Telecom Procedural Letter Addressed to Various Parties
Ottawa, 21 January 2019
Our reference: 1011-NOC2017-0450
Dear Madam, Sir,
Re: Apportioning of costs in the Public Interest Advocacy Centre’s application for costs arising from the review of the reseller registration obligation, Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2017-450
On 15 December 2017, the Commission issued a call for comments on which types of non-carriers (resellers) should be exempt from the obligation to register with the Commission prior to receiving telecommunications for resale from Canadian carriers or other resellers.
On 1 March 2018, the Commission circulated a procedural letter to various parties, including those who intervened in the proceeding initiated by TNC 2017-450 as well as to distribution lists maintained by the Commission. The letter included five questions to all recipients (with an additional question to TELUS Communications Inc.). The Commission received various submissions in response. Some parties submitted responses to the Commission’s questions, as required, but did not otherwise participate voluntarily in the proceeding.
On 8 May 2018, the Commission received an application for costs from the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC). In its costs application, PIAC suggested that its costs should be apportioned in the following manner:
- Half of its costs should be divided equally among Queen’s University, FCA Canada Inc., and IBM Canada Ltd.;
- The remaining half should be paid by TELUS Communications Inc., Bell Canada, and Rogers Communications Canada Inc. in proportion to their telecommunications operating revenues (TORs).
Commission staff notes that the Commission’s general practice is to apportion costs based on the TORs 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 further notes that, in the proceeding, many companies intervened that are not telecommunications service providers and do not have significant, if any, TORs.
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 31 January 2019. 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 5 February 2019.
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.
Original signed by
Public Interest Advocacy Centre, email@example.com & firstname.lastname@example.org
British Columbia Broadband Association (BCBA), email@example.com
FCA Canada Inc., firstname.lastname@example.org
Geotab Inc., email@example.com
Independent Telecommunications Providers Association, firstname.lastname@example.org
IBM Canada Ltd., email@example.com
University of Alberta, firstname.lastname@example.org
Canadian Network Operators Consortium Inc., email@example.com
Québecor Média inc., firstname.lastname@example.org
TELUS Communications Inc., regulatory.affairs@TELUS.com
Queen’s University, email@example.com & firstname.lastname@example.org
Cogeco Communications Inc., email@example.com
The Toronto Internet Exchange, firstname.lastname@example.org
Coalition pour le service 9-1-1 au Québec, email@example.com
Cybera Inc., firstname.lastname@example.org
McLean & Kerr LLP, email@example.com
Communications Distributors Inc., firstname.lastname@example.org
Steven Shearer, email@example.com
Verizon Canada ltd., firstname.lastname@example.org
Bell Canada, email@example.com
Shaw Communications Inc., firstname.lastname@example.org
676766 Ontario Ltd operating as “KWIC Internet”, email@example.com
Thomson Reuters Canada Limited, firstname.lastname@example.org
SSI Micro Ltd., email@example.com
Sprint International Communications Canada ULC, firstname.lastname@example.org
094206 Ontario Ltd operating as "Ruralwave”, email@example.com
Columbia Basin Broadband Corporation, firstname.lastname@example.org
Pulsar360 Inc., email@example.com
Core Broadband Inc., firstname.lastname@example.org
Silo Wireless Inc., email@example.com
Saskatchewan Telecommunications, firstname.lastname@example.org
Microsoft Corporation, email@example.com
Rogers Communications Canada Inc., firstname.lastname@example.org
Colt Technology Services LLC, email@example.com
West Telecom Services LLC, firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
BullsEye Telecom Inc., firstname.lastname@example.org
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? If yes, should those TSPs that only responded to the 1 March 2018 procedural letter also be included in the apportionment?
Indicate, with supporting rationale, whether or not you support this approach to apportionment of costs in this proceeding.
If you do not support the appropriation models contemplated in question 1, which appropriation model would you propose and why?
- Date modified: