ARCHIVED -  Telecom Costs Order CRTC 97-14

Telecom Costs Order

Ottawa, 23 June 1997

Telecom Costs Order CRTC 97-14

In re: Local Number Portability and Related Issues - Telecom Public Notices CRTC 95-37 and 95-48

Reference: 4754-104

1. Application for costs by the Consumers' Association of Canada/Fédération nationale des associations de consommateurs du Québec/National Anti-Poverty Organization (CAC et al.).

2. By letter dated 7 February 1997, CAC et al. applied for its costs in respect of these two proceedings. Comments on CAC et al.'s application were received from Stentor Resource Centre Inc. (Stentor) on 18 February 1997, from the National Broadcast Reading Service (NBRS) on 20 February 1997, and from the Canadian Cable Television Association (CCTA) on 10 March 1997. CAC et al. filed a reply on 26 February 1997.

Positions of Parties

3. Stentor submitted that CAC et al.'s application should be denied on the basis that its participation did not contribute to a better understanding of the issues. Stentor stated in this regard that "CAC et al. (through their consultant) only attended industry meetings in the very early stages of the proceeding and, even then, only on a very occasional basis". Stentor also noted that while CAC et al. chose to limit its participation in part to issues in relation to the recovery of local number portability costs, it did not file comments in response to the Commission's letter of 25 October 1996 which invited parties to file submissions on the appropriate method to recover carrier-specific costs. Stentor also noted that CAC et al.'s written participation was limited to the filing of five pages of reply comments in which "no new evidence, ideas or proposals were presented . . ."

4. In its reply, CAC et al. submitted that it should not be penalized for restricting the scope of its participation. CAC et al. submitted that by limiting its participation, it minimized costs while maintaining its ability to contribute to the process on certain key issues. With respect to Stentor's submissions that it had attended only a few meetings, CAC et al. provided a list of the meetings its consultant attended (16 in all), and noted that its consultant attended "all meetings at which issues of concern to CAC et al. were likely to be addressed." CAC et al. noted that its consultant participated regularly until May 1996 when it was determined that it was neither appropriate nor responsible for him to continue doing so.

5. In response to Stentor's comment that it had not filed comments in response to the Commission's 25 October 1996 letter, CAC et al. noted that it had not done so deliberately, as the issues raised in the letter were inter-carrier matters, and its input was not necessary. CAC et al. noted, however, that it filed a reply submission to address the end-user issues raised by parties in their comments.

6. With respect to Stentor's comments about its reply submission, CAC et al. submitted that reply comments are not the place for new evidence or proposals, and that its comments were relevant and focused. CAC et al. submitted that its comments contributed to the process by clearly setting out the views of residential consumers on certain key issues.

7. With respect to who should be responsible for any costs awarded, CAC et al. submitted that all participating companies should be named as respondents, and that costs should be apportioned among them in the same manner as was used in Telecom Costs Order CRTC 96-15 (Costs Order 96-15), 16 August 1996. In Costs Order 96-15, the Commission concluded that it would be appropriate to deviate from its usual practice of apportioning costs according to revenues from telecommunications activities. The Commission allocated 75% of the costs to Stentor, and split the remaining costs among the other existing and potential providers of local services who participated significantly in the proceeding. CCTA was made responsible for a larger share of costs on the basis of i) its particularly strong interest in the outcome of the proceeding, and ii) the fact that it represented a number of potential competitive providers of local service.

8. Stentor submitted that if the Commission awards costs to CAC et al., costs should be apportioned equally among all parties to the proceeding. In support of its position, Stentor noted that competitors, and not Stentor, had initiated requests for local number portability, and that these parties have a strong interest in the outcome of the proceeding. Stentor also noted that it has incurred a disproportionate share of the costs to research and propose acceptable local number portability solutions.

9. NBRS disagreed with Stentor's submission that interested parties should pay a portion of CAC et al.'s costs. CCTA submitted that all participating companies should be named as respondents to CAC et al.'s application for costs, and that costs should be shared on a basis similar to that set out in Costs Order 96-15.

Commission Determinations

10. While CAC et al. did not participate in all meetings of the various working groups, the Commission considers that its participation in the meetings which it did attend has contributed to a better understanding of the issues by the Commission. CAC et al.'s consultant, Mr. Robert Chouinard, participated in the discussions on wire centre boundaries and cost recovery, and offered information on the experience with local number portability in Illinois. While brief, CAC et al.'s written submissions addressed the issues in question from a consumer perspective, and in the Commission's view, also contributed to a better understanding of the issues by the Commission. In the circumstances, the Commission is of the view that CAC et al.'s participation meets the requirements of section 56 of the Telecommunications Act and the criteria set out in subsection 44(1) of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure (the Rules) for an award of costs.

11. With respect to the appropriate respondents to CAC et al.'s application for costs, the Commission is of the view that a similar approach to that taken in Costs Order 96-15 is appropriate in this case.

12. Both existing and potential competitive providers of local service have a significant interest in the outcome of this proceeding. The Commission is of the view that these parties should be made respondents to CAC et al.'s application if they have actively participated in this proceeding.

13. Currently, and for the foreseeable future, the Stentor member companies serve the overwhelming majority of customers who will benefit from local number portability. Accordingly, the Commission considers that Stentor should be allocated a 70% share of the costs awarded to CAC et al., with the other respondents sharing the remaining costs more or less equally. As in Costs Order 96-15, the Commission is of the view that CCTA should be made responsible for a higher percentage of the costs due to its strong interest in the outcome of the proceeding as evidenced by its high level of participation, and in light of the fact that it is a national organization representing a number of potential competitive providers of local service.

DIRECTION AS TO COSTS

14. The application of CAC et al. for an award of costs in respect of this proceeding is hereby approved.

15. Consistent with the reasons set out above, the Commission considers that costs awarded herein should be paid to CAC et al. by the following respondents, in the proportions indicated:

Stentor 70.0%

ACC TelEnterprises 2.0%

AIReach Integrated Network Inc. 2.0%

AT&T Canada Long Distance
Services Company 2.0%

CCTA 6.0%

Canadian Wireless
Telecommunications Association 2.0%

Clearnet Communications Ltd. 2.0%

MetroNet Communications Corp. 2.0%

Microcell Telecommunications Inc. 2.0%

Mobility Canada 2.0%

Rogers Cantel Inc. 2.0%

Rogers Communications Inc. 2.0%

Sprint Canada Inc. 2.0%

TelcoPlus Services Inc. 2.0%

100.0%

16. Costs awarded herein shall be subject to taxation in accordance with the Rules.

17. Costs awarded herein shall be taxed by Geoff Batstone.

18. CAC et al. shall, within 30 days of the issue of this Order, submit a Bill of Costs and an Affidavit of Disbursements directly to the Taxing Officer, serving a copy on the respondents.

19. The respondents may, within two weeks of receipt of these documents, file comments with the Taxing Officer with respect to the costs claimed, serving a copy on CAC et al.

20. CAC et al. may, within two weeks of receiving any comments by the respondents, file a reply to the respondents' comments directly with the Taxing Officer, serving a copy thereof on the respondents.

21. All documents to be filed or served pursuant to this Order must be actually received, and not merely sent, by the dates indicated herein.

Laura M. Talbot-Allan
Secretary General

This document is available in alternative format upon request.

COS97-14_0