Commission Agendas | previous page
South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Meeting
March 25, 2008, 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 March 24, 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
Consumer Reports
- Status Report on Consumer Utility Inquiries and Complaints Received by the Commission. (Consumer Affairs: Deb Gregg)
Electricity
On August 26, 2005, Xcel Energy (Xcel) submitted an application for a Construction Permit to build 9.6 miles of 345 kV Transmission Line from Split Rock to Lakefield Junction and add Facilities to the Split Rock Substation. A new 345 kilovolt line from the Split Rock Substation located west of Brandon, South Dakota to the Minnesota line is proposed to be constructed. The line will be approximately 9.6 miles in length and comprise the western portion of an 86-mile 345 kV transmission line between Split Rock Substation west of Brandon, South Dakota to the Lakefield Junction Substation east of Lakefield, Minnesota. Improvements to the Split Rock Substation will be constructed to accommodate the new 345 kV interconnection. A Joint Stipulation between Xcel and Commission Staff was filed on June 6, 2006. On August 15, 2006, Xcel filed a letter with the Commission asking for a waiver of the one year deadline pursuant to SDCL 49-41B-24, and for an additional period of time before the Commission's Final Decision. The Commission granted the waiver and additional time at its August 23, 2006, meeting. On December 11, 2006, Xcel filed a Motion to Extend Final Approval Deadline. The Commission granted the motion at its December 19, 2006, meeting. On June 4, 2007, Xcel filed a Motion to Extend Final Approval Deadline. The Commission approved the motion at its June 26, 2007, meeting. A copy of the Utility Permit issued by the Department of Transportation was filed on October 26, 2007. A Joint Stipulation between Staff and Xcel was filed on October 26, 2007. The Stipulation was approved at the November 6, 2007, commission meeting. Xcel filed a letter on February 29, 2008, asking for approval to move a structure. At its regular meeting on March 11, 2008, the Commission granted Xcel's request to move structure 35 to accommodate a structural requirement for interconnection with Western Area Power Administration's 345kV line. The Commission further decided not to permit the line to be energized pending further action by the Commission. The Commission requested that Xcel respond to the Commission's question as to whether a follow-up mailing should be done to landowners (i) to determine the extent of the deficiency in communication to landowners that might have occurred in this case and (ii) to obtain and present to the Commission, and a complaining landowner, more precise information concerning the location of Structure 35 and Xcel's easement in that area.
TODAY, how shall the Commission Proceed?
Application by NorthWestern Energy for approval of a Contract with Deviation to construct an electric line to serve the Burlington Northern Railroad. This project is to provide electrical service to a new switch heater located at Line Segment 2001, Milepost 736.68, City of Redfield, Spink County, South Dakota.
TODAY, shall the Commission Approve the Contract with Deviations?
Telecommunications
On October 30, 2006, Long Lines Wireless, LLC filed a petition for designation as an eligible telecommunications carrier in South Dakota for the following service area: the counties of Union, Clay, Yankton, Bon Homme, Lincoln, Turner, Minnehaha, McCook, Lake, Moody, Brookings, Jackson, Harding, Butte, Lawrence, Custer, Fall River, Bennett, Perkins, Meade, Pennington, Shannon, and Haakon. Long Lines Wireless will provide service to requested service area via its own facilities, not through any resale methods.
TODAY, shall the Commission Designate Long Lines Wireless, LLC as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier?
On June 22, 2007, Qwest Corporation (Qwest) filed a Notice of Stipulation Regarding Certain Performance Indicator Definitions (PIDs) and Performance Assurance Plan (PAP) Provisions (2007 Stipulation) and Joint Motion to Approve Same on Behalf of the Stipulating Parties. Qwest on behalf of itself, DIECA Communications, Inc. d/b/a Covad Communications Company and McLeodUSA Telecommunications Services, Inc. (the Stipulating Parties) submitted the Notice of Stipulation and the Joint Motion to Approve. The Stipulating Parties respectively recommend that the Commission approve the 2007 Stipulation, apply the agreed upon changes to the PAP, to any interconnection agreements containing the PAP and allow the PIDs modifications to go into effect no later than 60 days after this submission in accordance with 47 U.S.C. Section 252(f)(3).
TODAY, shall the Commission Approve the Stipulation?
On September 17, 2007, PrairieWave Community Telephone, Inc. filed a petition requesting an exemption from filing company specific cost-based switched access rates. On October 10, 2007, a Petition for Intervention by AT&T Communications of the Midwest, Inc., and Limited Opposition to Petition of PrairieWave for an Exemption were filed. Intervention was granted to AT&T at the October 23, 2007, commission meeting. AT&T has verbally indicated their intention to withdraw.
TODAY, shall the Commission Allow AT&T to Withdraw? AND, shall the Commission Grant the Exemption from Developing Company Specific Cost-Based Switched Access Rates?
4. 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. The Stipulation for Scheduling Order was approved at the January 29, 2008, commission meeting. On March 17, 2008, Alltel filed a Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery Requests.
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. The Stipulation for Scheduling Order was approved at the January 29, 2008, commission meeting. On March 17, 2008, Alltel filed a Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery Requests.
