Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 484 / Act 179 of 1991
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 484.2304 (2026)

Local call; adjacent area; classification; total service long run incremental cost of provider with less than 10,000 end-users.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

MICHIGAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT


Act 179 of 1991


484.2304 Local call; adjacent area; classification; total service long run incremental cost of provider with less than 10,000 end-users.

Sec. 304.

    (1) A call made to a local calling area adjacent to the caller's local calling area is considered a local call and shall be billed as a local call. Effective December 31, 2007, a call made to a called party who is not located within the geographic area of the caller's local calling area or an adjacent local calling area as defined by the commission's order in case numbers U-12515 and U-12528, dated February 5, 2001, is not a local call if the tariff, service guide, or similar document containing the terms and conditions of the provider originating the call does not classify the call as a local call.

    (2) A provider of basic local exchange service with less than 10,000 end-users in this state may determine that their total service long run incremental cost is the same as that of a provider with more than 250,000 end-users.

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 ;-- Am. 2014, Act 52, Imd. Eff. Mar. 25, 2014

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1995–2002 · leading case: In Re Procedure & Format for Filing Tariffs Under the Michigan Telecomm. Act, 534 N.W.2d 194 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Procedure & Format for Filing Tariffs Under the Michigan Telecomm. Act, 534 N.W.2d 194 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). “” MCL 484.2304(4); MSA 22.1469(304)(4). IV The psc determined that the Legislature intended the continued regulation of "access services provided to all providers and customers.”
Michigan Bell Tel. Co. v. Engler, 257 F.3d 587 (6th Cir. 2001). “Mich. Comp. Laws § 484.2304 (7). The district court determined that the last two factors adequately protected plaintiffs’ right to an adequate rate of return.”
In Re Filing Requirements for Complaints & Applications Filed Under the Michigan Telecomm. Act, 534 N.W.2d 234 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 3× “[MCL 484.2304(10); MSA 22.1469(304X10).] The tam contends that just as the psc’s review in these circumstances is limited to certain enumerated factors, the psc’s review of applications themselves should be so limited.”
Verizon North, Inc. v. Engler, 205 F. Supp. 2d 765 (E.D. Mich. 2002). · cites it 2× “See Mich. Comp. Laws § 484.2304 . Section 304(5) permits Plaintiff to raise its local rates within ninety days.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 484.2304(10) — 1 case
In Re Filing Requirements for Complaints & Applications Filed Under the Michigan Telecomm. Act, 534 N.W.2d 234 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). “[MCL 484.2304(10); MSA 22.1469(304X10).] The tam contends that just as the psc’s review in these circumstances is limited to certain enumerated factors, the psc’s review of applications themselves should be so limited.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 484.2304(4) — 1 case
In Re Procedure & Format for Filing Tariffs Under the Michigan Telecomm. Act, 534 N.W.2d 194 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). “” MCL 484.2304(4); MSA 22.1469(304)(4). IV The psc determined that the Legislature intended the continued regulation of "access services provided to all providers and customers.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 484.2304(5) — 1 case
In Re Filing Requirements for Complaints & Applications Filed Under the Michigan Telecomm. Act, 534 N.W.2d 234 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). “[MCL 484.2304(10); MSA 22.1469(304X10).] The tam contends that just as the psc’s review in these circumstances is limited to certain enumerated factors, the psc’s review of applications themselves should be so limited.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 484.2304(8) — 1 case
In Re Filing Requirements for Complaints & Applications Filed Under the Michigan Telecomm. Act, 534 N.W.2d 234 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). “[MCL 484.2304(10); MSA 22.1469(304X10).] The tam contends that just as the psc’s review in these circumstances is limited to certain enumerated factors, the psc’s review of applications themselves should be so limited.”
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.