ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter addressed to the Distribution List

Ottawa, 16 August 2019

Our reference: 1011-NOC2019-0057

BY EMAIL

Distribution

RE:  Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2019-57, Review of mobile wireless services – Requests for disclosure of information designated as confidential and for further responses to requests for information

This letter addresses requests for further responses to requests for information (RFIs) issues by the Commission on 24 May 2019 as part of the proceeding initiated by Telecom Notice of Consultation 2019-57. ^Footnote1 This letter also addresses requests for disclosure of certain information designated as confidential in responses to the above-referenced RFIs and sets forth additional requests for disclosure.

On 10 July 2019, Bell Mobility Inc. (Bell Mobility), the Canadian Network Operators Consortium Inc., Cogeco Communications Inc, on behalf of its subsidiary Cogeco Connexion Inc., and EMF-OFF! filed submissions requesting disclosure of certain information filed in response to Commission issued RFIs and for which confidentiality had been claimed and further responses with respect to the responses of certain parties to these RFIs

On July 22 2019, the following parties responded to the above requests for disclosure and further responses: Bell Mobility, Bragg Communications Inc., carrying on business as Eastlink (Eastlink), Québecor Média inc. on behalf of Vidéotron Ltd. (Vidéotron), Rogers Communications Canada Inc. (Rogers), Saskatchewan Telecommunications (SaskTel), Shaw Communications Inc. (Shaw), TbayTel, and TELUS Communications Inc. (TELUS).

Further responses to requests for information

Commission staff has reviewed the RFI responses and is of the view that some of the responses are deficient. There were instances where parties provided incomplete or partial responses, including instances where the party simply stated that the requested information was “not available”, while providing little or no justification or explanation as to why. 

As such, parties are to file with the Commission all information set out in Attachment 1 by 30 August 2019. If a party is unable to provide the required information for any questions identified in the attachment, the company is to provide a detailed justification as to why it is not possible for it to comply with the Commission’s directives.

Requests for disclosure of information designated as confidential

Requests for disclosure of information designated as confidential are addressed in light of sections 38 and 39 of the Telecommunications Act (the Act) as well as sections 30 – 34 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 disclosure of particular information is in the public interest. In conducting this assessment, regard is had to whether the disclosure would likely result in specific direct harm and whether that harm outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Harm may be more likely to outweigh the public interest where the information is more disaggregated or where the degree of competition is greater. Conversely, the public interest may be more likely to outweigh any harm where disclosure of the information is more important to the ability of the Commission to obtain a full and complete record on which to make its decision. Further information regarding the general procedures and the factors considered may be found in Broadcasting and Telecom Information Bulletin CRTC 2010-961. ^Footnote2

Having regard to the above, parties are to file with the Commission all pertinent information as set out in Attachment 2 by 30 August 2019.

With respect to requests for disclosure submitted by EMF-OFF!, the organization did not explicitly identify which parties were subject to its requests and it appears that EMF-OFF! did not serve its requests to the parties requested to disclose this information, contrary to section 33(2) of the Rules of Procedures.

The submissions made by EMF-OFF! in support of its requests for public disclosure were grounded in the concept of privilege. This is a substantive rule of the law of evidence and, in particular, “an exception to the general principle that all relevant evidence is admissible.” ^Footnote3 Privilege recognizes that, in certain instances, public policy reasons can justify the exclusion of what would otherwise be probative evidence from the trial setting. 

These arguments are misplaced as the doctrine of privilege finds no application in the present circumstances. The Commission is undertaking a broad review of its policy framework for wireless services and is not bound by the formal rules of evidence applicable in the trial setting. Further, in designating information as confidential pursuant to section 39 of the Act, the relevant parties have not sought to shield the information from admissibility. To the contrary, the evidence in question has already been admitted to the record of the proceeding for consideration by the Commission.  

The matter under consideration at this stage of the proceeding is whether this information ought to be publicly disclosed. Section 39 of the Act sets out the regime governing this process and provides the Commission with the discretion to disclose or require the disclosure, publicly, of information that has been designated as confidential if it would be in the “public interest” to do so. As indicated above, in Broadcasting and Telecom Information BulletinCRTC 2010-961, the Commission has articulated its general approach to exercising this discretion. EMF-OFF has not directly addressed the Commission’s disclosure framework.

Commission staff is, however, of the preliminary view that it would be in the public interest to disclose certain information identified by EMF-OFF! as well as certain information that has not been the subject of a disclosure request. This information is set out in Attachment 3 to the present letter.

