Commission Agendas | previous page
South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Meeting
Tuesday, January 29, 2008, at 2:00 P.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 January 28, 2008. 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
Administration
1. Approval of the Minutes of the Commission Meeting Held on November 6, 2007. (Staff: Demaris Axthelm)
Consumer Reports
1. Status Report on Consumer Utility Inquiries and Complaints Received by the Commission. (Consumer Affairs: Deb Gregg)
Electric
On September 7, 2007, Northern States Power Company D/B/A Xcel Energy filed a petition with the Commission for approval of a tariff establishing an Environmental Cost Recovery Rider (ECR Rider) pursuant to SDCL 49-34A-97 through 49-34A-100. The company also seeks approval to implement the tariff by including the allocated jurisdictional costs in the ECR Rider for environmental expenditures planned to be made in 2007 and 2008.
TODAY, shall the Commission Assess a Filing Fee for Actual Expenses not to Exceed $50,000?
Telecommunications
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. Intervention was denied to SDTA at the December 6, 2006, Commission Meeting. On January 9, 2007, ITC filed a Motion to Compel Discovery. Specific relief requested by ITC consisted of: 1) The Commission is requested to order Sprint to fully respond to Interrogatory No. 7 by identifying the agreement or agreements that exist between Sprint and MCC; 2) The Commission is requested to order Sprint to provide all agreements requested in Document Request No. 2; 3) The Commission is requested to order Sprint to provide all agreements requested in Document Request No. 3; 4) The Commission is requested to order Sprint to provide the information requested in Interrogatory No. 14; 5) The Commission is requested to order Sprint to provide the information requested in Interrogatory No. 15; 6) The Commission is requested to order Sprint to provide the information requested in Interrogatory No. 16 or, in the alternative, find now that Sprint is not acting as a common carrier and is not entitled to interconnection to ITC for a third party's (MCC) end users customers and that MCC must seek interconnection directly with ITC; 7) The Commission is requested to order Sprint to provide the information requested in Interrogatories 17 and 18 or, in the alternative, enter an order finding that Sprint is not acting as a common carrier and is not entitled to interconnection to ITC for a third party's (MCC) end users and that MCC must seek interconnection directly with ITC for MCC's customers; 8) Sprint should be ordered to provide the diagram that ITC requested in Interrogatory 20; 9) Sprint should be ordered to provide the documents requested showing the networks requested in Document Request No. 5; 10) Sprint should be ordered to respond to Request for Admission No. 3; and 11) Sprint should be ordered to provide all of the requested documents that Sprint has in Sprint's possession. At its January 16, 2007, meeting the Commission granted a motion to compel in part. On January 26, 2007, SDTA filed a Petition for Reconsideration and Clarification. On January 11, 2008, a Joint Motion for Delay was filed by the Parties.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant the Joint Motion for Delay?
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. Intervention was denied to SDTA at the December 6, 2006, Commission Meeting. On January 9, 2007, Sprint filed a Motion to Compel Swiftel be compelled to provide complete and appropriate responses to Request Nos. 2, 3, 15, 19,26,29, and 38. On January 9, 2007, Swiftel filed a Motion to Compel Sprint to provide substantive, non-evasive responses to discovery requests 4, 5, 13, 14, 15, 18, 20, 23, 24, 25 and 26 and to produce the documents requested in Requests for Production of Documents 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 contained in the Discovery Requests of Brookings Municipal Utilities d/b/a Swiftel Communications to Sprint dated December 8, 2006. At its January 16, 2007, meeting the Commission granted a motion to compel in part. On January 26, 2007, SDTA filed a Petition for Reconsideration and Clarification. On January 11, 2008, a Joint Motion for Delay was filed by the Parties.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant the Joint Motion for Delay?
3. TC06-178 - In the Matter of the Application of Sprint Communications Company L.P. for Authority to Provide Local Exchange Services in Certain Rural Areas Served by Brookings Municipal Utilities d/b/a Swiftel Communications. (Staff Analyst: Nathan Solem, Staff Attorney: Kara Semmler)
On October 20, 2006, Sprint Communications L.P. filed a petition seeking authorization to provide local exchange services in the rural area served by Brookings Municipal Utilities d/b/a Swiftel Communications in the Brookings rate center. On November 7, 2006, the South Dakota Telecommunications Association (SDTA) filed a Petition for Intervention. Sprint filed Opposition to SDTA's Intervention on November 20, 2006. The Commission granted intervention to SDTA at its December 6, 2006, meeting. On January 11, 2008, a Joint Motion for Delay was filed by the Parties.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant the Joint Motion for Delay?
