Commission Weekly Filings | previous page
South Dakota Public Utilities Commission
WEEKLY FILINGS
For the Period of October 12, 2006 through October 18, 2006
Copies of these items may be found on the PUC Web site at http://www.puc.sd.gov
COMPLAINTS
On October 13, 2006, Merle Flottmeyer filed a formal complaint against DISH Network. Complainant claims the Flottmeyer residence received telephone solicitation phone calls from DISH Network despite the fact the phone number is on the South Dakota Do Not Call list. Complainant seeks to have the Public Utilities Commission help resolve this matter by enforcing the Do Not Call rules, including but not limited to the imposition of any fine or penalty if informal resolution cannot be reached.
Staff Analyst: Deb Gregg
Staff Attorney: Kara Van Bockern
Date Docketed: 10/13/06
Intervention Deadline: N/A
On October 13, 2006, Theodore Bozanich filed a formal complaint against DISH Network. Complainant claims his residence received telephone solicitation phone calls from DISH Network despite the fact the phone number is on the South Dakota Do Not Call list. Complainant seeks to have the Public Utilities Commission help resolve this matter by enforcing the Do Not Call rules, including but not limited to the imposition of any fine or penalty if informal resolution cannot be reached.
Staff Analyst: Deb Gregg
Staff Attorney: Kara Van Bockern
Date Docketed: 10/13/06
Intervention Deadline: N/A
On October 18, 2006, Charles W. Anderson, Jr., filed a formal complaint against DISH Network. Complainant claims the Anderson residence received telephone solicitation phone calls from DISH Network despite the fact the phone number is on the South Dakota Do Not Call list. Complainant seeks to have the Public Utilities Commission help resolve this matter by enforcing the Do Not Call rules, including but not limited to the imposition of any fine or penalty if informal resolution cannot be reached.
Staff Analyst: Deb Gregg
Staff Attorney: Kara Van Bockern
Date Docketed: 10/18/06
Intervention Deadline: N/A
ELECTRIC
Application by Xcel energy for approval to refund to customers proceeds received as a result of a settlement reached for overpayments for uranium enrichment services performed by the Department of Energy. Xcel also requests that legal fees incurred in pursuit of this settlement be deducted from the proceeds and the net amount be returned to customers through the fuel adjustment clause.
Staff Analyst: Dave Jacobson
Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer
Date Filed: 10/12/06
Intervention Deadline: 11/03/06
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
On October 13, 2006 the Commission received a filing for the approval of an Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement between Qwest Corporation and Northern Valley Communications. According to the parties, the Amendment incorporates the Triennial Review Order (TRO) and the Triennial Review Remand Order (TRRO) into the already existing Interconnection Agreement between the parties. Any party wishing to comment on the Agreement may do so by filing written comments with the Commission and the parties to the Agreement no later than November 2, 2006. Parties to the Agreement may file written responses to the comments no later than twenty days after service of the initial comments.
Staff Attorney: Kara Van Bockern
Date Filed: 10/13/06
Initial Comments Due: 11/02/06
On October 13, 2006 the Commission received a filing for the approval of a wireline Interconnection Agreement between Qwest Corporation and PrairieWave Black Hills, LLC. Any party wishing to comment on the Agreement may do so by filing written comments with the Commission and the parties to the Agreement no later than November 2, 2006. Parties to the Agreement may file written responses to the comments no later than twenty days after service of the initial comments.
Staff Attorney: Kara Van Bockern
Date Filed: 10/13/06
Initial Comments Due: 11/02/06
On October 13, 2006 the Commission received a filing for the approval of a wireline Interconnection Agreement between Qwest Corporation and PrairieWave Telecommunications, Inc. Any party wishing to comment on the Agreement may do so by filing written comments with the Commission and the parties to the Agreement no later than November 2, 2006. Parties to the Agreement may file written responses to the comments no later than twenty days after service of the initial comments.
