ARCHIVED - Telecom Costs Order CRTC 2003-5

Telecom Costs Order CRTC 2003-5

Ottawa, 8 April 2003

Consumers' Association of Canada, the National Anti-Poverty Organization and l'Union des Consommateurs application for costs for their participation in the CISC process between January and December 2002

Reference: 8644-C12-03/00 and 4754-212

1.

By letters dated 28 November 2002 and 2 December 2002, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), on behalf of Consumers' Association of Canada (CAC), the National Anti-Poverty Organization (NAPO) and l'Union des Consommateurs (collectively, the Consumer Groups), applied for costs in respect of the Consumer Groups' participation in the CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee (CISC) process from January to December 2002. In particular, the Consumer Groups participated actively in the CISC Business Process Working Group (BPWG) on customer transfer and protection issues arising from business failures, mergers and acquisitions and account passwords.

2.

The Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association (CWTA), Microcell Telecommunications Inc. (Microcell), the Canadian Cable Television Association (CCTA) and Bell Canada on behalf of itself, Aliant Telecom Inc., MTS Communications Inc. and Saskatchewan Telecommunications (collectively, the Companies) replied to the Consumer Groups' costs application.

The application

3.

The Consumer Groups submitted that they met the criteria for an award of costs set out in subsection 44(1) of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure (the Rules) in that: they represented a significant body of subscribers who stand to be affected by the outcome of the deliberations in question; participated responsibly; and contributed to a better understanding of certain issues through their oral and written participation in the CISC process.

4.

The Consumer Groups requested, pursuant to New procedure for Telecom costs awards, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2002-5, 7 November 2002 (PN 2002-5), that costs be fixed at $13,489.85, which included $12,854.70 in legal fees and $635.15 in disbursements. The Consumer Groups included a bill of costs with supporting forms and receipts with its application.

5.

The Consumer Groups referred to two costs orders Participation in the CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee (CISC), Telecom Costs Order CRTC 98-3, 29 January 1998 and Participation in the CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee (CISC), Telecom Costs Order CRTC 99-2, 26 February 1999 (Telecom Costs Order 99-2), in which consumer groups, such as CAC and NAPO, were awarded costs for their participation in the CISC process.

6.

The Consumer Groups noted that Stentor Resource Centre Inc., CCTA, AT&T Canada Inc. (AT&T Canada), Bell Mobility Inc. (Bell Mobility), Call-Net Enterprises Inc. (Call-Net), Clearnet Communications Inc., MetroNet Communications Group Inc., Microcell, Rogers Cantel Inc. (Cantel) and TelcoPlus Communications Inc. were named as respondents in Telecom Costs Order 99-2.

7.

The Consumer Groups submitted that in these two costs orders, the Commission saw fit to apportion responsibility for payment of costs among those companies that had a clear interest in the outcome of the CISC process and had chosen to participate actively. The Consumer Groups submitted that a similar apportionment of costs among participating companies would be appropriate in this case.

8.

The Consumer Groups copied their costs application to the Companies, TELUS Communications Inc. (TELUS), CCTA, AT&T Canada, Call-Net, Cantel, Microcell and CWTA.

Answers to the application

9.

None of the parties who filed answers to this costs application opposed the Consumer Groups' entitlement to costs or the amount claimed.

10.

CWTA submitted that it was not an appropriate respondent for these costs in that it was not an active participant in nor did it submit any documents or attend any CISC meetings in 2002.

11.

CWTA also submitted that it had very little interest and never participated in the activities of the BPWG and was not on the BPWG distribution list.

12.

CWTA submitted that several companies, such as EastLink Limited (EastLink), Futureway Communications Inc. (Futureway), GT Group Telecom Services Corp. (Group Telecom) and Vidéotron Communications Inc. (Vidéotron), were not named in this costs application, despite active participation in the CISC process and demonstrated interest in the outcomes of the CISC working groups, including the BPWG. CWTA submitted that these companies were more appropriate respondents.

13.

Microcell submitted that the Consumer Groups' application related primarily to involvement in the deliberations of the BPWG during the stated period and that the majority of the work undertaken by the BPWG during the stated period was of limited or no relevance to wireless carriers.

14.

Microcell submitted that, on the basis that it did participate in the deliberations of the BPWG on an intermittent basis on issues of relevance to wireless carriers, it was not opposed to its inclusion as an appropriate respondent, in an equitable arrangement for the apportionment of the Consumer Groups' costs. Microcell submitted that the revenue-based apportionment approach with some upward adjustment for parties with little or no current revenues, adopted in previous Commission costs orders was appropriate.

15.

Microcell submitted that the Consumer Groups did not copy several parties that satisfy the criteria to be appropriate respondents to this costs application and requested that the Commission ensure these parties were included in the apportionment of costs.

16.

CCTA submitted that it was not an appropriate respondent for these costs in that its limited participation in the CISC process was in relation to participation in working groups in which the Consumer Groups did not participate. CCTA submitted that the issues under discussion in the working groups it participated in had little relevance to the activities highlighted by the Consumer Groups in its application for costs.

17.

The Companies submitted that Bell Mobility should not be a respondent to this costs application in that Bell Mobility did not attend any CISC meetings. The Companies submitted that although Bell Mobility is a member of CWTA, CWTA only attended one CISC meeting during the relevant period.

18.

The Companies agreed with CWTA's submission that companies such as EastLink, Futureway, Group Telecom and Vidéotron participated actively in the CISC process, have a demonstrated interest in the CISC process and should be named respondents to this costs application.

19.

EastLink submitted that it was not an appropriate respondent to this costs application and that the Companies' claims in this regard should be dismissed due to it not having been named as a respondent by the Consumer Groups and its lack of involvement in almost all CISC processes.

Reply

20.

The Consumer Groups did not file any reply comments.

Commission analysis and determination

21.

The Commission notes that the parties who commented on the costs application did not oppose the Consumer Group's entitlement or the amount claimed.

22.

The Commission finds that the Consumer Groups have met the criteria set out in subsection 44(1) of the Rules in that: they represent a significant body of subscribers who are affected by the outcome of the CISC process; they participated responsibly; and they contributed to a better understanding of the issues in CISC activities.

23.

The Commission notes that the Consumer Groups have claimed $636.15 in disbursements and $12,854.70 in legal fees for legal counsel, Philippa Lawson, totalling an amount of $13,489.85.

24.

The Commission finds that the amount claimed was necessarily and reasonably incurred and should be allowed.

25.

The Commission is of the view that this is an appropriate case in which to fix the costs and dispense with taxation in accordance with the procedure set out in PN 2002-5.

26.

The Commission notes that in previous costs orders, it has determined that the appropriate respondents to an award of costs are the parties who have a significant interest in the outcome of the proceeding and have participated actively in the proceeding.

27.

The Commission finds that Bell Mobility, CWTA, CCTA and Cantel are not appropriate respondents for this costs application as they had little interest and did not participate actively in any CISC or BPWG activities relevant to the Consumer Groups in 2002.

28.

The Commission notes that in the past, in determining the appropriate costs respondents, it has also considered the potential administrative burden on applicants if they were required to collect small amounts from many respondents. Accordingly, in light of all of the above, the Commission finds that the Companies, TELUS, AT&T Canada, Call-Net and Microcell, should be named as respondents in this costs application.

29.

In allocating the responsibility for the payment of costs among respondents, the Commission notes that in the past it has often divided responsibility based on telecommunications services revenues from the previous year. However, the Commission notes that it has departed from this approach to make collection of an award easier for applicants.

30.

With regard to the present application, the Commission finds that the approach of dividing responsibility for a costs award on the basis of telecommunications revenues would require the Consumer Groups to collect negligible sums of money from some respondents.

31.

Consistent with its frequent practice, the Commission makes Bell Canada responsible for payment on behalf of the Companies and leaves it to the members of the Companies to determine among themselves the appropriate allocation of their apportionment of the costs.

32.

In light of the above, the Commission finds that the responsibility for the payment of costs should be allocated in the following proportions:

Bell Canada (on behalf of the Companies)

50%

TELUS

30%

AT&T Canada

7.5%

Call-Net

7.5%

Microcell

5%

Directions as to costs

33.

The Commission approves the application by the Consumer Groups for costs with respect to their participation in the CISC process from January to December 2002.

34.

Pursuant to subsection 56(1) of the Telecommunications Act, the Commission fixes the costs to be paid to the Consumer Groups at $13,489.85.

35.

The Commission directs that the award of costs to the Consumer Groups be paid forthwith by Bell Canada, on behalf of the Companies, and by TELUS, AT&T Canada, Call-Net and Microcell according to the proportions set out in paragraph 32.

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