Commission Agendas | previous page
South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Meeting
Thursday, May 30, 2002; 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 May 29, 2002.
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.
AGENDA OF THE
COMMISSION MEETING
Administration
1. Approval Of The Minutes Of The Commission Meeting Held On May 9, 2002. (Staff: Mary Giddings.)
Consumer Issues
1. Status Report On Consumer Utility Inquiries And Complaints Recently Received By The Commission. (Consumer Affairs: Mary Healy.)
The Commission has received 724 consumer contacts during 2002. 91 of the complaints were received since the May 9, 2002, meeting. So far the Commission has resolved 685 informal consumer complaints.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS: 67 of the contacts involved telecommunications. 16 contacts concerned billing issues; 8 concerned the unauthorized switch in telecommunication services; 2 concerned delayed service or delayed disconnect; 7 contacts involved telemarketers; 4 contacts involved increased rates; 2 involved poor service; 5 contacts involved fees; 4 involved cellular service and some of the remaining contacts involved disconnects, Life Line/Link Up and phone book listings.
ELECTRICITY: 11 of the contacts involved electricity issues. 6 of the contacts concerned disconnect; 2 concerned billing; 2 concerned being delayed service and 1 concerned provider information.
NATURAL GAS: 9 of the contacts involved natural gas. 2 of the contacts concerned billing; 4 contact involved disconnects; 1 involved fees and 2 concerned poor service.
The complainant alleges that he never authorized the services of Direct One Communications. The complainant disputes the monthly charges that appear on his credit card for telecommunication services that he does not use. The complainant requests that the account be cancelled, that he receives compensation of $1000.00 and that other fines are imposed as provided for in state law. On May 10, the complainant filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds the complainant has elected to proceed in Circuit Court. On May 16, 2002, Direct One filed a Conditional Support of Complainant's Motion to Dismiss.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant the Motion to Dismiss?
Complainant's representative alleges that Siouxland Telephone Co., has been unable to collect compensation for payphone calls made using its facilities. Complainant requests that the SD Public Utilities Commission order the respondent to pay Dial-around compensation of $97,049.07, plus interest at the rate of 11.25%.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
Complainants state that on April 16, 2002, they received a call from an MCI representative soliciting their long distance service. The telemarketing representative told the Complainants that the consumers' local long distance provider Valley Telco was merging with MCI and that the Complainants would be very happy with the merger. Wayne agreed to switch their service to MCI because of this merger. When Complainants contacted Valley Telco, they were advised that Valley Telco was not merging with MCI. Complainants attempted to put a pic freeze on their long distance service, but MCI switched their service provider before the pic freeze was placed on the line. Complainants have had previous problems with MCI and feel tha marketing practices are deceitful. Complainants want MCI to be fined heavily and its underhanded solicitation tactics put to an end. On May 15, 2002, MCI WorldCom filed a Motion to Dismiss.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant the Motion to Dismiss?
Complainant's representative states that the April 2002 phone bill contained an unauthorized charge for a 900 number call. Complainant's representative states that she did not make the call and there is no one else with access to the phone line. Complainant feels that the charge is either a billing error or a scam. Complainant's representative is requesting $1,000.00 to resolve the docket. On May 20, 2002, Qwest filed its Answer to Complaint requesting to be dismissed as a party. On May 21, 2002, MCI filed its Answer and Motion to Dismiss.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant Qwest's Motion to Dismiss? AND, shall the Commission grant MCI's Motion to Dismiss?
Complainant states that he began service with Black Hills FiberCom on December 5, 2000. Prior to that date, Complainant's phone service was with Qwest. Complainant had a three-way phone conversation with Qwest and Black Hills FiberCom to verify when Complainant's service began with Black Hills FiberCom. Qwest continued to take monthly payments by the Qwest automatic payment system after December 5, 2000. Complainant states that he was not notified that he should contact Qwest once his service was switched to Black Hills FiberCom. Complainant currently has his business account with Qwest and requests that Qwest credit his business account for the payments that were made by automatic payment when service was not used. Complainant would also like an explanation of rules that allow Qwest to retain income without providing service.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
Electric
Otter Tail Power Company is requesting the Commission renew its Released Energy Tariff. This tariff will expire on June 22, 2002. This renewal would allow Otter Tail to purchase energy from its large customers who curtail their load.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed tariff change?
