The CRTC issued a series of cost awards today that appear to take aim at CAIP’s failed application to have the Commission reverse Bell’s traffic shaping of wholesale internet services.
It is possible to apply for an award of costs in a CRTC proceeding if you: (i) represent a group of subscribers that have an interest in the outcome of the proceeding; (ii) participate responsibly; and, (iii) contribute to a better understanding of the issues [note: the procedures are set out in CRTC PN 2002-5].
The Commission found that 3 groups met these tests: the Campaign for Democratic Media ($10,355); l’Union des consommateurs ($14,950); and, Public Interest Advocacy Centre ($13,709).
Frequently, the CRTC divides the costs among the telecommunications services providers based on their relative size, measured by telecom services revenues. However, in this case, the CRTC decided to have CAIP pay 20% of the costs in order to make the amount “meaningful.” Bell is ordered to pay the other 80%.
The Commission also notes that CAIP has, relative to Bell Canada, a very small share of the telecommunication revenues. However, the Commission considers that CAIP’s contribution should be meaningful.
As a result, CAIP is going to pay about $7500 towards the costs of the third party participants in their dispute.
This may be an indication of how the costs could be apportioned for the bigger network management proceeding that is underway.
Bell had originally suggested that costs be shared two-thirds to one third, or alternatively, with 100% of the costs paid by the losing party [the arguments were filed prior to the CRTC’s decision]. On one hand, CAIP may be wondering why the Commission is varying from its apportionment on the basis of revenues. On the other hand, it could have been stuck with 100%
The Telecom Policy Review Panel made two recommendations to change the way costs are handled in CRTC proceedings. It said:
Recommendation 9-29
The CRTC should enact a rule or regulation establishing the criteria for the awarding of costs in proceedings before it. The criteria should be based on the principles that costs shall be awarded to successful complainants in clear cases of inappropriate behaviour and against them in clear cases of frivolous complaints.Recommendation 9-30
The government should review the issue of public interest group participation in telecommunications regulatory proceedings. Funding for such participation should come from a multi-year commitment by government to subsidize such participation, rather than costs awards imposed by the CRTC on individual telecommunications service providers.
Should these recommendations be moved upon?