Telecom Commission Letter addressed to the Distribution List
Ottawa, 21 November 2019
Our reference: 1011-NOC2019-0057
To: Distribution list
RE: Review of mobile wireless services, Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2019-57 – Disclosure of information designated as confidential and for further responses to requests for information
Dear Madams, Sirs:
This letter addresses requests for disclosure of certain information designated as confidential in responses to requests for information (RFIs) issued by Commission staff on 5 July 2019 as part of the proceeding initiated by Telecom Notice of Consultation 2019-57. This letter also sets forth requests for further responses to the above-referenced RFIs as well as new RFIs.
On 3 October 2019, the Canadian Network Operators Consortium (CNOC) filed a submission requesting disclosure of certain information that parties had filed in response to Commission staff-issued RFIs and for which confidentiality had been claimed.
The following parties responded to the requests for disclosure: Bell Mobility, Bragg Communications, carrying on business as Eastlink (Eastlink), Quebecor Media inc, on behalf of Videotron Ltd. (Quebecor), Rogers Communications Canada Inc. (Rogers), and Saskatchewan Telecommunications (SaskTel).
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.
As such, parties are to file with the Commission all information set out in Attachment 1 by 26 November 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 do so.
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) 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 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. 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. The general procedures and the factors generally 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.
Having regard to the considerations set out above, parties are to file with the Commission all information as set out in Attachment 2 by 26 November 2019.
New requests for information
With regards to responses to certain RFIs, Commission staff has concluded that CNOC has identified a strong public interest in certain basic and high-level information being made publically available. However, certain other information contained in these responses ought not to be disclosed, and the format of these responses does not lend itself well to a targeted disclosure order. Accordingly, in order to make the specific information at issue available on the public record, new RFIs are being asked. The responses to these RFIs would isolate the information in which the public interest in disclosure is strongest, namely confirmation of whether or not a certain state of affairs exists. Staff considers that providing such a confirmation as part of the public record of the proceeding would not result in specific or direct harm to the responding party. Parties identified in Attachment 2 are to file with the Commission responses to the relevant requests for information by 26 November 2019.
Original signed by
Distribution list: parties to Telecom proceeding 2019-57
FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
Parties identified below are to provide the information requested.
- Bell Mobility and TELUS are to provide a complete answer to the question e.g., one that includes a numerical response to how many advertising campaigns in 2018 included a price discount off the regular rate, and the percentage of total advertising campaigns that this number represents.
- Shaw is to provide a response to the question.
DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION DESIGNATED AS CONFIDENTIAL
Parties below are to provide on the public record the requested information.
- Bell Mobility is to disclose the information filed in confidence in the following sentences:
“By having each Party to a network sharing/reciprocity agreement # #. This has spill-over benefits in the form of # #.”
- Bell Mobility is to disclose all the information filed in confidence with respect to the following sentences:
“There have been more than 14,000 individual price reductions made by wireless carriers in Canada since January 2017, and since # # the price of data for subscribers activating on our premium Bell brand has # #.”
- Bell Mobility is to disclose all the information filed in confidence with respect to the following sentence:
“Accordingly [sic] to our own internal analysis, since # # the cost of data for subscribers activating on our premium Bell brand has # #.”
- Rogers is to provide a version of the appendix to its response publicly disclosing information related to advertised plans.
- Rogers is to disclose the requested promotion start and end dates where the promotions were advertised.
- Bell Mobility is to disclose all information contained in “Table 1 – MRC per GB for AGA 2019 to 2018 Comparison” and all price per GB information provided in the attachment.
- Sasktel is to disclose the price per GB information for the years 2014 to 2018.
- Eastlink is to disclose its estimated price per GB for the years 2016 to 2018.
NEW REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION
Information requests for Rogers and Québecor
101. Confirm whether or not your company has ever received a request for call hand back.
102. Confirm whether or not your network sharing agreements or other agreements contain terms restricting your ability to enter into wholesale MVNO access agreements.
Information requests for Eastlink
201. Confirm whether or not you have ever received any requests for network slicing.
- Date modified: