Neb. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 86
Nebraska Revised Statutes

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-205 (2026)

Change in service; requirements

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

(1)(a) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, no telecommunications company shall submit on behalf of a subscriber a change of the subscriber's provider of basic local exchange service, intra-LATA interexchange service, or inter-LATA interexchange service without:

(i) Written change authorization from the subscriber;

(ii) Toll-free electronic authorization placed from the telephone number which is the subject of the change of service order; or

(iii) Oral authorization obtained by an independent third party.

(b) A separate and distinct authorization shall be required to submit a change of service order for any or all of the following telecommunications services provided to subscribers in this state: Basic local exchange service, intra-LATA interexchange service, inter-LATA interexchange service, or any other telecommunications service.

(2) The requirements of this section shall not apply to a change of a subscriber's provider of basic local exchange service, intra-LATA interexchange service, or inter-LATA interexchange service that results from any merger or sale of exchanges or transfer of authority approved by the commission.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 1980–1980 · leading case: State v. Anderson, 296 N.W.2d 440 (Neb. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Anderson, 296 N.W.2d 440 (Neb. 1980). “We see little reason why an interlocutory appeal concerning the suppression of evidence should be heard by a single judge of this court sitting at chambers if brought pursuant to § 29-824, but by the entire court sitting en banc if brought under the provisions of § 86-205(12).…”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-205(12): 1 case
State v. Anderson, 296 N.W.2d 440 (Neb. 1980). “We see little reason why an interlocutory appeal concerning the suppression of evidence should be heard by a single judge of this court sitting at chambers if brought pursuant to § 29-824, but by the entire court sitting en banc if brought under the provisions of § 86-205(12).…”
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.