ARCHIVED - Telecom Costs Order CRTC 2002-9

Telecom Costs Order CRTC 2002-9

Ottawa, 21 June 2002

Action Réseau Consommateur, the Consumers' Association of Canada, Fédération des associations coopératives d'économie familiale du Québec, and the National Anti-Poverty Organization application for costs - Public Notice CRTC 2000-124

Reference: 8644-C12-03/00 and 4754-189

Background

1.

By letter dated 13 December 2001, Action Réseau Consommateur (ARC), the Consumers' Association of Canada, Fédération des associations coopératives d'économie familiale du Québec, and the National Anti-Poverty Organization (ARC et al.), applied for costs with respect to their participation in the proceeding initiated by Seeking public input on access to multi-dwelling units, in-building wiring and riser space, Public Notice CRTC 2000-124, 25 August 2000 (the PN 2000-124 proceeding).

Position of the parties

2.

ARC et al. submitted that they had met the criteria for an award of costs set out in section 44(1) of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure (the Rules).

3.

In their application dated 13 December 2001, ARC et al. noted that they had previously applied for costs in respect of the PN 2000-124 proceeding by letter dated 28 March 2001, following the first phase of the PN 2000-124 proceeding, and before the initiation of the second phase of this proceeding in Seeking public input on access to multi-dwelling units, in-building wiring and riser space, Public Notice CRTC 2000-124-2, 15 October 2001 (PN 2000-124-2). As a result of the initiation of the second phase of the PN 2000-124 proceeding, ARC et al. combined their application for costs for the first phase of the PN 2000-124 proceeding with the present application.

4.

ARC et al. requested that the Commission fix their costs at $13,946.93. ARC et al. included a bill of costs with their application.

5.

By letter dated 21 December 2001, Bell Canada, on behalf of itself, Aliant Telecom Inc., MTS Communications Inc., and Saskatchewan Telecommunications (collectively, the Companies) stated that, while they did not object to ARC et al.'s entitlement to costs, they did object to the amount sought, given what they perceived to be the brief and general nature of ARC et al.'s participation in the proceeding.

6.

In the Companies' opinion, ARC et al.'s submissions were quite general in nature and contained little analytical rigor that would further the Commission's understanding of the issues.

7.

The Companies argued that in their view, ARC et al.'s participation in the PN 2000-124 proceeding was limited to short comments and interrogatories of a general nature. The Companies noted that ARC et al. submitted a total of seven interrogatories and 12 pages of comments spread across three submissions.

8.

The Companies objected in particular to the claim by ARC et al. for $9,971.32 in consultant fees. The Companies noted that this claim represented 54.5 hours of consultant time, and that this time was in addition to the 20.1 hours claimed by ARC et al.'s legal counsel, and the 1.5 days claimed by their analyst.

9.

The Companies stated that the amount of time claimed was entirely out of proportion with the time that should reasonably have been claimed based upon the submissions of ARC et al. in the PN 2000-124 proceeding.

10.

The Companies submitted that the appropriate respondents to the application for costs by ARC et al. should be all telecommunications service providers (TSPs) that participated in the PN 2000-124 proceeding.

11.

The Commission did not receive comments from any other party to the PN 2000-124 proceeding.

Reply comments

12.

In their reply comments, dated 3 April 2002, ARC et al. submitted that its submissions in the PN 2000-124 proceeding directly responded to the Commission's request for input on issues as to how possible fees, charges, and other terms and conditions related to access to multi-dwelling units (MDUs), in-building wiring and riser space should be regulated.

13.

ARC et al. asserted that they discussed and offered an independent view on a number of critical issues, including the nature and scope of the Commission's jurisdiction, access rights, access fees and access agreements.

14.

ARC et al. claimed that in their submissions in the second phase of the proceeding, they specifically addressed the issues raised in PN 2000-124-2 and presented their views, with supporting rationale.

15.

ARC et al. noted that their views were formed after due consideration of the issues, submissions and arguments of other parties, as well as after significant discussion among ARC et al. group members and legal counsel.

16.

ARC et al. submitted that, in their view, the time spent by their legal counsel and their consultant to review the record, summarize issues, and consult with constituent members of ARC et al. was necessary for it to participate in the PN 2000-124 proceeding in a meaningful manner.

17.

ARC et al. submitted that the amount claimed for consulting fees was reasonable, given the number of parties involved in the proceeding, the divergent views that emerged on a number of critical issues, and the volume of submissions, interrogatory responses and comments that needed to be considered.

Commission determinations

18.

The Commission finds that ARC et al. is representative of a class of subscribers - residential subscribers living in MDUs - that has an interest in the outcome of the PN 2000-124 proceeding.

19.

The Commission also finds that ARC et al. participated in the proceeding in a responsible manner.

20.

The Commission has considered the arguments filed by the Companies with respect to whether ARC et al.'s submissions furthered the Commission's understanding of issues.

21.

The Commission finds that ARC et al.'s interrogatories and arguments served to bring the perspective of residential subscribers in MDUs to light. The Commission notes that this perspective was particularly useful as the majority of other parties in the proceeding were more concerned with issues relating to business subscribers in MDUs.

22.

With respect to the amount of time claimed for ARC et al.'s consultant, the Commission finds that, given the size and complexity of the record of this proceeding, the amount of time claimed is reasonable.

23.

In determining the appropriate respondents to an award of costs, the Commission has generally looked at which parties are affected by the issues and have actively participated in the proceeding. However, the Commission has also considered the potential administrative burden on applicants if they were required to collect small amounts from many respondents.

24.

While all TSPs have an interest in the Commission's decision, the Commission finds that the appropriate respondents to ARC et al.'s application are the Companies, TELUS Communications Inc. (TCI), AT&T Canada Corp. (AT&T Canada), Call-Net Enterprises Inc. (Call-Net) and GT Group Telecom Services Corp. (Group Telecom).

Directions as to costs

25.

The Commission approves ARC et al.'s application for costs in this proceeding.

26.

The Commission fixes ARC et al.'s costs at $13,946.93.

27.

The Commission notes that it has often divided responsibility for a cost award among respondents based on telecommunications revenues from the previous year. However, the Commission has also deviated from this approach to make collection of an award easier for applicants or to reflect situations where issues may be of greater importance to certain respondents. In the Commission's view, in this case, dividing responsibility strictly based on telecommunications revenues would result in ARC et al. expending resources to collect insignificant amounts from AT&T Canada, Call-Net and Group Telecom. In addition, the Commission notes that the outcome of the PN 2000-124 proceeding is of particular significance to AT&T Canada, Call-Net and Group Telecom, and that the Companies and TCI already have access to MDUs in their home territories due to their position as the incumbent carrier.

28.

For the reasons set out above, the Commission directs that the award of costs to ARC et al. shall be paid by the named respondents in the following proportions:

Bell Canada (on behalf of the Companies)

50%

TCI

20%

Group Telecom

10%

AT&T Canada

10%

Call-Net

10%

29.

Consistent with its general approach, articulated in Action Réseau Consommateur, the Consumers' Association of Canada, Fédération des associations coopératives d'économie familiale and the National Anti-Poverty Organization application for costs - Public Notice CRTC 2001-60, Telecom Costs Order CRTC 2002-4, 24 April 2002, the Commission makes Bell Canada responsible for payment on behalf of the Companies.

30.

The costs awarded herein are payable forthwith by the named respondents.

Secretary General

This document is available in alternative format upon request and may also be examined at the following Internet site: http://www.crtc.gc.ca