Commission Agendas | previous page
South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Meeting
Tuesday, April 6, 2004 at 9:30 A.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 April 5, 2004.
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 Meetings Held on March 23, 2004. (Staff: Tina Douglas.)
Consumer Issues
1. Status Report on Consumer Utility Inquiries and Complaints Received by the Commission. (Consumer Affairs: Jim Mehlhaff)
Complainant alleges that MCIWorldCom (MCI) has overbilled S&S Communications' (S&S) corporate account for the months of January through November 2000; MCI has direct billed S&S customers for unauthorized service at casual rates; MCI has provided poor service, slow or no switching of S&S subscriber base orders, not provided MCI LOA forms and proper information; MCI has stalled and mis-provisioned S&S dedicated T-1 facilities; MCI has frozen S&S service orders and its corporate account; and that MCI has performed in an overall unethical manner in its treatment of S&S and its customers. The complainant requests that MCI refund or credit S&S for the over- charges; refund all monies that S&S paid as a result of the alleged unauthorized direct billings of its customers; that the Commission hold MCI accountable for its actions according to state and federal law; compensation for the delay in transitioning its dedicated facilities; that MCI compensate S&S for administration costs, lost revenues, and expenses relating to the complaint issue; and that the Commission bar MCI from disconnecting S&S and its customers before the Commission can rule on the merits of the complaint filed. On June 25, 2001, MCI filed a Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative, to Stay Further Proceedings. The Commission heard the matter at the July 10, 2001, regular meeting and deferred action. The Commission heard the matter again a July 24, 2001, meeting and an Order Granting Motion to Stay Further Proceedings was issued on August 3, 2001. On March 25, 2004, the Parties filed a Mutual Release in Full of All Claims.
TODAY, if the matter has been resolved, shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
The Complainants state that they were billed for unauthorized service by MCI WorldCom. The Complainants indicate that they ceased using MCI's T1s on or about May 31, 2001 and that the billing in dispute is for T1 service from July 7 through August 6, 2001. Complainants request $1,000.00 for the unauthorized billing, that the invoice be ruled as invalid, and an imposition of a civil penalty. On March 25, 2004, the Parties filed a Mutual Release in Full of All Claims.
TODAY, if the matter has been resolved, shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
The Complainants state that they were billed for unauthorized service by MCI WorldCom. The Complainants indicate that they ceased using MCI's long distance service several weeks prior to the issuing of the invoice and that the billing in dispute is for Toll Free Service from June 1 through June 25, 2001. Complainants request $1,000.00 for the unauthorized billing, that the invoice be ruled as invalid, and an imposition of a civil penalty. On March 25, 2004, the Parties filed a Mutual Release in Full of All Claims.
TODAY, if the matter has been resolved, shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
Telecommunications
On November 12, 2003, the Commission received a filing for approval of an interconnection agreement between Midcontinent Communications (Midcontinent) and Interstate Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc. (ITC). According to the filing, the Agreement is made in order to set forth the terms, conditions and prices under which the parties agree to provide interconnection and the exchange of local traffic within the "345" Webster, South Dakota exchange. The Commission approved the Interconnection Agreement a December 16, 2003, meeting. On March 10, 2004, Midcontinent Communications filed a Motion to Compel Local Number Porting or Good Faith Negotiation. On March 30, 2004, Interstate Communications Cooperative, Inc. filed an Opposition to Motion to Compel.
TODAY, how shall the Commission proceed?
Computer Network Technology Corporation filed an application for a Certificate of Authority to provide local exchange and interexchange telecommunications services in South Dakota. The applicant intends to provide Anon-switched local intrastate interexchange services, specifically private line special access services. The applicant does not intend to provide rural local exchange services.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant the Certificate of Authority to Computer Network Technology Corporation?
On January 22, 2004, the Commission received a Filing for Approval of an Amendment to an Interconnection Agreement between Qwest Corporation and Houlton Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Guaranteed Phone Service. According to the parties, the Amendment is made in order to change or add terms, conditions and rates for certain network elements as set forth in Attachment 1 and Exhibit A to the Amendment. The original Agreement was approved by the Commission on June 10, 2003, in Docket TC03-069.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed Amendment to an Interconnection Agreement?
