Upon the completion of the hearing on such an application made pursuant to section 86-135, if a hearing is required, the commission may grant the application, in whole or in part, if the evidence establishes the following:

(1) That such applicant is not receiving, and at the time of the application is not able to receive, advanced telecommunications capability service from the telecommunications company which furnishes telecommunications service in the local exchange area in which the applicant resides;

(2) That the revision of the exchange service area required to grant the application is economically sound, will not impair the capability of any telecommunications company affected to serve the remaining subscribers in any affected exchanges, and will not impose an undue and unreasonable technological or engineering burden on any affected telecommunications company; and

(3) That the applicant is willing and, unless waived by the affected telecommunications company, will pay such construction and other costs and rates as are fair and equitable and will reimburse the affected telecommunications company for any undepreciated investment in existing property as determined by the commission. The amount of any payment by the applicant for construction and other costs associated with providing service to the applicant may be negotiated between the applicant and the affected telecommunications company.

Annotations

Applicants are required, irrespective of whether phone company currently providing service participates, to present evidence to establish their case. Public Service Commission may consider, in determining the adequacy of service the applicant receives, the evidence that toll charges deter others in the applicant's community of interest from calling him. In re Application of Jantzen, 245 Neb. 81, 511 N.W.2d 504 (1994).

A toll charge as contemplated in subsection (1) of this statute (formerly section 75-613) is a charge for a single long-distance call, not a monthly flat fee for service. In re Application of George Farm Co., 233 Neb. 23, 443 N.W.2d 285 (1989).

The determination of what is economically sound under this section (formerly section 75-613) is peculiarly within the discretion and expertise of the Public Service Commission. Where the evidence is in conflict, the weight of the evidence is for the determination of the commission and not the appellate court. Reis v. Glenwood Telephone Membership Corp., 207 Neb. 575, 299 N.W.2d 771 (1980).

Terminology of this section (formerly section 75-613) has acquired new meanings requiring case-by-case evaluation. Hartman v. Glenwood Tel. Membership Corp., 197 Neb. 359, 249 N.W.2d 468 (1977).

An applicant may obtain authority from the State Railway Commission for telephone service furnished in adjacent service area without proving inadequacy of service or unfairness of rates in the tradition of public utility law. Schoen v. American Communication Co., Inc., 189 Neb. 78, 199 N.W.2d 716 (1972).

Subsection (1) of this section relates to whether an applicant is receiving, or will receive within a reasonable time, broadband service from the telecommunications company which furnishes telecommunications service in the local exchange area in which the applicant resides; a timeframe of nearly 8 months did not meet the requirement of "within a reasonable time." Note that this section was amended effective September 1, 2019, to place the focus on when the application to change exchange boundaries is filed, rather than whether service can be made available within a reasonable time. In re Application No. C-4981, 27 Neb. App. 773, 936 N.W.2d 365 (2019).