aware of the full extent of Southwestern Bell’s lock up conduct, let alone exercising ultimate control over it.” Ct. Op. at 27-28. Here, the state plainly made clear its intent to regulate telephone services, including payphone services, until the OCC permitted competition. See Okla. Const. art. IX, §§ 18, 34; Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 17, § 131 (OCC issues certificate of convenience and necessity); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 17, § 139.1 (directing the OCC to “promulgate and enforce operating requirements for coin-activated telephones and credit card-activated telephones available for public use owned or operated by corporation or persons other than telephone corporations authorized by the Commission to operate within service areas.”); Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. Oklahoma, 825 P.2d 262, 265 (<HOLDING>); Aplt.App. 3711-3724 (1985) (OCC 1985 Tariff
recognizing the public interest exception recognizing that local exchange companies are a statecreated exception to prohibition on monopolies recognizing exception recognizing the rule and the exception but holding facts did not support claim to exception recognizing such an exception