APPLICATION OF SOUTHWESTERN BELL TEL. CO.

APPLICATION OF SOUTHWESTERN BELL TEL. CO.
1978 OK 19
575 P.2d 624
Case Number: 49214
Decided: 02/21/1978
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

 
APPLICATION OF SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY TO ESTABLISH NEW
INTRASTATE RATES, TOLLS AND CHARGES APPLICABLE TO CERTAIN INTRASTATE
TELEPHONE AND TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES FURNISHED WITHIN THE STATE OF
OKLAHOMA AND TO AUTHORIZE DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE CHARGES.

ANSWERING, INC., ANSWERING TULSA COMPANY, AND SECURITY TELEPHONE ANSWERING SERVICE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, OKLAHOMA CORPORATION
COMMISSION, SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, APPELLEES.

Appeal from Oklahoma Corporation Commission.

¶0 The Corporation Commission granted Southwestern Bell Telephone Company's application to establish new intrastate rates on certain of its services. Several answering service companies appeal the increase in installation service charges as it applies to them.

AFFIRMED.

Geo. L. Verity, Verity, Brown & Verity, Oklahoma City, for appellants.

Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. by Robert D. Allen, Oklahoma City, for appellees.

DOOLIN, Justice:

[575 P.2d 625]

¶1 Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (Bell) made application to the Corporation Commission (Commission) for an increase in its intrastate charges and tariffs for the State of Oklahoma, including rates for installation. Appellants, several answering service companies, intervened to protest the installation service charge increase as it applied to them. Appellants claimed public convenience and necessity required Commission to exempt them from any increased installation charge. They suggest Commission provide for a special rate and tariff for all such answering services using a special type circuit involving concentrator-identifiers

[575 P.2d 626]

¶2 At the hearing appellants introduced a stipulation. The stipulation referred to testimony appellants' witnesses would give if they appeared. Appellants offered no further evidence and did not cross examine Bell's witnesses.

¶3 The stipulation, the sole basis for this appeal, provided the following as summarized in appellant's brief:

¶4 One portion of Bell's request was a "Three element Service Charge Plan" which divided installation services into three phases and provided a separate rate for each phase. After hearing, Commission issued its order adopting this plan. The order did [575 P.2d 627] not grant appellants' request for exemption from the increase. They appeal this omission.

¶5 Appellants urge this court to order Commission to amend its order to provide the total charges for installing a customer's telephone in the office of an answering service remain at $10.00. Appellants submitted the following plan to Commission in lieu of the increase. Appellants claim their plan would provide equal revenue for Bell while avoiding the hardship of the increased installation charge.

"Charges to Telephone Answering Service in connection with the use of Concentrator-Identifiers

Present charge

Requested by Southwestern Bell Telephone

 
Suggested by Telephone Answering

Monthly basic charge:

$75.00

$80.00

$86.25

Monthly subscriber Charge:

3.00

3.20

3.45

Installation charge:

10.00

16.00

10.00 "

¶6 Commission set Bell's fair value rate base at $533,699,292.00 and allowed an 11 1/2% to 12 1/2% rate of return. Based on these figures, Commission found a revenue deficiency presently existed in the amount of $14,420,000.00. It granted various rate increases and denied others. It approved Bell's three element service charge as being reasonable and fair.

¶7 Appellants do not dispute these findings and order of the Commission or that Bell was entitled to a rate increase in order to realize the stated rate of return. They claim the stipulation of testimony conclusively shows public convenience and necessity demand preferential treatment be given to them as a class of consumers. They claim under Blakeley v. Corporation Commission, 332 P.2d 1103 (Okl. 1958) Commission was obligated to grant appellants' protest. In Blakeley this court affirmed a Commission order which was based on uncontroverted facts showing a requested service was required. The situation here is not the same. Appellants are asking to be exempted from a Commission rate order. Commission considered appellants' stipulated testimony and based on its expertise refused to grant the relief sought.

¶8 A utility is entitled to earn a reasonable return on its investment.

¶9 Appellants argue because installation charges were increased by a higher percentage than the overall increase, the order is discriminatory. There is no rule that each phase of a utility service must be uniformly increased. Not all discrimination between utility customers is unlawful. Prohibition applies only to those differences in treatment which are unjust or unreasonable.

¶10 Appellants further contend it is discriminatory to base installation charges on "costs of service" while other services were rated on basis of "value of service". This complaint too is unfounded. There is no evidence in the record that installation service charges were based only on costs. Further there is certainly more than one theory or formula for determining rates which might be adopted and followed by Commission. Neither "cost of service" nor "value of service" is exclusive or a more favored formula.

[575 P.2d 628]

¶11 In addition to the above, in their brief, appellants argue the order is anti-competitive in that Bell has a call forwarding service for which it charges only $5.00 for installation. This point was not urged as error in appellants' petition in error and although it was suggested in their protest, it was not discussed in the stipulation. Further appellants offered no evidence at hearing of the allegedly competitive Bell service. In Oklahoma Users of Public Utilities Services v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. of Oklahoma, 289 P.2d 968 (Okl. 1955) we held where protestants to a telephone rate increase did not raise a specific objection in the hearing before the Commission, they could not use that theory for first time before the Supreme Court. Further because this theory was not assigned as error, it is not an issue before this court.

¶12 The burden of proving the rates fixed by the Commission to be confiscatory is upon the party complaining. Appellants failed to meet this burden. The order is sustained by the law and substantial evidence.

¶13 AFFIRMED.

¶14 LAVENDER, V.C.J., and DAVISON, WILLIAMS, IRWIN, BERRY, BARNES and SIMMS, JJ., concur.

Footnotes:

1 Concentrator-identifiers are units of equipment utilized by answering service companies in lieu of separate circuits for each customer. A concentrator in the central telephone office channels the customers' extension lines into six talking paths and twelve ringing paths. The identifier then channels these circuits to their respective positions on the answering services' switchboard, thereby permitting the answering service to receive the message of as many as 100 customers over the six lines.

2 Wiley v. Oklahoma Natural Gas Company, 429 P.2d 957 (Okl. 1967).

3 Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company v. Sun Oil Company of Pennsylvania, 554 P.2d 14 (Okl. 1976).

4 id.

5 Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. State, 204 Okl. 225, 230 P.2d 260 (1951).

6 Bredouw v. Wilson, 208 Okl. 393, 256 P.2d 421 (1953).