Commission Agendas | previous page
South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Meeting
Thursday, January 2, 2003, 9:00 A.M.
State Capitol Building, Room 464
Pierre, South Dakota
NOTE: If you wish to join this meeting by conference call, please contact the Commission at 605-773-3201 by 1:00 p.m. on December 31, 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 AD HOC MEETING
Telecommunications
1. TC98-146 IN THE MATTER OF THE FILING BY GCC LICENSE CORPORATION FOR DESIGNATION AS AN ELIGIBLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER. (Staff Analyst: Harlan Best, Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer.)
On May 31, 2001, the Commission received a Stipulation for Procedure on Remand entered into by GCC License Corporation (GCC) and the South Dakota Independent Telephone Coalition (SDITC). In the cover letter, SDITC stated that the Stipulation was "reached by the parties to facilitate a decision by the Commission consistent with the South Dakota Supreme Court's remand of the case for a determination regarding the remaining public interest issue." A stipulation between SDITC and GCC was approved by the Commission. On July 26, 2001, SDITC and GCC provided oral arguments before the Commission on the public interest remand issue. A September 7, 2001, meeting, the Commission found that it was in the public interest to designate GCC as an ETC in the rural telephone exchanges listed in the Stipulation, subject to certain conditions. On August 29, 2002, the Commission received the compliance filing from Western Wireless (formerly known as GCC). On September 24, 2002, the Commissioner deferred this
TODAY, how shall the Commission proceed? Or, what is the Commission's decision?
Consumer Issues
Christopher Cutler states that in March 2002, Complainant entered into an agreement with AT&T to receive Fragmented T1 service. On more than one occasion, the AT&T representative assured the Complainant that AT&T could provide this service. Complainant has now been informed that AT&T cannot provide the Fragmented T1 service. Complainant states that it has invested more than $150,000.00 in its business to utilize the Fragmented T1 service. Complainant requests that AT&T provide the Fragmented T1 service tha tated it could provide. If the service cannot be provided, Complainant would be willing to negotiate a settlement with AT&T for the expenses the Complainant has incurred. Complainant feels that AT&T should put forth some form of effort to resolve this complaint. On October 24, 2002, AT&T filed a Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative for Summary Judgement. On December 9, 2002, AT&T filed a Motion for Continuance because of a change of counsel in the case. The Motion for Continuance was to be heard at 1:30 P.M. on December 17, 2002.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant AT&T's Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment?
Terri J. Iverson
Finance Officer
terri.iverson@state.sd.us
December 20, 2002
