cable companies to provide telephone services”), cert. granted, No. 11SC669, 2012 WL 1940812 (Colo.2012); GTE North, Inc. v. Zaino, 96 Ohio St.3d 9, 770 N.E.2d 65, 69 (2002) (rejecting an ILEC’s constitutional challenge to an Ohio law that provided for a much higher rate of assessment on certain personal property of ILECs and noting that ILECs “enjoy the advantage ... of being the default provider of intraLATA call service for customers who fail to take affirmativ 337, 346-47 (1967) (finding it unconstitutional under Idaho’s uniformity clause to assess certain property at a higher ratio of full cash value), overruled by Simmons v. Idaho St. Tax Comm’n, 111 Idaho 343, 723 P.2d 887, 892-93 (1986); Inter Island Tel. Co., v. San Juan County, 125 Wash.2d 332, 883 P.2d 1380, 1382-83 (1994) (<HOLDING>). These cases are easily distinguishable,
holding that the extension phone exemption applied to situations where a parent records his childs phone conversations from a phone extension within the parents home without any analysis of the recording partys purpose recognizing that the government may seek a personal judgment specific property or substitute property holding vendors right to receive payment under a land sale contract was personal property and a security interest representing that personal property right constituted realty paper and was subject to article 9 holding that the utilities commission has the discretion to use a hypothetical capital structure in setting customer rates particularly where the utility is a whollyowned subsidiary of a holding company holding it unconstitutional to assess a local phone company at a much higher rate than other utilities and personal property taxpayers