ARCHIVED -  Letter

Ottawa, 12 October 2012

Our Reference:  8663-C12-201108754

BY E-MAIL

To: Distribution List

Re:   Review of regulatory framework for the small incumbent local exchange carriersand related matters, Telecom Notice of Consultation 2011-348, as amended - Requests for disclosure of information filed in confidence and for further responses

This letter addresses requests for disclosure of information designated as confidential and further responses to interrogatories made in the proceeding initiated by Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2011-348.¹

On 26 September 2012, the Canadian Independent Telephone Company Joint Taskforce (the JTF) on behalf of 30 small incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs),² TELUS Communications Company (TCC), and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre and Canada Without Poverty (PIAC/CWP) filed requests for further responses to interrogatories and/or requests for disclosure of information for which confidentiality had been claimed.  

On 3 October 2012, Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership, Bell Canada, KMTS and NorthernTel, Limited Partnership (Bell et al.),³ Bragg Communications Inc., operating as EastLink (EastLink),⁴ the JTF, Mornington Communications Co-operative Limited (Mornington), Shaw Telecom G.P. (Shaw) and TBayTel filed responses to the above-mentioned requests. 

With respect to requests for disclosure of information designated as confidential, such requests 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 of Procedure). 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 Procedures for filing confidential information and requesting its disclosure in Commission proceedings, Broadcasting and Telecom Information Bulletin CRTC 2010-961, 23 December 2010. 

With respect to requests for further responses to interrogatories, the requirements of section 76 of the Rules of Procedure apply. The merits of arguments both for and against the filing of further responses are taken into account, as well as the general principles enunciated by the Commission in past proceedings. The major consideration 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, further responses 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 responses to requests for further information from a party that did not ask the original interrogatory.

Based on the considerations set out above, unless otherwise expressly indicated, parties are to file with the Commission all information to be provided pursuant to this letter, or, where indicated, show cause why they should not disclose certain information, by
18 October 2012, serving a copy on all interested parties by that date. These submissions must be received, and not merely sent, by that date.

With respect to TCC’s requests regarding certain information relating to toll interconnection, Commission staff considers that the JTF’s proposal regarding small ILEC toll interconnection rates would have a significant impact on the National Contribution Fund (NCF) and consequently on telecommunications service providers that pay into the NCF. Commission staff also considers that it would be appropriate for the full impact of the JTF proposal on the NCF, at an aggregate level, to be placed on the public record of this proceeding. Commission staff notes that this information is available from the small ILECs represented by the JTF in response to interrogatory JTF(CRTC)29Aug2012-402. Having regard to all of the above considerations, the other small ILECs⁵ are to disclose, or show cause why they should not disclose, the toll interconnection revenue information identified in Attachment 2 to this letter.

With respect to PIAC/CWP’s request for information regarding the small ILECs’ quality of service (Q of S) results, Commission staff notes that ILECs are required to report retail Q of S statistics on an annual or quarterly basis. Commission staff also notes that a key priority for the Commission is to ensure that Canadians can connect to quality telecommunications services at affordable prices. Commission staff considers that one of the ways of achieving this objective is to provide subsidies via the NCF to ILECs that have service obligations in high cost areas. Commission staff also considers that the subsidy and Q of S regimes are integral parts of the small ILEC regulatory framework.

Having regard to all of the above considerations, the small ILECs, either directly or through their respective representatives, are to file further responses to interrogatories relating to Q of S as set out in Attachment 2 to this letter. Except for Q of S information pertaining to Mornington, which is discussed separately below, if the information is designated confidential, the small ILECs are to show cause why the information should not be disclosed.

With respect to the disclosure of Mornington’s 2011 Q of S results, which were filed in confidence with the Commission as part of the Q of S reporting process, Commission staff notes that larger ILECs (e.g., Bell Canada, TCC) disclose their Q of S results despite competition in their operating territories. Commission staff further notes that Bruce Telecom, which also faces competition in its territory, has disclosed its Q of S results for 2011. As discussed above, Commission staff considers that the Q of S regime is an important part of the small ILEC regulatory framework. Commission staff also considers that any specific direct harm that may result from the disclosure of the Q of S indicators does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. Having regard to all of the above considerations, Mornington is to disclose its Q of S information for 2011, either directly or in the JTF’s further response to the interrogatory set out in Attachment 2 to this letter.

Regarding the JTF’s request for further information with respect to interrogatories Shaw(JTF)29Aug12-2, EastLink(JTF)29Aug12-2 and The Companies(JTF)29Aug12-2, Commission staff considers that the information requested is not necessary for a decision to this proceeding.

Regarding the JTF’s request for further information with respect to Shaw(JTF)29Aug12-3, Commission staff considers that Shaw has filed a satisfactory revised version of this response.

Yours sincerely,

Original signed by

John Macri
Director
Telecommunications Policy

c.c.: William Lloyd, CRTC, (819) 997-4654, william.lloyd@crtc.gc.ca
Distribution List

grubb@hurontel.on.ca;

wagrier@1000island.net;

rbanks@mornington.ca;

steve@wtccommunications.ca;

roxboro@ontarioeast.net;

regulatory@tcc.on.ca;

jpatry@telcourcelles.qc.ca;

tellambton@tellambton.net;

telstep@telstep.net;

pdowns@nexicom.net;

kgugan@wightman.ca;

a.schneider@hay.net;

sophie.houde@sogetel.com;

j-fmathieu@telupton.qc.ca;

gcordeau@maskatel.qc.ca;

lisa.marogna@cwct.ca;

nfrontenac@kw.igs.net;

