ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter Addressed to Various Parties Interested in Review of wholesale services and associated policies, Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2013-551

Ottawa, 20 November 2014                                    

Our reference:  8663-C12-201313601

BY EMAIL

Distribution

RE:  Review of wholesale services and associated policies, Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2013-551 – Requests for disclosure of information designated as confidential and for further responses to the second round of interrogatories

Dear Madams/Sirs:

This letter addresses requests for disclosure of information designated as confidential and further responses to interrogatories (associated with the second round) made in the proceeding initiated by Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2013-551, as amended.^{Footnote 1}

On 7, 9, and 23 September 2014, Bell Canada, the Canadian Network Operators Consortium Inc. (CNOC), and Rogers Communications Inc. (Rogers) filed requests for disclosure of information for which confidentiality had been claimed and/or requests for further responses pursuant to the second round of interrogatories.

On 9, 16, 19, 23 and 30 September 2014, Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership (Bell Aliant), Bell Canada, Bragg Communications Inc., carrying on business as Eastlink (Bragg), the Competition Bureau, CNOC, Cogeco, MTS Inc. and Allstream Inc. (collectively, MTS Allstream), Primus Telecommunications Canada (Primus),  Québecor Média inc. (Videotron), Rogers, Saskatchewan Telecommunications (SaskTel), Shaw Cablesystems G.P. (Shaw), and TELUS Communications Company (TELUS) responded to the above requests.

The Canadian Independent Telephone Company Joint Task Force (CITCJTF) did not provide a response to a request for further response.

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 whether information could be reasonably aggregated and the competitive sensitivity of the information itself. 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 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 the Attachment to this letter by 4 December 2014.

Sincerely,

Original signed by

Lyne Renaud
Director, Competitor Services and Costing
Telecommunications Sector

c.c.: Philippe Kent, CRTC, 819 953-4057, philippe.kent@crtc.gc.ca

Attach. (1)

Distribution List

james.e.dingwell@yahoo.com ; nels2510@telus.net ; robin.winsor@cybera.ca ; steve@openmedia.ca ; reza.rajabiun@ryerson.ca ; darrellkrahn@shaw.ca ; chall2k5@gmail.com ; heather.b.gold@ftthcouncil.org ; ron.murch@haskayne.ucalgary.ca ; regulatory@fibernetics.ca ; jeff_mcnamee@sympatico.ca ; harry.sharma@canarie.ca ; cedwards@ccsa.cable.ca ; regulatory@ssimicro.coa ; regulatory.matters@corp.eastlink.ca ; rs@summer.com ; corinne.pohlmann@cfib.ca ; john.pecman@cb-bc.gc.ca ; jpanter@auroracollege.nt.ca ; regulatory@sjrb.ca ; radams@coquitlam.ca ; slambert-racine@uniondesconsommateurs.ca ; regulatory@bcba.ca ; george.burger@vmedia.ca ; ctacit@tacitlaw.com ; david.watt@rci.rogers.com ; bell.regulatory@bell.ca ; iworkstation@mtsallstream.com ; regulatory.affairs@telus.com ; rob.olenick@tbaytel.com ; jfleger@piac.ca ; dennis.beland@quebecor.com ; jonathan.holmes@itpa.ca ; regulatory@distributel.ca ; michel.messier@cogeco.com ; document.control@sasktel.com ; regulatory@bell.aliant.ca ; regulatory@primustel.ca ; benjamin.sanders@gov.yk.ca ; maryanne.bendfled@calgary.ca ; blackwell@giganomics.ca ; jfmezei@vaxination.ca ; Derek.Leschinsky@bc-cb.gc.ca ; Monique.Moreau@cfib.ca

Attachment

Disclosure of information designated as confidential and further responses to interrogatories

Bell Canada(CRTC)31Jul14-28
Bell Canada is to disclose its response to this interrogatory on the public record.

Bragg, Rogers, Shaw, Videotron (CRTC)-5 (b)
Rogers and Shaw are to disclose their respective responses to this interrogatory on the public record. Bragg is to provide its best estimate of the percentage of total business revenues for 2013 derived from large enterprise customers (based on available data), on the public record.

Bragg, Rogers, Shaw(CRTC)31July14-5 (h)
Bragg, Rogers, Shaw are to disclose their respective responses to this interrogatory on the public record.

MTS Allstream (CRTC)31Jul14-33
MTS Allstream is to disclose its response to this interrogatory on the public record

CITCJTF(Rogers)31July14-101
CITCJTF is to provide a response to this interrogatory on the public record at a level of disclosure comparable to similar responses filed by other carriers.

Primus(Rogers)31July14-101 (e)
Primus is to disclose its response to this interrogatory on the public record.

CNOC(Rogers)31July14-114, 115 (b) through (d)
CNOC is to provide a response to 114 (a) and (b), as well as 115 (b) and (c).

Videotron, TELUS(Rogers)31July14-101 (e)
TELUS and Videotron to provide a response to this interrogatory on the public record at a level of disclosure comparable to similar responses filed by other carriers (i.e. not provided by region).

CNOC(Bell Canada)31Jul14-1 (b),(d),(i)
CNOC to disclose its response on the public record its response to sub-RFI (d).

Date modified:

2014-11-20