Telecom - Staff letter addressed to the various parties interested in the Part 1 Application of CIK Telecom Inc. filed under No. 8622-C143-202209262
Ottawa, 4 May 2023
Our reference: 8622-C143-202209262
BY EMAIL
Kathrine Uppal
Counsel for BCS 3157
Bleay Both Uppal LLP
1700 – 1185 W. Georgia Street
Vancouver, BC V6E 4E6
kuppal@bbulaw.ca
Jordan Deng
Chief Executive Officer
CIK Telecom Inc.
jordan.d@ciktel.com
Tacit Law, counsel for CIK Telecom
P.O. Box 24210 RPO Hazeldean
Kanata, Ontario
K2M 2C3 Canada
regulatory@tacitlaw.com
Subject: Request by CIK Telecom Inc. concerning confidentiality issues regarding BCS 3157’s response to Part 1 Application of CIK Telecom Inc. filed under No. 8622-C143-202209262
Dear recipients:
This letter addresses a request for the removal and replacement with an abridged version of BCS 3157’s response dated 31 March 2023 which is alleged to contain certain information designated as confidential by CIK Telecom Inc. (CIK) as part of a Part 1 proceeding initiated by CIK (File No.8622-C143-202209262).
On 14 April 2023, the Commission received CIK’s reply in the above noted file, which contains a procedural request that seeks “that the Commission immediately remove the Answer from the public record and direct BCS 3157 to re-file proper confidential and abridged versions of the Answer’’. CIK submitted that the content of BCS 3157’s response relate, in part, to issues of ongoing commercial negotiations to reach a mutually acceptable access agreement to BCS 3157’s MDU’s and are sensitive commercial and/or technical information that is confidential, consistent with subparagraph 39(1)(c)(iii) of the Telecommunications Act (the Act). Further, CIK noted that it has been severely prejudiced by the disclosure of that information, which could
reasonably be expected to affect the contractual or other negotiations of CIK that will take place in the future.
Analysis and Commission staff determinations
Commission staff notes that the information contained in BCS3157’s response relates to the ongoing commercial negotiations between CIK and BCS 3157, which may be designated as confidential pursuant to paragraph 39(1)(b) of the Act. Consistent with subparagraph 39(1)(c)(iii) of the Act, Commission staff considers that the public disclosure of information relating to the details of a commercial bilateral negotiation could result in specific harm to CIK, given the highly competitive nature of telecommunications service delivery in MDUs.
Specifically, the section of the response identified as confidential by CIK relates to the negotiation of terms and conditions in a commercial agreement, including fees. Commission staff believes that public disclosure of these ongoing commercial negotiations could reasonably be expected to affect CIK’s future negotiations with other parties by divulging negotiation details, operational requirements or other traditionally confidential business information, thereby affecting CIK’s ability to compete effectively in the delivery of telecommunications services.
In addition to the harm that the disclosure may pose to CIK, Commission staff also believes that it has limited benefits to the public. As per requirements found in paragraph 175 of Telecom Decision 2003-45, telecommunications service providers (TSPs) have an obligation to make MDU access agreements publicly available, reducing the benefits of disclosing information regarding the terms being negotiated between CIK and BCS 3157. Any final access agreement that may result from the negotiations between CIK and BCS 3157 would be disclosed to the public on CIK’s website, which, in Commissions staff’s view, will adequately inform the public of the terms of the agreement.
In light of the above, Commission staff considers that the public interest in disclosure is outweighed by the likelihood of specific direct harm. As such, BCS 3157’s response has been removed from the public record. Staff therefore requests that BCS 3157 file an abridged version of their 31 March response forthwith, which excludes all details of their ongoing commercial negotiations with CIK. Staff would like to remind BCS 3157 that the information contained in the confidential version of their response will remain on the record of this proceeding that will be adjudicated by the Commission.
Please note that the abridged version (section 32(2) of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure) of a document must omit only that information which is designated confidential. Information that is not itself inherently sensitive, such as tables of contents, headings and sentences that do not themselves contain information designated confidential, should not be omitted from the document. The abridged version should not be edited in a manner that makes it difficult or impossible to determine the places where, and the extent to which, information has been omitted. Documents should not be reformatted; for example, where text is removed, the space occupied by the omitted material should be left blank. Also, it is helpful when the symbol “#” is inserted where abridged information has been omitted.
BSC 3157 is also welcome to provide a detailed rationale if they believe that the information related to the details of their ongoing commercial negotiations with CIK should be made available to the public.
Further information regarding the general procedures and the factors considered may be found 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.
Yours sincerely,
Original signed by
Michel Murray
Director, Dispute Resolution and Regulatory Implementation
Telecommunications Sector
c.c.: Rebecca Matar, CRTC, (rebecca.matar@crtc.gc.ca)
- Date modified: