General Tel. Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 75-275

• Decision Date: 18 February 1976
• Docket Number: No. 75-275,75-275
• Citation: 341 N.E.2d 832,45 Ohio St.2d 154
• Parties: , 74 O.O.2d 267 GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY of Ohio, Appellant, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION of Ohio, Appellee.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 154

45 Ohio St.2d 154

341 N.E.2d 832, 74 O.O.2d 267

GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY of Ohio, Appellant, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION of Ohio, Appellee.

No. 75-275.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Feb. 18, 1976.

Power, Jones & Schneider and William H. Schneider, Columbus, for appellant.

William J. Brown, Atty. Gen., and Charles S. Rawlings, Columbus, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The issue in this appeal is whether the order of the Public Utilities Commission is unreasonable or unlawful.

Appellant argues, in a single proposition of law, that '(i)t is unreasonable and unlawful for the Public Utilities Commission to order the institution of extended area service where the need for such service is minimal and the revenues generated by the service are completely inadequate to cover its costs.'

Section 23.04 of the Code of Rules and Regulations of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio provides factors to be considered by a telephone utility when 'confronted with a situation suggesting a possible 'extended area service' requirement * * *.' Factors set forth in Section 23.04 include:

'(1) Community of interest factors:

'a. The volume of message toll telephone traffic between the exchanges involved, i. e., the calling rate.

'b. The distribution of the calling to determine whether the traffic is originated by the subscribers generally or by only a relatively few subscribers.

'* * *

'c. The location of various services, products and activities, a partial list of which is set forth below.

'1) Population movement,

'2) School activities,

'3) Police and Fire Service,

'4) Other governmental services,

'5) Medical, dental and veterinarian service,

'6) Churches,

'7) Agricultural organizations,

'8) Shopping and service centers,

'9) Employment centers, and

'10) Social interest.

'(2) Other pertinent factors:

'a. Investment and cost considerations are of importance. It would not be in the public interest for a telephone utility to enter into exceptionally heavy investments in facilities and incur exceptionally high costs in situations where the 'extended area service' requirement was slight. Therefore, each of the factors must be evaluated in relation to all other factors. Timing is an important cost consideration and substantial weight must be given to plans for instituting the service in the most economical manner and at the most economical time.

'b. Willingness of a substantial majority of the subscribers to pay appropriate rates is a basic and necessary condition to the institution of 'extended area service.' The demands of a few subscribers should not force the institution of a more costly telephone service contrary to the wishes of a majority of the subscribers.'

The commission, in its opinion and order, observed that there was evidence 'that General Telephone Company of Ohio would have a total initial investment of $115,977 and that the annual cost of maintenance would amount to $34,456.' The commission concluded, however, that these costs 'of institution and...