On February 12, 2004, Kennebec Telephone Company (Kennebec) filed a petition seeking suspension or modification of its requirement to implement local number portability (LNP) pursuant to Section 251(b)(2) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. According to Kennebec, it has received requests to deploy LNP from Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless and from Western Wireless Corporation d/b/a Verizon Wireless and from Western Wireless Corporation d/b/a CellularOne. Kennebec states that it is a small telephone company that serves less than two percent of the nation's subscriber lines installed in the aggregate nationwide, therefore under Section 251(f)(2) Kennebec may petition the Commission for suspension or modification of its obligation to implement LNP within six months of a request to deploy LNP. Kennebec "requests the Commission to (1) issue an interim order that suspends any obligation that may exist for Kennebec to provide LNP until six months after entry of a final order herein; (2) issue a final order that grants a permanent suspension for Kennebec's obligation to implement LNP until conditions are met as described herein; and (3) grant Kennebec such other and further relief that may be proper." Western Wireless filed a Petition to Intervene on March 4, 2004. A Petition to Intervene of the South Dakota Telecommunications Association was filed on March 5, 2004. The Commission granted intervention to Western Wireless and the South Dakota Telecommunications Association a March 23, 2004, meeting.
TODAY, how shall the Commission proceed?
On February 20, 2004, Qwest Corporation (Qwest) filed an updated Statement Of Generally Available Terms and Conditions for Interconnection, Unbundled Network Elements, Ancillary Services, and Resale of Telecommunications Services (SGAT) (Fifth Revision, dated February 20, 2004). On August 21, 2003, the Federal Communications Commission released its Triennial Review Order (TRO). The TRO substantially altered Qwest's obligations under Section 251 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to offer unbundled network elements. Many of these changes require modifications to Qwest's South Dakota SGAT. As a result, Qwest submitted this revision that, among other changes, includes revisions necessary to comply with the TRO. In addition to the changes required by the TRO, Qwest has made a number of miscellaneous changes to the South Dakota SGAT. Some changes reflect agreements reached with Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs) in other states in the Qwest region and which Qwest wishes to incorporate into the South Dakota SGAT. Other changes have been reviewed and approved by the Change Management Process for inclusion in SGATs throughout the Qwest region. Finally, Qwest has included changes to correct typographical and grammatical errors, punctuation and spelling, and capitalization of defined terms. Qwest requests that the Commission allow this version of the SGAT to go into effect no longer than 60 days after submission in accordance with 47 U.S.C. Section 252(f)(3). Qwest Corporation filed a Motion to Withdraw Notice of Updated Statement of Generally Available Terms and Conditions and Statement of Compliance.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant Qwest's Motion to Withdraw Notice of Updated Statement of Generally Available Terms and Conditions and Statement of Compliance?
On February 25, 2004, Santel Communications Cooperative (Santel) filed a petition requesting the Commission to grant a suspension to Santel from porting numbers, wireline-to-wireless, as may be requested by Commercial Mobile Radio Services (CMRS). Western Wireless filed a Petition to Intervene on March 8, 2004. Midcontinent Communications and the South Dakota Telecommunications Association filed Petitions to Intervene on March 11, 2004. Santel filed an Application to Amend Petition on March 15, 2004, for the purpose of adding the section 20:10:32:39 requirements and to further amend the Petition to add updated cost data. The Commission granted intervention to Midcontinent Communications and the South Dakota Telecommunications Association a March 23, 2004, meeting.
TODAY, how shall the Commission proceed?
7. In the Matter of Petitions for Suspension or Modification of 47 U.S.C. Section 251(b)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934 as Amended in Dockets TC04-044, TC04-045, TC04-046, TC04-047, TC04-048, TC04-049, TC04-050, TC04-051, TC04-052, TC04-053, TC04-054, TC04-055, TC04-056, TC04-060, TC04-061, and TC04-062.