On October 24, 2006, Sprint Communications L.P. filed a petition seeking authorization to provide local exchange services in the rural areas served by the Interstate Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc. ILEC in the Castlewood, Elkton, Estelline, Hayti, Lake Norden and White rate centers. On November 7, 2006, the South Dakota Telecommunications Association (SDTA) filed a Petition for Intervention. Interstate Telecommunications Cooperative (ITC) filed a Petition for Intervention on November 8, 2006. Sprint filed Opposition to SDTA's Intervention on November 20, 2006. The Commission granted intervention to SDTA at its December 6, 2006, meeting. On January 11, 2008, a Joint Motion for Delay was filed by the Parties.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant the Joint Motion for Delay?
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 Brookings rural exchange area. Brookings Municipal Utilities d/b/a Swiftel Telecommunications (Swiftel) filed a Petition for Intervention on November 21, 2006. The South Dakota Telecommunications Association (SDTA) filed a Petition for Intervention on November 22, 2006. The Commission granted intervention to Swiftel and SDTA at its December 6, 2006, meeting. On January 11, 2008, a Joint Motion for Delay was filed by the Parties.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant the Joint Motion for Delay?
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. The South Dakota Telecommunications Association (SDTA) filed a Petition for Intervention on November 22, 2006. Intervention was granted to ITC at the November 28, 2006, commission meeting. The Commission granted intervention to SDTA at its December 6, 2006, meeting. On January 11, 2008, a Joint Motion for Delay was filed by the Parties.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant the Joint Motion for Delay?
7. In the Matter of the Filing for Approval of an Amendment to an Interconnection Agreement in Dockets TC07-095, TC07-096, TC07-097, and TC07-119
On September 6, 2007 the Commission received a filing for a Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement between Qwest Corporation and 360networks (USA) Inc. for the State of South Dakota.
On September 6, 2007 the Commission received a filing for the Triennial Review Order and Triennial Review Remand Order Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement between Qwest Corporation and Granite Telecommunications, LLC for the State of South Dakota.
On September 7, 2007 the Commission received a filing for the Single Point of Presence Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement between Qwest Corporation and OrbitCom, Inc. for the State of South Dakota.
On November 19, 2007, the Commission received a filing for approval of a Single Point of Presence (SPOP) Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement between Qwest Corporation and Alltel Communications, Inc. f/k/a WWC License LLC for the State of South Dakota.
TODAY, shall the Commission Approve the Amendments to the Interconnection Agreements in the Above Referenced Dockets?
8. In the Matter of the Petition for Arbitration Pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to Resolve Issues Relating to an Interconnection Agreement in Dockets TC07-111, TC07-112, TC07-113, TC07-114, TC07-115, and TC07-116
On October 19, 2007, Alliance Communications Cooperative, Inc. (Alliance) filed a petition for arbitration of certain unresolved terms and conditions of a proposed Interconnection Agreement between Alliance and Alltel Communications, Inc. (Alltel), pursuant to Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, SDCL 49-31-81, and ARSD 20:10:32:29. Alliance filed a list of unresolved issues consisting of:
(1) Is the reciprocal compensation rate for IntraMTA Traffic proposed by Alliance appropriate pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 252(d)(2)?
(2) What is the appropriate Percent InterMTA Use factor to be applied to non-IntraMTA traffic exchanged between the parties?
(3) What is the appropriate manner by which the minutes of use of IntraMTA Traffic terminated by the parties, one to the other, should be calculated and billed?
(4) What is the obligation of the parties with respect to dial parity?
(5) What is the appropriate effective date and term of the Agreement?
Alliance requests the following relief:
A. Issuance of an Order requiring arbitration of any and all unresolved Issues between Alliance and WWC;
B. Issuance of an Order directing Alliance and Alltel to submit to this Commission for approval an interconnection agreement reflecting:
(i) The agreed-upon language in Exhibit A, and
(ii) The resolution of any unresolved issues in accordance with the positions and recommendations made by Alliance as set forth herein at the arbitration hearing to be scheduled by this Commission
C. Issuance of an Order directing the parties to pay interim compensation for transport and termination of telecommunications traffic from January 1, 2007 (the Effective Date set forth in Exhibit A) to the date on which the Commission approves the parties' executed interconnection agreement in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act
D. Issuance of an Order asserting this Commission jurisdiction over this arbitration until the parties have submitted an executed interconnection agreement for approval by this Commission in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act;
E. Any other, further and different relief as the nature of this matter may require or as may be just, equitable and proper to this Commission.