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. The Stipulation for Scheduling Order was approved at the January 29, 2008, commission meeting. On March 17, 2008, Alltel filed a Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery Requests.
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. The Stipulation for Scheduling Order was approved at the January 29, 2008, commission meeting. On March 17, 2008, Alltel filed a Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery Requests.
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. The Stipulation for Scheduling Order was approved at the January 29, 2008, commission meeting. On March 17, 2008, Alltel filed a Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery Requests.
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. The Stipulation for Scheduling Order was approved at the January 29, 2008, commission meeting. On March 17, 2008, Alltel filed a Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery Requests.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant the Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery Requests?
On November 16, 2007, PrairieWave Telecommunications, Inc. (PrairieWave) filed a Petition for Exemption from ARSD 20:10:27:11 to 20:10:27:13. PrairieWave requests that the Commission exempt PrairieWave from developing company-specific cost-based switched access rates in 2007 and to continue to charge its currently tariffed intrastate switched access charges. On December 14, 2007, a Petition for Intervention was filed by AT&T Communications of the Midwest (AT&T). Intervention was granted to AT&T at the January 15, 2008, commission meeting. AT&T has verbally indicated their intention to withdraw.
TODAY, shall the Commission Allow AT&T to Withdraw? AND, shall the Commission Grant the Exemption from Developing Company Specific Cost-Based Switched Access Rates?
6. In the Matter of the Petitions for Suspension or Modification of 47 U.S.C. Section 251(b)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934 as Amended in Dockets TC08-006, TC08-007, TC08-008, TC08-009, TC08-010, TC08-011, TC08-012, TC08-013, TC08-014, TC08-015, TC08-016, TC08-017, TC08-018, TC08-019, TC08-020, TC08-021, TC08-022, TC08-023, TC08-024, TC08-025, TC08-026, and TC08-027.
On February 8, 2008, Alliance Communications Cooperative, Inc., Splitrock Properties, Inc., and Hills Telephone Company (Alliance) filed a petition with the Public Utilities Commission (Commission) for a suspension and modification of the number portability requirement in Section 251(b)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Alliance's requested modification of intermodal LNP and LNP to VoIP providers concerns the transport of ported calls. Alliance claimed that, at present not all of the necessary transport arrangements are in place with wireless carriers and VoIP providers to properly route calls to ported local numbers. Alliance also requests immediate temporary suspension of the Section 251(b) (2) requirement pending this Commission's consideration of this request. Alliance respectively requests that the Commission: (A) Issue an interim order by no later than May 8, 2008, which would suspend intermodal LNP implementation pending the issuance of a final order on the separate requests for suspension and modification of the LNP requirements that are presented herein; (B) Issue a final order granting a temporary suspension of the present LNP implementation deadline of May 8, 2008, as requested herein; (C) Issue a final order granting a modification of intermodal LNP such that Alliance will not be required to pay the costs associated with transporting traffic beyond is established local calling areas to numbers that have been ported to other carriers; and (D) Grant Alliance such other and further relief as the Commission may deem proper. On February 29, 2008, Petitions for Intervention were filed by Midcontinent Communications, Alltel Communications LLC, Verizon Wireless LLC, CommNet Cellular License Holding LLC, Missouri Valley Cellular, Inc., Sanborn Cellular, Inc., Eastern South Dakota Cellular, Inc., d/b/a Verizon Wireless, and the South Dakota Telecommunications Association.
On February 8, 2008, Kennebec Telephone Company (Kennebec) filed a petition with the Public Utilities Commission (Commission) for a suspension and modification of the number portability requirement in Section 251(b) (2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Kennebec's requested modification of intermodal LNP and LNP to VoIP providers concerns the transport of ported calls. Kennebec claimed that, at present not all of the necessary transport arrangements are in place with wireless carriers and VoIP providers to properly route calls to ported local numbers. Kennebec also requests immediate temporary suspension of the Section 251(b) (2) requirement pending this Commission's consideration of this request. Kennebec respectively requests that the Commission: (A) Issue an interim order by no later than May 8, 2008, which would suspend intermodal LNP implementation pending the issuance of a final order on the separate requests for suspension and modification of the LNP requirements that are presented herein; (B) Issue a final order granting a temporary suspension of the present LNP implementation deadline of May 8, 2008, as requested herein; (C) Issue a final order granting a modification of intermodal LNP such that Kennebec will not be required to pay the costs associated with transporting traffic beyond is established local calling areas to numbers that have been ported to other carriers; and (D) Grant Kennebec such other and further relief as the Commission may deem proper. On February 29, 2008, Petitions for Intervention were filed by Midcontinent Communications, Alltel Communications LLC, Verizon Wireless LLC, CommNet Cellular License Holding LLC, Missouri Valley Cellular, Inc., Sanborn Cellular, Inc., Eastern South Dakota Cellular, Inc., d/b/a Verizon Wireless, and the South Dakota Telecommunications Association.
