Telecom Procedural Letter Addressed to Various Parties

Ottawa, 28 November 2018

Our reference: 8663-A182-201800467

BY EMAIL

RE: Apportioning of costs between the FairPlay Coalition and other telecommunications service providers

Dear Madam, Sir,

On 29 January 2018, Asian Television Network International Limited filed an application on behalf of itself and a number of other persons (collectively, the FairPlay Coalition) seeking the establishment of a regime that would serve to identify websites and services that are “blatantly, overwhelmingly, or structurally engaged” in copyright piracy and result in a requirement on Internet service providers to block access to such identified sites and services.

On 2 October 2018, the Commission determined it does not have the jurisdiction under the Telecommunications Act to implement the proposed regime and denied the FairPlay Coalition application.

Throughout the proceeding, the Commission received costs applications from the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, the Forum for Research and Policy in Communications, and the Union des consommateurs.

Commission staff notes that the Commission’s general practice is to apportion costs based on the telecommunications operating revenues of the parties to the proceeding as well as considering the usual costs award practices and procedures set out in Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2010-963.
Commission staff notes that, as the Applicant, the FairPlay Coalition included telecommunications service providers along with other interested parties such as broadcasters and industry groups

To obtain the parties’ views on possible costs apportionment, Commission staff has attached requests for information. Parties copied on this correspondence are to provide responses to the requests for information, to be filed and served on the parties copied on this correspondence by 10 December 2018.  The responses will be available for all parties on the Commission’s website. Parties copied on this correspondence may file comments on the responses to the requests for information, to be filed and served on the parties copied on this correspondence by 17 December 2018.

As set out in section 39 of the Telecommunications Act and in Broadcasting and Telecom Information Bulletin CRTC 2010-961, Procedures for filing confidential information and requesting its disclosure in Commission proceedings, persons may designate certain information as confidential. A person designating information as confidential must provide a detailed explanation on why the designated information is confidential and why its disclosure would not be in the public interest, including why the specific direct harm that would be likely to result from the disclosure would outweigh the public interest in disclosure. Furthermore, a person designating information as confidential must either file an abridged version of the document omitting only the information designated as confidential or provide reasons why an abridged version cannot be filed.

Yours sincerely,

Original signed by
William Abbott
Legal Counsel

CC:

Public Interest Advocacy Centre – dbrady@piac.ca
Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic – tisrael@cippic.ca
Asian Television Network International Limited for the FairPlay Coalition –atn@asiantelevision.com
Forum for Research and Policy in Communications – execdir@frpc.net
Union des consommateurs – abeaulieu-laporte@uniondesconsommateurs.ca
TELUS Communications Company – ann.mainville-neeson@telus.com
Shaw Communications Inc. – dean.shaikh@sjrb.ca
Teksavvy Solutions Inc. – akaplanmyrth@teksavvy.ca
Xplornet Communications Inc. – james.maunder@corp.xplornet.com
Bragg Communications Inc., carrying on business as Eastlink – regulatory.matters@corp.eastlink.ca  
Canadian Network Operators Consortium Inc. – regulatory@cnoc.ca  
Canadian Cable Systems Alliance Inc. – cedwards@ccsa.cable.ca
British Columbia Broadband Association – regulatory@bcba.ca

Appendix

Question 1

If the Commission decided to award costs in this proceeding, should the costs be apportioned solely among the participating telecommunications service providers (TSPs) in proportion to each TSPs’ telecommunications operating revenues (TOR), in accordance with the Commission’s usual practices and procedures for determining cost awards under the Telecommunications Act?

Indicate, with supporting rationale, whether or not you support this approach to apportionment of costs in this proceeding.

Question 2

If the Commission decided to award costs in this proceeding, should the costs be apportioned in the following manner?

Indicate, with supporting rationale, whether or not you support this approach to apportionment of costs in this proceeding.

Question 3

If you do not support the appropriation models contemplated in questions 1 and 2, which appropriation model would you propose and why?

Date modified: