The Ohio Public Utilities Commission (PUCO) has specific regulations regarding the provision of telecommunications services, particularly concerning local number portability (LNP). When a customer requests to port their telephone number from one telecommunications carrier to another within Ohio, the receiving carrier is responsible for initiating the porting process. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 and subsequent FCC rules, as implemented by state commissions like PUCO, mandate that carriers cooperate in facilitating number portability. The originating carrier must release the number within a specified timeframe once a valid porting request is received and verified. Failure to do so can result in penalties. In this scenario, the failure of the originating carrier to release the number within the established timeframe, despite a valid request from the customer and the receiving carrier, constitutes a violation of LNP rules as overseen by PUCO. The PUCO’s authority extends to enforcing these federal mandates and ensuring fair competition and consumer choice in the telecommunications market. Therefore, the originating carrier is liable for the delay.

The question concerns the Ohio Public Utilities Commission’s (PUCO) authority regarding the regulation of telecommunications services, specifically focusing on the concept of “basic local telecommunications service” and the circumstances under which a telecommunications company may be relieved from certain regulatory obligations. Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Section 4905.01 defines basic local telecommunications service and outlines the framework for its regulation. ORC Section 4905.01(B)(1) states that a telecommunications company is not required to obtain a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the provision of telecommunications services other than basic local telecommunications service. Furthermore, ORC Section 4927.03(A) grants the PUCO the power to adopt rules to implement the chapter, including rules that may relieve a telecommunications company from any or all of the requirements of this chapter if the company demonstrates that it is subject to effective competition. This competitive market test is a key mechanism by which the PUCO can de-regulate services. Therefore, a telecommunications company in Ohio seeking to be relieved of regulatory obligations for its services, particularly those beyond basic local service, must demonstrate to the PUCO that the market for those services is sufficiently competitive, thereby justifying a reduction or elimination of regulatory oversight. The PUCO’s role is to assess this competition and adjust regulation accordingly, ensuring both consumer protection and market efficiency.

The Ohio Revised Code, specifically Chapter 4905, grants the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) broad authority to regulate public utilities, including telecommunications providers. Section 4905.241 of the Ohio Revised Code outlines the PUCO’s power to investigate complaints regarding utility services and to issue orders for correction. When a telecommunications company operating within Ohio fails to adhere to service quality standards or violates specific provisions of Ohio’s communications law, a customer or group of customers can file a formal complaint with the PUCO. The commission then has the statutory mandate to investigate these allegations. If the investigation substantiates the claims, the PUCO can order the telecommunications provider to rectify the issue, which may include service improvements, refunds, or penalties. This regulatory framework is designed to ensure that telecommunications services provided in Ohio meet established standards and that consumer rights are protected. The commission’s authority extends to ensuring fair practices and adequate service provision across the state.

The Ohio Revised Code, specifically concerning telecommunications services and consumer protection, addresses situations where a telecommunications provider might engage in practices that could mislead or harm consumers. When a provider advertises a service with a specific promotional price, and then later increases that price without adequate prior notification that is clearly understandable and conspicuous, it can fall under deceptive advertising practices. Ohio law, influenced by federal guidelines such as those from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the principles embedded in the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (OCSPA), emphasizes transparency in pricing. The OCSPA, particularly under Ohio Revised Code Section 4905.261, grants the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) the authority to investigate and address unfair or deceptive acts or practices by public utilities, including telecommunications companies. While there isn’t a direct statutory calculation for this scenario, the principle is that the initial advertised price creates an expectation. A subsequent price increase, without clear, conspicuous, and advance notice that allows the consumer to opt-out or understand the new terms, violates the spirit and often the letter of consumer protection laws designed to prevent bait-and-switch tactics or misleading representations. The core issue is the failure to uphold the terms of the initial offer or to provide sufficient notice of changes, which can be deemed an unfair or deceptive act under Ohio law. The prompt requires identifying the most appropriate legal recourse or characterization of the provider’s action based on Ohio communications law principles. The scenario describes a bait-and-switch tactic, where an attractive initial offer is replaced by less favorable terms without proper disclosure, leading to consumer harm. This aligns with the prohibition of deceptive acts and practices in the telecommunications sector as overseen by the PUCO.

