ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter Addressed to the Distribution List
This page has been archived on the Web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, 5 September 2017
Our reference: 1011-NOC2017-0092
Re: Phase-out of the local service subsidy regime, Telecom Notice of Consultation 2017-92Footnote1 – Requests for disclosure of information designated as confidential and for further responses to requests for information
Dear Madam, Sir:
This letter addresses requests for disclosure of information designated as confidential and for further responses related to requests for information made in the proceeding initiated by Telecom Notice of Consultation 2017-92.
On 17 August 2017, Bell Canada,Footnote2 Canadian Network Operators Consortium Inc. (CNOC), Government of Northwest Territories, National Pensioners Federation and Public Interest Advocacy Centre (NPF-PIAC), Rogers Communications Partnership (Rogers), Saskatchewan Telecommunications (SaskTel) filed requests for disclosure of certain information for which confidentiality had been claimed or requests for further responses to requests for information.
The following companies filed responses to these requests: Bell Canada, Bragg Communications Inc. carrying on business as Eastlink (Eastlink), CNOC, Cogeco Cable Inc., Independent Telecommunications Providers Association (representing 23 small incumbent local exchange carriers), Northwestel Inc., Quebecor Media Inc., Rogers, SaskTel, and TELUS Communications Company.
Assessment of the requests
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 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.
With respect to requests for further responses to requests for information, 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 a response to a request for information is responsive to the request for information 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 request for information.
With respect to the requests to disclose aggregated information on a company-wide or national all-carrier basis, the use of this information would not be significantly relevant to the policy issues under consideration in this proceeding as they would be applied on an exchange by exchange basis. In addition, the companies used various methodologies in compiling the data in question. The use of the aggregated information would result in inaccurate estimated potential impacts and would likely lead to erroneous conclusions. Accordingly, it is not appropriate to disclose the requested information on the public record of the proceeding.
With respect to all other remaining requests, having regard to the considerations set out above and the responses to the requests for information provided by the other parties, no further disclosure or provision of information is required.
Original signed by
Julie Cook forJohn Macri
Director, Policy Framework
c.c.: Julie Cook, CRTC, (819) 743-4591, firstname.lastname@example.org
Christine Brock, CRTC, (819) 997-4557, email@example.com
9315-1884 Québec, firstname.lastname@example.org
Bell Canada, email@example.com
Brooke Telecom Co-operative Ltd., firstname.lastname@example.org
Bruce Telecom, email@example.com
Canadian Network Operators Consortium Inc., firstname.lastname@example.org
CityWest Telephone Corporation, Donovan.Dias@cwct.ca
Cochrane Telecom Services of the Town of Cochrane, email@example.com
Cogeco Cable Inc., firstname.lastname@example.org
CoopTel, coop de télécommunication, email@example.com
Execulink Telecom Inc., firstname.lastname@example.org
Gosfield North Communication Co-operative Limited, email@example.com
Government of the Northwest Territories, firstname.lastname@example.org
Groupe Maskatel LP,email@example.com
Hay Communications Co-operative Limited, firstname.lastname@example.org
Huron Telecommunications Co-Operative Limited, email@example.com
Independent Telecommunications Providers Association, firstname.lastname@example.org
Lansdowne Rural Telephone Company Ltd., email@example.com
Mornington Communications Co-operative Limited, firstname.lastname@example.org
Nexicom Telecommunications, a Division of Nexicom Inc., email@example.com
Nexicom Telephones, a Division of Nexicom Inc., firstname.lastname@example.org
North Frontenac Telephone Corporation Ltd, email@example.com
North Renfrew Telephone Company Limited Trade, firstname.lastname@example.org
Northwestel Inc., email@example.com
Quadro Communications Co-operative Inc., firstname.lastname@example.org
Québecor Média Inc., email@example.com
Rogers Communications Partnerships, firstname.lastname@example.org
Roxborough Telephone Company Limited, email@example.com
Saskatchewan Telecommunications, Document.firstname.lastname@example.org
Sogetel inc., email@example.com
TELUS Communications Company, firstname.lastname@example.org
Tuckersmith Communications Co-operative Limited, email@example.com
Wightman Telecom Ltd., firstname.lastname@example.org
WTC Communications, email@example.com
- Date modified: