Commission Agendas | previous page
South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Meeting
Tuesday, November 28, 2006, at 9:30 A.M.
State Capitol Building, Room 468
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 27, 2006. Lines are limited and are given out on first come/first serve basis, subject to possible reassignment to accommodate persons who must appear in a proceeding. Ultimately, if you wish to participate in the Commission Meeting and a line is not available you may have to appear in person.
NOTE: To listen to the Commission Meeting live please go to the PUC's Web site www.puc.sd.gov and click on the LIVE button on the home page. The Commission requests that persons who will only be listening to proceedings and not actively appearing in a case listen via the Web cast to free phone lines for those who have to appear. The Commission meetings are archived on the PUC's Web site under the Commission Actions tab and then click on the LISTEN button on the page.
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 COMMISSION MEETING
Consumer Reports
1. Status Report on Consumer Utility Inquiries and Complaints Received by the Commission. (Consumer Affairs: Deb Gregg)
Consumer Complaints
On February 16, 2005, WWC License LLC (WWC) filed a complaint against Golden West Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc. (Golden West), and Vivian Telephone Company, Sioux Valley Telephone Company, Union Telephone Company, Armour Independent Telephone Company, Bridgewater-Canistota Telephone Company and Kadoka Telephone Company (affiliated companies). On March 8, 2005, Golden West filed an Answer and Counterclaim. The procedural history of the parties' numerous motions, responses thereto and Commission's decisions thereon is set forth in the Commission's order of August 26, 2005. On September 7, 2005, WWC filed an Amended Complaint; Golden West filed an Amended Answer and Amended Counterclaim on September 15, 2005. Intervention was granted to SDTA at the October 4, 2005, commission meeting. The Commission held hearings on March 8-10, 2006, April 17-18, 2006 and August 7, 2006. WWC, Golden West and SDTA, Staff and WWC filed briefs on September 6, October 4, October 23 and October 26, 2006, respectively. In its Reply Brief filed October 23, Staff represented that it had been informed by the parties that they had reached a settlement of all issues in the case other than WWC's liability if any for Golden West's transitting charges. This representation was confirmed in WWC's Reply Brief Regarding Transitting Issue filed on October 26 and in verbal representations to Commission Counsel. By e-mail stipulation, the parties all agreed that oral argument on the transitting issue would be heard on November 20, 2006. The Commission heard oral arguments from all the parties at its November 20, 2006, Ad Hoc Meeting and took the matter under advisement.
TODAY, how shall the Commission Rule Regarding Charges Assessed by Golden West against WWC for Transitting Services?
Telecommunications
1. In the Matter of the Establishment of Switched Access Revenue Requirements in Dockets TC04-119, TC05-096, and TC06-079
On June 30, 2004, the Local Exchange Carriers Association (LECA) filed revised switched access tariff pages. The purpose of these revisions is to implement changes in rates as necessitated by revisions in member companies' revenue requirements and access minutes of use. LECA requests that the revised rates be effective August 1, 2004. On August 30, 2005, Midcontinent Communications (Midco) and MCI filed Petitions for Intervention. MCImetro Access Transmission Services, LLC filed a Petition for Intervention on August 31, 2005. AT&T Communications of the Midwest, Inc. (AT&T) filed a Petition for Intervention on September 14, 2005. On September 15, 2005, an Answer of LECA to Midcontinent's Petition to Intervene and an Answer of LECA to MCImetro Access Transmission Service, LLC's Petition were filed. On September 27, 2005, the Commission denied Midco MCI and AT&T's intervention. On April 14, 2006, the Commission issued a Notice of Hearing. On April 20, 2006, the Commission issued an Order to Continue Hearing. On November 8, 2006, a Settlement Stipulation was filed with the Commission. LECA filed revised tariff pages on November 21, 2006.
On June 29, 2005, the Local Exchange Carriers Association (LECA) filed revised switched access tariff pages. The purpose of these revisions is to implement changes in rates as necessitated by revisions in member companies' revenue requirements and access minutes of use. LECA requests that the revised rates be effective August 1, 2005. On August 30, 2005, Midcontinent Communications (Midco) and MCImetro Access Transmission Services, LLC (MCI) filed Petitions for Intervention. AT&T Communications of the Midwest, Inc. (AT&T) filed a Petition for Intervention on September 14, 2005. On September 15, 2005, an Answer of LECA to Midcontinent's Petition to Intervene and an Answer of LECA to MCImetro Access Transmission Service, LLC's Petition were filed. On September 27, 2005, the Commission granted Midco MCI and AT&T's intervention. On April 14, 2006, the Commission issued a Notice of Hearing. On April 20, 2006, the Commission issued an Order to Continue Hearing. On November 8, 2006, a Settlement Stipulation was filed with the Commission. LECA filed revised tariff pages on November 21, 2006.
On June 30, 2006, the Local Exchange Carriers Association (LECA) filed revised switched access tariff pages. These revisions are necessitated by revisions in the individual member companies' revenue requirements and access minutes of use. The revised tariff pages are proposed to be effective upon Commission approval of the corresponding cost studies. On August 1, 2006, AT&T Communications of the Midwest, Inc. filed a Petition to Intervene. On September 11, 2006, the Commission issued an Order Granting Intervention to AT&T Communications of the Midwest, Inc. On November 8, 2006, a Settlement Stipulation was filed with the Commission. LECA filed revised tariff pages on November 21, 2006.
TODAY, shall the Commission Approve the Revised Tariff Sheets?
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. On November 3, 2006, The South Dakota Telecommunications Association (SDTA) filed a Petition to Intervene
TODAY, shall the Commission Establish a Procedural Schedule?
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 Utilities 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. On November 3, 2006, The South Dakota Telecommunications Association (SDTA) filed a Petition to Intervene
TODAY, shall the Commission Establish a Procedural Schedule?
On October 24, 2006, Venture Communications Cooperative (Venture) filed a Petition for Suspension or Modification of Local Dialing Parity and Reciprocal Compensation Obligations. In its Petition, Venture states that it seeks to modify the dialing parity and reciprocal compensation obligations in 47 U.S.C. ยง 25l (b) (3) and (5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Venture is requesting "modification of the dialing parity requirement such that Venture is not required to provide local dialing and it is not required to transport traffic outside of its service territory or beyond the wireline local calling area. Venture also requests a modification of the reciprocal compensation requirements such that it is not required to pay reciprocal compensation on traffic terminating to a wireless carrier within the same MTA that is handed off to an IXC in accordance with Venture's wireline local calling areas. Venture also requests a modification of the symmetrical compensation requirement and requests that the Commission base compensation for wireless carrier's on the wireless carrier's forward looking cost study. Venture also requests immediate temporary suspension of the 251(b) (3) and (5) requirements as described above pending this Commission's consideration of this request." The South Dakota Telecommunications Association (SDTA) filed a Petition for Intervention on November 6, 2006. Rural Cellular Corporation (RCC) and Alltel Communications, Inc. (Alltel) filed Petitions for Intervention on November 13, 2006. The Commission granted intervention to SDTA at its November 14, 2006, meeting. The Commission granted intervention to RCC and Altell at their Ad Hoc Meeting on November 20, 2006.
TODAY, how shall the Commission Proceed?
On October 27, 2006 the Commission received a filing for the approval of an amendment to the Interconnection Agreement between Qwest Corporation and DIECA Communications, Inc. d/b/a Covad Communications Company regarding special promotion for inventory collection sites.
TODAY, shall the Commission Approve the Amendment to the Agreement?
On November 6, 2006, MCC Telephony of the Midwest, Inc. d/b/a Mediacom ("MCC") filed a petition for a certificate of authority to provide facilities-based and resold basic local exchange services. Services proposed will include non-switched, switched local services and special access services in the Castlewood, Elkton, Estelline, Hayti, Lake Norden and White rural exchange areas. On November 10, 2006, Interstate Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc. (ITC) filed a Petition for Intervention.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant Intervention to ITC?
On November 15, 2006, Commission Staff filed a Motion for an Order to Show Cause due to unauthorized long distance charges made by eChurch Network and iLab Technologies and for their failure to obtain a Certificate of Service prior to offering long distance services in South Dakota as a long distance provider.
TODAY, shall the Commission Issue an Order to Show Cause?
On November 15, 2006, Commission Staff filed a Motion for an Order to Show Cause due to Dish Network's failure to register as a telemarketer and the solicitations it made to individuals registered with the South Dakota Do Not Call Registry.
TODAY, shall the Commission Issue an Order to Show Cause?
Announcements
1. The next regularly scheduled Commission meeting will be held December 6, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 412, State Capitol Building, Pierre, SD.
2. Commission meetings are scheduled for December 19, 2006, and January 2, 2007.
3. The Commission offices will be closed Thursday, November 23, and Friday, November 24, 2006, in observance of Thanksgiving.
______________________
Heather K. Forney
Deputy Executive Director
heather.forney@state.sd.us
November 22, 2006
