ARCHIVED -  Telecom Costs Order CRTC 98-9

Telecom Costs Order

Ottawa, 24 April 1998

Telecom Costs Order CRTC 98-9

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

1. Reference: 8650-C12-01/97

2. Application for Costs by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC).

3. POSITIONS OF PARTIES

4. By letter dated 11 September 1997, PIAC applied for costs in relation to this proceeding. PIAC submitted that its participation was responsible, and should assist the Commission in determining the issues before it.

5. In its answer, dated 22 September 1997, Stentor Resource Centre Inc. (Stentor) objected to only one aspect of PIAC's application, stating that PIAC should not receive costs incurred in relation to its submission of a table which Stentor contends is inaccurate. In its reply to Stentor's submission dated 6 November 1997, PIAC indicated that it would not be claiming costs in respect of the table referred to by Stentor, and requested that the table be deleted from its submission.

6. In a letter dated 26 September 1997, AT&T Canada Long Distance Services Company (AT&T Canada LDS) expressed its support for PIAC's application.

7. In its answer, filed on 9 February 1998, Canada Payphone Corporation (CPC) questioned the usefulness of the evidence of Dr. Mark Cooper, filed by PIAC in this proceeding. CPC noted that Dr. Cooper's evidence dealt primarily with the need for consumer safeguards as evidenced by past experience of abuse in the United States. CPC argued that this issue was never seriously contemplated in this proceeding as no party questioned the need for consumer safeguards.

8. In its reply to CPC's submission, dated 13 February 1998, PIAC noted that Dr. Cooper's evidence was referred to by B.C. Old Age Pensioners' Organization et al., Consumers' Association of Canada, Stentor and Call-Net Enterprises Inc. (Call-Net) in their respective submissions in this proceeding. PIAC submitted that Dr. Cooper's evidence was not confined to the generic issue of consumer safeguards, but also to the necessity of specific safeguards, and contributed to a better understanding of the issues by the Commission.

9. With respect to the appropriate respondents to any award of costs, in its answer to PIAC's application, Stentor submitted that costs should be apportioned equally among current providers of local pay telephone service as well as those interveners who are prospective competitive providers of local pay telephone service. AT&T Canada LDS submitted that any costs awarded should be recovered from the telephone companies which currently offer local pay telephone service, as well as those parties who have expressed an interest in offering competitive local pay telephone service. CPC did not object to helping defray any costs awarded, 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.

10. In a letter dated 12 February 1998, Queen's University (Queen's) submitted that it should not be made a respondent to costs. Queen's noted that it is not a commercial business and is experiencing increasing pressure on its own funding, and that 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. Queen's also submitted that it should not have to pay costs simply because it chose to participate actively in the proceeding. The Commission notes that Queen's has filed an application for costs in this proceeding.

11. COMMISSION DETERMINATION

12. The Commission is of the view that PIAC has a sufficient interest in the proceeding, has participated responsibly, and has contributed to a better understanding of the issues under consideration. With respect to CPC's objection, the Commission notes that in his evidence, Dr. Cooper responded to the issues set out in PN 97-26, discussing these issues in light of the American experience with payphone competition. While his evidence does address the need for consumer safeguards, the Commission is of the view that it also addresses the appropriate safeguards to be imposed. The Commission is of the view that Dr. Cooper's evidence is relevant to the issues under consideration, and has contributed to a better understanding by the Commission.

13. In these circumstances, the Commission considers that PIAC 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, including those associated with Dr. Cooper's evidence.

14. 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.

15. The Commission also considers that AT&T Canada LDS and 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.

16. 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.

17. 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 the 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%.

18. DIRECTION AS TO COSTS

19. The application of PIAC for an award of costs in respect of this proceeding is approved.

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

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

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

23. PIAC 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.

24. 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 PIAC.

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

26. 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.

COS98-9_0