Commission Weekly Filings | previous page
South Dakota Public Utilities Commission
WEEKLY FILINGS
For the Period of December 2, 1999 through December 8, 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
The Complainants claim that they were contacted by telephone to consolidate their billing. As a result of the call, their long distance service was switched to OLS, Inc. The Complainants want telephone companies to "have everything in writing before anything could change."
Staff Analyst: Leni Healy
Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer
Date Filed: 12/02/99
Intervention Deadline: NA
The Complainant claims that she received a call from a telemarketer representing her local phone company. As a result of this call, the Complainant's long distance service was switched. The Complainant is seeking to have the charges removed and a fine assessed.
Staff Analyst: Leni Healy
Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer
Date Filed: 12/08/99
Intervention Date: NA
The Complainant indicates that as a result of a sales call, she switched her long distance service. The rates and fees which appeared on her billing were not the rates and fees promised.
Staff Analyst: Leni Healy
Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer
Date Filed: 12/08/99
Intervention Date: NA
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
On July 23, 1999, U S WEST Communications, Inc. (U S WEST) and Venture Communications, Inc. (VCI) a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sully Buttes Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (SBTC) entered into an Agreement for the sale and purchase of the Sisseton Exchange. On December 2, 1999, the Commission received a joint application from U S West and VIC/SBTC for approval of the sale.
Staff Analyst: Keith Senger
Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer
Dated Filed: 12/02/99
Intervention Deadline: 12/23/99
The petition by McLeodUSA as summarized states: U S WEST Communications (U S WEST) offers Voice Messaging Service (VMS) pursuant to its South Dakota Exchange and Network Services Catalog. There is nothing in the catalog that restricts the selling of VMS to residential or business customers either to individual customers, in bulk or in large numbers, or for any customer to then resell to others. McLeodUSA, as a service to its customers, buys VMS from U S WEST under the terms and conditions of U S WEST's catalog and at the retail prices published by U S WEST in the catalog. McLeodUSA then resells the VMS to its customers at the same rate, and under the same terms and conditions, as in the catalog. The purchase and resale of VMS is not done pursuant to a resale agreement or pursuant to any wholesale discount required by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. On September 22, 1999, McLeodUSA became aware for the first time that the sale of VMS by U S WEST in South Dakota to McLeodUSA would be discontinued. The only reason stated for this action by U S WEST is that it is not required to sell VMS for resale by companies. Despite attempts to have the decision concerning the retail provisioning of VMS to McLeodUSA changed, U S WEST is now prepared to disconnect over 400 VMS customers in South Dakota because they are also customers of a competitor, McLeodUSA. McLeodUSA may be successful in keeping these customers on a VMS platform provided by McLeodUSA or another vendor, but at a cost for local transport, much of which is controlled by and must be purchased from U S WEST. There is no good or justifiable business reason to single out the purchase at retail of VMS by a competitor, who then resells the service, as a target for making the service not available as described in the catalog. This is just another attempt by U S WEST to inhibit competition in its South Dakota local exchange market in violation of explicit state law prohibiting such discriminatory conduct. The discontinuance of the retail sale of VMS by U S WEST to McLeodUSA for purposes of resale is an unjust and unreasonably discriminatory action by U S WEST in violation of SDCL 49-31-11.
Staff Analyst: Harlan Best
Staff Attorney: Camron Hoseck
Date Filed: 12/02/99
Intervention Deadline:
On October 22, 1996, Dakota Telecom, Inc. (DTI) was granted a Certificate of Authority to provide telecommunications services, including local exchange services, throughout the State of South Dakota. This grant was subject to the Commission's restriction with respect to rural telephone companies. DTI is requesting that the Commission amend its previous Order granting DTI its certificate and grant DTI the authority to provide service to the entire exchange of Jefferson, South Dakota, an exchange currently served by Long Lines, Inc. d/b/a Jefferson Telephone company, a rural telephone company as that term is defined in Federal and State law.
Staff Analyst: Heather Forney
Staff Attorney: Camron Hoseck
Dated Filed: 12/06/99
Intervention Deadline: 12/24/99
One Tel Inc. seeks a Certificate of Authority to provide resold interexchange dial around telecommunication services. One Tel intends to provide services through South Dakota to business and residential end-users.
Staff Analyst: Keith Senger
Staff Attorney: Camron Hoseck
Date Filed: 12/08/99
Intervention Date: 12/23/99
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/