On February 8, 2008, Faith Municipal Telephone Company (Faith) filed a petition with the Public Utilities Commission (Commission) for a suspension and modification of the number portability requirement in Section 251(b) (2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Faith's requested modification of intermodal LNP and LNP to VoIP providers concerns the transport of ported calls. Faith claimed that, at present not all of the necessary transport arrangements are in place with wireless carriers and VoIP providers to properly route calls to ported local numbers. Faith also requests immediate temporary suspension of the Section 251(b) (2) requirement pending this Commission's consideration of this request. Faith respectively requests that the Commission: (A) Issue an interim order by no later than May 8, 2008, which would suspend intermodal LNP implementation pending the issuance of a final order on the separate requests for suspension and modification of the LNP requirements that are presented herein; (B) Issue a final order granting a temporary suspension of the present LNP implementation deadline of May 8, 2008, as requested herein; (C) Issue a final order granting a modification of intermodal LNP such that Faith will not be required to pay the costs associated with transporting traffic beyond is established local calling areas to numbers that have been ported to other carriers; and (D) Grant Faith such other and further relief as the Commission may deem proper. On February 29, 2008, Petitions for Intervention were filed by Midcontinent Communications, Alltel Communications LLC, Verizon Wireless LLC, CommNet Cellular License Holding LLC, Missouri Valley Cellular, Inc., Sanborn Cellular, Inc., Eastern South Dakota Cellular, Inc., d/b/a Verizon Wireless, and the South Dakota Telecommunications Association.
On February 8, 2008, Western Telephone Company (Western) filed a petition with the Public Utilities Commission (Commission) for a suspension and modification of the number portability requirement in Section 251(b) (2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Western's requested modification of intermodal LNP and LNP to VoIP providers concerns the transport of ported calls. Western claimed that, at present not all of the necessary transport arrangements are in place with wireless carriers and VoIP providers to properly route calls to ported local numbers. Western also requests immediate temporary suspension of the Section 251(b) (2) requirement pending this Commission's consideration of this request. Western respectively requests that the Commission: (A) Issue an interim order by no later than May 8, 2008, which would suspend intermodal LNP implementation pending the issuance of a final order on the separate requests for suspension and modification of the LNP requirements that are presented herein; (B) Issue a final order granting a temporary suspension of the present LNP implementation deadline of May 8, 2008, as requested herein; (C) Issue a final order granting a modification of intermodal LNP such that Western will not be required to pay the costs associated with transporting traffic beyond is established local calling areas to numbers that have been ported to other carriers; and (D) Grant Western such other and further relief as the Commission may deem proper. On February 29, 2008, Petitions for Intervention were filed by Midcontinent Communications, Alltel Communications LLC, Verizon Wireless LLC, CommNet Cellular License Holding LLC, Missouri Valley Cellular, Inc., Sanborn Cellular, Inc., Eastern South Dakota Cellular, Inc., d/b/a Verizon Wireless, and the South Dakota Telecommunications Association.
On February 8, 2008, Sioux Valley Telephone Company (Sioux Valley) filed a petition with the Public Utilities Commission (Commission) for a suspension and modification of the number portability requirement in Section 251(b) (2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Sioux Valley's requested modification of intermodal LNP and LNP to VoIP providers concerns the transport of ported calls. Sioux Valley claimed that, at present not all of Sioux Valley's switches are LNP capable and because not all of the necessary transport arrangements are in place with wireless carriers and VoIP providers to properly route calls to ported local numbers. Sioux Valley also requests immediate temporary suspension of the Section 251(b) (2) requirement pending this Commission's consideration of this request. Sioux Valley respectively requests that the Commission: (A) Issue an interim order by no later than May 8, 2008, which would suspend intermodal LNP implementation pending the issuance of a final order on the separate requests for suspension and modification of the LNP requirements that are presented herein; (B) Issue a final order granting a temporary suspension of the present LNP implementation deadline of May 8, 2008, as requested herein; (C) Issue a final order granting a modification of intermodal LNP such that Sioux Valley will not be required to pay the costs associated with transporting traffic beyond is established local calling areas to numbers that have been ported to other carriers; and (D) Grant Sioux Valley such other and further relief as the Commission may deem proper. On February 29, 2008, Petitions for Intervention were filed by Midcontinent Communications, Alltel Communications LLC, Verizon Wireless LLC, CommNet Cellular License Holding LLC, Missouri Valley Cellular, Inc., Sanborn Cellular, Inc., Eastern South Dakota Cellular, Inc., d/b/a Verizon Wireless, and the South Dakota Telecommunications Association.
On February 8, 2008, Venture Communications Cooperative, Inc. (Venture) filed a petition with the Public Utilities Commission (Commission) for a suspension and modification of the number portability requirement in Section 251(b) (2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Venture's requested modification of intermodal LNP and LNP to VoIP providers concerns the transport of ported calls. Venture's requested suspension is for the purpose of negotiating transport arrangements with wireless carriers and VoIP providers, as necessary. Venture also requests an immediate suspension of Section 251(b) (2) pending this Commission's consideration of the modification request until 90 days following the Commission's decision. Venture respectively requests that the Commission: (A) Issue an interim order that suspends any obligation for Petitioner to provide intermodal or VoIP LNP; (B) Issue a final order that grants a modification of Venture's obligation to provide intermodal and VoIP LNP as requested herein and a suspension of Venture's obligation to implement intermodal and VoIP LNP until the transport issue is resolved; and (C) Grant Venture such other and further relief that may be proper. On February 29, 2008, Petitions for Intervention were filed by Midcontinent Communications, Alltel Communications LLC, Verizon Wireless LLC, CommNet Cellular License Holding LLC, Missouri Valley Cellular, Inc., Sanborn Cellular, Inc., Eastern South Dakota Cellular, Inc., d/b/a Verizon Wireless, and the South Dakota Telecommunications Association.
