Commission Agendas | previous page
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION MEETING
April 28, 1997; 11:00 A.M.
State Capitol Building, Room 412
Pierre, South Dakota
NOTE: If you wish to join this meeting by conference call, please contact the Commission at 605- 773-3201 by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, April 25, 1997.
NOTE: Notice is further given to persons with disabilities that this Commission meeting is being held in a physically accessible place. If you have special needs, please notify the Commission and we will make all necessary arrangements.
AGENDA OF THE AD HOC COMMISSION MEETING
On June 20, 1996, the Commission received a letter from U S WEST Communications, Inc. (U S WEST) and "various documents concerning the establishment of the EdNet by the Sioux Falls School District. From the documents, it is abundantly clear that what the school district wants constitutes a telecommunications service, and that the provider must, if not already a certificated provider, submit the necessary application and documentation for a certificate as required by SDCL 49-31-3 and commission rules. Sioux Falls Cable ... is the provider of the EdNet. To the best of U S WEST's knowledge and belief, Sioux Falls Cable has not sought the requisite commission certification. U S WEST has discussed the legal requirement with Sioux Falls Cable, but Sioux Falls Cable appears not inclined to comply with the statutory requirements. U S WEST requests that the commission, pursuant to its authority in SDCL 49-13-5, conduct an inquiry into this matter. If the facts are as revealed in the attached documents, U S WEST would ask that the commission direct that Sioux Falls Cable comply with the requirements of SDCL 49-31-3." A regularly scheduled meeting of August 13, 1996, the Commission voted to investigate this matter to determine if Sioux Falls Cable is subject to the certification requirements of the Commission. A regularly scheduled meeting of December 9, 1996, the Commission considered this matter and directed the Executive Director to set a procedural schedule. On December 17, 1996, Baltic Telecom Cooperative, Inc. (Baltic) filed a petition to intervene. On April 22, 1997, the Commission issued an Order establishing a hearing date of May 8, 1997.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant Baltic's Petition to Intervene?
2. TC96-199 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION BY U S WEST INTERPRISE AMERICA, INC. FOR A CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES IN SOUTH DAKOTA. (Staff Analyst: Dave Jacobson. Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer.)
On December 12, 1996, the Commission received an application by U S West Interprise America, Inc. (Interprise) for a Certificate of Authority to provide local exchange and interexchange telecommunications services within the state of South Dakota. Interprise proposed to offer high speed data communications services such as Private Line Data and fast packet services for the purpose of Network Integration for Local and Wide Area Networks (LANs/WANs). An intervention deadline of December 27, 1996, was established and Dakota Cooperative Telecommunications, Inc. (DCT), AT&T Communications of the Midwest, Inc. (AT&T), and the South Dakota Independent Telephone Coalition, Inc. (SDITC) timely filed for intervention. Interprise filed a response to each of the above-mentioned petitions to intervene on January 6, 1997. Interventions have been granted to DCT, AT&T and SDITC. Late filed interventions were granted to MCI Telecommunications Corporation (MCI) and Sprint Communications Company L.P. (Sprint). On April 17, 1997, the Commission received a request by for withdrawal of the application from U S WEST Interprise America, Inc.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve Interprise's request for withdrawal and close this docket?
3. TC96-184 IN THE MATTER OF THE INTERCONNECTION CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN AT&T COMMUNICATIONS OF THE MIDWEST, INC. AND U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC. PURSUANT TO 47 U.S.C. SECTION 252. (Advisors to the Commission: Commission Staff.)
On November 20, 1996, the Public Utilities Commission (Commission) received a filing from AT&T Communications of the Midwest, Inc. (AT&T) pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 252(b)(1) to arbitrate open issues related to its interconnection negotiations with U S WEST Communications, Inc. (U S WEST). U S WEST filed its response on December 16, 1996. On January 10, 1997, the Commission issued an Amended Procedural Schedule; Order for and Notice of Hearing. In the Amended Procedural Schedule, the Commission scheduled a prehearing conference for January 13, 1997. The prehearing conference was held as scheduled. On January 17, 1997, the Commission received a Joint Procedural Agreement submitted by U S WEST. In the Joint Procedural Agreement, U S WEST stated that AT&T had approved of the Agreement and that AT&T and U S WEST requested that the Commission adopt the proposed Agreement. The Agreement set forth the dates various witnesses would testify and the issues they would address. By Order dated January 22, 1997, the Commission adopted the Joint Procedural Agreement.
The hearing was held as scheduled on February 3, 1997, through February 7, 1997, at the Conference Room of the State Motel, in Pierre, South Dakota. On February 26, 1997, AT&T and U S WEST each filed a Post-Hearing Brief and a matrix of unresolved issues. On March 5, 1997, each party filed a Re al Brief and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. On March 20, 1997, the Commission issued its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; Order and Notice of Entry of Order in this matter. On April 21, 1997, U S WEST and AT&T filed separate proposed interconnection agreements and AT&T filed a Motion for Reconsideration/Modification of Order with the Commission.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant AT&T's motion? And, how shall the Commission proceed?
