Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448
(Code 1981, §46-5-166, enacted by Ga. L. 1995, p. 886, § 2; Ga. L. 2010, p. 1135, § 3/HB 168.)
The 2010 amendment, effective June 4, 2010, rewrote this Code section.
- Ga. L. 2010, p. 1135, § 1, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: "It is the intent of the General Assembly to:
"(1) Update and modernize Georgia's telecommunications laws to encourage competition and bring about lower prices and better services for the consumer;
"(2) Make Georgia a more attractive place for telecommunications investment and encourage the deployment of advanced technologies;
"(3) Create and preserve jobs for Georgia workers; and
"(4) Reduce the subsidies paid by Georgia consumers.
"It is not the intent of the General Assembly to impose any fee or other charge on Georgia consumers."
Ga. L. 2010, p. 1135, § 2, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: "This Act shall be known as and may be cited as the 'Telecom Jobs and Investment Act.'"
- Where a Tier 2 local exchange company experiences the same access sales or a growth in access sales during the phase-down of rates into parity with interstate access rates, the mandate of paragraph (f)(2) is to calculate revenues lost by virtue of selling each intrastate switched access unit at the concurrently reduced rate; growth in access revenue is not calculated as an offset against such revenue lost by a company during the phase-down period. Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. Alltel Ga. Communications Corp., 230 Ga. App. 563, 497 S.E.2d 50 (1998).
- Public Service Commission's determination that Tier 2 local exchange companies' return on equity earnings exceeded that authorized and its order for the application of over-earnings to reduce intrastate access rates did not violate either O.C.G.A. § 46-2-25(d), which prohibits rate-making orders with retroactive effect, or paragraph (f)(2) of O.C.G.A. § 46-5-166, regarding adjustments to intrastate access rates. Georgia PSC v. ALLTEL Ga. Communs. Corp., 244 Ga. App. 645, 536 S.E.2d 542 (2000).
- 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), and46-5-166(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).
Total Results: 1
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1998-10-05
Citation: 505 S.E.2d 218, 270 Ga. 105, 98 Fulton County D. Rep. 3321, 1998 Ga. LEXIS 953
Snippet: used such specific language as it did in OCGA § 46-5-166 (b), in which rates for basic local exchange services