OCR Text |
Show ' avis HDSrecfi EDSal Put -On MM; Msipj Hearings To Begin &pil !(B jjl WRY R. BLODGETT SALT LAKE CITY - A re-(1"8 re-(1"8 before the Utah Wic Service Commission to ' ?,e !he extent of TO-dial telephone service tavis County residents S ,tiUfibe8'nning Mon- THE PSC granted the new hearing after being petitioned by Mountain Bell Telephone Company and the Utah Division of Public Utilities. Both filed for the rehearing after the PSC granted countywide coun-tywide direct dialing service plus toll-free service for Lay-ton-Kaysville residents to call Ogden and Salt Lake City. Mountain Bell officials allege that: 1. THERE was not enough evidence to show an immediate need for countywide coun-tywide toll-free calling since 78 percent of all Clearfield customers did not make even one call per month to Bountiful. Boun-tiful. 2. Salt Lake customers did not have ample input into the hearings regarding calls from the Salt Lake City to the Kaysville-Layton area. X THAT IF the PSC ruling was allowed to stand, cost estimates es-timates for switching stations and main trunk lines would be "about double the estimates es-timates given the PSC at subsequent hearings." 4. That Utah legislators representing Davis County did apply political pressure through letter and personal contact before the final ruling was signed by the PSC members. THE LATTER refers to a letter written to the three-member three-member PSC, and to officials of Mountain Bell, stating an apparent misunderstanding" misunderstand-ing" as to what Davis County residents actually desire from the proposed extended telephone service. The letter was addressed to the PSC from Speaker of the House James V. Hansen (R-Farmington), (R-Farmington), Senator Haven J Barlow (R-Layton) and Rep. Franklin W. Knowlton (R-Layton), all of whom have aggressively campaigned for improved and extended telephone service in Davis County. "WE WERE only trying to clarify a misunderstanding that we felt the PSC had as a result of the hearings," said Speaker Hansen. "In no way were we trying to be underhanded un-derhanded about it. If we had, we certainly wouldn't have sent a copy of the letter to officials of-ficials of Mountain Bell." Speaker Hansen added that he feels that Mountain Bell had enough evidence to seek a rehearing without making any allegation of "wrongdoings "wrongdo-ings or irregularities" by members of the State Legislature. "TO DO this is taking a 'cheap shot at three legislators legisla-tors who were doing nothing more than representing the people they serve," said Speaker Hansen. Senator Barlow concurred. The senator noted that his "personal contract" with PSC member Kenneth Rigtrup was a luncheon at the State Capitol. "I ASKED Commissioner Rigtrup if he would join me for lunch to talk about the Davis County hearings-because hearings-because I felt there was some misunderstanding," said Senator Barlow. "But to my recollection, the luncheon was after the PSC decision and Commissioner Rigtrup had cast the dissenting vote." Commissioner Rigtrup said he did not feel any wrongdoing wrongdo-ing at the time of the luncheon but after the luncheon he researched the PSC Practice and Procedure manual and found that Rule 17.2 of Section "B" prohibits commissioners from talking to persons directly or in directly connected with a case until that case has been ' closed. "I WAS elected to represent some 25,000 persons of the Centerville, Farmington and Kaysville area and I have been doing that for the past eight years," said Speaker Hansen. "I don't know of any law that prohibits me or any other legislator from talking to persons regarding matters pertaining to Davis County. "They (PSC) think its wrong for us to talk to them about extended telephone service but Commissioner Rigtrup is constantly lobbying lobby-ing at the State Legislature in behalf of the handicapped. Gee, I just can't see what was wrong with writing a letter or talking about the case after the case had been closed to arguments." SPEAKER HANSEN also urged the support for a compromise in the upcoming hearing that would be good for Davis County residents and acceptable for Mountain Bell as well. "I would hate to see this matter go to the Supreme Court and be delayed there for a year or two," he said. HE EXPLAINED that Lay-ton-Kaysville residents were not asking exclusively for toll-free calling both to Ogden and Salt Lake City-only an option to do one or the other-unless other-unless those who choose both pay the extra cost. Mountain Bell officials, however, noted that it would be necessary that all customers cus-tomers in an exhange (376) have the same calling privileges. AT FIRST, the PSC ruled that 376-customers could call tollfree to Ogden, but not to Salt Lake City. Later, before the original decision was signed by the PSC, two of the three members voted to allow Lay-ton-Kaysville customers to call both Ogden and Salt Lake City, as well as to the countywide coun-tywide service. EVEN DAVIS County legislators had not intended to argue for this extended service-only the option of calling one metropolitan city or the other. Mountain Bell officials argue ar-gue that there is no county in the state with countywide service, and there is no telephone exchange in the state that can call two metropolitan me-tropolitan cities tollfree. 4THIS WOULD be setting a very dangerous precedence," said a spokesman for Mountain Moun-tain Bell. "We have already been told by Senator Earnest Dean of Utah County that he will petition the PSC for similar service if Davis County's case is allowed to stand." Mountain Bell did not challenge the entire PSC ruling of last month, only two specific phases of the proposed extended area service ser-vice (1) tollfree calling of Kaysville-Layton customers to Salt Lake City; and (2) countywide calling without a toll charge. TELEPHONE company officials of-ficials allege "records do not support the PSC ruling for countywide toll-free service, especially between Bountiful and Clearfield where 78 percent per-cent of it customers do not presently use the service. |