Public Service Com'ns Determination Regarding Coin-Operated Telephones, Direct-Inward Dialing, and Touchtone Service, No. 2., In re, COIN-OPERATED

• Decision Date: 22 March 1994
• Docket Number: 160481,COIN-OPERATED,DIRECT-INWARD,Nos. 158165,s. 158165
• Citation: 514 N.W.2d 775,204 Mich.App. 350
• Parties: , 152 P.U.R.4th 192 In re PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION REGARDINGTELEPHONES,DIALING, AND TOUCHTONE SERVICE, NO. 2. AT & T COMMUNICATIONS OF MICHIGAN, INC., Appellant Cross-Appellee, v. MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and Michigan Telemessaging Association, Appellees, and Telephone Association of Michigan, Appellee Cross-Appellant. AT & T COMMUNICATIONS OF MICHIGAN, INC., Appellant, v. MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 775

514 N.W.2d 775

204 Mich.App. 350, 152 P.U.R.4th 192

In re PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION REGARDING

COIN-OPERATED TELEPHONES, DIRECT-INWARD DIALING,

AND TOUCHTONE SERVICE, NO. 2.

AT & T COMMUNICATIONS OF MICHIGAN, INC., Appellant Cross-Appellee, v. MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and Michigan

Telemessaging Association, Appellees,

and

Telephone Association of Michigan, Appellee Cross-Appellant.

AT & T COMMUNICATIONS OF MICHIGAN, INC., Appellant, v. MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Appellee.

Nos. 158165, 160481.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Jan. 6, 1994, at Detroit.

Decided March 22, 1994, at 9:40 a.m.

Released for Publication April 27, 1994.

Fischer, Franklin, Ford, Simon & Hogg (by George Hogg, Jr., and Sidney M. Berman), Detroit, for AT & T Communications of Michigan, Inc.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Thomas L. Casey, Sol. Gen., and Don L. Keskey and

Tracy A. Sonneborn, Asst. Attys. Gen., for Public Service Com'n.

Honigman Miller Schwartz & Cohn (by James A. Ault), and Timothy A. Hoffman, Lansing, for Telephone Ass'n of Michigan.

Before CORRIGAN, P.J., and GRIBBS and MONTGOMERY, ^* JJ.

PER CURIAM.

AT & T Communications of Michigan, Inc., in Docket No. 158165, claims an appeal from an October 2, 1992, opinion and order of the Public Service Commission, on rehearing of the Commission's March 13, 1992, opinion and order, in relevant part holding that telephones that accept only credit cards should be included within the ambit of "coin operated telephones," which the commission decided to regulate. In Docket No. 160481, AT & T Communications of Michigan, Inc., claims an appeal from the Commission's decision and order of December 22, 1992, denying in part and granting in part a petition for rehearing of a June 12, 1992, interim order to like effect. The briefs filed by AT & T Communications in the separate appeals are identical, and acknowledged to be so. Separate appeals were taken merely to ensure appellant's right of review without procedural obstacles.

In these appeals, the issue is whether the commission exceeded its jurisdiction or erred in regulating coinless telephones, viz., those operated by credit cards, along with coin-operated telephones under § 207a of the Michigan Telecommunications Act, M.C.L. § 484.2207a; M.S.A. § 22.1469(207a). The commission elected to regulate coin-operated telephones, reasoning, in essence, that the majority of users of coin-operated telephones are persons with no other telephone service, and with respect to such users coin-operated service is tantamount to basic local service, which is closely regulated.

The commission reasoned that the general public draws no distinction between telephones operated with coins or credit cards when describing such services in the vernacular. Whether that assessment is correct, however, is irrelevant. The commission was asked to construe and apply §§ 207a and 401(2) of the Michigan Telecommunications Act, M.C.L. § 484.2101 et seq.; M.S.A. § 22.1469(101) et seq., which are sections of a statute subject to the rules of statutory construction, not constitutional provisions adopted by the people for which public understanding might be a relevant consideration. Soap & Detergent Ass'n v. Natural Resources Comm., 415 Mich. 728, 330 N.W.2d 346 (1982); People v. Nash, 418 Mich. 196, 341 N.W.2d 439 (1983).

There is no ambiguity in the term "coin operated telephone" appearing in § 207a. In law, "coin" has an accepted meaning--pieces of metal of definite weight and value, stamped by the authority of the government, and distinguished from currency (paper money), bills, notes, and other forms of government indebtedness or legal tender. Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421, 448-449, 4 S.Ct. 122, 28 L.Ed. 204 (1884). "Money" and "coin" are not synonymous; the former includes the latter, but is not confined to it. Klauber v. Biggerstaff, 47 Wis. 551, 3 N.W. 357, 359; 32 Am.Rep. 781 (1879).

All statutory words and phrases are to be construed and understood according to the common and approved usage of the language, but technical words and phrases, and those that have acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning in the law, are to be construed and understood according to such peculiar and appropriate meaning. M.C.L. § 8.3a; M.S.A. § 2.212(1). Accordingly, the Legislature's use of the term "coin," which has a peculiar and specialized meaning in the law, must be so understood, especially in light of the additional principle of statutory construction that statutes granting power to an administrative agency are strictly construed. Mason Co. Civic Research Council v. Mason Co., 343 Mich. 313, 326, 72...