tracy.cant@ontera.ca;

jonathan.scott@execulink.com;

telvic@telvic.net;

pgillis@dryden.cam;

baron@brktel.on.ca;

pallard@cooptel.qc.ca;

jdowns@nexicomgroup.net;

regulatory@brucetelecom.com;

barry.stone@quadro.net;

gosfield@gosfieldtel.com;

rroy@telwarwick.qc.ca;

paul.frappier@telmilot.com;

jonathan.holmes@ota.on.ca;

admin@cochranetel.ca;

sdesy@actq.qc.ca;

rob.olenick@tbaytel.com;

dennis.beland@quebecor.com

david.watt@rci.rogers.com

regulatory@bell.aliant.ca

bell.regulatory@bell.ca

regulatory.matters@corp.eastlink.ca

regulatory.affairs@telus.com

piac@piac.ca

iworkstation@mtsallstream.com

regulatory@sjrb.ca

Small ILECs represented by the JTF

Brooke Telecom Co‑operative Ltd.

Bruce Telecom

CityWest Telephone Corporation

Cochrane Telecom Services

CoopTel

Dryden Municipal Telephone System

Execulink Telecom Inc.

Gosfield North Communications Co‑operative Limited

Hay Communications Co‑operative Limited

Huron Telecommunications Co‑operative Limited

La Cie de Téléphone de Courcelles Inc.

La Compagnie de Téléphone de Lambton Inc.

La Compagnie de Téléphone de St‑Victor

La Compagnie de Téléphone Upton Inc.

Lansdowne Rural Telephone Co. Ltd.

Le Téléphone de St‑Éphrem inc.

Mornington Communications Co‑operative Limited

Nexicom Telecommunications Inc.

Nexicom Telephones Inc.

North Frontenac Telephone Corporation Ltd.

NRTC Communications

Ontera

Quadro Communications Co‑operative Inc.

Roxborough Telephone Company Limited

Sogetel inc.

Téléphone Guèvremont inc.

Téléphone Milot inc.

Tuckersmith Communications Co‑operative Limited

Wightman Telecom Ltd.

WTC Communications

Disclosure of Information Designated as Confidential and
Further Responses to Interrogatories

KMTS(CRTC)14Mar12-204 and NorthernTel(CRTC)14Mar12-204

KMTS and NorthernTel are to either disclose, or to show cause why they should not disclose, toll interconnection revenues for 2011 at the current DC and toll trunk rates and at the rates for DC and toll trunks charged by Bell Aliant and Bell Canada in Ontario and Québec. The information is to be aggregated across KMTS and NorthernTel.

TBayTel(CRTC)29Aug12-401

TBayTel is to either disclose, or to show cause why it should not disclose, toll interconnection revenues for 2011 at the current DC and toll trunk rates and at the rates for DC and toll trunks charged by Bell Aliant and Bell Canada in Ontario and Québec.

EastLink(CRTC)29Aug12-401

For Amtelecom and People’s, Eastlink is to either disclose, or to show cause why it should not disclose, toll interconnection revenues for 2011 “without reductions” and “with reductions”. This information is to be aggregated across Amtelecom and People’s.

JTF(PIAC/CWP)29Aug12-2

The JTF is to complete the table included at pages 2 and 3 of the attachment to PIAC/CWP’s 26 September 2012 request and to provide the completed table in a revised response to the interrogatory. The completed table is to include the data for each small ILEC represented by the JTF, for each of the years 2008 to 2011. Except for the information pertaining to Mornington, if the information is designated confidential, the JTF is to show cause why the information should not be disclosed. Mornington is to disclose the information for 2011. 

KMTS(PIAC)14Mar12-2

KTMS is to provide a revised response to the interrogatory that includes, for each of the years 2008 to 2011,

a) the number of customers to whom service was not provided within 10 days from the date of the customer’s request;

b) the total of initial out-of-service trouble reports not cleared within 24 hours;

c) the number of customers who reported trouble with their service;

d) the number of customers who reported that their listing in the white pages was either omitted or erroneous; and

e) the number and nature of written and verbal complaints addressed to officers and/or department heads of the telephone company and/or to the Commission.

If the information is designated confidential, KTMS is to show cause why the information should not be disclosed.

EastLink (PIAC)14Mar12-2

EastLink is to provide a revised response to the interrogatory that includes, for each of Amtelecom and People’s, for each of the years 2008 to 2011,

a) the number of customers to whom service was not provided within 10 days from the date of the customer’s request;

b) the total of initial out-of-service trouble reports not cleared within 24 hours;

c) the number of customers who reported trouble with their service;

d) the number of customers who reported that their listing in the white pages was either omitted or erroneous; and

e) the number and nature of written and verbal complaints addressed to officers and/or department heads of the telephone company and/or to the Commission.

If the information is designated confidential, EastLink is to show cause why the information should not be disclosed.

[1] Review of regulatory framework for the small incumbent local exchange carriers and related matters, Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2011-348, 26 May 2011, as amended by Telecom Notices of Consultation CRTC 2011-348-1, 5 July 2011; 2011-348-2, 28 November 2011; 2011-348-3, 21 December 2011: and 2011-348-4, 30 July 2012.

[2] See Attachment 1 to this letter for a list of these companies.

[3] Bell et al. filed on behalf of KMTS and NorthernTel, Limited Partnership (NorthernTel).

[4] Eastlink filed on behalf of Amtelecom Limited Partnership (Amtelecom) and People’s Tel Limited Partnership (People’s).

[5]KMTS, NorthernTel, Amtelecom, People’s and TBayTel.

Date modified:

2012-10-12