Telecommunications
1. TC01-107 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF VITCOM CORPORATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE LOCAL EXCHANGE SERVICES IN SOUTH DAKOTA. (Staff Analyst: Dave Jacobson. Staff Attorney: Kelly Frazier.)
Application by Vitcom Corporation for a certificate of authority to provide resold and facilities based local exchange service in South Dakota. Applicant does not propose to offer services in rural areas o the extent any incumbent local exchange carrier or competitive local exchange carrier in South Dakota is granted a small or rural carrier exemption pursuant to Section 251(f) of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 in the future, then Vitcom will seek authority to operate in such service area(s) as well.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to Vitcom Corp.?
On October 25, 2001, Qwest Corporation filed with the Commission a Petition For Commission Recommendation That The Federal Communications Commission Grant Qwest Corporation Entry Into The In-Region InterLATA Market Under Section 271 Of The Telecommunications Act Of 1996. Specifically, Qwest Corporation requests that this Commission find, based upon the record presented, that Qwest Corporation has met the competitive checklist and other requirements of 47 U.S.C. Section 271, which prescribe the mechanism by which Qwest Corporation may be found eligible to provide in-region interLATA services and rely upon that finding to provide a favorable recommendation to the Federal Communications Commission. In support of its petition, Qwest Corporation submitted 25 affidavits, a revised Statement of Generally Available Terms, and 7 Reports submitted in the Seven-State Process. Black Hills FiberCom, Midcontinent Communications, and AT&T were granted intervention on November 27, 2001. A hearing was held in this matter from April 22-30, 2002.
TODAY, the Commission is entertaining comments regarding the procedural schedule of the OSS issue.
On May 5, 1999, the Commission granted Level 3 Communications, LLC (Level 3) authority to provide local exchange services in those areas in South Dakota where U S WEST Communications, Inc. [now Qwest Corporation] is the incumbent local exchange carrier. On February 19, 2002, the Commission received an application from Level 3 to provide facilities-based local exchange services within the service territory of Beresford Municipal Telephone Company. On March 26, 2002, Level 3 supplemented their application and filed a Request for Waiver. May 6, 2002, Level 3 filed a Revised Request for Waiver and Request for Finding of Fact. On May 9, 2002, SDTA filed a Petition for Late Intervention. On May 14, Beresford filed a Motion to Dismiss. On May 20, 2002, Staff filed a Motion for Determination that Application is Incomplete or in the Alternative was Complete as of May 6, 2002.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant intervention to SDTA? AND, shall the Commission grant Beresford's Motion to Dismiss? AND, shall the Commission grant Staff's Motion for a Determination that the Application of Level 3 is Incomplete, or in the Alternative, that the Application was Complete as of May 6, 2002? ALSO, how shall the Commission rule on Level 3' s Request for Finding of Fact?
On March 7, 2002, the Commission received for approval a Filing of Statement of Generally Available Terms and Conditions for Interconnection (SGAT), Unbundled Network Elements (UNE), Ancillary Services and Resale of Telecommunication Services between Qwest Corporation (Qwest) and Premiere Network Services, Inc. (Premiere) in the State of South Dakota. According to the parties the Agreement is a negotiated agreement which sets forth the terms, conditions and prices under which Qwest will provide services for resale to Premiere for the provision of local exchange services. Parties had until March 27, 2002, to file comments.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed agreement?
On March 8, 2002, the Commission received for approval a Filing of Internet Service Provider (ISP) Bound Traffic Amendment to the Type 2 Wireless Interconnection Agreement between Qwest Corporation (Qwest) and WWC License, L.L.C. (WWC). According to the parties the original agreement was approved by the Commission on January 10, 2001, in Docket No. TC00-145 and is made to reflect the Order on Remand and Report and Order in CC Docket 99-68 (Intercarrier Compensation for ISP Bound Traffic) and adds terms and conditions. Parties had until March 28, 2002, to file comments.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed amendment?