On February 8, 2008, RC Communications, Inc. and Roberts County Telephone Cooperative Assn. (RC) filed a petition with the Public Utilities Commission (Commission) for a suspension and modification of the number portability requirement in Section 251(b)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. RC's requested modification of intermodal LNP and LNP to VoIP providers concerns the transport of ported calls. RC claimed that, at present not all of the necessary transport arrangements are in place with wireless carriers and VoIP providers to properly route calls to ported local numbers. RC also requests immediate temporary suspension of the Section 251(b) (2) requirement pending this Commission's consideration of this request. RC respectively requests that the Commission: (A) Issue an interim order by no later than May 8, 2008, which would suspend intermodal LNP implementation pending the issuance of a final order on the separate requests for suspension and modification of the LNP requirements that are presented herein; (B) Issue a final order granting a temporary suspension of the present LNP implementation deadline of May 8, 2008, as requested herein; (C) Issue a final order granting a modification of intermodal LNP such that RC will not be required to pay the costs associated with transporting traffic beyond is established local calling areas to numbers that have been ported to other carriers; and (D) Grant RC such other and further relief as the Commission may deem proper. On February 29, 2008, Petitions for Intervention were filed by Midcontinent Communications, Alltel Communications LLC, Verizon Wireless LLC, CommNet Cellular License Holding LLC, Missouri Valley Cellular, Inc., Sanborn Cellular, Inc., Eastern South Dakota Cellular, Inc., d/b/a Verizon Wireless, and the South Dakota Telecommunications Association.On February 8, 2008, Beresford Municipal Telephone Company (Beresford) filed a petition with the Public Utilities Commission (Commission) for a suspension and modification of the number portability requirement in Section 251(b) (2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Beresford's requested modification of intermodal LNP and LNP to VoIP providers concerns the transport of ported calls. Beresford claimed that, at present not all of the necessary transport arrangements are in place with wireless carriers and VoIP providers to properly route calls to ported local numbers. Beresford also requests immediate temporary suspension of the Section 251(b) (2) requirement pending this Commission's consideration of this request. Beresford respectively requests that the Commission: (A) Issue an interim order by no later than May 8, 2008, which would suspend intermodal LNP implementation pending the issuance of a final order on the separate requests for suspension and modification of the LNP requirements that are presented herein; (B) Issue a final order granting a temporary suspension of the present LNP implementation deadline of May 8, 2008, as requested herein; (C) Issue a final order granting a modification of intermodal LNP such that Beresford will not be required to pay the costs associated with transporting traffic beyond is established local calling areas to numbers that have been ported to other carriers; and (D) Grant Beresford such other and further relief as the Commission may deem proper. On February 29, 2008, Petitions for Intervention were filed by Midcontinent Communications, Alltel Communications LLC, Verizon Wireless LLC, CommNet Cellular License Holding LLC, Missouri Valley Cellular, Inc., Sanborn Cellular, Inc., Eastern South Dakota Cellular, Inc., d/b/a Verizon Wireless, and the South Dakota Telecommunications Association.
On February 8, 2008, Golden West Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc. (Golden West) filed a petition with the Public Utilities Commission (Commission) for a suspension and modification of the number portability requirement in Section 251(b) (2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Golden West's requested modification of intermodal LNP and LNP to VoIP providers concerns the transport of ported calls. Golden West claimed that, at present not all of the necessary transport arrangements are in place with wireless carriers and VoIP providers to properly route calls to ported local numbers. Golden West also requests immediate temporary suspension of the Section 251(b) (2) requirement pending this Commission's consideration of this request. Golden West respectively requests that the Commission: (A) Issue an interim order by no later than May 8, 2008, which would suspend intermodal LNP implementation pending the issuance of a final order on the separate requests for suspension and modification of the LNP requirements that are presented herein; (B) Issue a final order granting a temporary suspension of the present LNP implementation deadline of May 8, 2008, as requested herein; (C) Issue a final order granting a modification of intermodal LNP such that Golden West will not be required to pay the costs associated with transporting traffic beyond is established local calling areas to numbers that have been ported to other carriers; and (D) Grant Golden West such other and further relief as the Commission may deem proper. On February 29, 2008, Petitions for Intervention were filed by Midcontinent Communications, Alltel Communications LLC, Verizon Wireless LLC, CommNet Cellular License Holding LLC, Missouri Valley Cellular, Inc., Sanborn Cellular, Inc., Eastern South Dakota Cellular, Inc., d/b/a Verizon Wireless, and the South Dakota Telecommunications Association.
On February 8, 2008, Vivian Telephone Company (Vivian) filed a petition with the Public Utilities Commission (Commission) for a suspension and modification of the number portability requirement in Section 251(b) (2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Vivian's requested modification of intermodal LNP and LNP to VoIP providers concerns the transport of ported calls. Vivian claimed that, at present not all of the necessary transport arrangements are in place with wireless carriers and VoIP providers to properly route calls to ported local numbers. Vivian also requests immediate temporary suspension of the Section 251(b) (2) requirement pending this Commission's consideration of this request. Vivian respectively requests that the Commission: (A) Issue an interim order by no later than May 8, 2008, which would suspend intermodal LNP implementation pending the issuance of a final order on the separate requests for suspension and modification of the LNP requirements that are presented herein; (B) Issue a final order granting a temporary suspension of the present LNP implementation deadline of May 8, 2008, as requested herein; (C) Issue a final order granting a modification of intermodal LNP such that Vivian will not be required to pay the costs associated with transporting traffic beyond is established local calling areas to numbers that have been ported to other carriers; and (D) Grant Vivian such other and further relief as the Commission may deem proper. On February 29, 2008, Petitions for Intervention were filed by Midcontinent Communications, Alltel Communications LLC, Verizon Wireless LLC, CommNet Cellular License Holding LLC, Missouri Valley Cellular, Inc., Sanborn Cellular, Inc., Eastern South Dakota Cellular, Inc., d/b/a Verizon Wireless, and the South Dakota Telecommunications Association.
On February 8, 2008, Kadoka Telephone Company (Kadoka) filed a petition with the Public Utilities Commission (Commission) for a suspension and modification of the number portability requirement in Section 251(b) (2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Kadoka's requested modification of intermodal LNP and LNP to VoIP providers concerns the transport of ported calls. Kadoka claimed that, at present not all of the necessary transport arrangements are in place with wireless carriers and VoIP providers to properly route calls to ported local numbers. Kadoka also requests immediate temporary suspension of the Section 251(b) (2) requirement pending this Commission's consideration of this request. Kadoka respectively requests that the Commission: (A) Issue an interim order by no later than May 8, 2008, which would suspend intermodal LNP implementation pending the issuance of a final order on the separate requests for suspension and modification of the LNP requirements that are presented herein; (B) Issue a final order granting a temporary suspension of the present LNP implementation deadline of May 8, 2008, as requested herein; (C) Issue a final order granting a modification of intermodal LNP such that Kadoka will not be required to pay the costs associated with transporting traffic beyond is established local calling areas to numbers that have been ported to other carriers; and (D) Grant Kadoka such other and further relief as the Commission may deem proper. On February 29, 2008, Petitions for Intervention were filed by Midcontinent Communications, Alltel Communications LLC, Verizon Wireless LLC, CommNet Cellular License Holding LLC, Missouri Valley Cellular, Inc., Sanborn Cellular, Inc., Eastern South Dakota Cellular, Inc., d/b/a Verizon Wireless, and the South Dakota Telecommunications Association.
On February 8, 2008, Brookings Municipal Utilities d/b/a Swiftel Communications (Swiftel) filed a petition with the Public Utilities Commission (Commission) for a suspension and modification of the number portability requirement in Section 251(b)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Swiftel's requested modification of intermodal LNP and LNP to VoIP providers concerns the transport of ported calls. Swiftel's requested suspension is for the purpose of negotiating transport arrangements with wireless carriers and VoIP providers, as necessary. Swiftel also requests an immediate suspension of Section 251(b) (2) pending this Commission's consideration of the modification request until 90 days following the Commission's decision. Swiftel respectively requests that the Commission: (A) Issue an interim order that suspends any obligation for Swiftel to provide intermodal or VoIP LNP; (B) Issue a final order that grants a modification of Swiftel's obligation to provide intermodal and VoIP LNP as requested herein and a suspension of Swiftel's obligation to implement intermodal and VoIP LNP until the transport issue is resolved; and (C) Grant Swiftel such other and further relief that may be proper. On February 29, 2008, Petitions for Intervention were filed by Midcontinent Communications, Alltel Communications LLC, Verizon Wireless LLC, CommNet Cellular License Holding LLC, Missouri Valley Cellular, Inc., Sanborn Cellular, Inc., Eastern South Dakota Cellular, Inc., d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Sprint Communications Company, LP, MCC Telehony of the Midwest, Inc. d/b/a Mediacom, and the South Dakota Telecommunications Association.
On February 8, 2008, Union Telephone Company (Union) filed a petition with the Public Utilities Commission (Commission) for a suspension and modification of the number portability requirement in Section 251(b) (2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Union's requested modification of intermodal LNP and LNP to VoIP providers concerns the transport of ported calls. Union claimed that, at present not all of Union's switches are LNP capable and because not all of the necessary transport arrangements are in place with wireless carriers and VoIP providers to properly route calls to ported local numbers. Union also requests immediate temporary suspension of the Section 251(b) (2) requirement pending this Commission's consideration of this request. Union respectively requests that the Commission: (A) Issue an interim order by no later than May 8, 2008, which would suspend intermodal LNP implementation pending the issuance of a final order on the separate requests for suspension and modification of the LNP requirements that are presented herein; (B) Issue a final order granting a temporary suspension of the present LNP implementation deadline of May 8, 2008, as requested herein; (C) Issue a final order granting a modification of intermodal LNP such that Union will not be required to pay the costs associated with transporting traffic beyond is established local calling areas to numbers that have been ported to other carriers; and (D) Grant Union such other and further relief as the Commission may deem proper. On February 29, 2008, Petitions for Intervention were filed by Midcontinent Communications, Alltel Communications LLC, Verizon Wireless LLC, CommNet Cellular License Holding LLC, Missouri Valley Cellular, Inc., Sanborn Cellular, Inc., Eastern South Dakota Cellular, Inc., d/b/a Verizon Wireless, and the South Dakota Telecommunications Association.
