. Bédard

Suzanne Bédard

c.c.:  M. Pilon, CRTC marc.pilon@crtc.gc.ca
M. Brazeau, CRTC martin.brazeau@crtc.gc.ca

APPENDIX 1

Disclosure of confidential information

All SILECs are to disclose the information that they have filed with the Commission in a confidential manner in response to the Commission's information requests datedJuly 26, 2011.

Each SILEC

Total recurring and non-recurring costs for number portability and total recurring and non-recurring costs for the implementation of local competition provided in response to the Commission's information requests dated July 26, 2011.

SILECs with fewer than 3,000 NAS

To TCC and Cogeco, the answers to the following questions from the Commission on July 26, 2011:

Question 1-All information on CSG-related recurring costs

Question 2-All information on recurring and non-recurring costs related to consulting fees

Question 3-The number of VPN access connections included in the implementation costs

Question 7-All components of recurring and non-recurring costs for local competition implementation plans.

Question 8-All information filed confidentially in response to this question.

APPENDIX 2

Request for information

1. Small local service carriers that are registered as competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) are required to provide local number portability (LNP).  CRTC staff notes that CoopTel, Sogetel and Téléphone Guèvremont (Maskatel) are already registered as CLECs.

1.1 In this instance, please explain why these companies are claiming start-up and recurring costs (such as Neustar membership fees) for LNP.

1.2 In the case of the carriers listed above that already have the facilities required for LNP, list the actual additional expenditures per major item (such as the studies submitted) that are required above and beyond what exists today.

2. All the large incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) transferred responsibility for in-building wiring of customers when local competition became established in the areas they serve. However, in their local competition implementation plans and related applications:

• some SILECs did not deal with issues relating to the maintenance and repair of in-building wiring;
• others proposed that the competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) be responsible for the in-building wiring of the SILEC when they start to provide local services to end users;
• others proposed that the responsibility be transferred to the end user.

2.1 Assuming that the SILEC would retain the responsibility for in-building wiring:

a) describe how the maintenance and repair of in-building wiring will be managed when the CLEC provides local services to customers; and
b) if this scenario requires an agreement between the SILEC and the CLEC:

i. explain why such an agreement would be necessary; and
ii. provide the terms and conditions of the proposed agreement.

2.2 Assumng that the SILEC transferred the responsibility for in-building wiring to the CLEC providing services to local customers:

a) describe how the maintenance and repair of in-building wiring will be managed for the CLEC's customers; and
b) if this scenario requires an agreement between the SILEC and the CLEC:

i. explain why such an agreement would be necessary; and
ii. provide the terms and conditions of the proposed agreement.

2.3 Assuming that the SILEC transferred the responsibility for in-building wiring to the customers, describe how the maintenance and repair of the in-building wiring will be managed for the customers receiving local services:

a) from the SILEC; and
b) from the CLEC.

2.4 If, in your local competition implementation plan, you have not proposed that the responsibility for in-building wiring be transferred to the customers, justify your position.

Distribution list

Louise Bégin, Téléphone Milot Inc.: louise.begin@sogetel.com
Louise Bégin, Sogetel Inc.: louise.begin@sogetel.com
Pierre Allard, CoopTel: pallard@cooptel.qc.ca
Jean-François Mathieu, La Compagnie de Téléphone Upton Inc.: j-fmathieu@telupton.qc.ca
Guy Cordeau, Téléphone Guèvremont Inc.: gcordeau@maskatel.qc.ca
Raymonde Lapierre, La Compagnie de Téléphone de Lambton Inc.: tellambton@tellambton.net
Michel Couture, Téléphone de St-Éphrem Inc.: telstep@telstep.net
Jean Bélanger, La Compagnie de Téléphone de Saint-Victor: telvic@telvic.net
Roger Choquette, Authorized Consultant and Representative: choquette@comgate.com
Ted Woodhead, TCC: ted.woodhead@telus.com, regulatory.affairs@telus.com
Michel Messier, Cogeco: michel.messier@cogeco.com
Eric Edora, TCC: eric.edora@telus.com
Serge Désy, ACTQ: sdesy@actq.qc.ca
Laurie Ventura, CRTC: 819-997-4589, laurie.ventura@crtc.gc.ca
Danny Moreau, CRTC: 819-953-5672, danny.moreau@crtc.gc.ca

Date modified:

2011-10-05