ARCHIVED -  Telecom Costs Order CRTC 98-11

Telecom Costs Order

Ottawa, 24 April 1998

Telecom Costs Order CRTC 98-11

In re: Local Pay Telephone Competition, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 97-26

Reference: 8650-C12-01/97

Application for Costs by the Consumers' Association of Canada (CAC).

1. POSITION OF PARTIES

2. By letter dated 6 October 1997, CAC applied for costs in relation to this proceeding. CAC submitted that it made every effort to minimize its costs, and that it contributed to a better understanding of the issues by the Commission, among other things, reviewing the American experience with payphone competition, and describing the necessary requirements to ensure that consumers benefit from competitive pay telephone service.

3. In its answer, dated 16 October 1997, Stentor Resource Centre Inc. (Stentor) stated that it has no comments on CAC's application. With respect to the appropriate respondents to any costs awarded, Stentor submitted that costs should be apportioned equally among current providers of local pay telephone service as well as those interveners who are potential competitive providers of local pay telephone service.

4. In its answer, filed on 9 February 1998, Canada Payphone Corporation (CPC) noted that it does not object to helping defray the costs of those interveners who have applied for costs in this proceeding, but asked that when apportioning costs, the Commission take into account the fact that the payphone market has not yet been opened to competition, and parties such as CPC have not yet had an opportunity to commence generating payphone revenues.

5. In its answer, dated 17 February 1998, Queen's University (Queen's) submitted that it should not be made a respondent to costs on the basis that it is not a commercial business, it is experiencing increasing pressure on its own funding, and it would be inappropriate for the Commission to order one publicly funded institution to pay a portion of the costs of other publicly funded organizations. The Commission notes that Queen's has also filed an application for costs in this proceeding.

6. COMMISSION DETERMINATION

7. The Commission is of the view that CAC has a sufficient interest in the proceeding, has participated responsibly, and has contributed to a better understanding of the issues under consideration. Accordingly, the Commission considers that CAC has met the criteria for an award of costs set out in subsection 44(1) of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure (the Rules) and should be awarded costs for its participation in this proceeding.

8. With respect to the appropriate respondents to costs, the Commission is of the view that consistent with recent Costs Orders, those parties that have both an interest in the outcome of the proceeding and who have participated actively should be named as respondents. Applying this analysis, the Commission considers that the telephone companies made party to this proceeding (through Stentor) should be named as respondents as they have participated actively, and currently enjoy a monopoly on the provision of local pay telephone service.

9. The Commission also considers that AT&T Canada Long Distance Services Company (AT&T Canada LDS) and Call-Net Enterprises Inc. (Call-Net) should be named as respondents since each has participated actively, and as interexchange carriers, each has an interest in the outcome of the proceeding. The Commission notes, in this regard, that both companies expressed concerns that equal access to their respective long distance networks must be made available from competitors' payphones. Finally, the Commission considers that CPC should be named as a respondent to costs as it has participated actively and has an interest in the outcome of the proceeding as evidenced by its intention to provide competitive local pay telephone service.

10. While Queen's has participated actively in this proceeding, it is not a commercial entity. In the circumstances of this case, the Commission is of the view that it should not be named as a respondent.

11. With respect to the quantum of costs to be assessed to each respondent, the Commission is of the view that the Stentor members made parties to this proceeding, as incumbent providers of payphone service, should be responsible for 85% of the costs, and that Call-Net, AT&T Canada LDS and CPC each should be responsible for 5%.

12. DIRECTION AS TO COSTS

13. CAC's application for an award of costs in respect of this proceeding is approved.

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

15. Costs awarded herein shall be paid to CAC by Stentor, AT&T Canada LDS, Call-Net and CPC in the proportions set out above forthwith upon issuance of the Taxation Order.

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

17. CAC shall, within 30 days of this Order, submit a Bill of Costs and an Affidavit of disbursements directly to the Taxing Officer, serving a copy on the respondents.

18. The respondents may, within two weeks of receiving those documents, file comments directly with the Taxing Officer with respect to the costs claimed, serving a copy on CAC.

19. CAC may, within two weeks of receiving any such comments, file a reply directly with the Taxing Officer, serving a copy on the respondents.

20. Documents to be filed or served must be actually received, not merely sent, by the dates indicated.

Laura M. Talbot-Allan
Secretary General

This document is available in alternative format upon request.

COS98-11_0