Commission Minutes | previous page
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION MEETING
July 18, 1997; 10:00 A.M.
State Capitol Building, Room 412
Pierre, South Dakota
MINUTES OF THE AD HOC
Chairman Burg called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. Present were Commissioner Pam Nelson, Commissioner Laska Schoenfelder, Executive Director Bill Bullard, General Counsel Rolayne Ailts Wiest, Staff Attorney Camron Hoseck, Legal Intern Tricia Zimmer, Fixed Utilities Division Director Greg Rislov, Telecommunications Analyst Harlan Best, Utility Analyst Dave Jacobson, Business Manager Sue Cichos, Consumer Representative Leni Healy and Administrative Secretary Shireen Fugitt.
Also present was Rich Coit, SDITC.
Joining the meeting by phone were Rick Johnson, Ft. Randall Telephone; Robert Marmet, DCT; and Mary Lohnes, Midco Communications.
1. TC97-062 IN THE MATTER OF THE FILING BY DAKOTA TELECOM, INC., DAKOTA TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS, INC., AND DAKOTA COOPERATIVE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., FOR INTERCONNECTION WITH FORT RANDALL TELEPHONE COMPANY. (Staff Analyst: Harlan Best. Staff Attorney: Camron Hoseck.)
Commissioner Nelson made the following motions and comments:
I move that the Commission find that Dakota's June 1, 1997, request for interconnection from Fort Randall is not a bona fide request as required under section 251(f)(1)(a). I believe that the minimum requirement for a bona fide request is for the request to state under what subparts of sections 251(b) and/or 251(c) the request is being made. Dakota stated at Tuesday's hearing that it did not know if it was requesting interconnection pursuant to 251(b) or 251(c) because it first needed to know if the Commission would require it to meet ETC requirements. Since Dakota does not know if it is requesting interconnection pursuant to 251(c), then Fort Randall is obviously unable to show the Commission that it should be allowed to keep its exemption from 251(c) requirements. In order to keep the 251(c) exemption, the FCC has placed the burden on Fort Randall, to prove that Dakota's request is unduly economically burdensome or technically infeasible. This is, of course, impossible if neither party yet knows if 251(c) is even a factor in the request.
I further move that in order to enable Dakota to determine whether it needs to request interconnection pursuant to 251(b) or 251(c) that the Commission determine on an expedited basis whether to require Dakota to meet ETC requirements for the area it is seeking to provide service to.
Chairman Burg seconded and Commissioner Schoenfelder dissented. Motion passed 2-1.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 a.m.