In accordance with ARSD 20:10:32:30, a non-petitioning party may respond to the petition for arbitration and provide additional information within 25 days after the commission receives the petition. On December 17, 2007, a Stipulation for Scheduling Order was filed.
On October 19, 2007, McCook Cooperative Telephone Company (McCook) filed a petition for arbitration of certain unresolved terms and conditions of a proposed Interconnection Agreement between McCook and Alltel Communications, Inc. (Alltel), pursuant to Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, SDCL 49-31-81, and ARSD 20:10:32:29. McCook filed a list of unresolved issues consisting of:
(1) Is the reciprocal compensation rate for IntraMTA Traffic proposed by McCook appropriate pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 252(d)(2)?
(2) What is the appropriate Percent InterMTA Use factor to be applied to non-IntraMTA traffic exchanged between the parties?
(3) What is the appropriate manner by which the minutes of use of IntraMTA Traffic terminated by the parties, one to the other, should be calculated and billed?
(4) What is the obligation of the parties with respect to dial parity?
(5) What is the appropriate effective date and term of the Agreement?
McCook requests the following relief:
A. Issuance of an Order requiring arbitration of any and all unresolved Issues between McCook and WWC;
B. Issuance of an Order directing McCook and Alltel to submit to this Commission for approval an interconnection agreement reflecting:
(i) The agreed-upon language in Exhibit A, and
(ii) The resolution of any unresolved issues in accordance with the positions and recommendations made by McCook as set forth herein at the arbitration hearing to be scheduled by this Commission
C. Issuance of an Order directing the parties to pay interim compensation for transport and termination of telecommunications traffic from January 1, 2007 (the Effective Date set forth in Exhibit A) to the date on which the Commission approves the parties' executed interconnection agreement in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act
D. Issuance of an Order asserting this Commission jurisdiction over this arbitration until the parties have submitted an executed interconnection agreement for approval by this Commission in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act;
E. Any other, further and different relief as the nature of this matter may require or as may be just, equitable and proper to this Commission.
In accordance with ARSD 20:10:32:30, a non-petitioning party may respond to the petition for arbitration and provide additional information within 25 days after the commission receives the petition. On December 17, 2007, a Stipulation for Scheduling Order was filed.
On October 19, 2007, Beresford Municipal Telephone Company (Beresford) filed a petition for arbitration of certain unresolved terms and conditions of a proposed Interconnection Agreement between Beresford and Alltel Communications, Inc. (Alltel), pursuant to Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, SDCL 49-31-81, and ARSD 20:10:32:29. Beresford filed a list of unresolved issues consisting of:
(1) Is the reciprocal compensation rate for IntraMTA Traffic proposed by Beresford appropriate pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 252(d)(2)?
(2) What is the appropriate Percent InterMTA Use factor to be applied to non-IntraMTA traffic exchanged between the parties?
(3) What is the appropriate manner by which the minutes of use of IntraMTA Traffic terminated by the parties, one to the other, should be calculated and billed?
(4) What is the obligation of the parties with respect to dial parity?
(5) What is the appropriate effective date and term of the Agreement?
Beresford requests the following relief:
A. Issuance of an Order requiring arbitration of any and all unresolved Issues between Beresford and WWC;
B. Issuance of an Order directing Beresford and Alltel to submit to this Commission for approval an interconnection agreement reflecting:
(i) The agreed-upon language in Exhibit A, and
(ii) The resolution of any unresolved issues in accordance with the positions and recommendations made by Beresford as set forth herein at the arbitration hearing to be scheduled by this Commission
C. Issuance of an Order directing the parties to pay interim compensation for transport and termination of telecommunications traffic from January 1, 2007 (the Effective Date set forth in Exhibit A) to the date on which the Commission approves the parties' executed interconnection agreement in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act
D. Issuance of an Order asserting this Commission jurisdiction over this arbitration until the parties have submitted an executed interconnection agreement for approval by this Commission in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act;
E. Any other, further and different relief as the nature of this matter may require or as may be just, equitable and proper to this Commission.
