Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 237.60 (2026)

Discriminatory Practices; Service Costs

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subdivision 1.

[Expired]

Subd. 2.

[Expired]

Subd. 3.Discrimination.

No telephone company shall offer telecommunications service within the state upon terms or rates that are unreasonably discriminatory. No telephone company shall unreasonably limit its service offerings to particular geographic areas unless facilities necessary for the service are not available and cannot be made available at reasonable costs. The rates of a telephone company must be the same in all geographic locations of the state unless for good cause the commission approves different rates. A company that offers long-distance services shall charge uniform rates and charges on all long-distance routes and in all geographic areas in the state where it offers the services. However, a company may offer or provide volume discounts in connection with intrastate long-distance services and may pass through any state, municipal, or local taxes in the specific geographic areas from which the taxes originate. Nothing in this subdivision authorizes a telephone company to provide service outside of its authorized service area except as provided in section 237.16.

Subd. 4.Cost of service.

Prices or rates charged for competitive services must cover the incremental costs of providing the service. If a telephone company provides both local service and long-distance services, that company shall, in determining the cost of the long-distance service, include at least the same level of contribution to common and joint costs as is contained in the access charges to other telephone companies. The company may do so on an aggregate basis, instead of on a time or mileage band basis.

Subd. 5.

[Expired]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1991–1991 · leading case: In re the Minnesota Indep. Equal Access Corp.'s Application for a Certificate of Pub. Convenience & Necessity, 477 N.W.2d 516 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991).
In re the Minnesota Indep. Equal Access Corp.'s Application for a Certificate of Pub. Convenience & Necessity, 477 N.W.2d 516 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 28× “The Commission concluded that US West’s intent to appear selectively on only some ballots would be an unreasonable limitation of its long-distance service offerings, in violation of Minn.Stat. § 237.60, subd. 3 (1990). US West has obtained a writ of certiora-ri, seeking review…”
Matter of Mn. Indep. Equal Access, 477 N.W.2d 516 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 28× “The Commission concluded that US West's intent to appear selectively on only some ballots would be an unreasonable limitation of its long-distance service offerings, in violation of Minn.Stat. § 237.60, subd. 3 (1990). US West has obtained a writ of certiorari, seeking review of…”
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.