Letter

Ottawa, 23 May 2000

BY TELECOPIER

To: Interested Parties

Re: Telecom Public Notice CRTC 99-6 (Public Notice 99-6) – Review of Contribution Collection Mechanism and Related Issues - Requests for Disclosure and for Further Responses to Interrogatories

This letter deals with requests for further responses to interrogatories and for disclosure of information filed under claim of confidence by a number of parties to the above-noted proceeding.

A separate letter dealing with O.N. Tel’s request that the Commission endorse the principle of including high-cost toll services within the new subsidy mechanism; and additional information to be provided by TELUS Communications Inc. and SaskTel Telecommunications (SaskTel) pursuant to their banding proposals to be filed in the Public Notice 2000-27 proceeding, was issued to parties on this same date.

Requests were filed by AT&T Canada Corp. and AT&T Canada Telecom Services Company (collectively, AT&T Canada), Bell Canada, Island Telecom Inc., Maritime Tel & Tel Limited, MTS Communications Inc., NBTel Inc. and NewTel Communications Inc. (collectively, the Companies), Call-Net Enterprises Inc. (Call-Net), SaskTel and TELUS Communications Inc. and TELUS Communications (B.C.) Inc. (collectively, TELUS).

Responses to requests were received from AT&T Canada, the Companies, Call-Net, Clearnet Communications Inc. (Clearnet), Cogeco Cable Canada Inc., Microcell Telecommunications Inc. (Microcell), Mobility Canada,

Primus Telecommunications Canada Inc. (Primus), Prince Rupert City Telephones, Rogers Wireless Inc. (RWI), RSL COM Canada Inc. (RSL COM), SaskTel, Télébec ltée, Telesat Canada, TELUS and Vidéotron Communications Inc. (Vidéotron).

Requests for public disclosure are addressed in Part I below and in Attachment 1 to this letter, while requests for further responses are addressed in Part II and Attachment 2.

This letter reflects the Commission’s objective of ensuring that all parties have the benefit of the maximum amount of information placed on the public record at the earliest appropriate stage, in order to facilitate a more efficient and effective proceeding.

Requests for disclosure of information for which confidentiality has been claimed are assessed in light of sections 38 and 39 of the Telecommunications Act and section 19 of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure (the Rules). In the case of each request, the public interest in disclosure is weighed against the specific direct harm, if any, likely to result from disclosure. In doing so, a number of factors are taken into account, including the following.

The degree of competition that exists in a particular market is an important consideration in assessing requests for disclosure. All things being equal, the greater the degree of competition in a particular market, the greater the specific harm that could be expected to result from disclosure.

Another factor in assessing the extent of harm is the expected usefulness of the information at issue to parties in furthering their competitive position. In this regard, an important consideration is the degree to which the

information at issue is disaggregated. Generally speaking, the more aggregated the information, the less the likelihood that harm will flow from its disclosure.

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.

Finally, the treatment of confidentiality requests should not be taken as an indication of the manner in which such matters would be dealt with in the future, in different circumstances.

Having regard to the considerations set out above, the information subject to a claim of confidence in the interrogatories listed in Attachment 1 is to be placed on the public record of this proceeding. In each case where full or partial disclosure is to occur, it is considered that the specific direct harm likely to be caused by disclosure would not outweigh the public interest in disclosure.

With regard to requests for further responses, the requirements of subsection 18(2) of the Rules apply. The general principles enunciated by the Commission in past proceedings include the following:

The major consideration is the relevance of the information requested to the matter at issue.

The availability of the information requested is also a factor, which is balanced against the relevance of the information. If the provision of the information sought would require an effort disproportionate to the probative value of the information itself, further responses will not be required.

Another factor considered is the extent to which an interrogatory answer is responsive to the interrogatory as it was originally asked.

Generally, parties are not required to provide further responses to requests for further information from a party that did not ask the original interrogatory.

Having regard to all of the above considerations, the parties in question are to provide further responses to the extent set out in Attachment 2 to this letter.

Yours sincerely,

Shirley Soehn
Executive Director - Telecommunications
(819) 997-4644

Attachments

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

AT&T Canada(CRTC)31Mar00-1302
RSLCOM(CRTC)31Mar00-1302

Provide on the public record the company’s 1998 switching and aggregation payments and, if available, broken down by province.

Microcell (total of Microcell Connexions and Microcell Solutions) and Primus are to provide on the public record their 1998 total operating revenue and, if available, broken down by province.

AT&T Canada and RSL COM are to provide on the public record their 1998 contribution eligible revenue and, if available, broken down by province.

Provide on the public record the company’s 1998 contribution payments, at a similar level of detail as provided in the responses to interrogatory Mobility Canada(CRTC)31Mar00-1301 d) and TMCI(CRTC)31Mar00-1301 d).

Provide a full and complete response to the interrogatory as posed by 30 June 2000. This date corresponds to that set out in a separate Commission letter that was issued this same date. It is expected that TELUS’ response to this interrogatory would be provided on the public record at the same level of detail as that provided by Bell et al in the response to interrogatory The Companies(AT&T Canada)31Mar00-109.

The Companies(CRTC)31Mar00-1201, Attachment 4

Provide on the public record the increases in accumulated depreciation, additions to the in-service base and retirements related to Outside Plant assets.

The Companies(CRTC)31Mar00-1201, Attachment 5

Provide all of page 5 on the public record.

For Attachment 3: For each company, for each of the years 1999 to 2002, provide on the public record the residence Network Access Services (NAS) market share loss expressed as a percentage of 1999 in-service residence primary exchange service NAS in Attachment 2 for each band.

For the year 1999, for each company, provide on the public record the single-line business market share loss expressed as a percentage loss of 1999 in-service single-line business primary exchange service NAS in Attachment 2 for each band.

For Attachment 4, page 2: For each company, for each of the years 1999 to 2002, provide on the public record the residential local optional services market share losses (revenues) expressed as a percentage of total 1999 residential local optional service revenues (sum of bands implied on page 1 of Attachment 4).

For Attachment 5, page 2: For each company, for each of the years 1999 to 2002, provide on the public record the unbundled loop NAS estimates by band expressed as a percentage of the 1999 total residence and single-line business primary exchange service NAS by band implied by Attachment 2 (noted above).

For each company, provide, by year on the public record, the sum of revenues associated with the major categories contained in each Attachment.

The Companies(CRTC)31Mar00-1208

Provide on the public record a full and complete response to the original interrogatory.

Provide, in confidence to the Commission, a full and complete response to the interrogatory as posed.

Provide on the public record the company’s contribution-eligible (per Call-Net’s proposed criteria; excluding resold NAS) total year-end NAS counts for 1999.

Provide the requested letter on the public record.

Provide on the public record the company’s 1999 count of contribution eligible line-side connections.

Provide a full and complete response to the interrogatory as posed by 30 June 2000. This date corresponds to that set out in a separate Commission letter that was issued this same date. It is expected that TELUS’ response to this interrogatory would be provided on the public record at the same level of detail as that provided by Bell et al in the response to interrogatory The Companies(CRTC)31Mar00-1204 and as set out in this letter.

Comments about our site

Today's Releases | File, Register and Epass | Decisions, Notices & Orders | Home | CISC | Industries at a Glance | Reference Centre | Canadian Content | Public Proceedings| Statutes & Regulations