Letter

Our file: 8623-C12 - 06/05

Ottawa, 12 July 2006

To: Companies on the attached distribution list

Re: Show cause – Publishing of certain information filed in confidence

In a letter dated 17 May 2006, the companies that provided data in confidence as part of the Commission’s 2006 data collection process, were requested to show cause why the Commission should not publish certain information in its 2006 Monitoring Report on the Canadian telecommunications industry.

In order to streamline the process leading to the publication of the Monitoring Report,

parties were advised that the Commission would proceed with the publication of information on an aggregated basis in the same format as in previous reports, unless they could demonstrate exceptional circumstances with respect to specific direct harm that would justify a departure from previous determinations. In addition, the companies were requested to comment on the release of the following information:

1. Percentage of the number of subscribers that subscribe to service bundles that have two or more services as submitted on Form 296 – Bundled Residential Telecommunications Services of the Commission’s data collection process.

2. Percentage of the number of households by province that have access to one wireless service provider, two wireless service providers and three or more wireless service providers.

Responses were received from Bell Canada on behalf of itself, Bell Mobility Inc., NorthernTel, Limited Partnership, and Télébec, société en commandite (collectively Bell et al); MTS Allstream Inc.; Saskatchewan Telecommunications on behalf of itself and Navigata Communications Inc. (collectively SaskTel et al); Aliant Telecom Inc. on behalf of itself and MTT Mobility Inc. (collectively Aliant et al).

Position of the parties

No objections were raised with respect to the publication of information on an aggregated basis in the same format as in previous reports.

With respect to the release of the percentage of the number of subscribers that subscribe to service bundles, Bell et al suggested that this information should only be disclosed on a national aggregate basis or on a relative growth basis. Regarding the release of the percentage of households by province that have access to one, two, three or more wireless providers, Bell et al considered that the published information should include all wireless telecommunications service providers (TSPs).

Aliant et al objected to the release of the number of customers subscribing to service bundles on the basis that this would cause it significant competitive harm, given the state of competition in its territory. Aliant et al was of the view that even if the information was published in an aggregated form by service provider or by region, competitors might have sufficient information to estimate service provider specific information. Aliant et al did not object to the release of information relating to the percentage growth or decline in the number of customers subscribing to service bundles, but urged the Commission not to overlook the importance of alternate wireless service providers.

MTS Allstream Inc. had no objections to the Commission publishing the information, provided that it was released on the public record in a manner that prevented parties from identifying specific service providers.

SaskTel et al objected to the release of the number of customers subscribing to service bundles. In this regard, SaskTel et al was of the view that release of this information would cause significant competitive harm given the state of competition in the Saskatchewan territory. They were also of the view that even if the information was released on an aggregated basis, it could provide competitors with sufficient information to identify service provider specific information. SaskTel et al had no objections to the Commission releasing information with respect to the percentage of the number of households that have access to multiple wireless service providers by province.

Analysis

Disclosure of information for which confidentiality has been claimed is assessed in light of sections 38 and 39 of the Telecommunications Act (the Act) and section 19 of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure (the Rules).

The expectation that specific direct harm might result from disclosure is not, by itself, sufficient to justify maintaining a claim of confidentiality. In certain circumstances, substantial harm from disclosure may still be outweighed by the public interest in disclosure.

There is significant public interest in the disclosure of information concerning the status of competition in Canadian telecommunications markets and the deployment of advanced telecommunications infrastructure and services. The objectives of the Act as set out in section 7 include: "to foster increased reliance on market forces for the provision of telecommunications services and to ensure that regulation, where required, is efficient and effective"; " to render reliable and affordable telecommunications services of high quality accessible to Canadians in both urban and rural areas in all regions of Canada"; and "to respond to the economic and social requirements of users of telecommunications services".

The monitoring reports have become an invaluable source of information on the Canadian telecommunications industry and provide the Commission and stakeholders with an efficient and effective tool to assess the extent to which the Commission’s regulatory frameworks and determinations are fulfilling the Canadian telecommunications policy objectives set out in section 7 of the Act. Open and transparent regulatory processes best serve the public interest, and the information published in the reports assists interested parties in participating in regulatory proceedings.

It is noted that none of the parties raised any objections to the disclosure of information in the same format as in previous monitoring reports. Parties agreed to the release of data to the extent that the information is presented on a sufficiently aggregated basis.

With respect to the objections raised by the parties concerning the release of the number of customers subscribing to service bundles, it is considered that aggregating this information at a national industry level alleviates any concerns with respect to the harm, if any that may be caused by the release of such information.

With respect to the suggestion that published information concerning the percentage of the number of households by province having access to one or more wireless service providers should include all wireless TSPs, it is noted that such information will not have been fully validated in time for the publication of the 2006 Monitoring Report. Accordingly, information with respect to the percentage of the number of households by province that have access to one wireless service provider, two wireless service providers and three or more wireless service providers will not be released at this time.

Conclusion

Having carefully considered the parties’ submissions, it is hereby determined that the public interest in disclosing the information on an aggregated basis in the same format as in previous reports and the percentage of the number of subscribers that subscribe to service bundles that have two or more services outweighs any specific direct harm that may result from such disclosure. In light of the above, such information will be released in the 2006 Monitoring Report.

As the parties have been given the opportunity to show cause why the Commission should not publish information in the same manner as in previous reports as well as information regarding subscriber subscription to service bundles, and given the above determination, parties are hereby advised that such information will not be part of future show cause processes, unless the Commission was to propose to release information at different levels of aggregation or in different formats.

Yours sincerely,

Len Katz

c.c.: Steve Malowany, CRTC, (819) 953-2167

Distribution List:

Aliant Telecom Inc.
Bell Canada
Bell Mobility
Bragg Communications Incorporated
Cogeco Cable Canada inc.
Futureway Communications Inc.
MTS Allsream Inc.
Navigata Communications Inc.
Northern Telephone Limited
Primus Telecommunications Canada
Rogers Cable Inc.
Rogers Wireless
Saskatchewan Telecommunications
Shaw Telecom Inc.
Teleglobe Canada ULC
TELUS Corporation Inc.
Vidéotron Télécom Ltée