In reply to the request, MEO, by letter dated 10.04.2014, and partly accepting the arguments put forward by ANACOM, “declassified” a set of information and submitted non-confidential versions of letters dated 01.07.2013 and 11.11.2013, in which a set of elements (which were removed) remained as confidential, substantiating, in its opinion, the maintenance of that classification with detail and by reference to specific elements of the information.
As regards the information which remained classified as confidential, MEO generally supported that “the respective disclosure [could] represent the violation of PTC’s rights and interests protected by the Constitution and by the law, without there being any evidence or demonstration of the existence of other more serious interests that could take precedence over the legal position” of the company.
As regards the legal framework invoked by ANACOM - namely the exercise of the right to submit preliminary comments, as well as the right to obtain a copy of documents included in proceedings and to consult the file that does not contain classified documents or that reveal commercial or industrial secrets on literary, artistic or scientific property - MEO declared that “the specific public interests aimed to be safeguarded with the disclosure of some of the technical information under consideration have not yet been demonstrated, and, more importantly, it remains to be proven how the disclosure of this specific technical information meets any possible right of stakeholders with alleged interests in the said information”.
Invoking the existence of frequently negative information on DTT, MEO supported that it was legitimate to expect that the disclosure of the full information at stake caused some disruption as to the way how DTT is regarded, without any benefits arising necessarily from such disclosure.
In brief, MEO maintained confidentiality as regards:
(i) In the letter dated 01.07.2013:
a) Certain elements concerning Point A (“Coverage”) and Part A of Annex 1 (“Assumptions of theoretical coverage calculations”);
b) Annex 2 (“Shapefile”); and
c) Annex 3 (“List of parishes in the Mainland, with estimates of rates of population with DTT or DTH coverage”).
(ii) In MEO’s letter of 11.11.2013:
d) Certain elements of point 1.2 (“Detailed information on population effectively covered by DTT”);
e) Annex 1 (“Comparison of results presented by MEO and ANACOM”);
f) Annex 2 (“Population distribution in MEO’s tool on parishes listed in point 1.2.III of ANACOM’s letter of 25.10.2013”); and
g) The Shapefile attached to the letter.
Resuming, MEO, in particular, as regards the Shapefile (points b) and g) above), supported that as it corresponded to the map coverage image disclosed in the website (that is, the DTT website - http://tdt.telecom.pt https://tdt.telecom.pt/), any user of the website would be able to consult the image, but not to save it; it added that the “the reproduction of the shapefile by a body other than PTC or ICP-ANACOM, would collide with intellectual property rights that deserve legal protection; for this reason, the company does not allow the respective reproduction”.
As regards estimates of rates of covered population by parish and information related thereto (points c), d), e) and f) above), MEO considered that this information is confidential as it concerns “extraction of information, by using techniques, methods and information processed by PTC, all of which is protected as far as intellectual property rights are concerned. Moreover, the respective calculation options are based on elements that concern the organization of activities and the company’s internal life, and for this reason they are deemed to be PTC’s commercial and business secrets.”
In conclusion, as regards these two situations, MEO declares that “the company finds no legally protected right or interest prevailing over the classification of confidentiality that was made”.
