In re Telephone Co. Promotional Practices

41 Fla. Supp. 104
CourtFlorida Public Service Commission
DecidedNovember 22, 1974
DocketDocket No. 73155-TP; Order No. 6352
StatusPublished

This text of 41 Fla. Supp. 104 (In re Telephone Co. Promotional Practices) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Florida Public Service Commission primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Telephone Co. Promotional Practices, 41 Fla. Supp. 104 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1974).

Opinion

BY THE COMMISSION.

Pursuant to notice, the commission held a public hearing in this matter on January 10, 1974 in Tallahassee. After considering the entire record herein, the commission now enters its order in the premises.

Background

By Order No. 5680, dated March 19, 1973, we instituted a general investigation of promotional practices by telephone companies and directed each company to submit appropriate responses fully disclosing their respective advertising and promotional practices as well as detailed information describing the basic reasons for such practices and justification for consideration of such expenses for ratemaking purposes.

At that time, we had pending before us similar investigations of the electric and gas industries and we recognized that promotional practices were not peculiar to those industries alone for promotional practices of some form or another have been engaged in by practically all of the telephone companies. Because some expenditures clearly are not in the best interests of the ratepayer, and serve to foster ill will in the minds of the subscribers, this investigation was [106]*106initiated to determine which, if any, practices by the companies should be disallowed for ratemaking purposes. Responses have been filed on behalf of 15 companies, a number of which also requested that public hearings be held in order to give them an opportunity to present evidence on the issues raised herein. This request was granted by Order No. 5946, dated December 4, 1973, and the matter was set for public hearing on January 10, 1974, in Tallahassee. At that time, six telephone companies took advantage of the opportunity to present evidence, to wit — Florida Central Telephone Company, Central Telephone Company of Florida (then known as Southeastern Telephone Company), Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company, United Telephone Company of Florida, North Florida Telephone Company and General Telephone Company of Florida. Additionally, Order No. 5946, supra, provided that in the event a company did not wish to participate in the public hearings, its response would be made a part of this record and considered in the disposition of this matter. All parties, then, have been given an opportunity to present evidence on the issues herein and to justify their respective positions in this matter.

The parties

We have before us to aid us in the resolution of this docket the responses of 15 companies on the issues herein as well as supplemental testimony by six of the companies. Further, three parties were authorized to intervene although only one actively participated in the hearing. They include the Florida Press Association (Order No. 5988), the Attorney General (Order No. 5734), and the Florida Association of Broadcasters (Order No. 5935). A summarization of the respective positions of each of the parties will be helpful in framing the issues and in reaching our decision.

1. Florida Press Association (FPA)

This party did not actively participate in the proceeding but did file a brief statement setting forth its views. The FPA believes that a company’s advertising should be determined by management and that promotional advertising of special services allows the base rates for telephone service to remain low. Finally, it emphasizes the point that the newspapers of Florida firmly believe in the right and freedom to advertise. It opposes, then, any order which would impede the right of utilities to continue to advertise.

2. Florida Association of Broadcasters

This organization did not actively participate in the proceeding nor did it file a response setting forth its position. Thus, its intervention does not affect the outcome of this proceeding.

[107]*1073. Attorney General

The Attorney General formally intervened on behalf of the state of Florida as a consumer of telephone services. His position was set forth during the hearing by statement of counsel that absent a direct, clear and convincing showing of benefits to the ratepayers, the commission should not allow any expenditures for advertising purposes to be treated as operating expenses.

4. St. Joseph Telephone and Telegraph Compay

This company’s total expenditures in 1972 for advertising was approximately $4,500 and fell into two categories — (1) advertising by radio and newspaper media to promote the use of telephone services such as extension instruments and DDD calling, and to inform the public of rate changes and directory closing dates, (2) institutional advertising which encompasses advertising in various local publications. The latter advertising is for the purpose of “having as much local identification as possible”.

5. Indiantown Telephone System, Inc.

In its response dated April 19, 1973, this company reflected total advertising expenditures in 1972 of $402.85, which included expenditures for sponsorship of local community events and the like. It also periodically uses bill stuffers to promote different products and services available to the customers. The company justifies its present advertising program on the grounds that as one of the larger and more vital businesses in the community it must participate in community oriented activities in order to maintain community interest as well as create goodwill in the minds of the public.

6. Orange City Telephone Company

By its response, Orange City Telephone Company indicates that it incurred advertising costs of $119 in 1972, which it considers a typical year, and this amount represented only 0.03% of total company operating expenses of $421,839. Its present policy is to utilize advertising for the purpose of providing instruction to and acquainting its customers in the effective and proper operation of telephone facilities and services provided; to acquaint the public as to the availability of new and improved services, to increase operating revenues through effective promotional programs; and to present the company as a good citizen in the community in which it serves. It has attempted to demonstrate the effectiveness of its advertising program by the increase in extension telephones of its customers in 1972. This, points out the company, has resulted in keeping down the price of basic telephone service.

[108]*1087. Winter Park Telephone Company

During 1972, this company had total advertising costs of $38,464 (A/C 642) which represented about .43% of total operating expenses. Basically, its advertising consists of utilizing the newspaper, magazine and radio media, as well as bill staffers, public displays, truck posters, and yellow page advertising. It points out that due to an intensive sales effort, it added almost 5,000 extension telephones in 1972. Its efforts also resulted in spreading its peak load on available equipment to off peak hours which resulted in the avoidance of additional expenditures for increasing plant capacity. The company summarizes its position by stating that all moneys expended for advertising were designed to improve operating revenues, reduce operating expenses, and to maintain rates at a level consistent with the requirements of efficient and economical service.

8. Vista-Florida Telephone System

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

West Ohio Gas Co. v. Public Util. Comm'n of Ohio
294 U.S. 63 (Supreme Court, 1935)
Gulf Power Company v. Bevis
296 So. 2d 482 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1974)
New England Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Department of Public Utilities
275 N.E.2d 493 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1971)
In Re New England Tel. & Tel. Co.
66 A.2d 135 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1949)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
41 Fla. Supp. 104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-telephone-co-promotional-practices-flapubserv-1974.