Telecom Commission Letter addressed to the Distribution list
Ottawa, 6 February 2020
Our reference: 1011-NOC2019-0057
BY EMAIL
Distribution list
RE: Review of mobile wireless services, Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2019-57 – Procedural request of Canadian Network Operators Consortium Inc. for disclosure of information filed in confidence
Dear Madam, Sir:
In a letter dated 6 December 2019, the Canadian Network Operators Consortium Inc. (CNOC), requested the public disclosure of information filed in confidence by the Commissioner of Competition (the Commissioner). Specifically, CNOC expressed concern with the significant amount of information filed in confidence by the Commissioner in his further comments, including in the accompanying economic report, authored by Dr. Tasneem Chipty (the Report or Chipty Report). CNOC argued that, as a result, the ability of intervenors to critique the Report and comment meaningfully on the Commissioner’s corresponding conclusions had been limited. CNOC made a number of specific disclosure requests, which requests were supplemented by general disclosure requests.
Specific disclosure requests:
CNOC requested the disclosure of the following identified information:
- Figure 5 of the Commissioner’s further comments
- Figure 12 of the Commissioner’s further comments
- Figure 13 of the Commissioner’s further comments
- Paragraph 38(b) of the Commissioner’s further comments
- Paragraph 4 of the Chipty Report
- Paragraph 5 of the Chipty Report
- Exhibits 6 through 13 of the Chipty Report
- Figure 18 of the Commissioner’s Further Comments
- Appendices A, B, and C to the Chipty Report
General disclosure request:
CNOC claimed that it was not feasible to make separate disclosures for every piece of information it believes was inappropriately filed in confidence by the Commissioner given the sheer volume of information filed in confidence. CNOC therefore requested the public disclosure of all information already publicly available, including, without limitation, information that can be derived from:
- Carrier financial reports
- Any version of the Commission’s Communications Monitoring Report
- Other government sources such as Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
- Retail websites
- Media reporting
- Any other sources that are capable of being accessed by the public
Finally CNOC made a general request for public disclosure of any information where the public interest in disclosure outweighs the specific direct harm likely caused to any party by such disclosure.
Answers:
The Commission also received letters from Bell Mobility Inc. (Bell Mobility), Rogers Communications Canada Inc. (Rogers), Shaw Communications Inc. (Shaw), SSi Micro Ltd. (SSi), TELUS Communications Inc. (TELUS) and Xplornet Communication Inc. (Xplornet) that opposed CNOC’s request for various reasons. Bell Mobility stressed that the Commission should not order disclosure of any other information without running a further process in which parties can understand and comment on the specific types of information involved. Shaw did not take issue with the disclosure of information that is otherwise publicly available as long as the Commission thoroughly verifies that each piece of information is indeed publicly available. TELUS submitted that it cannot adequately respond to this request because it cannot see what was filed in confidence and cannot know whether allowing CNOC’s request would lead to the disclosure of confidential TELUS information, nor can it take a position as to whether the benefits of disclosure would outweigh any harm.
In a letter dated 11 December 2019, the Commissioner provided a confidential colour-coded version of his Report, indicating information he believed; (i) was designated by parties as confidential or from which confidential information could be deduce and; (ii) information derived from confidential information but from which confidential information is unlikely to be deduced. An updated version of the document was filed on 23 December 2019, which modified certain categorizations of information.
Commission staff has reviewed these submission and is of the preliminary view that certain categories of information in the Commissioner’s further comments and in Dr. Chipty’s Report should be disclosed on the public record. Generally, this is information that:
- Was not designated as confidential by parties upon its initial filing with the Commission;
- Is not eligible to be designated as confidential because it does not fall into a category contemplated by section 39 of the Telecommunications Act; or
- Would not cause specific, direct harm to parties if it were to be disclosed that would outweigh the public interest in disclosure.
Therefore, in order for the Commission to make its determinations on CNOC’s disclosure requests, staff is seeking comments as to whether it would be appropriate for the Commission to disclose or require disclosure of information contained in the Report that falls into the following general categories of information contained in the Commissioner’s further comments and in Dr. Chipty’s Report:
- Information that is on the public record of this proceeding or that can be derived from such information;
- Information that is otherwise publicly available (such as financial reports of public companies) or that can be derived from such information;
- Descriptors of information that the Commission directed parties to file on the record, without disclosing the data itself if the data was filed in confidence;
- Descriptions of how parties filed data in response to Commission Requests For Information (RFIs), such as the level at which the data was provided, (for example, whether a given carrier included enterprise subscriptions in its total subscriber numbers, but not the actual subscriber numbers);
- Qualitative statements made by Dr. Chipty as to the quality and completeness of the data filed in response to RFIs;
- Descriptors of numerical values such as: “approximately”, “percent”, “up to”, etc. without disclosing the numerical values themselves;
- Descriptions of the methodology used by Dr. Chipty to process data;
- Communications between the Commissioner and other parties referenced in the report, but not the data contained within those communications;
- Highly aggregated data, such as the national subscriber share of the three largest wireless service providers combined, and the national subscriber share of the 6 largest regional facilities-based wireless service providers combined, or the difference in differences between prices before and after changes in outcomes (prices, plan limits, and plan limit-adjusted prices);
- Descriptors of the scale and magnitude of penetration rates of various carriers in categories from “high” “mid” or “low” without disclosing the penetration rates themselves;
- Representations in graph form of conclusions already placed on the record by the Commissioner regarding the alleged effects of various levels of penetration from competitive carriers;
- Averages of plan limits (in GB) offered by Rogers and Bell Mobility in Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs) with and without Freedom Mobile’s presence in those CMAs;
- Information relating to the conclusions drawn in paragraphs 63 and 69 of Dr. Chipty’s report, without disclosing the calculations used or specific numbers that could disclose confidential information;
- Descriptors of market segments without disclosing the data within them.
Parties that submitted information in confidence in response to the Commission’s 5 July 2019 RFIs or who otherwise made submissions in relation to this disclosure request may provide their views by 11 February 2020.
The Commission is still considering disclosure requests made by TELUS as well as CNOC’s request for disclosure of information filed by Bell Mobility and the comments obtained in response to these requests.
Yours sincerely,
Original signed by
Philippe Kent
Director, Policy
Telecommunications Sector
Distribution list: Parties to Telecom proceeding 2019-57
- Date modified: