Iowa

2005

Order Affirming Proposed Decision and Order
In Re: Office of Consumer Advocate vs. MCI WorldCom Inc.
Docket No. FCU-03-21
March 25, 2005
Approximately 7 Pages
View the document

2004

Final Decision and Order
In Re: Deregulation of Local Exchange Services in Competative Markets
Docket No. INU-04-1
December 23, 2004
Approximately 38 Pages
View the document

Final Decision and Order
In Re: Iowa Telecommunications Services, INC., d/b/a Iowa Telecom
Docket No. SPU-04-8
September 17, 2004
Approximately 14 Pages
View the document

Order Adopting Emergency Rule
In Re: Modification of Lifeline and Link-Up Rules in 199 IAC 39
Docket No. RMU-04-7
August 27, 2004
Approximately 11 Pages
View the document

Order Granting Motion to Close Docket
In Re: Implementation of the Federal Communications Commission's Triennial Review Order Adopting New Rules For Network Unbundling Obligations
Docket No. INU-03-1
August 10, 2004
Approximately 4 Pages
View the document

Final Decision and Order
In Re: Iowa Telecommunications Services, INC., d/b/a Iowa Telecom
Docket No. SPU-04-10
July 9, 2004
Approximately 14 Pages
View the document

Order Initiating Notice and Comment Proceeding
In Re: Deregulation of Local Exchange Services in Competative Markets
Docket No. INU-04-1
May 7, 2004
Approximately 41 Pages
View the document

Order Docketing For Investigation, Requesting Service, and Seeking Additional Information
In Re: Rural Iowa Independent Telephone Association and Iowa Telecommunications Association
Docket No. SPU-04-3
March 4, 2004
Approximately 5 Pages
View the document

Order Adopting Rule
In Re: Iowa Broadband Initiative
Docket No. RMU-03-9
January 2, 2004
Approximately 15 Pages
View the document

2003

Order Closing 90-Day Proceedings and Granting Motion
In Re: Implementation of the Federal Communications Commission's Triennial Review Order Adopting New Rules for Network Unbundling Obligations
Docket No. INU-03-1
December 29, 2003
Approximately 6 Pages
View the document

Order Opening Docket and Requesting Comments
In Re: Implementation of the Federal Communications Commission's Triennial Review Order Adopting New Rules for Network Unbundling Obligations
Docket No. INU-03-1
June 9, 2003
Approximately 3 Pages
View the document

Final Decision and Order
In Re: Sprint Communications Company L.P., and Level 3 Communications, LLC
Docket Nos. SPU-02-11 and SPU-02-13
June 6, 2003
Approximately 29 Pages
View the document

2002

Order Regarding Bankruptcy Stay
In Re: Office of Consumer Advocate, Complainant, v. Qwest Corporation and MCI WorldCom Communications, Inc., Respondents
Docket Nos. FCU-02-5, C-02-22
August 22, 2002
Approximately 6 Pages
View the document

Final Statement Regarding Qwest Corporation's Compliance with 47 U.S.C. §§ 271 and 272 Requirements
In Re: US West Communications, Inc., n/k/a Qwest Corporation
Docket Nos. INU-00-2, SPU-00-11
June 12, 2002
Approximately 7 Pages
View the document

Conditional Statement Regarding Qwest Communications' OSS Evaluation and Order Closing Inquiry Docket
In Re: US West Communications, Inc., n/k/a Qwest Corporation
Docket Nos. INU-00-2, SPU-00-11, NOI-98-1
June 10, 2002
Approximately 9 Pages
View the document

Conditional Statement Regarding 47 U.S.C. § 272 Compliance
In Re: US West Communications, Inc., n/k/a Qwest Corporation
Docket Nos. INU-00-2, SPU-00-11
April 4, 2002
Approximately 28 Pages
View the document

Final Decision and Order
In Re: Cox Iowa Telcom, LLC, Complainant, vs. Qwest Corporation, Respondent.
Docket No. FCU-02-1
April 3, 2002
Approximately 10 Pages
View the document