The Ohio Revised Code, specifically Chapter 4905, grants the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) broad authority to regulate telecommunications services. Section 4905.231 addresses the PUCO’s ability to investigate and issue orders concerning the provision of telephone service. When a telecommunications provider, such as “ConnectOhio,” fails to maintain adequate service quality, impacting a significant portion of its customer base in a defined geographic area, the PUCO can initiate an investigation. This investigation would typically involve reviewing customer complaints, service outage reports, and the provider’s infrastructure maintenance records. Based on the findings, if the PUCO determines that the service is indeed inadequate and poses a risk to public safety or welfare, it can order corrective actions. These actions might include mandating specific infrastructure upgrades, imposing service restoration timelines, or even levying fines. The core principle is that telecommunications providers have a duty to serve the public interest, and the PUCO is empowered to enforce this duty through regulatory oversight and enforcement actions, ensuring reliable and accessible communication services within Ohio. The PUCO’s actions are guided by statutes that aim to balance consumer protection with the operational realities of telecommunications companies.

The Ohio Public Utilities Commission (PUCO) has specific rules regarding the notification of service disruptions by telecommunications providers. Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) Chapter 4901:1-4 outlines these requirements. Specifically, OAC 4901:1-4-07 mandates that telephone companies must provide advance notice to affected customers of any planned interruption of service that is expected to last longer than a specified duration, typically four hours, unless such interruption is due to an emergency. The notice should be provided through reasonable means, such as direct mail, email, or a prominent announcement on the company’s website or an automated telephone message. The purpose of this regulation is to ensure that consumers are informed and can make necessary arrangements to mitigate the impact of service outages. Failure to comply can result in penalties. The scenario describes a planned maintenance event that will last for six hours. Therefore, the telecommunications provider is obligated to provide advance notification to its customers in Ohio.

The Ohio Revised Code, specifically Chapter 4905, grants the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) broad authority to regulate telecommunications services. Section 4905.241 outlines the PUCO’s power to investigate complaints and hold hearings concerning telecommunications companies. When a telecommunications company operating within Ohio fails to adhere to PUCO regulations, such as those pertaining to service quality or customer billing practices, the commission can initiate an investigation. Following a thorough investigation, if violations are found, the PUCO may impose penalties, order corrective actions, or modify the company’s operating authority. This process is designed to ensure fair practices and adequate service for Ohio consumers. The commission’s actions are guided by the principle of protecting the public interest in telecommunications services. The Ohio Administrative Code further details the specific procedures and standards for such investigations and enforcement actions. The PUCO’s mandate includes ensuring that telecommunications providers operate in a manner that is just and reasonable, and that their practices do not unduly burden consumers.

The Ohio Public Utilities Commission (PUCO) has specific regulations regarding the installation and operation of telecommunications equipment, particularly concerning interference with existing services. Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) Chapter 4901:1-6 outlines these requirements. When a new telecommunications provider, such as “ConnectOhio Broadband,” proposes to install fiber optic cable that could potentially cause harmful interference with existing broadcast radio signals or other licensed spectrum users in Ohio, the PUCO’s oversight is invoked. The primary concern is to prevent disruption to established communication services. The PUCO’s authority extends to ensuring that new infrastructure does not create electromagnetic interference that violates federal regulations, such as those set by the FCC, or state-specific rules designed to maintain signal integrity. This includes requiring providers to conduct appropriate site surveys, implement mitigation techniques if interference is detected, and adhere to specific installation guidelines to minimize potential disruption. Failure to comply can result in penalties or orders to cease operations until interference is resolved. Therefore, ConnectOhio Broadband must proactively address potential interference issues to gain PUCO approval for their fiber optic deployment within Ohio.