Commission staff considers that some of this information is publically available and should therefore not be treated as confidential. ^Footnote4 Furthermore, and in any event, the information under consideration is historical and aggregated at the company-wide level. Commission staff considers that disclosure of this information would assist parties in gaining a better understanding of the competitive landscape and the economic dynamics that shape retail mobile wireless offers.

While Commission staff recognizes that information relating to capital expenditures, data overage and data usage is not information that would generally be publically disclosed, it considers that public disclosure of certain data relating to these matters would be in the public interest.

With respect to capital expenditures attributed to mobile wireless networks, the information requested is at the company-wide level and would therefore not provide competitors with information about specific network deployment projects. Commission staff considers that this information has direct bearing on a number of matters at issue in this proceeding. In this regard, a number of parties have raised concerns with respect to the impact of potential regulatory measures on continued network investments. Commission staff considers that access to this information would assist parties in ascertaining the impact of past regulatory measures on investment and allow for a better assessment of any potential regulatory measure on future network investments.

With respect to data overage information, Commission staff notes that the information under consideration is aggregated at the provincial/territorial level and considers that access to this information would allow parties to gain a better appreciation of the impact that overage charges can have on consumers and assist them in evaluating the pertinence and advisability of adopting potential regulatory measures.

Finally, with regards to the data usage information reflected in Attachment 3, Commission staff considers that its public disclosure would provide parties with a better ability to gain an understanding of consumers’ data consumption behaviour. Access to this information would assist parties in assessing whether there are differences in consumption behaviour across provinces/territories and to make submissions as to what would explain any such differences.

In order to provide parties with an opportunity to appropriately address these additional requests for disclosure, parties are to either file the requested information as set out in Attachment 3 on the public record of this proceeding, or provide a response as to why this information should not be filed on the public record, by 30 August 2019. Determinations regarding these disclosure requests will be issued at a later date.

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. Parties are also reminded that, pursuant to Telecom Decision 2019-277, ^Footnote5 they are also to disclose to the Commissioner of Competition all responses filed in confidence in relation to the Commission’s 24 May 2019 RFIs.

Sincerely,

Original signed by

Philippe Kent
Director, Policy
Telecommunications Sector

Distribution List: All parties to 2019-57

Attach. (3)

Attachment 1

FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES

Parties identified below are to provide the information requested, or to provide a detailed justification as to why it is not possible for the company to provide the requested information.

(CRTC)5April2019-102

• Eastlink and Rogers are each to provide a complete answer to this question, i.e. the list of the service area(s) where the company holds a licence for spectrum that is not being used, the amount and frequency of spectrum that is being unused, the reason the spectrum is unused, and any future plans to make use of that spectrum.

(CRTC)5April2019-103

• Bell Mobility is to provide the following:
  • MTS data for each of the years 2014-2018 and for each month from 2016 through the present (i.e. May 2019), broken down by province and by CMA and for Census Agglomeration code 586 (Timmins, ON) for i), ii), iii), iv), and v)
  • monthly information for 2019 (until May 2019) for i), ii), iii), iv), and v).
• Eastlink is to provide its answer by CMA for ii) and iii) and a complete answer to iv) and v).
• Rogers is to provide a response to v) by CMA and for Census Agglomeration code 586 (Timmins, ON).
• Shaw is to provide the following:
  • an answer by CMA for each month from 2016 through the present (i.e. May 2019) for (i), (ii), and (iii);
  • an answer by province/territory for each of the years 2014 to 2018 and by CMA for each month from 2016 through the present (i.e. May 2019) for iv);
  • an answer by CMA for v).
• TELUS is to provide the following:
  • aggregated provincial totals for each of the years 2014-2018 for i) and ii);
  • an answer by CMA for iii);
  • an answer by province/territory for each of the years 2014 to 2018 and by CMA for each month from 2016 through the present (i.e. May 2019) for iv);
  • the average plan limit for each province/territory for each of the years 2014 to 2018 and for each CMA for each month from 2016 through the present (i.e. May 2019) for v).
• Videotron is to provide the following:
  • an answer for each of the years 2014, 2015 and 2016 (complete year) for i), ii), iii), iv), and v);
  • its monthly revenues in response to iv) and its monthly mobile wireless average plan limits in response to v).
• Brooke Telecom and HuronTel are to provide their answers for each month from 2016 through the present (May 2019) and an answer to iv) and v).
• Hay Communications is to provide its answer for each month from 2016 through the
• present (May 2019).
• Quadro Communications is to provide an answer to iii) [monthly], iv) and v).
• SSi Micro is to provide its average monthly mobile wireless data usage as well as its monthly mobile wireless average plan limit in response to v).

(CRTC)5April2019-104

• Shaw is to provide the complete list of the promotions the company offered in 2018.

(CRTC)5April2019-105

• Bell Mobility is to provide the list of MTS price changes for each of the years 2014 to 2018.
• Shaw is to provide the list of its service plans that were offered to its customers in 2016, 2017, 2018 and in 2019 (up to 24 May 2019) using a format similar to the table provided with the question (CRTC)5April19-105 in the Commission’s 24 May 2019 letter.
• SaskTel is to provide an answer to the question for the years 2018 and 2019 (up to 24 May 2019).

(CRTC)5April2019-202

• Rogers provided an annual breakdown of its total wholesale mobile wireless service revenues by province. The company is to provide these figures further broken down by type of wholesale service as requested in a), b), c), and d), as well as the requested information for 2014.

(CRTC)5April2019-203

• Bell Mobility provided an annual breakdown of its wholesale mobile wireless expenses by service. The company is to provide these figures further broken down by province/territory, including MTS data for each of the years 2014 to 2018 (and separately for MTS in 2014, 2015, and 2016).
• Rogers provided an annual breakdown of its total wholesale mobile wireless service expenses by province and another total for expenses that were not attributed to a specific province. The company is to provide a complete answer to this question, i.e. provide a breakdown for each province/territory of the information by type of service as requested in a), b), c), and d).

(CRTC)5April2019-205

• Bell Mobility provided its capital expenditures by category. The company is to provide these figures further broken down by province, including information related to MTS, for each of the years 2014 to 2018 (and separately for MTS in 2014, 2015, and 2016).
• Rogers provided a breakdown of its capital expenditures separately by service category and by province. The company is to provide a breakdown of this information by service category and by province together.

(CRTC)5April2019-206

• Bell Mobility is to provide non redacted and readable versions of the network sharing agreements (i.e. Attachments 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 appendix 1, 6 appendix 2, 7, 8 appendix 1, and 8 appendix 2).
• TELUS is to provide non redacted and readable versions of the network sharing agreements filed (i.e. Attachments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8).

(CRTC)5April2019-208

• Bell Mobility is to provide, for each of the years 2014 to 2016 and for both prepaid and postpaid services the average revenue per user (ARPU) for MTS retail mobile wireless services.

(CRTC)5April2019-209

• Bell Mobility, Eastlink, Rogers, Shaw, TELUS, and Videotron are each requested to provide a complete answer to the question, including the EBITDA margin information requested in i) and ii) for each CMA as well as the Census Agglomeration code 586 (Timmins, ON).
• Eastlink, Rogers, SaskTel, Shaw, and Videotron provided their EBITDA in terms of dollars. These companies are each requested to provide their responses in terms of EBITDA margins as requested.

(CRTC)5April2019-210

• Bell Mobility is to provide the following:
  • its response to a) broken down by province and including MTS data for each of the years 2014 to 2018 (and separately for MTS in 2014, 2015, and 2016);
  • its response to b) including MTS data for each of the years 2014 to 2018 (and separately for MTS in 2014, 2015, and 2016);
  • its responses to e) for each of the years 2014 to 2018 by using data from its loyalty and retention program, broken down by province and including MTS data (and separately for MTS in 2014, 2015, and 2016).
• Eastlink is to provide a response to c), d), and e).
• Rogers is to provide a response to d) by brand and by province, and a response to e) by province.
• SaskTel is to provide a response to d) and e) for each of the years 2014 to 2016.
• Videotron is to provide in e) its average percentage discount based on the rate rebates the company offered to retain its retail mobile wireless service subscribers.

(CRTC)5April2019-211

• Bell Mobility is to provide MTS data overage revenues for each of the years 2014 to 2017 (complete year), as well as the number of MTS retail mobile wireless subscribers that paid data overage charges at some point during the year and what percentage of its total subscribers this represents for each of the years 2014 to 2018.
• Eastlink is to provide the number of its retail mobile wireless subscribers that paid data overage charges at some point during the year and what percentage of its total subscribers this represents for each of the years 2014 to 2018.

(CRTC)5April2019-212

• Bell Mobility is to provide a response to a), b), c) and d) for MTS for each of the years 2014 to 2018.

(CRTC)5April2019-213

• Rogers is to provide the breakdown of the percentage of its retail mobile wireless sales revenues for each of the years 2014 to 2016 for each distribution channels.
• Videotron is to indicate if the information provided was in regards to percentages of (i) revenues or (ii) the number of sales. The company is also to provide the breakdown that was not provided (i.e. if the breakdown provided reflects the number of sales, the company is also to provide the requested information in terms of revenues, or vice versa).

Attachment 2

DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION DESIGNATED AS CONFIDENTIAL

Parties identified below are to provide on the public record the requested information.

(CRTC)5April2019-101

• Sogetel is to provide on the public record the frequency bands associated with its different mobile spectrum service areas (i.e. information contained in the “Bandes de fréquence” column of its Appendix to its response to this question).

(CRTC)5April2019-102

• Bell Mobility, Eastlink, Ice Wireless, Rogers, Sogetel, and TELUS are each to provide on the public record the list of the service area(s) where the company holds a licence for spectrum that is not being used, as well as the amount and frequency of spectrum that is being unused.

(CRTC)5April2019-104

• Bell Mobility, Eastlink, Rogers, Shaw, TELUS, and Videotron are each to provide on the public record their answer to i), ii), iii) and v), for all promotions that were publicly available in 2018 (i.e. excluding non-advertised promotions).

(CRTC)5April2019-105

• Bell Mobility, Eastlink, Rogers, Shaw, TELUS, and Videotron are each to provide on the public record their response to this questions for all changes made to the price of their retail mobile wireless offerings that were publicly available (i.e. excluding non-advertised offerings) for each of the years 2016 to 2019 (up to 24 May 2019), with the exception to the last two columns of the table provided with the question (CRTC)5April2019 in the Commission’s 24 May 2019 letter (i.e. excluding subscriber-specific data such as the number of subscribers to specific plans).

(CRTC)5Apr2019-202

• No further disclosure is required by any party. However, Commission staff intends to put on the public record on 6 September 2019 national wholesale revenues aggregated from all wireless carriers, broken down by wholesale service, for each of the years 2014 to 2018, when complete data for this question is received.

(CRTC)5April2019-204

• Bell Mobility, Rogers, Shaw, and TELUS, are each to provide on the public record, for each of the years 2014 to 2018 and broken down by province/territory
  1. The number of towers and sites owned by the company in operation;
  2. The number of towers and sites owned by the company in operation that are not shared with any other wireless carrier;
  3. The number of towers and sites used by the company through sharing arrangements with other wireless carriers;
  4. The number of towers and sites used by the company and owned by an entity that is not a wireless carriers.

Attachment 3

REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Parties identified below are to provide the requested information on the public record, or to provide detailed rationale as to why the requested information should not be provided on the public record.

(CRTC)5April2019-103

• Bell Mobility, Eastlink, Rogers, SaskTel, Shaw, TELUS, and Videotron are each requested to provide on the public record, for each of the years 2014 to 2018 and on a company-wide basis (i) their total number of retail mobile wireless services subscribers; and (ii) their total retail mobile wireless revenues.

(CRTC)5April2019-205

• Bell Mobility, Eastlink, Rogers, SaskTel, Shaw, TELUS, and Videotron are each requested to provide on the public record their total company-wide aggregated capital expenditures attributed to their mobile wireless network for each of the years 2014 to 2018.

(CRTC)5April2019-208

• Bell Mobility, Eastlink, SaskTel, Shaw, and Videotron are each requested to provide on the public record their blended average revenue per user (ARPU) (i.e. covering prepaid and postpaid services and all brands the company operates) for each of the year 2014 to 2018.

(CRTC) 5April2019-209

• Eastlink, SaskTel, Shaw, and Videotron are each requested to provide on the public record their blended earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) margins (i.e. covering all brands the company operates) for each of the year 2014 to 2018.

(CRTC)5April2019-211

• Bell Mobility, Eastlink, Rogers, SaskTel, TELUS, and Videotron are each requested to provide on the public record, for each of the years 2014 to 2018, for each brand the company operates and for each province/territory, (i) its total data overage revenues from retail mobile wireless subscribers; (ii) the number of retail mobile wireless subscribers that paid data overage charges at some point during the year (and what percentage of total subscribers this represents); and (iii) what the company charges per GB of data for overages.

(CRTC)5April2019-212

• Bell Mobility, Eastlink, Rogers, SaskTel, Shaw, TELUS, and Videotron are each requested to provide on the public record, for each of the years 2014 to 2018 and for each province/territory (including all assumptions used):
  1. the average monthly mobile wireless data usage per retail mobile wireless subscriber that subscribes to a plan that includes data; and
  2. the median amount of monthly mobile wireless data usage per retail subscriber that subscribes to a plan that includes data.

Date modified:

2019-08-16