Commission Agendas | previous page

South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Meeting
Thursday, November 2, 2000; 1:30 P.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 November 1, 2000.

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.

ADDENDUM TO THE AGENDA

Consumer Issues

1. CT00-060 IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY DON AND JUDY BLINDAUER, MITCHELL, SOUTH DAKOTA, AGAINST SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY L.P., QWEST CORP., AND I-LINK COMM. REGARDING UNAUTHORIZED SWITCHING OF LONG DISTANCE PROVIDER. (Staff Analyst: Charlene Lund. Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer.)

The Complainants, Don and Judy Blindauer, allege that they received charges for long distance out of state phone service from Sprint on their December phone bill. They never authorized Sprint to be a carrier and they had a "freeze" on their phone service to prevent being slammed. The charges from Sprint were high, ranging from .57 cents per minute to $3.09 per minute. They received another bill from Sprint in February and they continue to get bills from their chosen carrier I-Link. The complainants are requesting that the Sprint rates be rerated to the charges they would have received with I-Link and that they be paid $1000.00 for the inconvenience. The complainants would like to see Sprint heavily fined in order to put a stop to this type of thing. The complainants want to be sure that Sprint is off of their phone service and if they have to attend a hearing in Pierre, they feel that Sprint should have to pay their expenses. On August 9, 2000, U S WEST (now Qwest) was added as a party. At the September 26, 2000, regular meeting, I-link was added as a party. On October 27, 2000, the Commission received a Motion from Sprint to Strike the Answer filed by I-link. A hearing in this matter is scheduled for December 11, 2000.

TODAY, shall the Commission strike the answer of I-link Communications, Inc.?

2. CT00-072 IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY JUDY M. NELSON, PIEDMONT, SOUTH DAKOTA, AGAINST U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC. REGARDING WRONGFUL BILLINGS AND BILLING PRACTICES FOR LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE SERVICES AS A RESULT OF "SLAMMING" BY VARIOUS TELEPHONE COMPANIES. (Staff Analyst: Charlene Lund. Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer.)

The complainant, on behalf of her company, Nelson Supergraphics, alleges repeated difficulties with various telephone companies over the past several years as a result of "slamming." Through extensive expenditures of time and effort, the company and the complainant have managed to resolve some of the issues; however, serious matters remain unresolved. The most significant matter involves U S WEST withholding over $5000.00 in credits obtained from the "slamming" phone companies. The bills were resolved long ago and have recently resurfaced. The complainant alleges that U S WEST refuses to work with her to release the credits she is due. The complainant is seeking the assistance of the PUC in moving the matter forward to a satisfactory resolution.

TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?

3. CT00-104 IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY JOAN CLARK, YANKTON, SOUTH DAKOTA, AGAINST AT&T COMMUNICATIONS OF THE MIDWEST, INC. REGARDING UNAUTHORIZED SWITCHING OF LONG DISTANCE CARRIER. (Staff Analyst: Charlene Lund. Staff Attorney: Karen E. Cremer.)

The complainant alleges that when she established new telephone services she was switched to AT&T without her authorization. She had selected another long distance carrier. The complainant requests compensation for the unauthorized switching and for her AT&T charges to be rerated to the rate her selected carrier would have charged. On October 27, 2000, the Commission received a Motion to Join Qwest Communications as a Party and Dismiss AT&T as a Party. A hearing in this matter is scheduled for November 29, 2000.

TODAY, shall the Commission join Qwest Communications as a Party? AND, shall the Commission Dismiss AT&T as a Party?

Telecommunications

1. TC00-117 IN THE MATTER OF THE JOINT PETITION FILED BY Sully Buttes Telephone COOPERATIVE, INC. AND QWEST CORPORATION FOR DESIGNATION AS AN ELIGIBLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER FOR Sully Buttes Telephone COOPERATIVE, INC. IN THE SISSETON EXCHANGE AND FOR RELINQUISHMENT OF QWEST CORPORATION'S DESIGNATION AS AN ELIGIBLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER IN THE SISSETON EXCHANGE. (Staff Analyst: Keith Senger. Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer.)

Sully Buttes Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (Sully) and Qwest Corporation, formerly U S WEST Communications, Inc. (Qwest), filed a Joint Petition for ETC Designation and Relinquishment with the Commission. The petitioners are asking the Commission to designate Sully as an eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) within the local exchange of Sisseton, South Dakota, the exchange Sully recently purchased from Qwest. The petitioners are simultaneously asking the Commission to relinquish and transfer Qwest's ETC designation and accompanying universal service obligations to Sully in the same exchange.

TODAY, shall the Commission approve the simultaneous petitions?

Sue Cichos, Deputy Executive Director
sue.cichos@state.sd.us
October 31, 2000