Court Opinion

ID: 9889164
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 20:23:58.415742+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:50:00.947215
License: Public Domain

COMBS, J., concurring:
¶1 I concur in the majority opinion but write separately to emphasize the audacity of the Commission's blanket denial of Appellant's, Dobson Telephone Company d/b/a McLoud Telephone Company, application. The legislature established a process by which a rural provider with limited resources is allowed to be reimbursed from the Oklahoma Universal Service Fund (OUSF) when the rural provider meets increased costs in fulfilling a mandate to provide reliable and affordable telephone service to Oklahomans in remote and underserved areas. The Commission's majority all but ignored the evidence presented ostensibly because of a fundamental disagreement with the Oklahoma Universal Service Fund.1 This is nothing more than an attempt to further disenfranchise rural Oklahoma from basic telephone services.

Appellant's Brief in Chief at 1, January 26, 2018, states "Commissioner Bob Anthony has repeatedly spoken out against the law [Oklahoma Universal Service Fund], even going so far as to ask the Legislature, in writing, to repeal it." He stated the Fund is a bad program that should be repealed. Tr. at 30-31, June 26, 2014, Ok. Sup. Ct. Case No. 113,362. The Brief also states other members of the Commission have expressed their displeasure with the law. Commissioner Murphy, however, dissented against the denial of the request for OUSF funding.