Telecom Commission Letter addressed to David Watt (Rogers Communications Inc) and Dennis Béland (Québécor Média)

Ottawa, 2 February 2016

Our reference:  8661-P8-201510199

BY EMAIL

Mr. David Watt
Rogers Communications Inc.
333 Bloor Street East, 9th Floor
Toronto, Ontario  M4W 1G9
david.watt@rci.rogers.com

Mr. Dennis Béland
Québecor Média
612 St-Jacques Street
South Tower, 15th Floor
Montréal, Quebéc  H3C 4MB
dennis.beland@quebecor.com

RE: Part I Applications regarding Videotron’s mobile wireless Unlimited Music service – Request for disclosure

Dear Sirs:

This letter addresses a request made by Rogers Communications Inc. (Rogers) in its 13 January 2016 submission for disclosure of information in respect of which confidentiality was claimed by Québecor Média (Vidéotron) in its response to Quebecor Média(CRTC)1déc2015-2. In its response, Vidéotron maintained in confidence the name of the service provider whose request to participate in Vidéotron’s Unlimited Music service was rejected as well as the reason for such rejection.

In particular, Rogers requested disclosure of the specific eligibility criterion which the service provider failed to meet. Rogers argued that Vidéotron should not be able to claim confidentiality for these additional eligibility criteria as that would prevent potential service providers from knowing all the criteria they have to meet to participate in Unlimited Music.

Vidéotron argued that the particular reason for not including the service provider in its Unlimited Music service is subject to a non-disclosure agreement by which it is bound, and further, disclosure of such information would be harmful to Vidéotron as well as the service provider.

Assessment of the request

Requests for disclosure of information designated as confidential are addressed in light of sections 38 and 39 of the Telecommunications Act (the Act) and section 30 and following of the CRTC Rules of Practice and Procedure (the Rules of Procedure). In evaluating a request, an assessment is first 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.

Conclusion

Commission staff notes that, contrary to Rogers’ submission, Videotron did not state that additional eligibility criteria were applied to reject the service provider in question.  Rather, Videotron requested confidentiality in respect of the name of the service provider and the particular criterion that the service provider did not meet.  The criterion in question is not new to the record of this proceeding.  Staff considers that disclosure of this information will not contribute to a more meaningful discussion and understanding of the issues being examined in this proceeding.

Having regard to the considerations set out above,Commission staff considers that any harm that is likely to result in disclosure of the Videotron’s reason for rejecting the service provider in question outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

Yours sincerely,

Original signed by

Andrew Falcone
Senior Manager, Strategic Research and Planning
Telecommunications Sector

c.c.:  Distribution List


Distribution List

Date modified: