MICHIGAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT
Act 179 of 1991
484.2101 Short title; purpose.
Sec. 101.
(1) This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Michigan telecommunications act".
(2) The purpose of this act is to do all of the following:
(a) Ensure that every person has access to just, reasonable, and affordable basic residential telecommunication service.
(b) Allow and encourage competition to determine the availability, prices, terms, and other conditions of providing telecommunication services.
(c) Encourage the introduction of new services, the entry of new providers, the development of new technologies, and increase investment in the telecommunication infrastructure in this state through incentives to providers to offer the most efficient services and products.
(d) Improve the opportunities for economic development and the delivery of essential services including education and health care.
(e) Encourage the use of existing educational telecommunication networks and networks established by other commercial providers as building blocks for a cooperative and efficient statewide educational telecommunication system.
(f) Ensure effective and timely review and disposition of disputes between telecommunication providers.
(g) Authorize actions to encourage the development of a competitive telecommunication industry.
History: 1991, Act 179, Eff. Jan. 1, 1992 ;-- Am. 1995, Act 216, Imd. Eff. Nov. 30, 1995 ;-- Am. 2000, Act 295, Imd. Eff. July 17, 2000 ;-- Am. 2005, Act 235, Imd. Eff. Nov. 22, 2005 ;-- Am. 2011, Act 58, Imd. Eff. June 14, 2011
Notes of Decisions
In Re Complaint of Rovas Against Sbc, 754 N.W.2d 259 (Mich. 2008).
· cites it 2× “*263 Despite the fact that SBC reversed the erroneously sent bill, the customers filed a complaint with the PSC alleging, inter alia, a violation of § 2502( l )(a) [2] of the Michigan Telecommunications Act, MCL 484.2101 et seq. [3] The PSC agreed with the customers and found…”
Rovas v. SBC Michigan, 482 Mich. 90 (Mich. 2008).
· cites it 2× “Despite the fact that SBC reversed the erroneously sent bill, the customers filed a complaint with the PSC *95 alleging, inter alia, a violation of § 2502(l)(a) 2 of the Michigan Telecommunications Act, MCL 484.2101 et seq. 3 The PSC agreed with the customers and found that…”
TCG Detroit v. City of Dearborn, 680 N.W.2d 24 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 6× “Defendant City of Dearborn (Dearborn) appeals as of right the order denying its motion for summary disposition, which challenged the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Michigan Telecommunications Act (MTA), MCL 484.2101 et seq., article 2A of which has since been…”
Ameritech Michigan v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 583 N.W.2d 458 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 6× “In July 1992, MCI commenced this proceeding in the PSC, U-10138, by filing a complaint alleging, in part, that Ameritech was violating various provisions of the Michigan Telecommunications Act, 1991 PA 179 , MCL 484.2101 et seq.-, MSA 22.1469(101) et seq.”
Ameritech Michigan v. Psc Michigan Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 658 N.W.2d 849 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
“230540, Ameritech Michigan appeals as of right a psc opinion and order finding it in violation of subsections 502(a) and 502(b) of the *678 Michigan Telecommunications Act (mta), MCL 484.2101 et seq. 1 The PSC ordered Ameritech to (1) pay restitution to the complainant, (2) pay…”
In Re MCI Telecomm. Corp. Complaint, 612 N.W.2d 826 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “Sprint Communications Company filed a complaint against Ameritech with the MPSC, alleging that Ameritech’s bill insert was misleading and anticompetitive in violation of the Michigan Telecommunications Act (MTA), MCL 484.2101 et seq.; MSA 22.1469(101) et seq.”
In Re Complaint of Knox, 660 N.W.2d 777 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
“, doing business as Coordinated Billing Services, appeals the April 24, 2000, order of the Public Service Commission that found that Lotel had violated the antislamming provisions set forth in the Michigan Telecommunications Act (mta), MCL 484.2101 et seq., and commission rules.”
Michigan Bell Tel. Co. v. Strand, 26 F. Supp. 2d 993 (W.D. Mich. 1998).
· cites it 2× “” Count III alleges that the Order violates state law including the Michigan Telecommunications Act, Mich.Comp.Laws § 484.2101 et seq., because it requires tariffs which are beyond the authority of the MPSC to authorize.”
In Re Quality of Serv. Standards for Regulated Telecomm. Servs., 516 N.W.2d 142 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994).
“On February 12, 1992, the psc issued notice that it would accept comments regarding proposed quality of service standards for regulated telecommunication services offered under the Michigan Telecommunications Act, 1991 PA 179 , MCL 484.2101 et seq.; MSA 22.1469(201) et seq.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 484.2101(2) — 2 cases
Ameritech Michigan v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 583 N.W.2d 458 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
“In July 1992, MCI commenced this proceeding in the PSC, U-10138, by filing a complaint alleging, in part, that Ameritech was violating various provisions of the Michigan Telecommunications Act, 1991 PA 179 , MCL 484.2101 et seq.-, MSA 22.1469(101) et seq.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 484.2101(2)(a) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 484.2101(2)(b) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 484.2101(2)(c) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 484.2101(c) — 1 case
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.