On February 8, 2008, Armour Independent Telephone Company (Armour) filed a petition with the Public Utilities Commission (Commission) for a suspension and modification of the number portability requirement in Section 251(b) (2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Armour's requested modification of intermodal LNP and LNP to VoIP providers concerns the transport of ported calls. Armour claimed that, at present Armour's switch is not LNP capable and because not all of the necessary transport arrangements are in place with wireless carriers and VoIP providers to properly route calls to ported local numbers. Armour also requests immediate temporary suspension of the Section 251(b) (2) requirement pending this Commission's consideration of this request. Armour respectively requests that the Commission: (A) Issue an interim order by no later than May 8, 2008, which would suspend intermodal LNP implementation pending the issuance of a final order on the separate requests for suspension and modification of the LNP requirements that are presented herein; (B) Issue a final order granting a temporary suspension of the present LNP implementation deadline of May 8, 2008, as requested herein; (C) Issue a final order granting a modification of intermodal LNP such that Armour will not be required to pay the costs associated with transporting traffic beyond is established local calling areas to numbers that have been ported to other carriers; and (D) Grant Armour such other and further relief as the Commission may deem proper. On February 29, 2008, Petitions for Intervention were filed by Midcontinent Communications, Alltel Communications LLC, Verizon Wireless LLC, CommNet Cellular License Holding LLC, Missouri Valley Cellular, Inc., Sanborn Cellular, Inc., Eastern South Dakota Cellular, Inc., d/b/a Verizon Wireless, and the South Dakota Telecommunications Association.
On February 8, 2008, McCook Cooperative Telephone Company (McCook) filed a petition with the Public Utilities Commission (Commission) for a suspension and modification of the number portability requirement in Section 251(b) (2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. McCook's requested modification of intermodal LNP and LNP to VoIP providers concerns the transport of ported calls. McCook claimed that, at present not all of the necessary transport arrangements are in place with wireless carriers and VoIP providers to properly route calls to ported local numbers. McCook also requests immediate temporary suspension of the Section 251(b) (2) requirement pending this Commission's consideration of this request. McCook respectively requests that the Commission: (A) Issue an interim order by no later than May 8, 2008, which would suspend intermodal LNP implementation pending the issuance of a final order on the separate requests for suspension and modification of the LNP requirements that are presented herein; (B) Issue a final order granting a temporary suspension of the present LNP implementation deadline of May 8, 2008, as requested herein; (C) Issue a final order granting a modification of intermodal LNP such that McCook will not be required to pay the costs associated with transporting traffic beyond is established local calling areas to numbers that have been ported to other carriers; and (D) Grant McCook such other and further relief as the Commission may deem proper. On February 29, 2008, Petitions for Intervention were filed by Midcontinent Communications, Alltel Communications LLC, Verizon Wireless LLC, CommNet Cellular License Holding LLC, Missouri Valley Cellular, Inc., Sanborn Cellular, Inc., Eastern South Dakota Cellular, Inc., d/b/a Verizon Wireless, and the South Dakota Telecommunications Association.
On February 8, 2008, Bridgewater-Canistota Independent Telephone Company (Bridgewater-Canistota) filed a petition with the Public Utilities Commission (Commission) for a suspension and modification of the number portability requirement in Section 251(b)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Bridgewater-Canistota's requested modification of intermodal LNP and LNP to VoIP providers concerns the transport of ported calls. Bridgewater-Canistota claimed that, at present not all of Bridgewater-Canistota's switches are LNP capable and because not all of the necessary transport arrangements are in place with wireless carriers and VoIP providers to properly route calls to ported local numbers. Bridgewater-Canistota also requests immediate temporary suspension of the Section 251(b) (2) requirement pending this Commission's consideration of this request. Bridgewater-Canistota respectively requests that the Commission: (A) Issue an interim order by no later than May 8, 2008, which would suspend intermodal LNP implementation pending the issuance of a final order on the separate requests for suspension and modification of the LNP requirements that are presented herein; (B) Issue a final order granting a temporary suspension of the present LNP implementation deadline of May 8, 2008, as requested herein; (C) Issue a final order granting a modification of intermodal LNP such that Bridgewater-Canistota will not be required to pay the costs associated with transporting traffic beyond is established local calling areas to numbers that have been ported to other carriers; and (D) Grant Bridgewater-Canistota such other and further relief as the Commission may deem proper. On February 29, 2008, Petitions for Intervention were filed by Midcontinent Communications, Alltel Communications LLC, Verizon Wireless LLC, CommNet Cellular License Holding LLC, Missouri Valley Cellular, Inc., Sanborn Cellular, Inc., Eastern South Dakota Cellular, Inc., d/b/a Verizon Wireless, and the South Dakota Telecommunications Association.
TC08-022 - In the Matter of the Petition of Valley Telecommunications Cooperative Association, Inc., for Suspension or Modification of 47 U.S.C. Section 251(b) (2) of the Communications Act of 1934 as Amended. (Staff Analyst: Harlan Best, Staff Attorney: Rolayne Ailts Wiest)
On February 8, 2008, Valley Telecommunications Cooperative Association, Inc. (Valley) filed a petition with the Public Utilities Commission (Commission) for a suspension and modification of the number portability requirement in Section 251(b) (2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Valley's requested modification of intermodal LNP and LNP to VoIP providers concerns the transport of ported calls. Valley claimed that, at present not all of the necessary transport arrangements are in place with wireless carriers and VoIP providers to properly route calls to ported local numbers. Valley also requests immediate temporary suspension of the Section 251(b) (2) requirement pending this Commission's consideration of this request. Valley respectively requests that the Commission: (A) Issue an interim order by no later than May 8, 2008, which would suspend intermodal LNP implementation pending the issuance of a final order on the separate requests for suspension and modification of the LNP requirements that are presented herein; (B) Issue a final order granting a temporary suspension of the present LNP implementation deadline of May 8, 2008, as requested herein; (C) Issue a final order granting a modification of intermodal LNP such that Valley will not be required to pay the costs associated with transporting traffic beyond is established local calling areas to numbers that have been ported to other carriers; and (D) Grant Valley such other and further relief as the Commission may deem proper. On February 29, 2008, Petitions for Intervention were filed by Midcontinent Communications, Alltel Communications LLC, Verizon Wireless LLC, CommNet Cellular License Holding LLC, Missouri Valley Cellular, Inc., Sanborn Cellular, Inc., Eastern South Dakota Cellular, Inc., d/b/a Verizon Wireless, and the South Dakota Telecommunications Association.
TC08-023 - In the Matter of the Petition of Midstate Communications, Inc., for Suspension or Modification of 47 U.S.C. Section 251(b) (2) of the Communications Act of 1934 as Amended. (Staff Analyst: Harlan Best, Staff Attorney: Rolayne Ailts Wiest)
On February 8, 2008, Midstate Communications, Inc. (Midstate) filed a petition with the Public Utilities Commission (Commission) for a suspension and modification of the number portability requirement in Section 251(b) (2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Midstate's requested modification of intermodal LNP and LNP to VoIP providers concerns the transport of ported calls. Midstate claimed that, at present not all of Midstate's switches are LNP capable and because not all of the necessary transport arrangements are in place with wireless carriers and VoIP providers to properly route calls to ported local numbers. Midstate also requests immediate temporary suspension of the Section 251(b) (2) requirement pending this Commission's consideration of this request. Midstate respectively requests that the Commission: (A) Issue an interim order by no later than May 8, 2008, which would suspend intermodal LNP implementation pending the issuance of a final order on the separate requests for suspension and modification of the LNP requirements that are presented herein; (B) Issue a final order granting a temporary suspension of the present LNP implementation deadline of May 8, 2008, as requested herein; (C) Issue a final order granting a modification of intermodal LNP such that Midstate will not be required to pay the costs associated with transporting traffic beyond is established local calling areas to numbers that have been ported to other carriers; and (D) Grant Midstate such other and further relief as the Commission may deem proper. On February 29, 2008, Petitions for Intervention were filed by Midcontinent Communications, Alltel Communications LLC, Verizon Wireless LLC, CommNet Cellular License Holding LLC, Missouri Valley Cellular, Inc., Sanborn Cellular, Inc., Eastern South Dakota Cellular, Inc., d/b/a Verizon Wireless, and the South Dakota Telecommunications Association.
On February 8, 2008, Interstate Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc. (Interstate) filed a petition with the Public Utilities Commission (Commission) for a suspension and modification of the number portability requirement in Section 251(b) (2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Interstate's requested modification of intermodal LNP and LNP to VoIP providers concerns the transport of ported calls. Interstate's requested suspension is for the purpose of negotiating transport arrangements with wireless carriers and VoIP providers, as necessary. Interstate also requests an immediate suspension of Section 251(b) (2) pending this Commission's consideration of the modification request until 90 days following the Commission's decision. Interstate respectively requests that the Commission: (A) Issue an interim order that suspends any obligation for Interstate to provide intermodal or VoIP LNP; (B) Issue a final order that grants a modification of Interstate's obligation to provide intermodal and VoIP LNP as requested herein and a suspension of Interstate's obligation to implement intermodal and VoIP LNP until the transport issue is resolved; and (C) Grant Interstate such other and further relief that may be proper. On February 29, 2008, Petitions for Intervention were filed by Midcontinent Communications, Alltel Communications LLC, Verizon Wireless LLC, CommNet Cellular License Holding LLC, Missouri Valley Cellular, Inc., Sanborn Cellular, Inc., Eastern South Dakota Cellular, Inc., d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Sprint Communications Company LP, MCC Telephony of the Midwest, Inc. d/b/a Mediacom, and the South Dakota Telecommunications Association.