The Ohio Revised Code, specifically Chapter 4905, grants the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) broad authority over telecommunications services. Section 4905.241 of the Ohio Revised Code addresses the PUCO’s ability to investigate and regulate telecommunications companies when their practices are found to be unjust, unreasonable, or discriminatory. This section allows the commission to issue orders to rectify such issues. When a telecommunications provider in Ohio engages in practices that unfairly disadvantage certain customers or create an uneven playing field for competing services, the PUCO has the power to intervene. This intervention can include requiring the company to cease the offending practice, implement new procedures, or provide restitution to affected parties. The commission’s role is to ensure that telecommunications services are provided in a manner that is fair, efficient, and beneficial to the public interest of Ohio. This includes overseeing rates, service quality, and competitive practices within the state’s telecommunications market.

The Ohio Revised Code, specifically sections pertaining to telecommunications and broadcasting, outlines the framework for regulating communication services within the state. When considering the potential for a broadcast station to interfere with another, the primary legal and regulatory consideration under Ohio law, aligning with federal FCC guidelines adopted by reference or implication, is the concept of harmful interference. Harmful interference is defined as any interference that degrades, obstructs, or repeatedly interrupts the service of another authorized radio communication or broadcast station. The Ohio Department of Commerce, Division of Liquor Control, and Public Utilities Commission of Ohio may have roles in specific aspects of communication infrastructure or licensing, but the direct regulation of broadcast spectrum interference primarily falls under the purview of federal law enforced by the FCC, which Ohio law generally respects and integrates. Therefore, a station demonstrably causing such interference is subject to sanctions, which can include cease and desist orders, fines, and potential license revocation. The concept of “undue burden” on the interfering station is not a primary defense against causing harmful interference; rather, the obligation is on the station to operate within its allocated parameters to avoid such interference. The “public interest” is a guiding principle for broadcast licensing, but it doesn’t grant a station the right to interfere with others.

The Ohio Revised Code, specifically Chapter 4905, grants the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) broad authority to regulate telecommunications services. Section 4905.241 outlines the commission’s power to investigate complaints regarding telecommunications services and to issue orders for correction. When a telecommunications provider in Ohio fails to respond adequately to customer complaints within a specified timeframe, particularly concerning service quality or billing disputes, the PUCO can initiate an investigation. This process typically involves a formal complaint filed by the customer or an inquiry prompted by the commission’s own monitoring. The PUCO’s mandate is to ensure that telecommunications services are provided efficiently and at reasonable rates, and to protect consumers from unfair or deceptive practices. The commission’s investigatory powers are a cornerstone of this consumer protection mandate, allowing it to gather evidence, hear testimony, and ultimately render decisions that can compel a provider to rectify service issues or refund overcharges. The framework for these investigations is rooted in the commission’s statutory duty to oversee public utilities within the state.

The Ohio Revised Code, specifically Section 4939.03, governs the regulation of telecommunications services within the state. This section outlines the framework for how telecommunications companies are regulated, including provisions related to the provision of services and the oversight by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO). When a telecommunications provider seeks to offer new services or modify existing ones in Ohio, they must adhere to the regulatory requirements established by the state. The PUCO is empowered to review and approve such changes to ensure they align with public interest and statutory mandates. The core principle here is that telecommunications providers in Ohio operate under a regulatory regime designed to balance market competition with consumer protection and service availability, as defined by state law. Therefore, any action by a provider that alters their service offerings or operational structure necessitates compliance with the relevant Ohio Revised Code sections, which may involve notifications, applications, or approvals from the PUCO, depending on the nature and scope of the proposed change.

The Ohio Revised Code, specifically Chapter 4905, grants the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) broad authority to regulate telecommunications services and providers within the state. This authority includes oversight of rates, services, and the infrastructure necessary to provide these communications. When a telecommunications company seeks to abandon or discontinue a service that is deemed essential to the public interest, PUCO’s approval is generally required. This requirement stems from the commission’s mandate to ensure the continued availability of vital communications services for Ohio residents. The process for obtaining such approval typically involves a formal application, public notice, and an opportunity for interested parties to comment or protest. PUCO then evaluates the application based on various factors, including the impact on consumers, the availability of alternative services, and the financial viability of continuing the service. If PUCO finds that the abandonment would be detrimental to the public interest, it can deny the application or impose conditions for approval. This regulatory framework is designed to protect consumers from sudden service disruptions and to maintain a robust telecommunications network across Ohio.

The Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Chapter 4939 governs the regulation of telecommunications services within the state. Specifically, ORC 4939.03 addresses the classification of telecommunications carriers and the regulatory obligations associated with each classification. The statute differentiates between incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs), competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs), and other providers. ILECs, historically dominant providers, are subject to a broader range of regulations designed to ensure universal service and fair competition. CLECs, entering the market later, often face a less stringent regulatory framework, with the degree of regulation typically tied to their market power and the availability of competition. The Ohio Public Utilities Commission (PUCO) is the primary state agency responsible for implementing and enforcing these regulations. When a new provider enters a market previously dominated by an ILEC, the PUCO assesses whether sufficient competition exists to warrant deregulation or a modified regulatory approach for the new entrant. This assessment often involves analyzing factors such as the provider’s market share, the availability of alternative services, and the ability of consumers to switch providers. The goal is to balance the need for consumer protection and service availability with the promotion of innovation and investment in the telecommunications sector. In this scenario, the PUCO would examine the competitive landscape to determine if the new provider, “ConnectOhio,” operates in a market where competition is sufficiently robust to justify treating it as a non-dominant carrier, thereby exempting it from certain burdensome regulations historically applied to ILECs.

The scenario describes a situation where a cable television provider in Ohio is alleged to have engaged in discriminatory practices regarding the provision of broadband internet services to different neighborhoods. Specifically, the complaint suggests that the provider is offering higher speeds and more reliable service in affluent areas while providing significantly inferior service in lower-income neighborhoods, potentially violating principles of equitable access and fair competition. In Ohio, as in many states, the regulation of telecommunications services, including broadband, is a complex interplay of federal and state laws. While the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) oversees interstate communications and sets national broadband standards, state public utility commissions, like the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO), often have jurisdiction over intrastate services and consumer protection matters related to utilities. When evaluating such allegations, a key legal framework to consider is the Ohio Revised Code, particularly sections pertaining to public utilities and telecommunications. While there may not be a single, explicit Ohio statute directly prohibiting “digital redlining” by name, the PUCO can address discriminatory practices under its general authority to ensure that public utilities provide adequate and nondiscriminatory service to all customers within their service territory. This authority often stems from broader consumer protection mandates and the common carrier obligations that may apply to broadband providers, depending on their classification under state law. For instance, if a provider is deemed a “telecommunications company” under Ohio law, it may be subject to more stringent service obligations. The question of whether the provider’s actions constitute an unfair or deceptive trade practice, which could fall under the purview of the Ohio Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Section, is also relevant. Such practices might include misrepresenting service availability or quality, or engaging in business conduct that is likely to deceive consumers. Furthermore, if the provider receives any state or local subsidies or operates under specific franchise agreements with Ohio municipalities, those agreements might contain provisions related to service deployment and non-discrimination. Considering the available options, the most direct and comprehensive avenue for addressing allegations of discriminatory service provision by a utility in Ohio, especially concerning broadband, would involve the regulatory body responsible for utility oversight. The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) is empowered to investigate complaints against public utilities and enforce regulations designed to ensure fair and equitable service delivery. While other entities might have tangential roles, PUCO’s mandate directly encompasses the oversight of utility service quality and consumer protection within the state. Therefore, the PUCO would be the primary state agency to investigate and potentially remedy such discriminatory practices.

