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This page has been archived on the Web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, 17 December 2012

Our reference: 8661-N1-201207720

By Email

Mr. Dallas Yeulett
Senior Manager, Regulatory Compliance
Northwestel Inc.
PO Box 2727
Whitehorse, Yukon
Y1A 4Y4

RE:  Part 1 Application for the recovery of local competition start-up costs – Request for disclosure of costing information filed in confidence

Dear Mr Yeulett:

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 Northwestel Inc.’s (Northwestel) Part 1 application.

On 15 November 2012, Commission staff requested that Northwestel address a request by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre and Consumers’ Association of Canada (collectively, PIAC/CAC) that Northwestel provide on the public record all the information it filed in confidence on 27 September 2012.  In the letter, Commission staff also addressed additional interrogatories to Northwestel.

On 23 November 2012, Northwestel submitted its response to PIAC/CAC’s request for disclosure and to Commission staff’s interrogatories.  In its response, Northwestel indicated that it was providing on the public record certain information in revised attachments to NWTel(CRTC)06Sep12-01.  However, these attachments were inadvertently not included in the response.  Subsequently, on 5 December 2012, Northwestel filed the revised attachments.

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.

In addition, in the circumstances of this case, Commission staff notes that Northwestel has of its own volition provided certain information on the public record.

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.

The information to be provided on the public record by Northwestel set out in Attachment 1 is to be filed with the Commission and served on all interested parties, by 20 December 2012.  Copies of the documents should also be sent to

All parties may file additional written comments with the Commission solely in relation to the information disclosed by Northwestel or otherwise filed by Northwestel in its 23 November 2012 response, serving copies on all other parties, by 8 January 2013.

Northwestel may file reply comments with the Commission solely in response to the comments filed above in relation to the information disclosed and its 23 November 2012 response, serving copies on all other parties, by 11 January 2013.

Yours sincerely,

Original signed by

Michel Murray
Director, Regulatory Implementation

cc:  Dave Heffernan, GNWT,
John Lawford, PIAC,
Roger Rondeau, UCG,
Lisa Badenhorst, YG,
Joseph Cabrera, CRTC, (819) 934-6352,

Attach. (1)



1.  Refer to Local Competition-Response to Interrogatory-NWTel(CRTC)06Sept 12-01, provide on the public record:

  1. The figure for the Total under the column labeled “Total Cost” on page 1 of 1 of Attachment 3
  2. On page 1 of 2 of Attachment 4,
    1. The percentages in the row labeled “Distribution of the communities requiring augmentation”.
    2. The values resulting from the addition of the rows labeled “Switching H/W Trunk Augmentation – material” and “Switching H/W Trunk Augmentation – labour”.
    3. The value of the “Estimated Labour days” for the item labeled “STP Capacity Augmentation”.
  3. The percentages in the row labeled “Resulting distribution of POI costs each year” on page 2 of 2 of Attachment 4.
  4. On page 1 of 2 of Attachment 5.
    1. The value for the Total for the item labeled “Network Cost – Software”.
    2. The value for the Total for the item labeled “Project Management”.
  5. On page 2 of 2 of Attachment 5,
    1. The values under the column titled “Estimated Effort” in the item labeled “Technical Processes”.
    2. The values under the column titled “Estimated Effort (mandays)” in the item labelled “Carrier Services, Regulatory & Legal Processes – Capital Development”.

2.  Refer to Local Number Portability-Response to Interrogatory-NWTel(CRTC)06Sept12-01, provide on the public record

  1. The values under each of the columns titled “Estimated Effort” on page 1 of 1 of Attachment 1.
  2. The values under each of the columns titled “2012” for the Items labeled “Network Cost – Hardware” and “Network Cost - Software” on page 1 of 1 of Attachment 2.
  3. The values in the row labeled “Total – PIC/CARE –System replacement”.
  4. The value in the row titled “Total – Project Management – LNP Implementation” on Page 2 of 2 of Attachment 3.
Date modified: