Commission Weekly Filings | previous page
South Dakota Public Utilities Commission
WEEKLY FILINGS
For the Period of April 27, 2006 through May 3, 2006
Copies of these items may be found on the PUC Web site at http://www.puc.sd.gov
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
On April 27, 2006, the Commission received a filing for the approval of a Reciprocal Transport and Termination Agreement between Rural Cellular Corporation and Prairie Wave Black Hills, LLC. According to the parties, this agreement is "in accordance with the terms contained in the Reciprocal Transport and Termination Agreement between Rural Cellular Corporation and Prairie Wave Telecommunications, Inc. …approved in TC03-076 on June 10, 2003." Any party wishing to comment on the Agreement may do so by filing written comments with the Commission and the parties to the Agreement no later than May 17, 2006. Parties to the Agreement may file written responses to the comments no later than twenty days after the service of the initial comments.
Staff Attorney: Sara Greff (Is now Kara Van Bockern)
Date Filed: 04/27/06
Initial Comments Due: 05/17/06
On May 1, 2006, Nationwide Long Distance Service, Inc. filed an application seeking a Certificate of Authority to resell interexchange services including 1+ and 101XXXXX outbound dialing, 800/888 Toll-Free inbound dialing, directory assistance, data services and postpaid calling card services throughout South Dakota.
Staff Analyst: Nathan Solem
Staff Attorney: Sara Greff (Is now Kara Van Bockern)
Date Docketed: 05/1/06
Intervention Deadline: 05/19/06
On May 2, 2006, Midstate Telecom, Inc. (MTI), a registered CLEC providing facilities based competitive local exchange services in the Chamberlain/Oacoma exchange, submitted a petition to the Commission pursuant to ARSD 20:10:32:11, requesting approval to offer a different local calling area than that offered by the incumbent local exchange carrier.
Staff Analysts: Keith Senger and Bob Knadle
Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer
Date Filed: 05/02/06
Intervention Deadline: 05/19/06
On May 3, 2006, Armour Independent Telephone Co. (Armour) filed a petition for arbitration of certain unresolved terms and conditions of a proposed Interconnection Agreement between Armour and WWC License L.L.C. (WWC), pursuant to Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, SDCL 49-31-81, and ARSD 20:10:32:29. Armour filed a list of unresolved issues consisting of: (1) Is the reciprocal compensation rate for Local Traffic proposed by Armour appropriate pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 252(d)(2)? (2) What is the appropriate Percent InterLATA Use factor to be applied to non-local traffic exchanged between the parties? (3) What is the appropriate manner by which the minutes of use of Local Traffic terminated by the parties, one to the other, should be calculated and billed? Armour "respectively requests that the Commission grant the following relief: A. Order arbitration of any unresolved issues between [Armour] and WWC; B. Issue an order directing [Armour] and WWC to submit to the Commission for approval an interconnection agreement reflecting: (i) the agreed-upon language in Exhibit A and (ii) the resolution in this arbitration proceeding of any unresolved issues in accordance with the recommendations made by [Armour] herein, at the hearing on such issues and in Exhibit A; C. Order the parties to pay interim compensation for transport and termination of telecommunications traffic from January 1, 2006 (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 [footnote omitted]; D. Retain jurisdiction of this arbitration until the parties have submitted an executed interconnection agreement for approval by the Commission in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act; and E. Take such other and further action as it deems necessary and appropriate." 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.
Staff Analyst: Harlan Best
Staff Attorney: Sara Greff (Is now Kara Van Bockern)
Date Docketed: 05/03/06
Responses Due: 05/29/06
On May 3, 2006, Bridgewater-Canistota Independent Telephone Company (Bridgewater) filed a petition for arbitration of certain unresolved terms and conditions of a proposed Interconnection Agreement between Bridgewater and WWC License L.L.C. (WWC), pursuant to Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, SDCL 49-31-81, and ARSD 20:10:32:29. Bridgewater filed a list of unresolved issues consisting of: (1) Is the reciprocal compensation rate for Local Traffic proposed by Bridgewater appropriate pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 252(d)(2)? (2) What is the appropriate Percent InterLATA Use factor to be applied to non-local traffic exchanged between the parties? (3) What is the appropriate manner by which the minutes of use of Local Traffic terminated by the parties, one to the other, should be calculated and billed? Bridgewater "respectively requests that the Commission grant the following relief: A. Order arbitration of any unresolved issues between [Bridgewater] and WWC; B. Issue an order directing [Bridgewater] and WWC to submit to the Commission for approval an interconnection agreement reflecting: (i) the agreed-upon language in Exhibit A and (ii) the resolution in this arbitration proceeding of any unresolved issues in accordance with the recommendations made by [Bridgewater] herein, at the hearing on such issues and in Exhibit A; C. Order the parties to pay interim compensation for transport and termination of telecommunications traffic from January 1, 2006 (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 [footnote omitted]; D. Retain jurisdiction of this arbitration until the parties have submitted an executed interconnection agreement for approval by the Commission in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act; and E. Take such other and further action as it deems necessary and appropriate." 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.
Staff Analyst: Harlan Best
Staff Attorney: Sara Greff (Is now Kara Van Bockern)
Date Docketed: 05/03/06
Responses Due: 05/29/06
On May 3, 2006, Golden West Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc. (Golden West) filed a petition for arbitration of certain unresolved terms and conditions of a proposed Interconnection Agreement between Golden West and WWC License L.L.C. (WWC), pursuant to Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, SDCL 49-31-81, and ARSD 20:10:32:29. Golden West filed a list of unresolved issues consisting of: (1) Is the reciprocal compensation rate for Local Traffic proposed by Golden West appropriate pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 252(d)(2)? (2) What is the appropriate Percent InterLATA Use factor to be applied to non-local traffic exchanged between the parties? (3) What is the appropriate manner by which the minutes of use of Local Traffic terminated by the parties, one to the other, should be calculated and billed? Golden West "respectively requests that the Commission grant the following relief: A. Order arbitration of any unresolved issues between [Golden West] and WWC; B. Issue an order directing [Golden West] and WWC to submit to the Commission for approval an interconnection agreement reflecting: (i) the agreed-upon language in Exhibit A and (ii) the resolution in this arbitration proceeding of any unresolved issues in accordance with the recommendations made by [Golden West] herein, at the hearing on such issues and in Exhibit A; C. Order the parties to pay interim compensation for transport and termination of telecommunications traffic from January 1, 2006 (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 [footnote omitted]; D. Retain jurisdiction of this arbitration until the parties have submitted an executed interconnection agreement for approval by the Commission in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act; and E. Take such other and further action as it deems necessary and appropriate." 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.
Staff Analyst: Harlan Best
Staff Attorney: Sara Greff (Is now Kara Van Bockern)
Date Docketed: 05/03/06
Responses Due: 05/29/06
On May 3, 2006, Kadoka Telephone Company (Kadoka) filed a petition for arbitration of certain unresolved terms and conditions of a proposed Interconnection Agreement between Kadoka and WWC License L.L.C. (WWC), pursuant to Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, SDCL 49-31-81, and ARSD 20:10:32:29. Kadoka filed a list of unresolved issues consisting of: (1) Is the reciprocal compensation rate for Local Traffic proposed by Kadoka appropriate pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 252(d)(2)? (2) What is the appropriate Percent InterLATA Use factor to be applied to non-local traffic exchanged between the parties? (3) What is the appropriate manner by which the minutes of use of Local Traffic terminated by the parties, one to the other, should be calculated and billed? Kadoka "respectively requests that the Commission grant the following relief: A. Order arbitration of any unresolved issues between [Kadoka] and WWC; B. Issue an order directing [Kadoka] and WWC to submit to the Commission for approval an interconnection agreement reflecting: (i) the agreed-upon language in Exhibit A and (ii) the resolution in this arbitration proceeding of any unresolved issues in accordance with the recommendations made by [Kadoka] herein, at the hearing on such issues and in Exhibit A; C. Order the parties to pay interim compensation for transport and termination of telecommunications traffic from January 1, 2006 (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 [footnote omitted]; D. Retain jurisdiction of this arbitration until the parties have submitted an executed interconnection agreement for approval by the Commission in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act; and E. Take such other and further action as it deems necessary and appropriate." 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.
Staff Analyst: Harlan Best
Staff Attorney: Sara Greff (Is now Kara Van Bockern)
Date Docketed: 05/03/06
Responses Due: 05/29/06
On May 3, 2006, Sioux Valley Telephone Company (Sioux Valley) filed a petition for arbitration of certain unresolved terms and conditions of a proposed Interconnection Agreement between Sioux Valley and WWC License L.L.C. (WWC), pursuant to Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, SDCL 49-31-81, and ARSD 20:10:32:29. Sioux Valley filed a list of unresolved issues consisting of: (1) Is the reciprocal compensation rate for Local Traffic proposed by Sioux Valley appropriate pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 252(d)(2)? (2) What is the appropriate Percent InterLATA Use factor to be applied to non-local traffic exchanged between the parties? (3) What is the appropriate manner by which the minutes of use of Local Traffic terminated by the parties, one to the other, should be calculated and billed? Sioux Valley "respectively requests that the Commission grant the following relief: A. Order arbitration of any unresolved issues between [Sioux Valley] and WWC; B. Issue an order directing [Sioux Valley] and WWC to submit to the Commission for approval an interconnection agreement reflecting: (i) the agreed-upon language in Exhibit A and (ii) the resolution in this arbitration proceeding of any unresolved issues in accordance with the recommendations made by [Sioux Valley] herein, at the hearing on such issues and in Exhibit A; C. Order the parties to pay interim compensation for transport and termination of telecommunications traffic from January 1, 2006 (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 [footnote omitted]; D. Retain jurisdiction of this arbitration until the parties have submitted an executed interconnection agreement for approval by the Commission in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act; and E. Take such other and further action as it deems necessary and appropriate." 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.
Staff Analyst: Keith Senger (now assigned to Harlan Best)
Staff Attorney: Karen E. Cremer (now assigned to Sara Greff (Is now Kara Van Bockern)
Date Docketed: 05/03/06
Responses Due: 05/29/06
On May 3, 2006, Union Telephone Company (Union) filed a petition for arbitration of certain unresolved terms and conditions of a proposed Interconnection Agreement between Union and WWC License L.L.C. (WWC), pursuant to Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, SDCL 49-31-81, and ARSD 20:10:32:29. Union filed a list of unresolved issues consisting of: (1) Is the reciprocal compensation rate for Local Traffic proposed by Union appropriate pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 252(d)(2)? (2) What is the appropriate Percent InterLATA Use factor to be applied to non-local traffic exchanged between the parties? (3) What is the appropriate manner by which the minutes of use of Local Traffic terminated by the parties, one to the other, should be calculated and billed? Union "respectively requests that the Commission grant the following relief: A. Order arbitration of any unresolved issues between [Union] and WWC; B. Issue an order directing [Union] and WWC to submit to the Commission for approval an interconnection agreement reflecting: (i) the agreed-upon language in Exhibit A and (ii) the resolution in this arbitration proceeding of any unresolved issues in accordance with the recommendations made by [Union] herein, at the hearing on such issues and in Exhibit A; C. Order the parties to pay interim compensation for transport and termination of telecommunications traffic from January 1, 2006 (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 [footnote omitted]; D. Retain jurisdiction of this arbitration until the parties have submitted an executed interconnection agreement for approval by the Commission in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act; and E. Take such other and further action as it deems necessary and appropriate." 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.
Staff Analyst: Keith Senger (now assigned to Harlan Best)
Staff Attorney: Karen E. Cremer (now assigned to Sara Greff (Is now Kara Van Bockern)
Date Docketed: 05/03/06
Responses Due: 05/29/06
On May 3, 2006, Vivian Telephone Company (Vivian) filed a petition for arbitration of certain unresolved terms and conditions of a proposed Interconnection Agreement between Vivian and WWC License L.L.C. (WWC), pursuant to Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, SDCL 49-31-81, and ARSD 20:10:32:29. Vivian filed a list of unresolved issues consisting of: (1) Is the reciprocal compensation rate for Local Traffic proposed by Vivian appropriate pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 252(d)(2)? (2) What is the appropriate Percent InterLATA Use factor to be applied to non-local traffic exchanged between the parties? (3) What is the appropriate manner by which the minutes of use of Local Traffic terminated by the parties, one to the other, should be calculated and billed? Vivian "respectively requests that the Commission grant the following relief: A. Order arbitration of any unresolved issues between [Vivian] and WWC; B. Issue an order directing [Vivian] and WWC to submit to the Commission for approval an interconnection agreement reflecting: (i) the agreed-upon language in Exhibit A and (ii) the resolution in this arbitration proceeding of any unresolved issues in accordance with the recommendations made by [Vivian] herein, at the hearing on such issues and in Exhibit A; C. Order the parties to pay interim compensation for transport and termination of telecommunications traffic from January 1, 2006 (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 [footnote omitted]; D. Retain jurisdiction of this arbitration until the parties have submitted an executed interconnection agreement for approval by the Commission in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act; and E. Take such other and further action as it deems necessary and appropriate." 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.
Staff Analyst: Keith Senger (now assigned to Harlan Best)
Staff Attorney: Karen E. Cremer (now assigned to Sara Greff (Is now Kara Van Bockern)
Date Docketed: 05/03/06
Responses Due: 05/29/06
You may receive this listing and other PUC publications via our Web site
or via internet
e-mail.
You may subscribe or unsubscribe to the PUC mailing lists at http://www.puc.sd.gov
