Search

Telecom - Commission Letter addressed to the distribution list

Ottawa, 12 August 2021

Our reference: 1011-NOC2020-0187

BY EMAIL

Distribution List

RE: Responses to requests for information, dated 21 April 2021, in Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2020-187 (“NoC 2020-187”) - Call for comments – Appropriate network configuration for disaggregated wholesale high-speed access services –Requests for disclosure of certain information filed in confidence and deficiencies

To All:

This letter addresses requests for disclosure of information and deficiencies in submissions made in response to the request for information, dated 21 April 2021, as part of the above noted proceeding.

On 21 April 2021, information was requested from Bell Canada; Bragg Communications Incorporated, carrying on business as Eastlink (Eastlink); Cogeco Communications Inc. (Cogeco); Quebecor Media Inc., on behalf of Videotron Ltd. (Videotron); Rogers Communications Canada Inc. (Rogers); Saskatchewan Telecommunications (SaskTel); Shaw Cablesystems G.P. (Shaw); and TELUS Communications Inc. (TCI) (collectively, the wholesale service providers).

On 21 May 2021, the wholesale service providers filed their responses to the requests for information.
On 4 June 2021, the Competitive Network Operators of Canada (CNOC) filed requests for disclosure of information designated as confidential, adding that some wholesale providers did not respond in full to certain requests for information.

On 18 June 2021, the wholesale service providers responded to CNOC.

Disclosure

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.

Commission staff has reviewed the request filed by CNOC, along with the responses submitted by the wholesale service providers, and considers that additional disclosure is necessary in order for parties to be able to participate meaningfully in the proceeding and for the Commission to obtain a fulsome record.
The information for disclosure and deficiencies in responses can be found in Attachment 2.

Disclosure

With respect to Bell Canada’s average central office (CO) make-ready cost, Commission staff considers that this average is a sum of multiple component costs for different CO configurations and is aggregated in nature. Commission staff also considers that disclosure of the CO make-ready cost would inform competitors of what to expect when establishing a disaggregated point of interconnection (POI) without providing any insights to estimate Bell Canada’s supplier discounts. Therefore, Commission staff considers that the public interest in disclosure of Bell Canada’s average CO make-ready cost outweighs the specific direct harm likely to result.

With respect to the number of premises passed, Commission staff considers that, consistent with Telecom Decision 2021-280, which provides competitors a means to access location information, competitors have the ability to reasonably estimate the number of premises passed per CO or head end using publicly available information and the information directed to be disclosed in that decision. This information allows the competitors to effectively participate in the proceeding without requiring the disclosure of specific data on the premises passed per CO/head end or CO/head end cluster.

With respect to the disaggregation models proposed by some wholesale service providers where some COs or head ends would be aggregated under a single POI, Commission staff considers that disclosing the names of POIs and the names of head ends or COs served from each POI would result in minimal specific direct harm given that this type of information has been made available by certain wholesale service providers in the current proceeding and has been included in certain tariffs (e.g. in tariffs for disaggregated wholesale services for certain cable carriers). Furthermore, this information, when combined with publicly available information, would allow competitors to reasonably estimate the number of premised passed per CO/head end or CO/head end cluster, evaluate the wholesale service providers’ proposals, and effectively participate in this proceeding, without the need to disclose any confidential information regarding the specific number of premises passed. Therefore, Commission staff considers that the public interest in disclosing the names of the proposed POIs and the names of the COs or head ends that are served from each POI outweighs the specific direct harm likely to result.

With respect to available transport providers, Commission staff is of the view that the specific direct harm likely to result from disclosing the names of available transport providers outweighs the public interest in disclosure. However, Commission staff is of the view that disclosure of the number of competing transport providers by POI is essential for greater transparency and assessment of disaggregated wholesale HSA configurations in this proceeding. Therefore, there is a strong public interest in having wholesale service providers at least disclose on the public record where there is one, or multiple, alternate transport providers. In addition, this information is aggregated in nature. Therefore, the likely specific direct harm of disclosing any proprietary, confidential and commercially-sensitive market intelligence is limited. As a result, the public interest in disclosing the number of available transport providers outweighs the likely specific direct harm.

Deficiencies

After careful review of the responses to the request for information on 21 April 2021, Commission staff notes that some responses from wholesale service providers were partial or incomplete. In addition, Commission staff notes that, in some instances, the level of detail provided by parties varies greatly, which limits the ability to analyze the responses submitted.

Remedying these deficiencies will contribute to a fulsome record of the disaggregated wholesale high-speed access service models and allow for a better assessment of the matters at issue in this proceeding.

With respect to disaggregation models where some head ends would be aggregated under a single POI, Commission staff notes that, while Cogeco and Eastlink proposed a reduced level of disaggregation as part of this proceeding, they did not describe in sufficient detail the proposed disaggregation configuration. Staff notes that Cogeco failed to provide the approximate location of its POIs in each province while neither Cogeco nor Eastlink provided a list of which head ends would be served by which POI.

With respect to identifying the available transport providers, Commission staff notes that the majority of wholesale service provides have provided this information to the Commission. Commission staff considers that it is entirely reasonable to expect that Cogeco, Eastlink and Videotron are at least aware of competing transport providers within the vicinity of their head ends and, as such, are to provide this information as requested.

As a result, the wholesale service providers are to provide the information as outlined in Attachment 2 of this letter in accordance with the below procedure.

Procedure

In Telecom Decision 2021-280Footnote1, the Commission directed the wholesale service providers to make available certain information upon request and under agreed-upon non-disclosure provisions by 1 September 2021. The Commission also directed Cogeco to disclose certain responses to questions in the Appendix to NoC 2020-187 on the public record.

In light of the above, Commission staff establishes the following process:

All documents to be filed must be received, not merely sent, by that date. Parties are asked to serve all other parties with any documents filed in this proceeding, and to send an electronic copy directly to Commission staff.

Sincerely,

Original signed by

Chris Noonan
Director, Competitor Services & Costing Implementation
Telecommunication sector

c.c.:  Abderrahman El Fatihi, CRTC 819-953-3662 AbderRahman.ElFatihi@crtc.gc.ca;
Tom Vilmansen, CRTC 819-997-9253 Tom.Vilmansen@crtc.gc.ca

Attach. (2):

Distribution List (1)
Disclosure of information and outstanding deficiencies (2)

Distribution List:

bell.regulatory@bell.ca;
regulatory@cnoc.ca;
leonard.eichel@cogeco.com;
regulatory.matters@corp.eastlink.ca;
regulatory@rci.rogers.com;
patrick.desy@quebecor.com;
telecom.regulatory@cogeco.com;
jlawford@piac.ca;
carreen.unguran@telus.com;
regulatory@teksavvy.ca;
document.control@sasktel.com;
jocelyn.kearney@sjrb.ca;
regulatory.affairs@telus.com;
regaffairs@quebecor.com;
chen@cshen.ca;
harry_ism@hotmail.com;
regulatory@internetsociety.ca;
regulatory@tacitlaw.com;
john.powell@uniserveteam.com;
regulatorynotice@allstream.com;
regulatory@bcba.ca;
ben@communityfibre.ca;
regulatory@sjrb.ca;
jfmezei@vaxination.ca;

DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION DESIGNATED AS CONFIDENTIAL AND DEFFICIENCIES

Bell Canada(CRTC)21Apr21 1.a):

Refer to your response to question Bell Canada(CRTC)21Apr21 1.a):

Bell Canada(CRTC)21Apr21 1.b) ii.:

Refer to your response to question Bell Canada(CRTC)21Apr21 1.b) ii.:

Cogeco(CRTC)21Apr21 1.a) :

Refer to your response to question Cogeco(CRTC)21Apr21 1.a) regarding your alternative proposal for a configuration with a reduced level of disaggregation with a reduced number of POIs, as described in paragraphs 2 to 6 of the response to question Cogeco(CRTC)21Apr21 1.a):

Cogeco(CRTC)21Apr21 1.b) iii.:

Refer to your response to question Cogeco(CRTC)21Apr21 1.a) regarding Cogeco’s alternative proposal as described in paragraphs 2 to 6 and the response to question Cogeco(CRTC)21Apr21 1.b) iii.

Bragg (CRTC) 21April-21-1.a. :

Refer to your response to question Bragg (CRTC) 21April-21-1.a. regarding your proposed reduced level of disaggregation with a reduced number of POIs:

Bragg (CRTC) 21April-21-1.b) iii.:

Refer to your response to question Bragg (CRTC) 21April-21-1.b) iii.:

Rogers(CRTC)21Apr21-1.b) iii.:

Refer to your response to question Rogers(CRTC)21Apr21-1.b) iii.:

Shaw(CRTC)21April21-101.b) ii.:

Refer to your response to question Shaw(CRTC)21April21-101.b) ii.:

TELUS(CRTC)21Apr21-1.b)ii. :

Refer to proposed reduced level of disaggregation in response to question TELUS(CRTC)21Apr21-1b)ii.:

TELUS(CRTC)21Apr21-1.b.iii. :

Refer to your response to question Telus(CRTC)21Apr21 1.b) iii.:

Québecor Média(CRTC)21avr2021-1 .b.iii. :

Refer to your response to question Québecor Média(CRTC)21avr2021-1 .b.iii :

Date modified: