ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter Addressed to Various Parties Interested in the Review of wholesale mobile wireless services, Telecom Notice of Consultation 2014-76 – Requests for disclosure of information designated as confidential and for further responses to requests for information

Ottawa, 30 July 2014

Our reference:  8620-C12-201401489

BY EMAIL

Distribution

RE: Review of wholesale mobile wireless services, Telecom Notice of Consultation 2014-76^{Footnote 1} – Requests for disclosure of information designated as confidential and for further responses to requests for information

This letter addresses requests for disclosure of information designated as confidential and for further responses in the proceeding initiated by Telecom Notice of Consultation 2014-76.

On 14 July 2014, Bell Mobility Inc. (Bell Mobility), Canadian Network Operators Consortium Inc. (CNOC), Globablive Wireless Management Corp., carrying on business as WIND Mobile (Wind), Québecor Média Inc., on behalf of Vidéotron G.P. (Québecor), Rogers Communications (Rogers), and TELUS Communications Company (TELUS) filed submissions requesting disclosure for which confidentiality had been claimed and further responses with respect to the responses of certain parties to request for information posed to them by the Commission and other parties on 9 June 2014.^{Footnote 2}

On 21 July 2014, the following companies responded to the above requests: Bell Mobility, Bragg Communications Inc., carrying on business as Eastlink (Eastlink); Commissioner of Competition; Canadian Cable Systems Alliance Inc.; MTS Inc. and Allstream Inc.; Québecor; Rogers; Saskatchewan Telecommunications; TBaytel; TELUS; and Wind.

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 as 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 disclosure 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.

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 the considerations set out above, unless otherwise expressly indicated, parties are to file with the Commission all information as set out in Attachment 1 by 6 August 2014.

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: Kim Wardle, CRTC, (819) 997-4945, kim.wardle@crtc.gc.ca

Attach (1)

Distribution List

Bell Mobility Inc., bell.regulatory@bell.ca  
Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership, regulatory@bellaliant.ca  
TBayTel, rob.olenick@tbaytel.com  
Huron Telecommunications Co-operative Limited, grubb@hurontel.on.ca  
Hay Communications Co-operative Limited, a.schneider@hay.net  
Rogers Communications Partnership, rwi_gr@rci.rogers.com  
TELUS Communications Company, regulatory.affairs@telus.com  
MTS Inc., iworkstation@mtsallstream.com  
Lynx Mobility Inc., aahmed@lynxmobility.com  
Execulink Telecom Inc., jonathan.scott@execulink.com  
Videotron G.P., regaffairs@quebecor.com  
Wightman Telecom Ltd., kgugan@wightman.ca  
Quadro Communications Co-operative Inc., barry.stone@quadro.net  
Bragg Communications Incorporated (EastLink), regulatory.matters@corp.eastlink.ca  
Sogetel Mobilité inc., sophie.houde@sogetel.com  
Northwestel Inc., regulatoryaffairs@nwtel.ca  
SSI Micro Ltd., regulatory@ssimicro.com  
Brooke Telecom Co-operative Ltd., jim@brooketel.ca  
Ice Wireless Inc., regulatory@icewireless.ca  
Dryden Mobility, jsalina@dryden.ca  
Fido Solutions Inc., regulatory.aff@fidomobile.ca  
Saskatchewan Telecommunications, document.control@sasktel.com  
Télébec, Limited Partnership, reglementa@telebec.com  
KMTS, reglementa@telebec.com  
Mornington Communications Co-operative Limited, rbanks@mornington.ca  
NorthernTel, Limited Partnership, reglementa@telebec.com  
Globalive Wireless Management Corp. (WIND), lisajackson@globalive.com  
Data & Audio Visual Enterprises Wireless Inc. (MOBILICITY), gary.wong@mobilicity.ca  
Jean-François Léger, PIAC, jfleger@piac.ca
Sophy Lambert-Racine, UC, slambert-racine@unionsdesconsommateurs.ca
Canadian Network Operators Consortium Inc., regulatory@cnoc.ca
Canadian Cable Systems Alliance Inc., cedwards@ccsa.cable.ca
Commissioner of Competition, Jason.harrington@cb-bc.gc.ca
Lycamobile Ltd., stephen.lodge@lycamobile.com
Primal Technologies Inc., regulatory@primaltech.com 
Raven Wireless, eric.zhelka@ravenwireless.ca

Attachment 1

Page 1 of 2

DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION DESIGNATED AS CONFIDENTIAL

Bell Mobility(CRTC)9Jun14-1, MTS(CRTC)9Jun14-1, Rogers(CRTC)9Jun14-1, SaskTel(CRTC)9Jun14-1, TELUS(CRTC)9Jun14-1, TbayTel(CRTC)9June14-1, Bell Mobility(CNOC)9Jun14-107, Rogers(CNOC)9Jun14-107, MTS(CNOC)9Jun14-107, SaskTel(CNOC)9Jun14-107, TELUS(CNOC)9Jun14-107

No further disclosure is required by any party. However, Commission staff will put on the public record on 6 August 2014 an average roaming cap for each of voice, text and data roaming services based on the aggregated revenues and demand information provided by the wireless carriers in these responses.^{Footnote 3}

Bragg(CRTC)9June2014-1(a)
Eastlink is to provide on the public record the rate setting principle (i) in its response.

Bragg(CRTC)9June2014-2(b), Bragg(CRTC)9June2014-3(a)
Eastlink is to provide on the public record its responses to these requests for information.   

Bragg(Rogers)9June2014-1
Eastlink is to provide on the public record whether it made any requests or received any offers with respect to wholesale roaming from other domestic carriers and the date of such requests or offers.

Bragg(Rogers)9June2014-2(a), Bragg(Rogers)9June2014-2(b), Bragg(Bell Mobility)9June14-1(a)
Eastlink is to provide on the public record the number of times it has invoked arbitration.

Bell Mobility(CRTC)9Jun14-2
Bell Mobility is to provide on the public record the Canadian and American wireless carriers with which it has enabled seamless roaming, but not the specific details regarding its arrangements with these carriers.

Attachment 1

Page 2 of 2

FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES

MTS(CNOC)9Jun14-100, Rogers(CNOC)9Jun14-100

MTS Allstream and Rogers are each to provide on the public record a breakdown of the number of Mobile Virtual Network Operator (MVNO) agreements in place, based on the types of MVNOs defined by CNOC.

Date modified:

2014-07-30