Conditional Statement Regarding General Terms and Conditions and Order Regarding Change Management Process Comments
In Re: US West Communications, Inc., n/k/a Qwest Corporation
Docket Nos. INU-00-2, SPU-00-11
March 12, 2002
Approximately 45 Pages
View the document

Order Approving New Price Regulation Plan
In Re: Qwest Corporation
Docket No. RPU-01-10
February 4, 2002
Approximately 16 Pages
View the document

Conditional Statement Regarding Public Interest and Track A
In Re: US West Communications, Inc., n/k/a Qwest Corporation
Docket Nos. INU-00-2, SPU-00-11
January 25, 2002
Approximately 35 Pages
View the document

2001

Order Initiating Formal Notice and Comment Proceeding and Requiring Notice to Persons Identified as Competitors
In Re: Iowa Telecommunications Services, Inc., d/b/a Iowa Telecom
Docket Nos. INU-01-1
September 18, 2001
Approximately 10 Pages
View the document

Order Establishing Procedures for Disaggregation of Federal High-Cost Support Funds
In Re: Disaggregation of Federal High-Cost Support for Rural Carriers
Docket No. USP-01-2
September 7, 2001
Approximately 8 Pages
View the document

Order
US West Communications, INC., n/k/a Qwest Corporation
Docket Nos. INU-00-3, WRU-99-8-272, WRU-00-88-272
February 23, 2001
Approximately 9 Pages
View the document

Final Decision and Order
IN RE: Qwest Corporation, f/k/a U S West Communications, INC.
Docket No. RPU-00-1
January 11, 2001
Approximately 36 Pages
View the document

2000

Order Establishing Price Plan Rate Reduction and Approving Tariff
In Re: Frontier Communications of Iowa, Inc.
Docket No. TF-00-280
December 29, 2000
Approximately 9 Pages
View the document

Order Establishing Price Plan Rate Reduction
In Re: Qwest Corporation, F/K/A U S West Communications, Inc.
Docket No. TF-00-250
December 21, 2000
Approximately 9 Pages
View the document

Order Initiating Inquiry Proceeding
In RE: Telephone Directory Compliance with 199 IAC 22.4(1) "b"
Docket No. NOI-00-1
June 26, 2000
Approximately 3 Pages
View the document

Order Adopting Rules
In Re: Unauthorized Changes in Telecommunications Service
Docket No. RMU-99-7
April 18, 2000
Approximately 27 Pages
View the document

Order Approving Settlement and Terminating Docket
In Re: US West Communications, INC., and Qwest INC.
Docket No. SPU-99-27
Issued: March 17, 2000
Approximately 21 Pages

On January 28, 2000, Qwest, US West and Consumer Advocate filed a proposed settlement agreement and a joint motion for approval of the agreement with the Iowa Utilities Board. Although other intervenors in the case did not support it, the proposed settlement was intended to resolve all issues between the Applicants and Consumer Advocate.
The agreement provided for the same access to books and records that US West, Inc. provides to the Board today and ensured that the merger would not alter the Company's reporting obligations.
The Board found that, based upon the facts and circumstances of the case, that the proposed merger was unlikely to have a significant adverse effect on US West's ability to attract capital on reasonable terms, including US West's ability to maintain a reasonable capital structure.
The Board determined that Iowa ratepayers will not be detrimentally affected by the proposed merger. The main issue on this point revolved around the costs of the merger. US West assured the Board that "US West's portion of the expenses of the merger will be charged to non-operating accounts that are ordinarily excluded from cost-of-service rate making."
Finally, the Board found that two of the intervenors, AT&T and McLeod, had not shown that the merged entity will really be any worse than US West has been with respect to public interest issues. While the alleged benefits of the merger are not concrete, enforceable commitments, they appeared to the Board to be minimally adequate to pass statutory muster.
View the document

Order Denying Petition to Deregulate
In Re: US West Communications, Inc.
Docket No. INU-99-3
March 1, 2000
Approximately 25 Pages
View the document

Order Approving Geographic Split to Provide Numbering Plan Relief for the 515 Area Code
In Re: Area Code 515 Relief Plan
Docket No. SPU-99-22
February 24, 2000
Approximately 23 Pages
View the document