The Ohio Public Utilities Commission (PUCO) has specific regulations regarding the provision of telecommunications services within the state. When a telecommunications company wishes to discontinue a service that is deemed essential or has a significant customer base, they must follow a prescribed process. This process typically involves filing an application with the PUCO, providing public notice to affected customers, and demonstrating that the discontinuation is in the public interest or that alternative services are readily available. Ohio Revised Code Section 4905.21 grants the PUCO the authority to approve or deny such discontinuances. The key consideration for PUCO approval is whether the proposed discontinuation would leave a substantial portion of consumers without adequate access to essential telecommunications services, or if it would create an undue burden on remaining customers. The commission weighs the economic viability for the provider against the public’s need for the service. If the service is indeed essential and no reasonable alternatives exist, PUCO is likely to deny the application or require the company to continue service under certain conditions, potentially including subsidies or a phased withdrawal. The concept of “essential service” is central to this determination, and PUCO’s interpretation often aligns with services that are critical for public safety, emergency access, or basic communication needs.

In Ohio, the regulation of cable television services, particularly concerning pole attachments, is primarily governed by federal law, specifically the Pole Attachment Act of 1978, and its subsequent amendments, as well as state-level regulations that implement and supplement federal directives. When a cable operator seeks to attach its facilities to utility poles owned by an electric utility or a telephone company, the process involves negotiating terms and compensation. Ohio law, through the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO), plays a role in ensuring fair access and reasonable rates for these attachments. The concept of “just and reasonable rates” is central, meaning that the compensation paid by the cable operator to the utility for the use of the pole space should reflect the costs incurred by the utility in providing that space, including maintenance, depreciation, and administrative overhead. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) also sets standards for pole attachment rates, which Ohio utilities must generally adhere to unless they can demonstrate that their state-specific rates are just and reasonable and do not discriminate against cable operators. The calculation of these rates often involves factors such as the cost of the pole, the number of attachments, and the useful life of the pole. For instance, a common methodology involves calculating an annual rate based on a percentage of the replacement cost of the pole, adjusted for depreciation, plus a reasonable rate of return on the pole investment. A simplified approach might consider the cost of a new pole divided by its expected lifespan, plus a factor for maintenance and administrative costs. While specific numerical calculations are complex and vary, the underlying principle is to ensure that utilities are compensated for the use of their infrastructure without unduly burdening cable operators seeking access, thereby promoting competition and consumer choice in the telecommunications and video programming markets. The PUCO’s oversight ensures that any agreements or disputes are resolved in a manner consistent with both federal and state public interest goals.

The Ohio Public Utilities Commission (PUCO) has specific regulations regarding the provision of telecommunications services within the state. When a telecommunications provider seeks to offer new services or modify existing ones, particularly those that might impact universal service or competition, PUCO oversight is often required. The Ohio Revised Code, specifically sections related to public utilities and telecommunications, outlines the procedures for service changes and approvals. A key aspect of this oversight involves ensuring that any proposed changes do not unduly burden existing customers or create an unfair competitive landscape. The PUCO’s authority extends to approving tariffs, service offerings, and business practices of regulated telecommunications companies. In situations where a provider wishes to withdraw a service that has been deemed essential or to implement a significant pricing structure change, a formal application and review process is typically mandated. This process allows the PUCO to assess the potential impact on consumers, particularly vulnerable populations, and to ensure compliance with state-mandated service standards and affordability. The PUCO’s role is to balance the need for innovation and market development with the imperative of ensuring reliable, affordable, and accessible telecommunications services for all Ohioans. Therefore, a provider must demonstrate that the proposed service modification aligns with these overarching goals and regulatory principles.

The Ohio Revised Code, specifically Chapter 4939, governs the regulation of broadband services and telecommunications providers. When a new provider seeks to offer services in Ohio, they must comply with state-level regulations. This includes potentially obtaining necessary permits or certifications from state agencies, such as the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO), depending on the nature and scope of their operations. While federal laws like the Communications Act of 1934 (as amended) establish a framework for interstate and international communications, state laws address intrastate matters and local deployment. Ohio’s approach balances encouraging broadband expansion with consumer protection and fair competition. Therefore, a new provider must navigate Ohio’s specific regulatory landscape, which may involve registration, adherence to service quality standards, and compliance with consumer notification requirements. The question probes the understanding of which entity is primarily responsible for overseeing the intrastate aspects of telecommunications service provision within Ohio, which falls under the purview of state regulatory bodies.