On March 9, 2004, Sioux Valley Telephone Company (Sioux Valley) filed a petition seeking suspension or modification of its requirement to implement local number portability (LNP) pursuant to Section 251(b)(2) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. According to Sioux Valley, it has received requests to deploy LNP from Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Midwest Wireless Holdings L.L.C. d/b/a Midwest Wireless and Western Wireless Corporation d/b/a CellularOne. Sioux Valley states that it is a small telephone company that serves less than two percent of the nation's subscriber lines installed in the aggregate nationwide, therefore under Section 251(f)(2) Sioux Valley may petition the Commission for suspension or modification of its obligation to implement LNP within six months of a request to deploy LNP. Sioux Valley "requests the Commission to (1) issue an interim order that suspends any obligation that may exist for Sioux Valley to provide LNP until six months after entry of a final order herein; (2) issue a final order that grants a permanent suspension for Sioux Valley's obligation to implement LNP until conditions are met as described herein; and (3) grant Sioux Valley such other and further relief that may be proper." On March 17, 2004, Midcontinent Communications filed a Petition to Intervene. A Petition to Intervene by Western Wireless was filed on March 19, 2004. The South Dakota Telecommunications Association (SDTA) filed a Petition for Intervention on March 26, 2004.
On March 9, 2004, Golden West Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc., Vivian Telephone Company, and Kadoka Telephone Company (Petitioner) filed a petition seeking suspension or modification of its requirement to implement local number portability (LNP) pursuant to Section 251(b)(2) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. According to Petitioner, it has received requests to deploy LNP from Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, NE Colorado Cellular, Inc. d/b/a Viaero, and Western Wireless Corporation d/b/a CellularOne. Petitioner states that it is a small telephone company that serves less than two percent of the nation's subscriber lines installed in the aggregate nationwide, therefore under Section 251(f)(2) Petitioner may petition the Commission for suspension or modification of its obligation to implement LNP within six months of a request to deploy LNP. Petitioner "requests the Commission to (1) issue an interim order that suspends any obligation that may exist for Petitioner to provide LNP until six months after entry of a final order herein; (2) issue a final order that grants a permanent suspension for Petitioner's obligation to implement LNP until conditions are met as described herein; and (3) grant Petitioner such other and further relief that may be proper." A Petition to Intervene by Western Wireless was filed on March 19, 2004. The South Dakota Telecommunications Association (SDTA) filed a Petition for Intervention on March 26, 2004.
On March 9, 2004, Armour Independent Telephone Company, Bridgewater-Canistota Independent Telephone Company, and Union Telephone Company (Petitioner) filed a petition seeking suspension or modification of its requirement to implement local number portability (LNP) pursuant to Section 251(b)(2) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. According to Petitioner, it has received requests to deploy LNP from Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless and Western Wireless Corporation d/b/a CellularOne. Petitioner states that it is a small telephone company that serves less than two percent of the nation's subscriber lines installed in the aggregate nationwide, therefore under Section 251(f)(2) Petitioner may petition the Commission for suspension or modification of its obligation to implement LNP within six months of a request to deploy LNP. Petitioner "requests the Commission to (1) issue an interim order that suspends any obligation that may exist for Petitioner to provide LNP until six months after entry of a final order herein; (2) issue a final order that grants a permanent suspension for Petitioner's obligation to implement LNP until conditions are met as described herein; and (3) grant Petitioner such other and further relief that may be proper." A Petition to Intervene by Western Wireless was filed on March 19, 2004. The South Dakota Telecommunications Association (SDTA) filed a Petition for Intervention on March 26, 2004.
On March 11, 2004, Brookings Municipal Utilities d/b/a Swiftel Communications (Swiftel) filed a petition seeking suspension or modification of its requirement to implement local number portability (LNP) pursuant to Section 251(b)(2) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. According to Swiftel, it has received requests to deploy LNP from Verizon Wireless and Western Wireless. Swiftel states that it is a small telephone company that serves less than two percent of the nation's subscriber lines installed in the aggregate nationwide, therefore under Section 251(f)(2) Swiftel may petition the Commission for suspension or modification of its obligation to implement LNP within six months of a request to deploy LNP. Swiftel "requests the Commission to (1) issue an interim order that suspends any obligation that may exist for Swiftel to provide LNP until six months after entry of a final order herein; (2) issue a final order that grants a permanent suspension for Swiftel's obligation to implement LNP until conditions are met as described herein; and (3) grant Swiftel such other and further relief that may be proper." WWC License LLC filed a Petition to Intervene on March 30, 2004.