On March 11, 2002, the Commission received for approval a Filing of Amendment for Collocation, Cancellation and Decommission to the Interconnection Agreement between Integra Telecom of South Dakota, Inc. (Integra) and Qwest Corporation (Qwest). According to the parties this is an Amendment to a negotiated interconnection agreement between Integra and Qwest which was originally approved by the Commission effective August 25, 2000, in Docket No. TC01-049 and the amendment is being made in order to add terms, conditions and rates for Collocation, Cancellation and Decommission as set forth in Attachments 1 and 2 and Exhibit A attached to the Amendment and incorporated therein. Parties had until April 1, 2002, to file comments.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed amendment?
On March 27, 2002, the Commission received for approval a Filing of an Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement between Sprint Communications Company L.P. (Sprint) and Qwest Corporation (Qwest). According to the parties, this is an Amendment to a negotiated interconnection agreement between Sprint and Qwest which was approved by the Commission effective November 13, 2001, in Docket No. TC01-151. According to the parties, the Agreement is amended by adding terms and conditions for the Advice Adoption Letter process as set forth in Attachment 1 and Exhibits A & B to this Amendment, attached to the Amendment by replacing Section (A)3.26 in its
entirety as specified on Attachment 2, attached to the Amendment and by adding terms and conditions for Collocation, Cancellation and Collocation Decommission as set forth in Attachment 3 and Attachment 4 attached to the Amendment. Parties had until April 16, 2002, to file comments.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed amendment?
8. TC02-031 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF VP TELECOM, INC. FOR A CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE INTEREXCHANGE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES AND LOCAL EXCHANGE SERVICES IN SOUTH DAKOTA. (Staff Analyst: Keith Senger. Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer.)
VP Telecom, Inc. is seeking a Certificate of Authority to provide interexchange and local exchange telecommunications services in South Dakota. The applicant intends to provide a full range of services on a facilities based and resale basis.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to VP Telecom, Inc.?
9. TC02-033 IN THE MATTER OF THE FILING FOR APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO AN INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN QWEST CORPORATION AND BROOKINGS MUNICIPAL UTILITIES D/B/A SWIFTEL COMMUNICATIONS. (Staff Attorney: Kelly Frazier.)
On April 5, 2002, the Commission received for approval a filing of an Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement between Brookings Municipal Utilities d/b/a Swiftel Communications (Swiftel) and Qwest Corporation (Qwest). According to the parties, the original Agreement was approved by the Commission on February 18, 1999, in Docket TC98-204. According to the parties, the Amendment is made in order to implement the requirements of the FCC Order on Remand and Report and Order in CC Docket No. 99-68 regarding intercarrier compensation for Internet service provider (ISP) bound traffic. Parties had until April 25, 2002, to file comments.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed amendment?
National Directory Assistance, LLC filed an application for a Certificate of Authority to provide interexchange telecommunications services in South Dakota. National Directory Assistance intends to provide resold inbound, outbound, conference, directory assistance, calling card, prepaid calling
card, and private line services to presubscribed business customers and residential customers in South Dakota.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to National Directory Assistance, LLC?
On April 12, 2002, the Commission received for approval a filing of an Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement between Rural Cellular Corporation and Qwest Corporation. According to the parties, the agreement is a negotiated agreement and is made in order to add terms and conditions for SPOP in the LATA as set forth in Attachment 1 and Exhibit A attached to the amendment. Parties had until May 2, 2002, to file comments.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed amendment?
12. TC02-037 IN THE MATTER OF THE FILING FOR APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO AN INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN QWEST CORPORATION AND SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY L.P. (Staff Attorney: Kelly Frazier.)
On April 12, 2002, the Commission received for approval a filing of an Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement between Sprint Communications Company L.P. and Qwest Corporation. According to the parties, the agreement is a negotiated agreement and is amended by adding terms, conditions and rates for DC Power Reduction Procedure as set forth in Attachment 1 and Exhibit A attached to the amendment. Parties had until May 2, 2002, to file comments.
North By NortheastCom LLC is seeking a Certificate of Authority to provide interexchange telecommunication services in South Dakota. The Applicant plans to offer nationwide directory assistance with call completion, long distance transport and enhanced directory services.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to North by NortheastCom LLC?
Announcements
1. The next regularly scheduled Commission meeting will be held June 13, 2002, at 1:30pm, in Room 412 of the State Capitol Building.
Sue Cichos
Deputy Executive Director
sue.cichos@state.sd.us
May 23, 2002