The scenario involves a dispute over the transmission of potentially defamatory content by a cable television provider in Ohio. Ohio Revised Code Section 2739.03 addresses the liability of broadcasters for defamatory statements made by third parties. Specifically, it states that a radio or television station is not liable for damages for any defamatory statement uttered over the facilities of the station by or on behalf of any candidate for public office or by any other person unless the station has failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent the utterance of the defamatory statement. In this case, the cable provider, “Summit Cable,” is alleged to have failed to exercise reasonable care in its screening process for user-submitted content on its community access channel. The core of the legal question is whether Summit Cable can be held liable for the defamatory statements made by Mr. Abernathy, a third-party user, on their public access channel. The statute provides a defense for broadcasters if they exercise reasonable care. The failure to implement a basic content review policy, even for user-generated content on a community channel, could be interpreted as a lack of reasonable care. Therefore, Summit Cable’s liability hinges on whether their existing practices (or lack thereof) meet the “reasonable care” standard. Given the potential for harm from defamatory statements, a prudent provider would have some form of review or a clear policy for user-submitted content to mitigate such risks. The absence of any such policy or review process would likely mean they did not exercise reasonable care as contemplated by the statute.

In Ohio, the regulation of telecommunications services and providers falls under the purview of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO). While the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has broad authority over interstate and international communications, state commissions like the PUCO address intrastate services and consumer protection within their respective states. The Ohio Revised Code, particularly Chapter 4905, grants PUCO the power to supervise and regulate telephone companies and other public utilities. This includes the authority to set rates, approve service standards, and investigate complaints. Specifically, when a new telecommunications provider seeks to offer intrastate services in Ohio, they must generally obtain a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the PUCO. This process ensures that the provider meets certain operational and financial qualifications and that their entry into the market is consistent with the public interest. The PUCO’s oversight aims to balance the promotion of competition with the assurance of reliable and affordable telecommunications services for Ohio consumers. Failure to obtain the necessary certification before commencing intrastate operations can result in penalties and enforcement actions by the PUCO.

The Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Section 4939.12 specifically addresses the regulation of telecommunications service providers and their obligations concerning public rights-of-way. This statute, in conjunction with rules promulgated by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO), establishes the framework for how such companies can utilize and manage public infrastructure for their services. The statute permits municipalities to impose “reasonable non-discriminatory fees” for the use of public rights-of-way. These fees are intended to compensate the municipality for the costs associated with the use, maintenance, and regulation of its streets, alleys, and other public thoroughfares by telecommunications providers. The key is that these fees must be reasonable and applied consistently across all similarly situated providers, preventing discriminatory practices. The Ohio Supreme Court has affirmed the authority of municipalities to levy such fees under this statutory grant, provided they are not confiscatory or unduly burdensome. The purpose is to ensure that private entities utilizing public assets contribute to the costs of maintaining those assets and managing their use, without unduly hindering competition or service provision. The fees are not a tax in the traditional sense but rather a charge for the privilege of occupying and using public property for commercial gain.

The Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Section 4939.12 outlines the requirements for telecommunications relay services (TRS) in Ohio. Specifically, it mandates that telecommunications carriers must provide TRS access to individuals with hearing or speech disabilities. The Ohio Public Utilities Commission (PUC) is responsible for overseeing the implementation and enforcement of these provisions, including the establishment of standards for TRS quality and accessibility. While the ORC does not prescribe a specific percentage of revenue for TRS funding, it empowers the PUC to determine appropriate funding mechanisms. These mechanisms often involve surcharges on telecommunications services, with the PUC setting the rate based on the costs associated with providing TRS. The core principle is ensuring universal access to telecommunications for all Ohio residents, regardless of disability. The ORC, in conjunction with PUC regulations, establishes the framework for this essential service, focusing on the provision of services and the funding necessary to support them, rather than dictating a fixed percentage of any specific carrier’s revenue. The regulatory approach prioritizes service availability and quality.