Final Decision and Order
In Re: McLeodUSA Telecommunications Service, Inc., Complainant, v. US West Communications, Inc., Respondent.
Docket No. FCU-99-5
February 21, 2000
Approximately 11 Pages
View the document

1999

Order Initiating Price Regulation Plan
In RE: Frontier Communications of Iowa, Inc.
Docket No. RPU-99-4
December 29, 1999
Approximately 8 Pages
View the document

Order Granting Intervention
In RE: U S West Communications, Inc. and Qwest, Inc.
Docket No. SPU-99-27
Issued: December 3, 1999
Approximately 3 Pages

On September 20, 1999, Qwest and U S WEST Inc. filed a "Joint Application" for an order approving their proposed merger. On November 15, 1999, the Association of U S WEST Retirees and NWB/USWEST Retiree Association (the Retiree Associations) filed a petition to intervene in this docket. They alleged that the merger agreement filed with the Iowa Utilities Board by the Applicants provides that the surviving corporation will have no obligation to maintain the U S West and Qwest benefit plans as separate plans, which could dilute the pension funds available for members of the Retiree Associations. In this Order, the Board granted the petition to intervene saying, "It is possible that, in any proposed reorganization, changes to employee benefit plans could raise issues that affect the public interest, which is one of the factors the Board considers in its review of a proposed reorganization....The Board believes that the interests of the Retiree Associations are sufficiently different from those of the general public to justify their intervention and participation in this docket, apart from Consumer Advocate."
View the document

Order Approving Settlement Agreement, Establishing Reporting Requirements, and Terminating Docket
In RE: Global Crossing LTD. And Frontier Corporation
Docket No. SPU-99-24
September 24, 1999
Approximately 17 Pages
View the document

Order Initiating Investigation
In RE: Payphone Services
Docket No. INU-99-1
April 23, 1999
Approximately 7 Pages
View the document

AT&T Corp. et al. v. Iowa Utilities Board et al.; certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit
Supreme Court Decision
Docket No. 97-826
Decided: January 25, 1999
Approximately 34 Pages

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act) fundamentally restructures local telephone markets, ending the monopolies that States historically granted to local exchange carriers (LECs) and subjecting incumbent LECs to a host of duties intended to facilitate market entry, including the obligation under 47 U. S. C. §251(c) to share their networks with competitors. A requesting carrier can obtain such shared access by purchasing local telephone services at wholesale rates for resale to end-users, by leasing elements of the incumbent's network "on an unbundled basis," and by interconnecting its own facilities with the incumbent's network. After the FCC issued regulations implementing the 1996 Act's local-competition provisions, incumbent LECs and state commissions filed numerous challenges, which were consolidated in the Eighth Circuit. Among other things, that court held that the FCC lacked jurisdiction to promulgate its rules regarding pricing, dialing parity, exemptions for rural LECs, the proper procedure for resolving local-competition disputes, and state review of pre-1996 interconnection agreements; that, in specifying the network elements available to requesting carriers under Rule 319, the FCC reasonably implemented the Act's requirement that it consider whether access to proprietary elements was "necessary" and whether lack of access to nonproprietary elements would "impair" an entrant's ability to provide local service, see §251(d)(2); that, in Rule 319, the FCC reasonably interpreted the statutory definition of "network element," see §153(29); that the "all elements" rule, which effectively allows competitors to provide local phone service relying solely on the elements in an incumbent's network, is consistent with the 1996 Act; that Rule 315(b), which forbids incumbents to separate already-combined network elements before leasing them to competitors, must be vacated because it requires access to those elements on a bundled rather than an unbundled, i.e., physically separated, basis; and that the FCC's "pick and choose" rule, which enables a carrier to demand access to any individual interconnection, service, or network element arrangement on the same terms and conditions the LEC has given anyone else in an approved §252 agreement without having to accept the agreement's other provisions, must be vacated because it would deter the "voluntarily negotiated agreements" that the 1996 Act favors.
View the document