ARCHIVED -  Letter

BY E-MAIL

To: Distribution list

RE: Telecom Notice of Consultation 2012-669 – Requests for disclosure of information designated as confidential and for further responses to interrogatories

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 2012-669.

On 8 April 2013, Northwestel Inc. (Northwestel), the Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT), the Government of Nunavut, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre and the Consumers' Association of Canada (collectively, PIAC/CAC), and the SSi Group of Companies (SSi) filed requests for disclosure of information for which confidentiality had been claimed and/or requests for further responses to interrogatories.

On 15 and 19 April 2013, Northwestel, SSi, TELUS Communications Company (TCC), and MTS Inc. and Allstream Inc. (collectively, MTS Allstream) responded to the above requests.

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 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, as amended by Broadcasting and Telecom Information Bulletin CRTC 2010-961-1, 26 October 2012.
…/2

- 2 -

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.

Having regard to all 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 as set out in Attachment 1 by 2 May 2013.

In addition, further requests for information addressed to Northwestel are set out in Attachment 2. Responses to these requests for information are to be filed with the Commission by
2 May 2013.

Parties are reminded that, if a document is to be filed or served by a specific date, the document must be actually received, not merely sent, by that date.

Yours sincerely,

Original signed by:

John Macri,
Director
Telecommunications Policy

cc: Christine Bailey, CRTC, (819) 997-4557, christine.bailey@crtc.gc.ca


Distribution List:

Dallas Yeullet, Northwestel Inc., regulatoryaffairs@nwtel.ca
Dean Wells, Government of Nunavut, dwells@gov.nu.ca,
Linda Maljan, Government of the Northwest Territories, linda_maljan@gov.nt.ca,
Dean Proctor, SSi Group, regulatory@ssimicro.com
Hugo Letarte, TELUS Communications Company, regulatory.affairs@telus.com
Suzanne Giroux, MTS Allstream, suzanne.giroux@mtsallstream.com,
John Lawford, Public Interest Advocacy Centre, lawford@piac.ca

Attachment 1

DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION DESIGNATED AS CONFIDENTIAL

SSi(NWTel)27Feb13-2(b)
SSi is to disclose on the public record the text of paragraph 132 to the extent it relates to the company’s current service offerings.

FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES

SSi(NWTel)27Feb13-4(b)
SSi is to provide a response to this interrogatory. SSi may file its response in confidence with the Commission, providing an abridged version for the public record.

NWTel(GNWT)27Feb13-5b) and 6
As indicated in its 15 April 2013 letter, Northwestel is to provide its average costs per Gbps for Internet usage in excess of the monthly allowance, separately for satellite and non-satellite communities, by 9 May 2013. Northwestel may file its response in confidence with the Commission, providing an abridged version for the public record.

NWTel(PIAC)27Feb13-2(i)
Northwestel is to provide annual total Core and total Project spending for each of the years 2013 to 2017, excluding Northwestel’s portion of any funding arrangements with third parties.


Attachment 2

Requests for information addressed to Northwestel

Capital Plan and Modernization Plan

2101. In Northwestel Inc. – Recovery of local competition start-up costs, Telecom Decision CRTC 2013-135, 18 March 2013, the Commission issued its determinations pertaining to Northwestel’s recovery of local competition start-up costs. In this decision, the Commission approved Northwestel’s application for exogenous factor treatment of certain costs associated with implementing local competition. The Commission also reduced Northwestel’s proposed recovery of costs from $7.36 million to $4.83 million, and approved the recovery of these costs over a five-year period.
a) Quantify and explain, with supporting rationale, what impacts, if any, the determinations in this decision will have on the company’s updated Modernization Plan.
b) Indicate whether the company has any plans for rate changes with respect to cost recovery resulting from the decision. If so, provide details of these plans, including the annual impact on revenues.
2102. In its revised response to interrogatory NWTel(PIAC)27Feb13-02, Northwestel indicated in Table 1 that total capital expenditures, excluding third-party funding, amounted to $223.2 million for 2013-2017 versus the total capital expenditures of $233.0 million outlined in the Modernization Plan. In its response to interrogatory NWTel(GNWT)27Feb13-26, Northwestel provided an amount of capital included in the Modernization Plan contingent on third-party funding arrangements that have not yet been finalized.
a) Quantify and explain, with supporting rationale, the amount of capital expenditures included in the Modernization Plan related to each finalized third-party funding arrangement.
b) Provide an update to Attachment 1 of the 15 February 2013 Modernization Plan with additional columns to only show the Northwestel portion of capital expenditures, separately by final and non-final third-party funding arrangements.
2103. In its response to interrogatory NWTel(CRTC)27Feb13-1120c), Northwestel stated the following:
As standard business practice, capital forecasting is based on current budgetary estimates and expressed in current dollars. PIFs and CIFs are only relevant in economic costing and are not used in business planning. As such, the capital costs included in Attachments 1, 3 and 5 are budgetary estimates based on 2012 dollars and there is no need to apply retrospective productivity improvement factors (PIFs) or cost increase factors (CIFs).

Explain how inflation is taken into account when preparing the company’s capital budget for the years 2013 to 2017.
2104. Refer to Attachment 1 of the response to interrogatory NWTel(YG)27Feb13-05 where the company provided a definition of “Core” spending in the Modernization Plan. Provide a similar detailed definition for what is included in “Project” spending in the Modernization Plan.
2105. Refer to Attachment 3 of the 15 February 2013 Modernization Plan. For the column entitled “Switch Type Post-Modernization”, indicate the technology proposed (e.g., Internet Protocol (IP) switch or soft switch).
2106. Refer to Table 1 of the response to interrogatory NWTel(CRTC)27Feb13-1106.
For each of the scenarios (1, 2 and 3), explain with supporting rationale the methodology, assumptions, and the calculations used to develop the information provided in each of the columns entitled “Bandwidth per subscriber”, “Monthly transponder costs” and “Monthly Transponder Cost per subscriber”. The response should include the number of transponders and the associated bandwidth for each of the scenarios.

Subsidy

2201. Refer to Attachment 2 of the response to interrogatory NWTel(CRTC)27Feb13-1403. Provide the residential information provided in the table broken down between high-cost and non-high-cost.
2202. In Telecom Regulatory Policy 2011-291, the Commission determined that the rate component of the subsidy calculation would increase annually by the rate of inflation starting 1 June 2014 for residential primary exchange service (PES) rates over $30 and that the increase would be imputed for subsidy calculation purposes. In addition, the incumbent local exchange carrier would have the opportunity to increase its residential PES rates annually by the rate of inflation to make up for the reduction in subsidy.
Provide Northwestel’s views, with supporting rationale, on applying this determination to Northwestel.

Services used by competitors

2501. Refer to paragraph 110 of Ice Wireless/Iristel’s intervention, paragraphs 90 to 105 of SSi’s intervention, and paragraphs 35 to 37 of TCC’s intervention. Each of these companies submitted that Northwestel should be required to file tariffs for its I-Gate service.
a) Identify any tariffed or non-tariffed alternatives to Northwestel’s I-Gate service.
b) Provide Northwestel’s estimated market share of the I-Gate services market in its territory.
c) Provide details of any other facilities-based access service providers that provide an alternate source of supply for this service and provide evidence of rivalrous behavior in this market.
d) Provide an assessment of the barriers to entry for other facilities-based access service providers to enter into this market and provide service in this market.
e) Notwithstanding Northwestel’s view that its I-Gate service is forborne pursuant to Telecom Order 97-572, explain, with supporting rationale, why Northwestel’s I-Gate service should not be tariffed.

Date modified:

2013-04-24