In accordance with ARSD 20:10:32:30, a non-petitioning party may respond to the petition for arbitration and provide additional information within 25 days after the commission receives the petition. On December 17, 2007, a Stipulation for Scheduling Order was filed.
On October 19, 2007, Kennebec Telephone Company (Kennebec) filed a petition for arbitration of certain unresolved terms and conditions of a proposed Interconnection Agreement between Kennebec and Alltel Communications, Inc. (Alltel), pursuant to Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, SDCL 49-31-81, and ARSD 20:10:32:29. Kennebec filed a list of unresolved issues consisting of:
(1) Is the reciprocal compensation rate for IntraMTA Traffic proposed by Kennebec appropriate pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 252(d)(2)?
(2) What is the appropriate Percent InterMTA Use factor to be applied to non-IntraMTA traffic exchanged between the parties?
(3) What is the appropriate manner by which the minutes of use of IntraMTA Traffic terminated by the parties, one to the other, should be calculated and billed?
(4) What is the obligation of the parties with respect to dial parity?
(5) What is the appropriate effective date and term of the Agreement?
Kennebec requests the following relief:
A. Issuance of an Order requiring arbitration of any and all unresolved Issues between Kennebec and WWC;
B. Issuance of an Order directing Kennebec and Alltel to submit to this Commission for approval an interconnection agreement reflecting:
(i) The agreed-upon language in Exhibit A, and
(ii) The resolution of any unresolved issues in accordance with the positions and recommendations made by Kennebec as set forth herein at the arbitration hearing to be scheduled by this Commission
C. Issuance of an Order directing the parties to pay interim compensation for transport and termination of telecommunications traffic from January 1, 2007 (the Effective Date set forth in Exhibit A) to the date on which the Commission approves the parties' executed interconnection agreement in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act
D. Issuance of an Order asserting this Commission jurisdiction over this arbitration until the parties have submitted an executed interconnection agreement for approval by this Commission in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act;
E. Any other, further and different relief as the nature of this matter may require or as may be just, equitable and proper to this Commission.
In accordance with ARSD 20:10:32:30, a non-petitioning party may respond to the petition for arbitration and provide additional information within 25 days after the commission receives the petition. On December 17, 2007, a Stipulation for Scheduling Order was filed.
On October 19, 2007, Santel Communications Cooperative, Inc. (Santel) filed a petition for arbitration of certain unresolved terms and conditions of a proposed Interconnection Agreement between Santel and Alltel Communications, Inc. (Alltel), pursuant to Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, SDCL 49-31-81, and ARSD 20:10:32:29. Santel filed a list of unresolved issues consisting of:
(1) Is the reciprocal compensation rate for IntraMTA Traffic proposed by Santel appropriate pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 252(d)(2)?
(2) What is the appropriate Percent InterMTA Use factor to be applied to non-IntraMTA traffic exchanged between the parties?
(3) What is the appropriate manner by which the minutes of use of IntraMTA Traffic terminated by the parties, one to the other, should be calculated and billed?
(4) What is the obligation of the parties with respect to dial parity?
(5) What is the appropriate effective date and term of the Agreement?
Santel requests the following relief:
A. Issuance of an Order requiring arbitration of any and all unresolved Issues between Santel and WWC;
B. Issuance of an Order directing Santel and Alltel to submit to this Commission for approval an interconnection agreement reflecting:
(i) The agreed-upon language in Exhibit A, and
(ii) The resolution of any unresolved issues in accordance with the positions and recommendations made by Santel as set forth herein at the arbitration hearing to be scheduled by this Commission
C. Issuance of an Order directing the parties to pay interim compensation for transport and termination of telecommunications traffic from January 1, 2007 (the Effective Date set forth in Exhibit A) to the date on which the Commission approves the parties' executed interconnection agreement in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act
D. Issuance of an Order asserting this Commission jurisdiction over this arbitration until the parties have submitted an executed interconnection agreement for approval by this Commission in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act;
E. Any other, further and different relief as the nature of this matter may require or as may be just, equitable and proper to this Commission.
In accordance with ARSD 20:10:32:30, a non-petitioning party may respond to the petition for arbitration and provide additional information within 25 days after the commission receives the petition. On December 17, 2007, a Stipulation for Scheduling Order was filed.
