ARCHIVED - Telecom Procedural Letter Addressed to the Distribution List

Ottawa, 10 August 2017

Our reference:  1011-NOC2017-0049

BY EMAIL

Distribution

RE:  Review of the competitor quality of service regime, Telecom Notice of Consultation 2017-49^{Note de bas de page1} – Requests for disclosure of information designated as confidential, for further responses to requests for information, and for additional information

Dear Madam, Sir:

This letter addresses requests for disclosure of information designated as confidential and for further responses in the proceeding initiated by Telecom Notice of Consultation 2017-49. This letter also contains further requests for information.

Requests for disclosure of information designated as confidential and for further responses

On 19 July 2017, the Canadian Network Operators Consortium Inc. (CNOC), Northwestel Inc. (Northwestel), OpenMedia Engagement Network, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, and SSi Micro Ltd. (SSi) filed submissions requesting disclosure for which confidentiality had been claimed and further responses from certain parties to whom they had requested information on 24 May 2017.

SSi responded to the above requests on 29 July 2017, and the following companies responded to the above requests on 2 August 2017:  Bell Canada, including its Bell MTS and Atlantic operations, and Télébec, Société en commandite (Bell Canada); Bragg Communications Inc., carrying on business as Eastlink (Bragg); Cogeco Communications Inc., on behalf of its affiliate Cogeco Connexion Inc. (Cogeco); Northwestel; Quebecor Media Inc. on behalf of its affiliate Videotron (Quebecor Media); Rogers Communications Canada Inc. (Rogers); Saskatchewan Telecommunications (SaskTel); Shaw Cablesystems G.P. (Shaw); and TELUS Communications Company (TELUS).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 (Broadcasting and Telecom Information Bulletin 2010-961).

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.

Commission staff notes that some parties chose not to answer certain requests for information on the basis that the requested information was confidential. Commission staff reminds parties that requests for information must be answered pursuant to section 74 of the Rules of Procedure, which state that a party that is served with a request for information must:

• respond fully and adequately to each interrogatory; or
• if the party contends that an interrogatory is not relevant or that the information necessary to respond is not available, set out the reasons in support of that contention and, in the case of the unavailability of the information, provide any available information that they consider might be of assistance to the requesting party.

In addition, if the responding party considers the requested information to be confidential, that party should provide the requested information to the Commission on a confidential basis pursuant to the procedures set out in Broadcasting and Telecom Information Bulletin 2010‑961, along with an abridged version for the public record, and include an explanation of why the information is confidential and why its disclosure is not in the public interest.

Having regard to the considerations set out above, parties are to file with the Commission all information as set out in Attachment 1 by 23 August 2017.

Additional requests for information

As a result of this process, Commission staff considers that additional information would help with the assessment of the matters at issue in this proceeding. As such, Attachment 2 contains additional requests for information addressed to certain parties. Responses to these requests for information are to be filed by 23 August 2017.

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

Philippe Kent
Director
Competition and Emergency Services Policy
Telecommunications Sector

c.c.:  Laurie Ventura, CRTC, 819-997-4589, laurie.ventura@crtc.gc.ca

Attach (2)

Distribution List
bell.regulatory@bell.ca; regulatory@cnoc.ca; telecom.regulatory@cogeco.com; michel.messier@cogeco.com; regulatory.matters@corp.eastlink.ca; regulatoryaffairs@nwtel.ca; regulatory@openmedia.org; jlawford@piac.ca; rwi_gr@rci.rogers.com; david.watt@rci.rogers.com; document.control@sasktel.com; regulatory@sjrb.ca; regulatory@ssimicro.com; regulatory@teksavvy.ca; reglementa@telebec.com; regulatory.affairs@telus.com; babramson@teksavvy.ca; dennis.beland@quebecor.com; regaffairs@quebecor.com

Attachment 1

DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION DESIGNATED AS CONFIDENTIAL

NWTEL(CRTC)24May17-3, Attachments 1 and 2
Northwestel is to disclose, only to SSi, the information about installation and repairs that pertains to SSi

SSi(NWTel)24May7-1
SSi(NWTel)24May7-3.a, b, c, d, e, f
SSi is to provide, only to Northwestel, the revised abridged version filed in confidence with the Commission on 29 July 2017.

FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES

Bell et al(CNOC)24May17-1.a, e, and i
Bell et al(CNOC)24May17-2.a and i
Provide the requested information, if available.

Bragg(CNOC)24May17-5
TELUS(CNOC)24May17-5
Provide the requested information.

TELUS(CNOC)24May17-3.g and h
Provide the requested information, if available.

SaskTel(CNOC)24May17-1.d and h
SaskTel(CNOC)24May17-2.d and h
Provide the requested information.

NWTel(CNOC)24May17-5
NWTel(CNOC)24May17-6
Provide the requested information, for both retail Internet access and legacy wireline services.

NWTel(SSi)24May17-3 a) ii and iii, and b) ii and iii
Provide the requested information, for both retail Internet access and legacy wireline services

Attachment 2

1. Additional questions for Bell Canada, Bragg, Cogeco, Northwestel, Quebecor Media, Rogers, SaskTel, Shaw, and TELUS.
   1. Provide your annual revenue and growth targets for each of your mandated wholesale services, for each of the years 2014 to 2020. If these targets are not available by wholesale service, provide this information at the most granular level available.
   2. Has your company established any incentives for meeting the targets referenced in question 1 above? If so, indicate what these incentives are.
2. Additional requests to TekSavvy and TELUS
   1. To TekSavvy re: TekSavvy(CRTC)24May17-1

      Define the terms listed in the first (“Service”) column of each of the confidential spreadsheets.

   2. To TELUS re: TELUS(CRTC)24May17-C2

      Provide the information, as requested by the Commission, that TELUS has excluded or omitted based on Notes 2, 3, and 4 in its spreadsheet. Forecast information should be provided for 2017, 2018, and 2019 for all mandated wholesale services.

Date modified:

2017-08-10