On March 11, 2004, Beresford Municipal Telephone Company (Beresford) filed a petition seeking suspension or modification of its requirement to implement local number portability (LNP) pursuant to Section 251(b)(2) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. According to Beresford, it has received requests to deploy LNP from Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless and Western Wireless Corporation d/b/a CellularOne. Beresford states that it is a small telephone company that serves less than two percent of the nation's subscriber lines installed in the aggregate nationwide, therefore under Section 251(f)(2) Beresford may petition the Commission for suspension or modification of its obligation to implement LNP within six months of a request to deploy LNP. Beresford "requests the Commission to (1) issue an interim order that suspends any obligation that may exist for Beresford to provide LNP until six months after entry of a final order herein; (2) issue a final order that grants a permanent suspension for Beresford's obligation to implement LNP until conditions are met as described herein; and (3) grant Beresford such other and further relief that may be proper." WWC License LLC filed a Petition to Intervene on March 30, 2004.
On March 11, 2004, McCook Cooperative Telephone Company (McCook) filed a petition seeking suspension or modification of its requirement to implement local number portability (LNP) pursuant to Section 251(b)(2) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. According to McCook, it has received requests to deploy LNP from Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless and Western Wireless Corporation d/b/a CellularOne. McCook states that it is a small telephone company that serves less than two percent of the nation's subscriber lines installed in the aggregate nationwide, therefore under Section 251(f)(2) McCook may petition the Commission for suspension or modification of its obligation to implement LNP within six months of a request to deploy LNP. McCook "requests the Commission to (1) issue an interim order that suspends any obligation that may exist for McCook to provide LNP until six months after entry of a final order herein; (2) issue a final order that grants a permanent suspension for McCook's obligation to implement LNP until conditions are met as described herein; and (3) grant McCook such other and further relief that may be proper." WWC License LLC filed a Petition to Intervene on March 30, 2004.
On March 11, 2004, Valley Telecommunications Cooperative Association, Inc. (Valley) filed a petition seeking suspension or modification of its requirement to implement local number portability (LNP) pursuant to Section 251(b)(2) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. According to Valley, it has received requests to deploy LNP from Western Wireless Corporation d/b/a CellularOne. Valley states that it is a small telephone company that serves less than two percent of the nation's subscriber lines installed in the aggregate nationwide, therefore under Section 251(f)(2) Valley may petition the Commission for suspension or modification of its obligation to implement LNP within six months of a request to deploy LNP. Valley "requests the Commission to (1) issue an interim order that suspends any obligation that may exist for Valley to provide LNP until six months after entry of a final order herein; (2) issue a final order that grants a permanent suspension for Valley's obligation to implement LNP until conditions are met as described herein; and (3) grant Valley such other and further relief that may be proper." On March 24, 2004, Midcontinent Communications filed a Petition to Intervene. WWC License LLC filed a Petition to Intervene on March 30, 2004.
On March 12, 2004, City of Faith Telephone Company (Faith) filed a petition seeking suspension or modification of its requirement to implement local number portability (LNP) pursuant to Section 251(b)(2) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. According to Faith, it has received requests to deploy LNP from Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless. Faith states that it is a small telephone company that serves less than two percent of the nation's subscriber lines installed in the aggregate nationwide, therefore under Section 251(f)(2) Faith may petition the Commission for suspension or modification of its obligation to implement LNP within six months of a request to deploy LNP. Faith "requests the Commission to (1) issue an interim order that suspends any obligation that may exist for Faith to provide LNP until six months after entry of a final order herein; (2) issue a final order that grants a permanent suspension for Faith's obligation to implement LNP until conditions are met as described herein; and (3) grant Faith such other and further relief that may be proper." On March 24, 2004, Midcontinent Communications filed a Petition to Intervene. WWC License LLC filed a Petition to Intervene on March 30, 2004.