On February 8, 2008, West River Cooperative Telephone Company (West River) filed a petition with the Public Utilities Commission (Commission) for a suspension and modification of the number portability requirement in Section 251(b)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. West River's requested modification of intermodal LNP and LNP to VoIP providers concerns the transport of ported calls. West River's requested suspension is for the purpose of negotiating transport arrangements with wireless carriers and VoIP providers, as necessary. West River also requests an immediate suspension of Section 251(b) (2) pending this Commission's consideration of the modification request until 90 days following the Commission's decision. West River respectively requests that the Commission: (A) Issue an interim order that suspends any obligation for West River to provide intermodal or VoIP LNP; (B) Issue a final order that grants a modification of West River's obligation to provide intermodal and VoIP LNP as requested herein and a suspension of West River's obligation to implement intermodal and VoIP LNP until the transport issue is resolved; and (C) Grant West River such other and further relief that may be proper. On February 29, 2008, Petitions for Intervention were filed by Midcontinent Communications, Alltel Communications LLC, Verizon Wireless LLC, CommNet Cellular License Holding LLC, Missouri Valley Cellular, Inc., Sanborn Cellular, Inc., Eastern South Dakota Cellular, Inc., d/b/a Verizon Wireless, and the South Dakota Telecommunications Association.
On February 8, 2008, Stockholm-Strandburg Telephone Company (Stockholm-Strandburg) filed a petition with the Public Utilities Commission (Commission) for a suspension and modification of the number portability requirement in Section 251(b) (2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Stockholm-Strandburg's requested modification of intermodal LNP and LNP to VoIP providers concerns the transport of ported calls. Stockholm-Strandburg's requested suspension is for the purpose of negotiating transport arrangements with wireless carriers and VoIP providers, as necessary. Stockholm-Strandburg also requests an immediate suspension of Section 251(b) (2) pending this Commission's consideration of the modification request until 90 days following the Commission's decision. Stockholm-Strandburg respectively requests that the Commission: (A) Issue an interim order that suspends any obligation for Stockholm-Strandburg to provide intermodal or VoIP LNP; (B) Issue a final order that grants a modification of Stockholm-Strandburg's obligation to provide intermodal and VoIP LNP as requested herein and a suspension of Stockholm-Strandburg's obligation to implement intermodal and VoIP LNP until the transport issue is resolved; and (C) Grant Stockholm-Strandburg such other and further relief that may be proper. On February 29, 2008, Petitions for Intervention were filed by Midcontinent Communications, Alltel Communications LLC, Verizon Wireless LLC, CommNet Cellular License Holding LLC, Missouri Valley Cellular, Inc., Sanborn Cellular, Inc., Eastern South Dakota Cellular, Inc., d/b/a Verizon Wireless, and the South Dakota Telecommunications Association.
TC08-027 - In the Matter of the Petition of Santel Communications Cooperative, Inc., for Suspension or Modification of 47 U.S.C. Section 251(b) (2) of the Communications Act of 1934 as Amended. (Staff Analyst: Harlan Best, Staff Attorney: Rolayne Ailts Wiest)
On February 8, 2008, Santel Communications Cooperative (Santel) filed a petition with the Public Utilities Commission (Commission) for a suspension and modification of the number portability requirement in Section 251(b) (2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Santel's requested modification of intermodal LNP and LNP to VoIP providers concerns the transport of ported calls. Santel's requested suspension is for the purpose of negotiating transport arrangements with wireless carriers and VoIP providers, as necessary. Santel also requests an immediate suspension of Section 251(b) (2) pending this Commission's consideration of the modification request until 90 days following the Commission's decision. Santel respectively requests that the Commission: (A) Issue an interim order that suspends any obligation for Santel to provide intermodal or VoIP LNP; (B) Issue a final order that grants a modification of Santel's obligation to provide intermodal and VoIP LNP as requested herein and a suspension of Santel's obligation to implement intermodal and VoIP LNP until the transport issue is resolved; and (C) Grant Santel such other and further relief that may be proper. On February 29, 2008, Petitions for Intervention were filed by Midcontinent Communications, Alltel Communications LLC, Verizon Wireless LLC, CommNet Cellular License Holding LLC, Missouri Valley Cellular, Inc., Sanborn Cellular, Inc., Eastern South Dakota Cellular, Inc., d/b/a Verizon Wireless, and the South Dakota Telecommunications Association.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant Intervention to the Parties that have filed in the Dockets Above? AND, how shall the Commission Proceed?
On March 10, 2008, Qwest Corporation filed for a waiver of the utilization threshold requirements outlined in FCC's Number Resource Optimization Orders, FCC 00-429 and FCC 01-362 released in CC Docket No 99-20, to allow NeuStar, the Number Pooling Administrator, to provide a thousands block of numbers to a Qwest customer.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant the Petition for Waiver of the Utilization Threshold Requirement?
Announcements
- The next regularly scheduled Commission meeting will be held April 8, 2008, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 412, State Capitol Building, Pierre, SD.
- Commission meetings are scheduled for April 22 and May 6, 2008.
/s/Heather K. Forney__
Heather K. Forney
Deputy Executive Director
heather.forney@state.sd.us
March 19, 2008
