O.C.G.A.
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.
(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.)
Notes of Decisions
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.”
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
— 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.”
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.