On March 12, 2004, Midstate Communications, Inc. (Midstate) filed a petition seeking suspension or modification of its requirement to implement local number portability (LNP) pursuant to Section 251(b)(2) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. According to Midstate, it has received requests to deploy LNP from Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless and Western Wireless Corporation d/b/a CellularOne. Midstate states that it is a small telephone company that serves less than two percent of the nation's subscriber lines installed in the aggregate nationwide, therefore under Section 251(f)(2) Midstate may petition the Commission for suspension or modification of its obligation to implement LNP within six months of a request to deploy LNP. Midstate "requests the Commission to (1) issue an interim order that suspends any obligation that may exist for Midstate to provide LNP until six months after entry of a final order herein; (2) issue a final order that grants a permanent suspension for Midstate's obligation to implement LNP until conditions are met as described herein; and (3) grant Midstate such other and further relief that may be proper." WWC License LLC filed a Petition to Intervene on March 30, 2004.
On March 12, 2004, Western Telephone Company (Western) filed a petition seeking suspension or modification of its requirement to implement local number portability (LNP) pursuant to Section 251(b)(2) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. According to Western, it has received requests to deploy LNP from Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless. Western states that it is a small telephone company that serves less than two percent of the nation's subscriber lines installed in the aggregate nationwide, therefore under Section 251(f)(2) Western may petition the Commission for suspension or modification of its obligation to implement LNP within six months of a request to deploy LNP. Western "requests the Commission to (1) issue an interim order that suspends any obligation that may exist for Western to provide LNP until six months after entry of a final order herein; (2) issue a final order that grants a permanent suspension for Western's obligation to implement LNP until conditions are met as described herein; and (3) grant Western such other and further relief that may be proper." WWC License LLC filed a Petition to Intervene on March 30, 2004.
On March 15, 2004, Interstate Telecommunications Cooperative (ITC) filed a petition seeking suspension or modification of its requirement to implement local number portability (LNP) pursuant to Section 251(b)(2) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. According to ITC, it has received requests to deploy LNP from Midcontinent Communications and Western Wireless Corporation d/b/a CellularOne. ITC states that it is a small telephone company that serves less than two percent of the nation's subscriber lines installed in the aggregate nationwide, therefore under Section 251(f)(2) ITC may petition the Commission for suspension or modification of its obligation to implement LNP within six months of a request to deploy LNP. ITC "requests the Commission to (1) issue an interim order that suspends any obligation that may exist for ITC to provide LNP until six months after entry of a final order herein; (2) issue a final order that grants a permanent suspension for ITC's obligation to implement LNP until conditions are met as described herein; and (3) grant ITC such other and further relief that may be proper." On March 24, 2004, Midcontinent Communications filed a Petition to Intervene. WWC License LLC filed a Petition to Intervene on March 30, 2004.
On March 15, 2004, Alliance Communications Cooperative, Inc. and Splitrock Properties, Inc. (Petitioner) filed a petition seeking suspension or modification of its requirement to implement local number portability (LNP) pursuant to Section 251(b)(2) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. According to Petitioner, it has received requests to deploy LNP from Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Western Wireless Corporation d/b/a CellularOne and Midwest Wireless Holdings L.L.C. d/b/a Midwest Wireless. Petitioner states that it is a small telephone company that serves less than two percent of the nation's subscriber lines installed in the aggregate nationwide, therefore under Section 251(f)(2) Petitioner may petition the Commission for suspension or modification of its obligation to implement LNP within six months of a request to deploy LNP. Petitioner "requests the Commission to (1) issue an interim order that suspends any obligation that may exist for Petitioner to provide LNP until six months after entry of a final order herein; (2) issue a final order that grants a permanent suspension for Petitioner's obligation to implement LNP until conditions are met as described herein; and (3) grant Petitioner such other and further relief that may be proper." On March 24, 2004, Midcontinent Communications filed a Petition to Intervene. WWC License LLC filed a Petition to Intervene on March 30, 2004.
On March 15, 2004, RC Communications, Inc. and Roberts County Telephone Cooperative Assn. (Petitioner) filed a petition seeking suspension or modification of its requirement to implement local number portability (LNP) pursuant to Section 251(b)(2) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. According to Petitioner, it has received requests to deploy LNP from Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless and Western Wireless Corporation d/b/a CellularOne. Petitioner states that it is a small telephone company that serves less than two percent of the nation's subscriber lines installed in the aggregate nationwide, therefore under Section 251(f)(2) Petitioner may petition the Commission for suspension or modification of its obligation to implement LNP within six months of a request to deploy LNP. Petitioner "requests the Commission to (1) issue an interim order that suspends any obligation that may exist for Petitioner to provide LNP until six months after entry of a final order herein; (2) issue a final order that grants a permanent suspension for Petitioner's obligation to implement LNP until conditions are met as described herein; and (3) grant Petitioner such other and further relief that may be proper." On March 24, 2004, Midcontinent Communications filed a Petition to Intervene. WWC License LLC filed a Petition to Intervene on March 30, 2004.