On January 14, 1997, the Commission received an application from U S WEST Communications, Inc. (U S WEST) seeking to allow U S WEST to implement an Interconnection Cost Adjustment Mechanism (ICAM) for a defined 36-month period. According to the application, "The ICAM is limited to one time, extraordinary or start-up costs for systems modifications or development, network rearrangements and business office processes effectively mandated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 for the convenience of and use by U S WEST's competitors, and to facilitate U S WEST's existing customers' ability to choose a different local exchange service provider. Because no current or proposed rate or charge will provide an opportunity for U S WEST to recover all of these extraordinary, one-time or start-up costs, U S WEST proposes the ICAM to recover the totality of such costs." U S WEST has requested expeditious Commission treatment of this application.
An intervention deadline of January 31, 1997, was established and Dakota Cooperative Telecommunications, Inc. (DC ), subsidiaries Dakota Telecommunications Systems, Inc. (DTS) and Dakota Telecom, Inc. (DTI), PAM Communications (PAM), MCI Telecommunications Corporation (MCI), McLeodUSA Telecommunications Services, Inc. (McLeodUSA), Sprint Communications Company L.P. (Sprint), AT&T Communications of the Midwest, Inc. (AT&T), and Midco Communications, Inc. (Midco) filed Petitions to Intervene. A regularly scheduled meeting of February 11, 1997, the Commission found that the Petitions to Intervene were timely filed and demonstrated good cause to grant intervention. The Commission directed the Executive Director to set a procedural schedule. A procedural schedule was issued on April 11, 1997, and on April 17, 1997, U S WEST filed a request for an extension of time. On April 18, 1997, AT&T filed a motion for permission to conduct discovery. An amended procedural schedule was issued on April 24, 1997, establishing a hearing date of June 26 through 27, 1997.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant U S WEST an extension of time? And, shall AT&T's motion for discovery be approved?
On January 15, 1997, the Commission received an application by U S WEST Communications, Inc. (U S WEST) to introduce Smart Public Access Line (Smart PAL) on a flat and message rated monthly recurring and non-recurring basis to its Exchange and Network Services Tariff. According to the application: "The introduction of Smart PAL is intended to meet the requirements in the FCC Order 96-388 (Paragraphs 146 and 147) as modified in FCC Order 96-439 (Paragraph 163) to provision a coin line for use by all Payphone Service Providers who wish to place a "dumb" payphone set on the line. The coin line has traditionally been used only by U S WEST Public Services. In addition, this filing proposed withdrawing language in the tariff which regulates the operational characteristics of Payphone Service Provider pay telephones. The effective date requested for this filing is April 15, 1997." An intervention deadline of January 31, 1997, was established. On April 15, 1997, the Commission received a letter from Gemini Companies, Inc. (Gemini) requesting late filed intervention.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant late filed intervention to Gemini?
6. TC97-030 IN THE MATTER OF THE FILING BY DAKOTA COOPERATIVE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., DAKOTA TELECOM, INC. AND DAKOTA TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS, INC. FOR DESIGNATION AS ELIGIBLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIERS. (Staff Analyst: Harlan Best. Staff Attorney: Camron Hoseck.)
On March 26, 1997, the Commission received a filing by Dakota Cooperative Telecommunications, Inc., Dakota Telecom, Inc. and Dakota Telecommunications Systems, Inc. (collectively, Dakota) "requesting that the Commission take the steps necessary to implement the Regulations relating to the Universal Service Fund which the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) must have ready by May 8, 1997. Specifically, Dakota is requesting that it be designated as an Eligible Telecommunications Company, as that term is used in 47 USC 214 (e) (1), for the following exchanges: Alsen (253), Beresford Rural (957), Chancellor (647), Davis (238), Flyger (327), Gayville (267), Hurley (238), Irene (263), Lennox (647), Monroe (297), Parker (297), Volin (267), Wakonda (267) and Worthing (372). Dakota offers services throughout these territories and will, once final rules are adopted by the FCC, continue to offer services that are supported by Federal universal service support mechanisms and as supplemented by State regulations under section 254 (f) of the Telecommunications Act, as amended. To provide these services in these exchanges, Dakota will use its own facilities. Dakota has previously, and will continue to advertise the availability of its services in media of general distribution. Prior to this filing, Dakota has not advertised its prices as part of its marketing, but makes those rates known upon inquiry. Dakota further requests that the Commission establish a "service area" as that term is defined in 47 USC 214 (e) (5) for Dakota. Due to the compact and contiguous nature of Dakota's traditional service area, Dakota requests that the Commission designate Dakota's present study area as its service area." An intervention deadline of April 11, 1997, was established. On April 9, 1997, AT&T Communications of the Midwest, Inc. (AT&T) filed to intervene.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant intervention to AT&T? And, how shall the Commission proceed?Announcements
1. The Commission Meeting scheduled for 10:00 a.m., May 6, 1997, has been rescheduled for 2:00 p.m., May 13, 1997.
William Bullard Jr.
April 24, 1997