The scenario presented involves a dispute over the use of public rights-of-way for the installation of broadband infrastructure in Ohio. Ohio law, specifically referencing provisions within the Ohio Revised Code (ORC) and relevant administrative rules from the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO), governs how telecommunications providers can access and utilize public rights-of-way. The core issue is whether a municipality’s demand for a significant upfront fee, beyond what is reasonably related to the costs incurred by the municipality for the provider’s use of the right-of-way, is permissible. Ohio law generally aims to balance the need for broadband deployment with the municipality’s legitimate interest in managing its infrastructure. ORC Section 4939.03(E) is particularly relevant, stating that a political subdivision may impose a fee on a telecommunications provider for the use of public rights-of-way, but such fees must be reasonable and directly related to the costs incurred by the political subdivision in connection with the provider’s use. A fee that is disproportionately high and not tied to actual administrative, maintenance, or capital costs associated with the provider’s presence would likely be considered unreasonable and potentially violate the spirit and letter of the law. Therefore, the municipality’s insistence on a fee that is not demonstrably linked to its actual costs of managing the right-of-way, but rather appears to be a revenue-generating measure or a barrier to entry, would be inconsistent with the statutory framework intended to facilitate broadband expansion. The correct approach requires a fee that reflects actual, quantifiable costs.

The Ohio Revised Code, specifically Chapter 4905 concerning the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO), grants PUCO broad authority over telecommunications services within the state. While the Telecommunications Act of 1996 aimed to deregulate the industry, PUCO retains oversight to ensure just and reasonable rates and services, and to protect consumers. When a telecommunications provider in Ohio, such as “Buckeye Telecom,” proposes a significant change to its service offerings that could impact affordability or accessibility for a substantial portion of its customer base, PUCO’s investigatory and regulatory powers are engaged. This includes the authority to initiate investigations into the proposed changes, hold public hearings, and issue orders to modify, suspend, or reject such proposals if they are found to be contrary to the public interest or in violation of state law. The commission’s mandate is to balance the competitive goals of the federal act with the need for consumer protection and universal service within Ohio. Therefore, Buckeye Telecom’s proposal would likely trigger a formal review process under Ohio law, requiring the company to demonstrate the necessity and reasonableness of its actions to PUCO.

The Ohio Revised Code, specifically Chapter 4905 concerning Public Utilities, grants the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) broad authority to regulate telecommunications services. Section 4905.241 outlines the commission’s power to prescribe uniform systems of accounts and to require reports from public utilities, including telecommunications carriers. This section is crucial for PUCO’s oversight, enabling it to monitor financial health, service quality, and compliance with regulations. When a telecommunications company operating in Ohio fails to submit its annual financial report by the stipulated deadline, PUCO has the statutory power to impose penalties. These penalties are typically monetary and are intended to ensure compliance with reporting requirements that are vital for regulatory oversight and consumer protection. The specific amount of the penalty can vary based on factors such as the duration of the delay and the utility’s history of compliance, but the authority to impose such penalties is firmly established within the Ohio Revised Code. The PUCO’s mandate includes ensuring that telecommunications services are provided reliably and affordably, and timely financial reporting is a cornerstone of this regulatory function. Failure to adhere to these reporting mandates directly impacts the commission’s ability to perform its duties effectively.

The question pertains to the Ohio Public Records Act, specifically concerning the redaction of personal contact information from otherwise disclosable public records. Under Ohio Revised Code \(149.43\)(A)(1)(a), the public has a right to inspect and copy public records. However, \(149.43\)(A)(2)(c) allows for the redaction of “personal contact information” of a person, including their home address, home telephone number, and personal electronic mail address. This provision is designed to protect the privacy of individuals whose information might be incidentally included in public records. The key here is that this redaction is permitted, not mandatory, and applies to information that is *not* otherwise required to be kept or maintained by law or rule. Therefore, if a public official’s personal cell phone number is listed as their primary contact for official business and is necessary for the public to conduct that business, it may not be considered “personal contact information” in the context of privacy protection under this specific clause, as its disclosure serves a legitimate public purpose related to the official’s duties. The Ohio Supreme Court has interpreted “personal contact information” narrowly in this context, emphasizing that information essential for official communication and public access to government functions is generally not subject to mandatory redaction. The distinction lies in whether the information is purely private or serves a functional role in public administration and accessibility.

