6-2500-15182-2 MPUC Docket No. P-430/AR-02-290

 

STATE OF MINNESOTA

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

FOR THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

 

In the Matter of a Petition by Sprint Minnesota, Inc. Requesting Adoption and Renewal of an Alternative Regulation Plan

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC MEETINGS

         

On November 15, 2002, the Commission issued its Order Approving Customer Notices, Approving Public Meeting Schedule, and Extending Current Alternative Regulation Plan.  That Order directed that three public meetings be held to gather public comment on the proposed Plan.  Those meetings were, in fact, held according to the following schedule:

Date                          Location                   Public Attending        Public Speaking

December 2, 2002	Glencoe	10	5
December 3, 2002	Alexandria	1	0
December 5, 2002	Hastings	3	2

 

          At each of the locations, there were representatives of the Company, the Residential and Small Business Utility Division of the Attorney General’s Office, and the Commission staff.  They made brief presentations, and answered questions from the public.

          There was no opposition to the plan expressed during the meetings.

          Public comments were expressed, however, concerning the various taxes, fees and “add-ons” that appear on the monthly bills.  There continues to be public confusion over access charges, particularly if no long distance calls are made.  Members of the public also complained about the size of the printing on the bills, and the difficulty in accessing a “live” person (as opposed to a recording) when calling the company with a question.

          One individual at the Hastings hearing noted that in South Dakota, he was able to have a second line (which he referred to as a “teen line”) for an additional $8.00 per month, but here in Minnesota he was forced to pay full price for a second line.  The company confirmed that it does not offer a second line discount.  The public member replied that he would like to see a second line discount.  He was also interested in DSL service, but lived beyond the 18 kilofoot limit for DSL, and thus would not be able to obtain it.

          In summary, the public meetings were very lightly attended, and there was no opposition to the proposed plan expressed by anyone.  The single most commonly discussed topic was access charges.  Beyond that, there were just a smattering of individual concerns.

 

Dated this

8th

day of

January

2003.

 

                                                                

ALLAN W. KLEIN

Administrative Law Judge