On March 17, 2004, Venture Communications Cooperative, Inc. (Venture) filed a petition seeking suspension or modification of its requirement to implement local number portability (LNP) pursuant to Section 251(b)(2) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. According to Venture, it has received requests to deploy LNP from Verizon Wireless and Western Wireless. Venture states that it is a small telephone company that serves less than two percent of the nation's subscriber lines installed in the aggregate nationwide, therefore under Section 251(f)(2) Venture may petition the Commission for suspension or modification of its obligation to implement LNP within six months of a request to deploy LNP. Venture "requests the Commission to (1) issue an interim order that suspends any obligation that may exist for Venture to provide LNP until six months after entry of a final order herein; (2) issue a final order that grants a permanent suspension for Venture's obligation to implement LNP until conditions are met as described herein; and (3) grant Venture such other and further relief that may be proper." On March 24, 2004, Midcontinent Communications filed a Petition to Intervene. WWC License LLC filed a Petition to Intervene on March 30, 2004.
On March 17, 2004, West River Cooperative Telephone Company (West River) filed a petition seeking suspension or modification of its requirement to implement local number portability (LNP) pursuant to Section 251(b)(2) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. According to West River, it has received requests to deploy LNP from Verizon Wireless. West River states that it is a small telephone company that serves less than two percent of the nation's subscriber lines installed in the aggregate nationwide, therefore under Section 251(f)(2) West River may petition the Commission for suspension or modification of its obligation to implement LNP within six months of a request to deploy LNP. West River "requests the Commission to (1) issue an interim order that suspends any obligation that may exist for West River to provide LNP until six months after entry of a final order herein; (2) issue a final order that grants a permanent suspension for West River's obligation to implement LNP until conditions are met as described herein; and (3) grant West River such other and further relief that may be proper." On March 24, 2004, Midcontinent Communications filed a Petition to Intervene. WWC License LLC filed a Petition to Intervene on March 30, 2004. WWC License LLC filed a Petition to Intervene on March 30, 2004.
On March 17, 2004, Stockholm-Strandburg Telephone Company (Stockholm-Strandburg) filed a petition seeking suspension or modification of its requirement to implement local number portability (LNP) pursuant to Section 251(b)(2) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. According to Stockholm-Strandburg, it has received requests to deploy LNP from Western Wireless Corp. Stockholm-Strandburg states that it is a small telephone company that serves less than two percent of the nation's subscriber lines installed in the aggregate nationwide, therefore under Section 251(f)(2) Stockholm-Strandburg may petition the Commission for suspension or modification of its obligation to implement LNP within six months of a request to deploy LNP. Stockholm-Strandburg "requests the Commission to (1) issue an interim order that suspends any obligation that may exist for Stockholm-Strandburg to provide LNP until six months after entry of a final order herein; (2) issue a final order that grants a permanent suspension for Stockholm-Strandburg's obligation to implement LNP until conditions are met as described herein; and (3) grant Stockholm-Strandburg such other and further relief that may be proper." WWC License LLC filed a Petition to Intervene on March 30, 2004.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant intervention to any parties that may have filed in each respective docket? AND, shall the Commission grant the petition for an interim suspension of any obligation that may exist for Petitioner to provide LNP until six months after entry of a final order?
Announcements
1. The next regularly scheduled Commission meeting will be held May 11, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., in Room 412, at Pierre, South Dakota.
2. Commission meetings are scheduled for May 25 and June 8, 2004.
3. Commissioners and staff will be attending the Regional Oversight Committee meetings in Denver April 17 - 20, 2004.
4. Hearings are scheduled April 27 - 29, 2004, for Docket CT03-154.
5. Hearings are scheduled May 4 - 6, 2004, for Docket TC03-191.
______________________
Heather K. Forney
Deputy Executive Director
heather.forney@state.sd.us
March 30, 2004
