|
Complaints involving slamming, cramming or jamming issues will be listed on a separate page. No narrative description will be provided for slamming-, cramming- or jamming-related complaints.
FCU-2007-0002 QWEST COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION V. SUPERIOR TELEPHONE COOPERATIVE, ET AL. On February 20, 2007, Qwest Communications Corporation (QCC), the long-distance arm of Qwest, filed a complaint pursuant to Iowa Code §§ 476.2, 476.3 and 476.5; 199 IAC Chapters 4 and 7; and 199 IAC 22.14, alleging violations of terms and conditions and applications of the intrastate tariffs of the following telecommunications carriers: Superior Telephone Cooperative; The Farmers Telephone Company of Riceville, Iowa; The Farmers & Merchants Mutual Telephone Company of Wayland, Iowa; Interstate 35 Telephone, d/b/a Interstate Communications Company; Dixon Telephone Company; Reasnor Telephone Company; Great Lakes Communications Company; and Aventure Communication Technology (collectively referred to as the Respondents). QCC claimed that the Respondents were engaging in a fraudulent practice by creating a scheme that involved free conference calls, chat rooms, adult content calling, podcasts, voicemail, and international calling services. QCC asserted that the Respondents were charging QCC excessive rates for their routing of calls to companies that advertise these free services and then provide kickbacks of a portion of the terminating access revenues to these free calling service companies. The Board granted several requests for delays of the hearing before it was held from February 5, 2009 to February 12, 2009. On September 21, 2009, the Board issued its decision order, finding that the intrastate interexchange calls to the conference calling companies were not subject to access charges. Refunds and credits to the interexchange carriers were ordered. The Board also initiated a proceeding to consider proposed rules intended to prevent similar abuse in the future. The Board also ordered reclamation of telephone numbers of one Respondent (Great Lakes Communication Corp.). Several parties filed applications for rehearing. On December 3, 2009, the Board issued an order withdrawing its ordered reclamation of Great Lakes’ telephone numbers, allowing the issue to be litigated solely in court and before the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). In the order, the Board indicated it would request that the FCC initiate a “for cause audit” to investigate the use of telephone numbering resources assigned to Great Lakes. On December 21, 2009, the Board filed motions in each judicial review proceeding asking the Courts to remand the proceedings to the Board so that the agency could rule on pending applications for rehearing. In February 2010, the respective courts granted the Board's motion with respect to petitions from a group of incumbent local exchange carriers and Reasnor Telephone Company. A rehearing application from Great Lakes Communications, Superior Telephone, and Aventure Communications was before the Board for its consideration. On February 28, 2011, Great Lakes and Superior filed a joint motion requesting the Board stay all further proceedings in this case, namely the refund phase of the proceeding and the initiation of a show cause proceeding against Great Lakes and Aventure. On March 9, 2011, the ILEC group joined in Great Lakes’ and Superior’s motion. On April 27, 2011, the Board issued an order denying the motion to stay further proceedings. On September 12, 2011, Sprint filed a motion for approval of a settlement and dismissal of claims against two of the defendants in this matter, The Farmers Telephone Company of Riceville and Dixon Telephone Company. Sprint’s motion generally described the settlement but did not include the settlement agreement. On September 21, 2011, Great Lakes filed a motion seeking to compel the production of the settlement. On October 3, 2011, Sprint filed a request for an extension of time to respond to Great Lakes’ motion and the holding of a settlement conference. On October 20, 2011, the Board granted Sprint’s request for an extension of time. On August 20, 2012, QCC filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss its claims and requests for calculation of damages against Farmers-Wayland. On August 3, 2012, Sprint filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss its claims and requests for calculation of damages against Interstate in this proceeding with prejudice. Sprint stated that it has reached a settlement agreement with Interstate that resolves Sprint’s claims in this case and that the terms of the settlement are confidential. On August 10, 2012, Sprint filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss its claims and requests for calculation of damages against Great Lakes in this proceeding with prejudice. In each of these three filings to dismiss claims, the parties had reached a settlement agreement resolving the issues between them in this case and the terms of the settlement were confidential. The docket is pending.