On October 19, 2007, West River Cooperative Telephone Company (West River) filed a petition for arbitration of certain unresolved terms and conditions of a proposed Interconnection Agreement between West River and Alltel Communications, Inc. (Alltel), pursuant to Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, SDCL 49-31-81, and ARSD 20:10:32:29. West River filed a list of unresolved issues consisting of:
(1) Is the reciprocal compensation rate for IntraMTA Traffic proposed by West River appropriate pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 252(d)(2)?
(2) What is the appropriate Percent InterMTA Use factor to be applied to non-IntraMTA traffic exchanged between the parties?
(3) What is the appropriate manner by which the minutes of use of IntraMTA Traffic terminated by the parties, one to the other, should be calculated and billed?
(4) What is the obligation of the parties with respect to dial parity?
(5) What is the appropriate effective date and term of the Agreement?
West River requests the following relief:
A. Issuance of an Order requiring arbitration of any and all unresolved Issues between West River and WWC;
B. Issuance of an Order directing West River and Alltel to submit to this Commission for approval an interconnection agreement reflecting:
(i) The agreed-upon language in Exhibit A, and
(ii) The resolution of any unresolved issues in accordance with the positions and recommendations made by West River as set forth herein at the arbitration hearing to be scheduled by this Commission
C. Issuance of an Order directing the parties to pay interim compensation for transport and termination of telecommunications traffic from January 1, 2007 (the Effective Date set forth in Exhibit A) to the date on which the Commission approves the parties' executed interconnection agreement in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act
D. Issuance of an Order asserting this Commission jurisdiction over this arbitration until the parties have submitted an executed interconnection agreement for approval by this Commission in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act;
E. Any other, further and different relief as the nature of this matter may require or as may be just, equitable and proper to this Commission.
In accordance with ARSD 20:10:32:30, a non-petitioning party may respond to the petition for arbitration and provide additional information within 25 days after the commission receives the petition. On December 17, 2007, a Stipulation for Scheduling Order was filed.
TODAY, shall the Commission Approve the Stipulation for Scheduling Order in the Above Referenced Dockets? AND, shall the Commission Assess a Deposit Not to Exceed $75,000 on the Parties to the Dockets Listed Above Pursuant to SDCL 49-31-44?
9. In the Matter of the Approval of Agreements in Dockets TC07-120, TC07-122, and TC07-124
On November 19, 2007, the Commission received a filing for the approval of a General Terms and Conditions Agreement, between Midcontinent Communications and Santel Communications Cooperative, Inc.
On December 18, 2007, the Commission received a filing for the approval of an Interconnection and Reciprocal Compensation Agreement, between Interstate Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc. and Rural Cellular Corporation.
On December 24, 2007, the Commission received a filing for the approval of an Interconnection and Reciprocal Compensation Agreement, between Stockholm-Strandburg Telephone Company and Rural Cellular Corporation.
TODAY, shall the Commission Approve the Agreements in the Above Referenced Dockets?
Filing of revised Exchange Boundary maps by Qwest Corporation and West River Cooperative Telephone Company. This change is being made to accommodate a customer who is currently served by Qwest, but wishes to be served by West River. This change will not affect any other customers in that area.
TODAY, shall the Commission Approve the Boundary Change?
On December 26, 2007, Consumer Telcom, Inc. (CTI) filed an application seeking a Certificate of Authority to provide interexchange telecommunications services in South Dakota. CTI intends to provide resold interexchange outbound services throughout South Dakota.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant a Certificate of Authority to Consumer Telcom, Inc.?
On December 29, 2004, the Commission issued an order granting Sancom, Inc. d/b/a Mitchell Telecom a three year exemption from developing company specific cost-based intrastate switched access rates in accordance with ARSD 20:10:27:11. On December 28, 2007, Sancom filed a petition asking for an extension of that exemption. Additionally, Sancom is requesting to reduce its intrastate switched access rates to $0.115 per originating and terminating MOU, a decrease of $0.0075 from its current rates. On January 16, 2008, Qwest Communications Corporation filed a Petition for Leave to Intervene. A Petition for Intervention was filed on January 18, 2008, by AT&T Communications of the Midwest, Inc.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant Intervention to Qwest Communications Corporation and AT&T Communications of the Midwest, Inc.?
Announcements
1. The next regularly scheduled Commission meeting will be held February 12, 2008, at 2:00 p.m. in Room 464, State Capitol Building, Pierre, SD.
2. Commission meetings are scheduled for February 26 and March 11, 2008.
_______________________________
Heather K. Forney
Deputy Executive Director
heather.forney@state.sd.us
January 23, 2008
