Commission Weekly Filings | previous page
South Dakota Public Utilities Commission
WEEKLY FILINGS
For the Period of November 18, 1999 through November 24, 1999
If you need a complete copy of a filing faxed, overnight expressed, or mailed to you, please contact Delaine Kolbo within five business days of this filing.
Phone: 605-773-3705 Fax: 605-773-3809
CONSUMER COMPLAINTS
On November 18, 1999, the Commission received a formal complaint from Nancy Van Heerde indicating that Ms. Van Heerde's long distance service had been switched to Furst Group by a deceptive telemarketer. Furst Group has issued a partial credit for an error concerning the Complainant's address. Furst Group has provided a tape of the verification conversation. The Complainant is not satisfied with the offered resolution and has requested further consideration by the Commission.
Staff Analyst: Leni Healy
Staff Attorney: Camron Hoseck
Date Filed: 11/18/99
Intervention Deadline: NA
The Complainant indicates that he received a call from a telemarketer claiming to be with AT&T who wanted to combine his billing. As a result he received a billing from OLS. The Complainant is requesting removal of all charges and $1000.
Staff Analyst: Leni Healy
Staff Attorney: Camron Hoseck
Date Filed: 11/19/99
Intervention Date: NA
The Complainant claims that her long distance service was with Promise Net. When she received her billing, she was billed by OLS, Inc. at a higher rate.
Staff Analyst: Leni Healy
Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer
Date Filed: 11/22/99
Intervention Date: NA
The Complainants indicate that a telemarketer representing U S WEST called her concerning her billing. As a result of this conversation, her service was switched to OLS, Inc. The Complainant requests that a large fine should be assessed to OLS for this activity.
Staff Analyst: Leni Healy
Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer
Date Filed: 11/22/99
Intervention Deadline: NA
The Complainants indicate that a telemarketer contacted them indicating that she was with U S WEST contacting them about billing issues. As a result of the call, their service was switched to OLS, Inc. The Complainants request that all assessed charges be dropped and that $1000 in penalties be paid to them.
Staff Analyst: Leni Healy
Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer
Date Filed: 11/22/99
Intervention Date: NA
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
In August of 1996, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued its Local Competition Order implementing section 251 of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. Section 51.507(f) required each state commission to establish different rates for interconnection and unbundled network elements (UNEs) in at least three geographic areas within the state to reflect geographic cost differences. The Eighth Circuit subsequently stayed and then vacated the deaveraging rule. Based on those decisions, the Commission did not establish different rates for different geographic areas. However, in January of 1999, the U. S. Supreme Court reversed the Eighth Circuit's decision. On May 7, 1999, the FCC stayed the effectiveness of the rule in order to allow states additional time to comply with the rule. By order released November 2, 1999, the FCC ruled that the stay will be lifted on May 1, 2000. In the Matter of the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, CC Docket 96-45, Ninth Report and Order and Eighteenth Order on Reconsideration, FCC 99-306, paragraph 120 (rel. Nov. 2, 1999). The order provides that by May 1, 2000, "states are required to establish different rates for interconnection and UNEs in at least three geographic areas pursuant to section 51.507(f) of the Commission's rules." Id. A November 15, 1999, meeting, the Public Utilities Commission (Commission) considered how to proceed in this matter. After listening to comments from interested persons, the Commission decided to request written comments on how to proceed from interested persons or entities. On or before December 17, 1999, interested persons or entities may file written comments on how the Commission should establish different rates for interconnection and UNEs in at least three geographic areas within the state to reflect geographic cost differences. The Commission is interested in comments on whether the Commission may comply with the FCC's order to establish different rates for interconnection and UNEs in at least three geographic areas through a rulemaking or whether different rates must be established for specific companies in contested case dockets. Interested persons or entities may submit proposed rules along with their comments.
Staff Analyst: Harlan Best
Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer and Camron Hoseck
Date Opened: 11/19/99
Written Comments Due: On or before 12/17/99
A November 15, 1999, meeting, the Commission voted to issue Orders to Show Cause against Western Telecom and Touchtone Communications as to why Western Telecom and Touchtone Communication should not be assessed civil fines or other penalties for violations of South Dakota laws. The Commission also ordered the company to submit a complete listing of South Dakota customers.
Staff Analyst: Leni Healy
Staff Attorneys: Camron Hoseck and Karen Cremer
Date Filed: 11/22/99
Intervention Deadline: 12/10/99
NetLojix Telecom, Inc. has filed a request for a Certificate of Authority to operate as a reseller of intrastate interexchange telecommunications services in South Dakota. NetLojix Telecom intends to offer direct dialed 1+ service, inbound/outbound message telecommunications service, switched and dedicated services, toll free service and post-paid calling service to and from all points within the State of South Dakota.
Staff Analyst: Michele Farris
Staff Attorney: Camron Hoseck
Date Filed: 11/23/99
Intervention Date: 12/10/99
On November 23, 1999, the Public Utilities Commission received an interconnection agreement between New Edge Network, Inc. d/b/a New Edge Networks and U S WEST Communications, Inc. for approval by the Commission. The agreement governs services for resale and certain unbundled network elements, ancillary functions and additional features (collectively referred to as "Network Elements") for New Edge Networks' offering and provisioning of telecommunications services. The agreement addresses interconnection and reciprocal compensation for the exchange of local traffic.
Any party wishing to comment on the agreement may do so by filing written comment with the Commission and the parties to the agreement no later than December 17, 1999. Parties to the agreement may file written responses to the comments no later than December 27, 1999.
Staff Attorney: Camron Hoseck
Date Filed: 11/23/99
Comments Due: 12/17/99
You may receive this listing and other PUC publications via our Web site or via internet e-mail.
You may subscribe or unsubscribe to the PUC mailing lists at http://www.puc.sd.gov/