FCU-2011-0002 AVENTURE COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY, LLC V. QWEST COMMUNICATIONS CORP., SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY L.P., AT&T COMMUNICATIONS OF THE MIDWEST, INC. AND TCG OMAHA, AND LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
On January 21, 2011, Aventure filed a complaint against four interexchange carriers (IXCs), alleging the IXCs had not negotiated in good faith, pursuant to 199 IAC 22.14(2)"e," regarding Aventure’s proposed High Volume Access Services (HVAS) rate. The IXCs responded by saying they had negotiated in good faith but that Aventure’s proposed HVAS rate was unreasonable. The IXCs also noted that in its final order in Docket No. FCU-2007-0002, the Board found that Aventure had few, if any, traditional local exchange customers and would need to prove why its certificates of public convenience and necessity should not be revoked. On April 22, 2011, the Board issued an order docketing the case and scheduling a hearing date. The procedural schedule was suspended and the hearing date rescheduled several times for various reasons in 2012 and, at year’s end, was scheduled to begin on January 28, 2013.
FCU-2012-0009 OWEGO DAIRY, L.L.C. K/N/A WILLOW DAIRY V. WOODBURY COUNTY RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE On March 5, 2009, OWEGO filed an informal complaint alleging Woodbury subjects OWEGO to unreasonable prejudice and disadvantage by charging electric rates that are over 200 percent more than rates paid by dairy competitors located in the MidAmerican Energy Company (MEC) service territory. OWEGO claimed that Woodbury was in violation of Iowa Code § 476.1A(3) and asked the Board to modify the service territory boundaries to place OWEGO in MEC's territory or to order a rate modification by Woodbury, and for such other relief as the Board finds just and reasonable. Board staff’s proposed resolution noted that it is reasonable for rates to vary from utility to utility, depending on the costs of providing electric service and the utility's rate design principles, and the Board did not have jurisdiction over Woodbury’s rates. Because the proposed resolution concluded that Woodbury's rates did not violate Iowa Code § 476.1A(3), no additional action was recommended. The proposed resolution noted that electric utilities have exclusive service territories and the location of a business determines the electric service provider for the business. The Board may modify a service boundary only if it is in the public interest, and customer preference is not a public interest factor. On April 29, 2009, OWEGO requested a formal proceeding. On June 22, 2009, the Board denied the request for a formal proceeding. On July 17, 2009, OWEGO filed a petition for judicial review, and on January 29, 2010, the District Court issued a decision affirming, in part, and reversing, in part, the Board and remanding to the agency for further proceedings. Notice of appeal was filed by OWEGO and on February 9, 2011, the Court of Appeals issued a decision affirming the Board’s decision to deny OWEGO’s request for formal proceedings to compare rates of different utilities. OWEGO sold its dairy operations to Willow Dairy. On May 21, 2012, Willow Dairy requested that the Board initiate formal complaint proceedings to determine whether or not Woodbury's allocation of the kilowatt-hour demand charge between its residential and commercial customer classes provided an unreasonable preference or advantage to Woodbury's residential customers in violation of Iowa Code § 476.1A(3). The docket is pending.
FCU-2012-0017 INTERSTATE POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY On December 20, 2012, the Board initiated this formal proceeding to investigate the electric line extension policies that IPL applies to developers that have a history of working with IPL. The Board has established payment requirements for the extension of new electric facilities that are intended to balance the interests of developers, utilities, and customers when a developer seeks to have new facilities installed in a development site. These rules are found at 199 IAC 20.3(13). Specifically, the Board seeks to address the issue of whether IPL should develop criteria that provide for a different payment arrangement for electric line extensions where the developer has a record of completing construction within a reasonable time period is an important issue that needs to be addressed. The docket is pending.
back to Activity Tracker
|