The scenario presented involves a local cable television provider in Ohio that is seeking to offer a new high-speed internet service bundled with its existing video programming. This new service is being marketed as a “triple play” package. The key legal consideration under Ohio law, particularly concerning telecommunications and cable services, relates to the regulatory framework governing the provision of such services. Ohio Revised Code Chapter 4911 governs the regulation of telecommunications services, and while it has evolved, the core principles of ensuring fair competition and consumer protection remain. Specifically, when a cable operator expands into offering telecommunications services, such as broadband internet, they may be subject to certain provisions designed to prevent monopolistic practices and ensure universal service, depending on the specific nature of the service and its infrastructure. The question probes the primary regulatory authority that would oversee the initial authorization and ongoing compliance for this integrated service offering. In Ohio, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) is the primary state agency responsible for regulating public utilities, including telecommunications carriers and, in many aspects, cable television providers, especially when they offer services that overlap with traditional telecommunications. PUCO’s jurisdiction extends to ensuring that these services are provided in a manner that is safe, reliable, and in the public interest. While other entities like the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) have federal oversight, and local municipalities may have franchise agreements for cable, the question focuses on the state-level regulatory body for the integrated service offering within Ohio. Therefore, PUCO’s role in authorizing and regulating the provision of telecommunications services, which now includes broadband internet offered by a cable company, is paramount. The Ohio General Assembly has granted PUCO broad authority to regulate telecommunications companies operating within the state to ensure fair competition and consumer protection, which is directly relevant to a cable provider venturing into bundled telecommunications services.

The scenario describes a situation where a cable television provider in Ohio is attempting to offer broadband internet services. Ohio law, specifically concerning telecommunications and cable services, often requires providers to comply with certain regulations to ensure fair competition and consumer protection. When a cable operator seeks to offer telecommunications services, such as broadband internet, they may be subject to a franchise agreement or specific state-level regulatory oversight. In Ohio, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) plays a significant role in regulating telecommunications services. While cable television services historically operated under local franchise agreements, the provision of broadband internet, which is classified as a telecommunications service, falls under PUCO’s purview. Therefore, the cable operator would need to navigate PUCO’s regulatory framework, which may involve obtaining necessary certifications or adhering to specific service quality standards and consumer protection rules applicable to telecommunications providers in Ohio. The concept of “pole attachment agreements” is relevant to infrastructure deployment but is a separate regulatory issue from the initial service offering authorization. Similarly, federal regulations from the FCC govern aspects of broadband deployment and net neutrality, but state-level authorization is also crucial for intrastate services. The Ohio Revised Code, particularly sections related to telecommunications services, would outline the specific requirements for such an undertaking. The primary regulatory body to consult for authorization to offer broadband internet services in Ohio, as a telecommunications service, is the PUCO.

The Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Section 4939.02 outlines the requirements for competitive cable franchising in Ohio. This section, enacted to promote competition and consumer choice, specifies that a municipality may grant more than one cable franchise. However, it also details the process and criteria for awarding such franchises. Key provisions include the establishment of a public process for evaluating franchise applications, ensuring that awarded franchises serve the public interest, and that the franchisee possesses the technical, financial, and legal qualifications necessary. Furthermore, ORC Section 4939.02 emphasizes that the municipality must consider factors such as the applicant’s proposed service area, customer service standards, construction timelines, and the overall benefit to the community. The law aims to balance the desire for competition with the need for reliable and high-quality cable service. When a municipality decides to grant a new franchise in an area already served, it must follow the procedures laid out to ensure a fair and transparent selection process that prioritizes the public good and robust competition.