Staff Attorney: Kara Van Bockern
Date Filed: 10/13/06
Initial Comments Due: 11/02/06
On October 16, 2006, Sprint Communications Company L.P. (Sprint) filed a petition to arbitrate, pursuant to SDCL 49-31-81 and ARSD 20:10:32:29-32, and Section 252(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996), certain terms and conditions of a proposed Interconnection Agreement between Sprint and Interstate Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc. (ITC). Sprint filed a list of unresolved issues consisting of: (1) Should the definition of End User in this Agreement include end users of a service provider for which Sprint provides interconnection, telecommunications services or other telephone exchange services? (2) Should the Interconnection Agreement permit the parties to combine wireless and wireline traffic on interconnection trunks? (3) Should the Interconnection Agreement permit the parties to combine all traffic subject to reciprocal compensation charges and traffic subject to access charges onto interconnection trunks? (4) Should the Interconnection Agreement contain provisions for indirect interconnection consistent with Section 251(a) of the Act? (5) In an indirect interconnection scenario, is the ILEC responsible for any facility or transit charges related to delivering its originating traffic to Sprint outside of its exchange boundaries? (6) What direct interconnection terms should be contained in the Interconnection Agreement? (7) What are the appropriate rates for direct interconnection facilities? (8) When a two-way interconnection facility is used, should Sprint and Interstate share the cost of the interconnection facility between their networks based on their respective percentages of originated traffic? (9) What is the appropriate reciprocal compensation rate for the termination of telecommunications traffic, as defined by Sprint in the Agreement? (10) Should Sprint's proposed language regarding Local Number Portability be adopted and incorporated into the Interconnection Agreement? (11) Should the Interstate-proposed Directory Listing provisions, as modified by Sprint, be adopted and incorporated into the Interconnection Agreement? Sprint respectfully requests the Commission to arbitrate each of the remaining disputes between Sprint and Interstate, to find in Sprint's favor and to adopt Sprint's proposed contract language. In accordance with ARSD 20:10:32:30, a non-petitioning party may respond to the petition for arbitration and provide additional information within 25 days after the Commission receives the petition.
Staff Analyst: Harlan Best
Staff Attorney: Kara Van Bockern
Date Docketed: 10/16/06
Responses Due: 11/10/06
On October 16, 2006, Sprint Communications Company L.P. (Sprint) filed a petition to arbitrate, pursuant to SDCL 49-31-81 and ARSD 20:10:32:29-32, and Section 252(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996), certain terms and conditions of a proposed Interconnection Agreement between Sprint and City of Brookings d/b/a Swiftel Communications (Swiftel). Sprint filed a list of unresolved issues consisting of: (1) Should the definition of End User in this Agreement include end users of a service provider for which Sprint provides interconnection, telecommunications services or other telephone exchange services? (2) Does the Telecommunications Act authorize the Commission to arbitrate terms and conditions for interconnection obtained under Section 251(a) of the Telecommunications Act? If yes, what terms and conditions should the Commission impose on the parties in this proceeding? (3) Should the Interconnection Agreement permit the parties to combine wireless and wireline traffic on interconnection trunks? (4) Should the Interconnection Agreement permit the parties to combine all traffic subject to reciprocal compensation charges and traffic subject to access charges onto the interconnection trunks? (5) What is the appropriate reciprocal compensation rate for the termination of telecommunications traffic? (6) Should Sprint's proposed language regarding Local Number Portability be adopted and incorporated into the Interconnection Agreement? (7) Should the ILEC-proposed Directory Listing provisions, as modified by Sprint, be adopted and incorporated into the Interconnection Agreement? (8) Termination: A) Should the termination provision of the Interconnection Agreement permit the existing Interconnection Agreement to remain in effect while the parties are in the process of negotiating and/or arbitrating a replacement Interconnection Agreement? B) Should the Interconnection Agreement contain provisions that allow the parties to terminate the Agreement for: 1) a material breach; 2) if either party's authority to provide service is revoked or terminated; or, 3) if either party becomes insolvent or files for bankruptcy? (9) What 911 liability terms should be included in the Interconnection Agreement? (10) What Force Majeure terms should be included in the Interconnection Agreement? Sprint respectfully requests the Commission to arbitrate each of the remaining disputes between Sprint and Swiftel, to find in Sprint's favor and to adopt Sprint's proposed contract language. In accordance with ARSD 20:10:32:30, a non-petitioning party may respond to the petition for arbitration and provide additional information within 25 days after the Commission receives the petition.
Staff Analyst: Harlan Best
Staff Attorney: Kara Van Bockern
Date Docketed: 10/16/06
Responses Due: 11/10/06
On October 18, 2006, the Commission received a filing for the approval of a Resale Agreement between Santel Communications Cooperative, Inc. and Midcontinent Communications Any party wishing to comment on the Agreement may do so by filing written comments with the Commission and the parties to the Agreement no later than November 7, 2006. Parties to the Agreement may file written responses to the comments no later than twenty days after service of the initial comments.
Staff Attorney: Kara Van Bockern
Date Filed: 10/18/06
Initial Comments Due: 11/07/06
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
