(1) No local exchange provider shall, as to its pricing and provision of access, make or grant any preference or advantage to any person providing telecommunications service between exchanges nor subject any such person to, nor itself take advantage of, any prejudice or competitive disadvantage for providing access to the local exchange network. Access charges by a local exchange provider shall be cost-based, as determined by the commission, but shall not exceed its average price by rate element and by type of access in effect in the state of Colorado on July 1, 1987.
(2) At its option, any rural telecommunications provider may, in lieu of the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, remain under the jurisdiction of the commission pursuant to part 2 of this article. A rural telecommunications provider operating under this subsection (2) may at any time apply to the commission for regulatory relief under section 40-15-203 or 40-15-207. Such rural telecommunications provider, upon the granting of regulatory relief, shall provide access services under the conditions established in subsection (1) of this section; except that the commission shall set the maximum price for access services for such provider.
(3) Contracts for access pursuant to subsection (1) of this section shall be filed with the commission and open to review by other purchasers of such access to assure compliance with the provisions of this section. Prior to such review, the purchaser desiring such review shall execute a nondisclosure agreement as determined by the commission for the protection of business and trade secrets.
Source: L. 87: Entire article R&RE, p. 1479, § 1, effective July 2. L. 2000: (2) amended, p. 47, § 2, effective March 10.
ANNOTATION
Rates set by commission for interLATA access charge and intraLATA toll rates do not unreasonably discriminate against resellers and result in "price squeeze". When establishing an intraLATA toll rate, the commission is under no obligation to a require bell operating company to impute to itself an access charge similar to one imposed on resellers. Wholesale rates approved by commission and charged to resellers for intraLATA toll services are not discriminatory, even though in some mileage bonds and at some times of the day such rates exceed the retail rates charged by bell operating company to its own customers. Consumer Counsel v. P.U.C., 786 P.2d 1086 (Colo. 1990) (decided under section as it existed prior to the 1987 repeal and reenactment of this article.)
Subsection (1) is not meant to apply to companies that provide basic local residential and business exchange services. "Access", as used in subsection (1), is a defined term that refers to services provided to interexchange providers. Integrated Network Servs. v. PUC, 875 P.2d 1373 (Colo. 1994).
Specter of discrimination would be raised contrary to subsection (1) if providers of call transfer services that allow a subscriber to place intrastate telephone calls outside of the subscriber's local calling area without incurring long-distance toll charges were allowed to purchase from an exchange tariff rather than an access tariff. Avicomm, Inc. v. Colo. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 955 P.2d 1023 (Colo. 1998).