K.S.A. » Chapter 66
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 66-2001 (2026)

Telecommunications; declaration of public policy

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

66-2001. Telecommunications; declaration of public policy. It is hereby declared to be the public policy of the state to:

(a) Ensure that every Kansan will have access to a first class telecommunications infrastructure that provides excellent services at an affordable price;

(b) ensure that consumers throughout the state realize the benefits of competition through increased services and improved telecommunications facilities and infrastructure at reduced rates;

(c) promote consumer access to a full range of telecommunications services, including advanced telecommunications services that are comparable in urban and rural areas throughout the state;

(d) advance the development of a statewide telecommunications infrastructure that is capable of supporting applications, such as public safety, telemedicine, services for persons with special needs, distance learning, public library services, access to internet providers and others; and

(e) protect consumers of telecommunications services from fraudulent business practices and practices that are inconsistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity.

History: L. 1996, ch. 268, § 1; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases, 1997–2015 · leading case: Citizens'Util. Ratepayer Bd. v. State Corp. Comm'n, 956 P.2d 685 (Kan. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Citizens'Util. Ratepayer Bd. v. State Corp. Comm'n, 956 P.2d 685 (Kan. 1998). · cites it 8× “268, ง 1 through ง 12, codified at K.S.A. 1996 Supp. 66-2001 et seq.) and the KCC orders implementing that Act on grounds they were inconsistent with the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Federal Act), Pub.”
Mountain Solutions, Inc. v. State Corp. Com'n of State of Kansas, 966 F. Supp. 1043 (D. Kan. 1997). · cites it 4× “Background On April 4, 1996, in response to a legislative mandate under the Kansas Telecommunications Act of 1996, K.S.A. § 66-2001 et seq., the Kansas Corporation Commission (“KCC”) established the Kansas Universal Service Fund (“KUSF”).”
Bluestem Tel. Co. v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 109 P.3d 194 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 3× “In response, the State of Kansas enacted the Kansas Telecommunications Act (KTA), K.S.A. 66-2001 et seq., in 1996. The public policy goals of the KTA were similar to the two established by Congress: ensure every Kansan had access to first-class telecommunications service at an…”
Bluestem Tel. Co. v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 363 P.3d 1115 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 4× “K.S.A. 66-2001. The KTA ultimately required local exchange carriers (LECs)—-or in layman s parlance, local telephone companies—to reduce their intrastate access charges, which had subsidized the cost of basic local service, over a 3-year period to a level equal or close to the…”
CITIZENS'Util. RATEPAYER BD. v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 943 P.2d 494 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 4× “: This consolidated appeal is brought by the Citizens' Utility Ratepayer Board (CURB) and various telecommunication providers from orders of the Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC) implementing the Kansas Telecommunications Act, K.S.A. 1996 Supp. 66-2001 et seq. (Kansas Act).”
Mountain Solutions, Inc. v. State Corp. Comm'n of Kansas, 173 F.R.D. 300 (D. Kan. 1997). · cites it 4× “Background On April 4, 1996, in response to a legislative mandate under the Kansas Telecommunications Act of 1996, K.S.A. § 66-2001 et seq., the Kansas Corporation Commission (“KCC”) established the Kansas Universal Service Fund (“KUSF”).”
Citizens' Util. Ratepayer Bd. v. State Corp. Comm'n, 956 P.2d 685 (Kan. 1998). · cites it 8× “268, § 1 through § 12, codified at K.S.A. 1996 Supp. 66-2001 et seq.) and the KCC orders implementing that Act on grounds they were inconsistent with the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Federal Act), Pub.”
Columbus Tel. Co. v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 75 P.3d 257 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003). “Petitioners further argue that failure to allow a carrier to include post-revenue requirement expenses in its “rate case expenses” violates the statutory policies of the Kansas Telecommunications Act, K.S.A. 66-2001 et seq. There is no dispute that prudently incurred rate case…”
Sw. Bell Tel., L.P. v. Moline, 333 F. Supp. 2d 1073 (D. Kan. 2004). · cites it 4× “The Commission contends that it is likely that Southwestern Bell’s aggressive use of winback promotions may benefit consumers in the short term, but those winback promotions will have the long-term adverse effect of inhibiting a competitive climate in the market because they…”
Home Tel. Co. v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 76 P.3d 1071 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003). “66-2005(b), Home elected to operate under a traditional rate of return regulation under the 1996 Kansas Telecommunications Act (KTA), K.S.A. 66-2001 et seq. *1003 In September 2001, the Commission initiated an investigation by its staff (Staff) into Home’s costs, revenues, and…”
CITIZENS'Util. RATEPAYER BD. v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 941 P.2d 424 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997). “The KCC argues that nothing in the Federal Communications Act of 1996 or the Kansas Telecommunications Act, K.S.A. 1996 Supp. 66-2001 et seq., provides for the exchange of proprietary cost data to non-negotiating intervenors.”
Citizens' Util. Ratepayer Bd. v. State Corp. Comm'n, 943 P.2d 494 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 4× “: This consolidated appeal is brought by the Citizens’ Utility Ratepayer Board (CURB) and various telecommunication providers from orders of the Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC) implementing the Kansas Telecommunications Act, K.S.A. 1996 Supp. 66-2001 et seq. (Kansas Act).”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 66-2001(a) — 4 cases
Mountain Solutions, Inc. v. State Corp. Com'n of State of Kansas, 966 F. Supp. 1043 (D. Kan. 1997). “Background On April 4, 1996, in response to a legislative mandate under the Kansas Telecommunications Act of 1996, K.S.A. § 66-2001 et seq., the Kansas Corporation Commission (“KCC”) established the Kansas Universal Service Fund (“KUSF”).”
Citizens'Util. Ratepayer Bd. v. State Corp. Comm'n, 956 P.2d 685 (Kan. 1998). “268, ง 1 through ง 12, codified at K.S.A. 1996 Supp. 66-2001 et seq.) and the KCC orders implementing that Act on grounds they were inconsistent with the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Federal Act), Pub.”
Mountain Solutions, Inc. v. State Corp. Comm'n of Kansas, 173 F.R.D. 300 (D. Kan. 1997). “Background On April 4, 1996, in response to a legislative mandate under the Kansas Telecommunications Act of 1996, K.S.A. § 66-2001 et seq., the Kansas Corporation Commission (“KCC”) established the Kansas Universal Service Fund (“KUSF”).”
Citizens' Util. Ratepayer Bd. v. State Corp. Comm'n, 956 P.2d 685 (Kan. 1998). “268, § 1 through § 12, codified at K.S.A. 1996 Supp. 66-2001 et seq.) and the KCC orders implementing that Act on grounds they were inconsistent with the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Federal Act), Pub.”
— K.S.A. § 66-2001(b) — 3 cases
CITIZENS'Util. RATEPAYER BD. v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 943 P.2d 494 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997). “: This consolidated appeal is brought by the Citizens' Utility Ratepayer Board (CURB) and various telecommunication providers from orders of the Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC) implementing the Kansas Telecommunications Act, K.S.A. 1996 Supp. 66-2001 et seq. (Kansas Act).”
Sw. Bell Tel., L.P. v. Moline, 333 F. Supp. 2d 1073 (D. Kan. 2004). “The Commission contends that it is likely that Southwestern Bell’s aggressive use of winback promotions may benefit consumers in the short term, but those winback promotions will have the long-term adverse effect of inhibiting a competitive climate in the market because they…”
Citizens' Util. Ratepayer Bd. v. State Corp. Comm'n, 943 P.2d 494 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997). “: This consolidated appeal is brought by the Citizens’ Utility Ratepayer Board (CURB) and various telecommunication providers from orders of the Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC) implementing the Kansas Telecommunications Act, K.S.A. 1996 Supp. 66-2001 et seq. (Kansas Act).”
— K.S.A. § 66-2001(e) — 1 case
Sw. Bell Tel., L.P. v. Moline, 333 F. Supp. 2d 1073 (D. Kan. 2004). “The Commission contends that it is likely that Southwestern Bell’s aggressive use of winback promotions may benefit consumers in the short term, but those winback promotions will have the long-term adverse effect of inhibiting a competitive climate in the market because they…”
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.