ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter Addressed to Stephen Schmidt (TELUS)
This page has been archived on the Web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, 25 August 2016
Mr. Stephen Schmidt
Telecom Policy and Chief Regulatory Legal Counsel
215 Slater Street, Floor 8
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 0A6
Re: TELUS Communications Company’s Part 1 Application, Show cause proceeding for use of deferral account funds to improve access to telecommunication services for persons with disabilities – Request to disclose information claimed as confidential
Dear Mr. Schmidt:
With this letter, Commission staff is requesting disclosure of the following document submitted in confidence by TELUS Communications Company (TELUS) in the Part 1 Application, Follow-up to Telecom Decision 2016-193 - Show Cause Proceeding for further proposals for the use of deferral account funds to improve access to telecommunications services for persons with disabilities:
- Appendix B
At the time that TELUS filed this application, it designated the above information as ‘confidential’, pursuant to section 39 of the Telecommunications Act and the directions provided by the Commission in the Appendices to Broadcasting and Telecom Information Bulletin 2010-961 (Information Bulletin 2010-961). TELUS provided the following rationale for its designation of confidentiality for this information at paragraph 2 of its letter dated 19 July 2016:
Release of this information would provide potential competitors with competitively-sensitive information that would not otherwise be available to them, and which would enable them to develop more effective business strategies. Release of such information could prejudice TELUS’ competitive position and cause specific direct harm.
Staff notes that the Commission stated at paragraph 6 of Information Bulletin 2010-961 that:
Generic statements such as ‘the release of this information to competitors would result in specific, direct harm to the company’ are not sufficient. Parties must provide sufficient reasons to allow meaningful analysis by the Commission or another party who may wish to request disclosure of the information.
Following a preliminary examination, Commission staff considers that the release of the information identified above would be in the public interest. This information would facilitate meaningful comment by interested parties on the effectiveness of TELUS’ proposal in achieving its objectives and would promote the creation of a fuller record for this proceeding. Moreover, in the view of Commission staff, TELUS has not provided sufficiently specific rationale to justify why disclosure of this information is not in the public interest, nor did it explain how the information at issue is of a type listed in the Appendices to Information Bulletin 2010-961.
Accordingly, a non-abridged version of Appendix B is to be filed with the Commission by TELUS no later than 2 September 2016.
Revised timelines for the intervention period and corresponding reply period for this process will follow after the receipt of TELUS’ reply.
Social and Consumer Policy
Consumer Affairs and Strategic Policy
c.c.: Distribution List
Meghan Zwiers, firstname.lastname@example.org
Mary-Louise Hayward, email@example.com
- TELUS, Eric Edora, firstname.lastname@example.org;
- Isabell Morneau, ISABELLE.MORNEAU@telus.com
- Canadian Association of the Deaf email@example.com
- Ontario College of Art and Design, Treviranus, firstname.lastname@example.org;
- ARCH email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org;
- Council of Canadians with Disabilities, email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
- Independent Living Canada, email@example.com
- Canadian National Institute for the Blind (CNIB), Christine.firstname.lastname@example.org;
- Diane Bergeron, email@example.com; Lui Greco, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Canadian Council of the Blind, email@example.com
- Ontario Association of the Deaf, firstname.lastname@example.org
- The Canadian Hearing Society, email@example.com
- Canadian Association for Community Living, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Centre québécois de la déficience auditive, email@example.com
- Public Interest Law Centre, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians/L'Alliance pour l'égalité des aveugles canadiens, Farah.email@example.com
- Neil Squire Society, firstname.lastname@example.org; harryl.@neilsquire.ca; email@example.com
- Chris Stark, firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
- Clayton Zekelman, clayton@MNSi.Net
- Media Access Canada, Beverley Milligan, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Confédération des organismes de personnes handicapées du Québec, email@example.com
- Date modified: