Did PUCO Err In Granting AT&T ‘Alternative Regulation’ Of Basic Phone Service?
The Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel v. The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, Case no. 2007-0659 ISSUE: In this case, the Office of Consumers’ Counsel challenges a 2006 ruling by the Public Utilities Commission which granted an application by AT&T for “alternative regulation” of the company’s basic telephone service rates in 136 local exchange areas across the state. NOTE: Although it will be argued separately, this case involves the same legal issues and arguments raised in the preceding case. (See discussion above). The attorneys representing the OCC and PUCO, who may be contacted for additional information, are the same in both cases.
Related Questions
- Many phone service providers charge extra for basic features like voicemail, call forwarding and call waiting. Does Salsgiver charge extra for these basic services?
- Did the motion judge err in law in granting substantive relief on a procedural motion?
- Did PUCO Err In Granting AT&T ‘Alternative Regulation’ Of Basic Phone Service?
