Florida Cable Television Ass'n v. Deason, 82281
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
| Writing for the Court | HARDING; BARKETT |
| Citation | 635 So.2d 14 |
| Parties | 19 Fla. L. Weekly S180 FLORIDA CABLE TELEVISION ASSOCIATION, Appellant, v. J. Terry DEASON, et al., Appellees. |
| Docket Number | No. 82281,82281 |
| Decision Date | 14 April 1994 |
Page 14
v.
J. Terry DEASON, et al., Appellees.
Laura L. Wilson, Florida Cable Television Ass'n, Inc., Tallahassee, for appellant.
Robert D. Vandiver, Gen. Counsel, and Marsha E. Rule and William E. Wyrough, Jr., Div. of Appeals, Florida Public Service Com'n, Tallahassee, Thomas R. Parker, Joe
Page 15
W. Foster, Kimberly Caswell and M. Eric Edgington, GTE Florida Inc., Tampa, and Harris R. Anthony and J. Phillip Carver, Miami, and Mary Jo Peed, Atlanta, GA, of Southern Bell Tel. and Tel. Co., for appellees.HARDING, Justice.
The Florida Cable Television Association (FCTA) appeals an order from the Florida Public Service Commission. 1 The order deals with the regulatory safeguards required under chapter 364, Florida Statutes (1991), to prevent cross-subsidization of competitive services by local exchange carriers. We have jurisdiction based on article V, section 3(b)(2) of the Florida Constitution.
We affirm the order because we find that it was supported by competent substantial evidence and it upholds the legislative intent.
This case arose after the Legislature revised chapter 364, Florida Statutes, in 1990. Its amendments included the addition of section 364.338, Florida Statutes (1991), which sets up a procedure to determine when services provided by local exchange services should be subject to regulation. Section 364.3381, Florida Statutes (1991), prohibits the cross-subsidization of competitive services by local exchange carriers.
The Commission opened a docket on this issue and held a two-day hearing in March 1993. Its resulting order defines statutory terms and sets out guidelines to ensure that cross-subsidization is not present. The FCTA does not challenge the Commission's definition of cross-subsidization. 2 Instead, the FCTA questions whether the Commission correctly concluded (1) that the terms "competitive," "subject to effective competition," and "effectively competitive," which are used in section 364.338 but not defined in chapter 364, should be construed as "effectively competitive" and (2) that section 364.3381 prevents only the cross-subsidization of "effectively competitive" services. The issue, according to the FCTA, is whether the Legislature intended the three terms to have separate and distinct meanings.
Commission orders come to the Court "clothed with the statutory...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
US LEC of Tennessee, Inc. v. Tennessee Regulatory Authority, No. M2004-01417-COA-R12-CV (TN 4/17/2006), M2004-01417-COA-R12-CV.
...926 (9th Cir. 1994); Ameritech Corp. v. United States, 867 F. Supp. 721, 726 (N.D. Ill. 1994); Florida Cable Television Ass'n v. Deason, 635 So. 2d 14, 15 n.2 (Fla. The use of revenues from the sale of services in a regulated market to subsidize the cost of providing the services in the unr......
-
Metropolitan Dade County v. P.J. Birds, Inc., 93-1578
...represented a reasonable construction of the Historic Preservation Ordinance. See id.; see also Florida Cable Television Ass'n v. Deason, 635 So.2d 14, 15 (Fla.1994); Department of Insurance v. Southeast Volusia Hospital Dist., 438 So.2d 815, 820 (Fla.1983), appeal dismissed, 466 U.S. 901, ......
-
Childers v. Department of Environmental Protection, 96-4182
...v. Saker, 271 So.2d 26 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). DEP does not contend otherwise here. Citing Florida Cable Television Association v. Deason, 635 So.2d 14 (Fla.1994), DEP argues that its interpretation of statutes it administers is entitled to great deference. See also Morris v. Division of Retire......
-
Florida Cities Water Co. v. State, 96-3812
...and powers, and that they are reasonable and just and such as ought to have been made.' " Florida Cable Television Ass'n v. Deason, 635 So.2d 14, 15 (Fla.1994), citing United Tel. Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 496 So.2d 116, 118 (Fla.1986)(quoting General Tel. Co. v. Carter, 115 So.2d 554, 55......