O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 46-5-161 (2019)

Legislative findings; intent

✓ O.C.G.A.: 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The General Assembly finds:

(1) It is in the public interest to establish a new regulatory model for telecommunications services in Georgia to reflect the transition to a reliance on market based competition as the best mechanism for the selection and provision of needed telecommunications services at the most efficient pricing;

(2) Investment in the telecommunications infrastructure required to further economic growth in Georgia and to meet the growing demands of Georgia's consumers will be encouraged through competition; and

(3) In order to ensure the implementation of this new reliance on market based competition, any legislative obstacles to competition for local exchange services must be removed.

(b) It is the intent of this article to:

(1) Permit local exchange companies to elect alternative forms of regulation;

(2) Protect the consumer during the transition to a competitive telecommunications market;

(3) Assure reasonable cost for universal access to basic telecommunications services throughout Georgia;

(4) Encourage investment in Georgia's telecommunications infrastructure and encourage the introduction of innovative products and services for Georgia's consumers;

(5) Authorize competition for local exchange services; and

(6) Allow pricing flexibility for all telecommunications services other than basic local exchange services.

History

(Code 1981, § 46-5-161, enacted by Ga. L. 1995, p. 886, § 2.)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Cited in Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. ALLTEL Ga. Communications Corp., 227 Ga. App. 382, 489 S.E.2d 350 (1997); Georgia PSC v. ALLTEL Ga. Communs. Corp., 244 Ga. App. 645, 536 S.E.2d 542 (2000).

Universal support payments as taxable income. - Because defendant local telephone company taxpayer's "universal service support" payment calculations for purposes of O.C.G.A. §§ 46-5-161, 46-5-162(10)(B), and 46-5-166(f)(2) were considered revenue and a revenue requirement of 11.25 percent, which factored into expenses, taxes, and return, the payments were not contribution to capital excluded from income under I.R.C. § 118, and plaintiff United States was entitled to summary judgment. United States v. Coastal Utils., Inc., 483 F. Supp. 2d 1232 (S.D. Ga. 2007), aff'd, 514 F.3d 1184 (11th Cir. 2008).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1997–2007 · leading case: Alltel Georgia Commc'ns v. Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 505 S.E.2d 218 (Ga. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Alltel Georgia Commc'ns v. Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 505 S.E.2d 218 (Ga. 1998). · cites it 20× “OCGA § 46-5-161 (a) (1). OCGA § 46-5-161 (a) (2, 3) and (b) (1, 5).”
Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. Alltel Georgia Commc'ns Corp., 489 S.E.2d 350 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 16× “OCGA § 46-5-161(b)(2) and (5) provide for example that "It is the intent of this article to: (2) Protect the consumer during the transition to a competitive telecommunications market; [and] (5) Authorize competition for local exchange services.”
Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. ALLTEL Georgia Commc'ns Corp., 536 S.E.2d 542 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 4× “[OCGA § 46-5-161 (a) (1).] The Act allows companies to elect market-based alternative forms of regulation.”
United States v. Coastal Utils., Inc., 483 F. Supp. 2d 1232 (S.D. Ga. 2007). · cites it 2× “” O.C.G.A. § 46-5-161(b) (3) — (4). Pursuant to this Act, “Tier 2” local exchange companies like Coastal were directed to reduce their intrastate switched access charges to achieve parity with the rates they charged for switching interstate calls.”
Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. Alltel Georgia Commc'ns Corp., 497 S.E.2d 50 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 4× “To help accomplish this, the TCDA allows telecommunications companies providing basic local exchange services to elect an alternative form of regulation “pursuant to which the rates, terms, and conditions for telecommunications services provided by a local exchange company are…”
46-5-161(a)(1): 1 case
Alltel Georgia Commc'ns v. Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 505 S.E.2d 218 (Ga. 1998). “OCGA § 46-5-161 (a) (1). OCGA § 46-5-161 (a) (2, 3) and (b) (1, 5).”
46-5-161(b): 1 case
United States v. Coastal Utils., Inc., 483 F. Supp. 2d 1232 (S.D. Ga. 2007). “” O.C.G.A. § 46-5-161(b) (3) — (4). Pursuant to this Act, “Tier 2” local exchange companies like Coastal were directed to reduce their intrastate switched access charges to achieve parity with the rates they charged for switching interstate calls.”
46-5-161(b)(2): 2 cases
Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. Alltel Georgia Commc'ns Corp., 489 S.E.2d 350 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997). “OCGA § 46-5-161(b)(2) and (5) provide for example that "It is the intent of this article to: (2) Protect the consumer during the transition to a competitive telecommunications market; [and] (5) Authorize competition for local exchange services.”
Alltel Georgia Commc'ns v. Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 505 S.E.2d 218 (Ga. 1998). “OCGA § 46-5-161 (a) (1). OCGA § 46-5-161 (a) (2, 3) and (b) (1, 5).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.