Monday, December 22, 2008
The meaning of meaningful
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 9-29Should these recommendations be moved upon?
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.
Technorati Tags:
CAIP, Bell, CRTC
Posted by Mark Goldberg @ 12/22/2008 02:07:00 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
The objective of maximizing public interest group participation in telecom regulatory proceedings by subsidizing same from the public purse is both legitimate and commendable. It ensures that the regulator hears from the broadest range of stakeholders possible and that its decisions are based on informed input. However, given the current government’s thinking on having the public purse subsidize the existence of political parties, I can’t see it accepting and adopting the TPRP’s recommendation 9-30 no matter how responsibly, meaningfully and significantly the contribution of the public interest group is.
If however, I’m wrong and the federal government was to implement recommendation 9-30, presumably it would have to also adopt or act on recommendation 9-29 in order to determine if a participating interest group’s participation was worthy of being subsidized. The establishment of criteria to determine whether a public interest group’s participation in a hearing is worthy of the awarding of costs (i.e. being subsidized) shouldn’t prove to be all that difficult. However, the determination of whether a group’s participation met the criteria will almost certainly be based on subjective, rather than objective, decisions because, no matter what the criteria are, the “judges” will base their decision on their own understanding of words like “responsible”, “meaningful” and “significant”.
So, one has to ask, how intellectually honest and how supportive of the policy objective will decisions emanating from recommendation 9-29 be. Unless there are some unknown King Solomon’s out there, decisions regarding the awarding of costs to public interest groups participating in telecom will always be questioned and will only make the CRTC more controversial than it already is at times.
Post a Comment
If however, I’m wrong and the federal government was to implement recommendation 9-30, presumably it would have to also adopt or act on recommendation 9-29 in order to determine if a participating interest group’s participation was worthy of being subsidized. The establishment of criteria to determine whether a public interest group’s participation in a hearing is worthy of the awarding of costs (i.e. being subsidized) shouldn’t prove to be all that difficult. However, the determination of whether a group’s participation met the criteria will almost certainly be based on subjective, rather than objective, decisions because, no matter what the criteria are, the “judges” will base their decision on their own understanding of words like “responsible”, “meaningful” and “significant”.
So, one has to ask, how intellectually honest and how supportive of the policy objective will decisions emanating from recommendation 9-29 be. Unless there are some unknown King Solomon’s out there, decisions regarding the awarding of costs to public interest groups participating in telecom will always be questioned and will only make the CRTC more controversial than it already is at times.
Posted by 
: 9:31 AM, December 23, 2008
: 9:31 AM, December 23, 2008 << Home
Syndicate
