Telcos and other parties at odds over proposed new disclosure rules

Incumbent and competitive telecom companies met with CRTC staff last to determine what corporate data should be filed under new reporting rules, and just how much of it should be put on the public record. As expected, competitors pushed to have incumbents bear the brunt of the disclosure requirements. Starting this year, the CRTC is expected to require all companies that fall under the Telecommunications Act – whether directly regulated or not – to submit data that will be used by the federal government to determine if Canada’s telecom market is competitive and technologically advanced (NL, March 26/01). Companies participating in the Telecom PN 2000-175 proceeding appear to generally support the need for better data collection. As usual, disagreements arose over the details. Call-Net Enterprises Inc is one company that has long been advocating a more open market. The telco says it supports the current review, but worries it may be too late for some competitors."Unfortunately, however, the financial indicators to which Call-Net and others pointed as evidence of the barriers facing new entrants have worsened considerably during this same period," the company writes this month in its submission. "Recent failures of CLECs and other new entrants during this past ‘nuclear telecom winter’ serve to emphasize and underline the magnitude and urgency of the challenges at hand." How the CRTC compiles the information it needs is the subject of lively debate among the interveners. Confidentiality is a prime concern for one of the major ILECs. "Telus submits that wherever possible, the commission should look to public source data for monitoring purposes," the BC-based telco states. "In the alternative, where data is provided to the commission in confidence, in compliance with its monitoring activities it is critical that confidentiality be protected. This objective can be achieved meaningfully through the publication of aggregated data by product and geographic market." On the other hand, AT&T Canada wants to open things up. If the process is to be credible, the CLEC argues, all data should be transparent and on the public record. "Every effort should be made to develop information forms that do not preclude public disclosure of the information," the company says. "As well, when assessing the need for confidentiality, the commission should place considerable emphasis on the public interest served by disclosure." ILECs want some data secret Telus raises several objections to some of the recommendations of a background report, which was prepared for the CRTC by Montreal’s Lemay-Yates Associates Inc. Among others, it rejects proposals that the quality of competitive offers be monitored, that the sources of telecom investment or the liquidity of investments be studied, or that customer satisfaction come under commission purview. Its fellow ILECs also want to restrict the amount of information going to the CRTC. A joint submission from Bell Canada, Aliant, Télébec, Manitoba Telecom Services and SaskTel raises the issues of confidentiality and suggests that too much data will be required. "It is not practical in terms of an annual industry review to perform the same extensive data collection exercise that might be associated with a forbearance application and review," the companies assert. "There is also a need to ensure that the commission gathers only the data that is essential to fairly and objectively monitor the marketplace, thereby not over-burdening the industry with unnecessary data and other information requests." One of the emerging CLECs is not so quick to endorse that view. GT Group Telecom says the mere presence of competitors does not necessarily equate to real competition. Real data are needed to make that determination, it notes. "This type of information should not be considered micro-management of the industry," the firm opines. "Local competition has not taken hold as expected. The commission’s decisions and policies need not necessarily be at a micro level but for a complete understanding of whether the intended outcomes are in fact unfolding as expected the commission needs to obtain information of sufficient detail to ensure expectations are being met." One of the country’s largest Internet service providers heartily endorses the idea of companies submitting information to the commission—as long as it’s other companies that are doing it. "AOL Canada believes there are several flaws in the LYA report which raise numerous concerns regarding the recommendation that ISPs report on the broad and detailed subjects recommended," the firm offers. The AOL submission reminds the CRTC that it has agreed to forgo regulating the Internet. It adds the commission has often found the ISP market to be competitive. Independent audit sought The Lemay-Yates report was supported by la Fédération des associations coopératives d’economie familiale du Québec (FACEF) and Action Réseau Consommateur. In their comments, the consumer groups call for a new mechanism to monitor the telecom industry. They also raise the idea of using independent auditors to verify the information in special circumstances. One of the most remote service areas offered its recommendations on what should be reported to the CRTC. The Government of the Northwest Territories presents five suggestions, including the development of a comprehensive list of basic and non-basic services and service elements for inclusion in reports and the monitoring of service availability at the community level and either the telco serving area or the provincial/territorial level. The territorial government suggests uniform monitoring of all telcos, and asks for service availability monitoring of Northwestel on a disaggregated community level.

Telcos and other parties at odds over proposed new disclosure rules

News | April 23, 2001

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us