ARCHIVED -  Letter

Ottawa, 2 November 2012

Our reference: 8740-T42-201209073 and 8740-T46-201209081

BY E-MAIL

Mr. Hal Reirson
Senior Regulatory Advisor
Telecom Policy & Regulatory Affairs
TELUS Communications Company
30-10020-100 Street NW
Edmonton, Alberta T5J 0N5
hal.reirson@telus.com

Re: TELUS Communications Company Tariff Notice 643 and 4356

Dear Mr. Reirson:

This letter addresses requests for disclosure of information for which a claim of confidentiality has been made in the context of the process relating to TELUS Communications Company’s (TELUS) co-location power applications noted above.

On 15 October 2012, MTS Allstream Inc. (MTS Allstream) filed comments on TELUS’ 5 October 2012 interrogatory responses. With respect to TELUS’ submission that release of the information with respect to five interrogatory responses would provide TELUS’ competitors with an undue competitive advantage, MTS Allstream submitted that it is unaware of any competition to provide AC and DC power for companies co-located in TELUS’ central offices. MTS Allstream also submitted that the release of aggregated annual demand and revenue information filed in response to TELUS(CRTC)13Sept12-1 and 2002 cost inputs filed in response to TELUS(CRTC)13Sept12-2 would cause no specific direct harm to TELUS, and that the public interest would be better served by the release of this information on the public record.

On 22 October 2012, TELUS replied to MTS Allstream’s comments. With respect to releasing information filed in response to TELUS(CRTC)13Sept12-1, TELUS submitted that public disclosure of the aggregated annual demand and revenue for each of the three power services for 2011 would cause the company direct and specific harm by revealing actual historic demand (2011) for co-location power services and enable MTS Allstream to determine its market share in relation to other co-located carriers. TELUS also submitted that this is significantly different from cost studies for other wholesale services where the all-carrier demand is placed on the public record as the all-carrier demand keeps the wholesale component of the total demand confidential. TELUS further submitted that the demand information provided in response to TELUS(CRTC)13Sept12-1, that it maintains should be kept confidential, is the wholesale component of total demand.

TELUS submitted that the public disclosure of the cost inputs originally filed in 2002 in interrogatory response TELUS(CRTC)13Sept12-2 would enable MTS Allstream to compile historic cost trend information which would harm TELUS by revealing the magnitude and trends of company-specific costs. TELUS also submitted that for the same reason, confidentiality should be maintained for all information filed in confidence in the interrogatory responses filed on 5 October 2012. TELUS further submitted that the Commission should not increase the amount of historical detailed costing on the public record by ordering the public disclosure of cost information where confidentiality has previously been maintained as it would allow MTS Allstream and other competitors to increase their overall body of knowledge of TELUS’ costs and gain a better understanding of TELUS’ internal cost structure.

By letter dated 29 October 2012, TELUS was invited to submit additional reply comments in light of the disclosure guidelines set out in Confidentiality of information used to establish wholesale service rates, Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2012-592¹. No supplemental reply comments were filed

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

It should be noted that 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 requests for information 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.

Filing Requirement

The information to be provided on the public record by TELUS as set out in the Attachment is to be filed with the Commission and served on all interested parties, by 6 November 2012. Copies of the documents should also be sent to yvan.davidson@crtc.gc.ca

Commission staff notes that the remaining process dates set out in Commission staff’s letter dated 19 October 2012 continue to apply.

Yours sincerely,

Original signed by

Yvan Davidson
Director, Competitor Services and Costing
Telecommunications Directorate

c.c.: iworkstation@mtsallstream.com
regulatory.affairs@telus.com
Pamela Cormier, CRTC pamela.cormier@crtc.gc.ca
Trichur Krishnan, CRTC trichur.krishnan@crtc.gc.ca

Attach (1)

[1]For wholesale service rate applications, disclosure requests are also addressed in light of the disclosure guidelines for cost information set out in Confidentiality of information used to establish wholesale service rates, Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2012-592, 26 October 2012.

Date modified:

2012-11-02