Application relying on similar grounds as their previous protest of the Advice Letter. In their Application, the companies repeated their arguments that neither Section 854(b) or (c) were applicable to the review of their Application. However, as discussed below, the Final Decision supports the thorough review called for by TURN and the other consumer advocates to support the public interest Commission’s analysis. And, in the Final Decision, the Commission notes that it apply the “may more rigorous standard of §854(b) and (c) as guidance for our review of this merger.” 2. Application for Approval of Verified Settlement- capital investment and the Transfer of Control, filed broadband March 22, 2017, p. 18-20. Section 854(c) requires the Commission to consider whether a merger transaction Joint Protest of the will and local Application for Approval of “be beneficial …to state economies, and to the communities in the Transfer of Control, submitted area served by the resulting public May 5, 2017, p. 5-6. the Applicants broadly utility.” Although Motion for Approval of asserted that this transaction will benefit Settlement, June 30, 2017, p. California consumers, TURN, ORA and 5, 8. Greenlining argued that the Application Comments on Settlement did not provide sufficient evidence of Motion, CETF, filed July 21, those benefits and made no specific 2017. commitments to improve service or invest in its network in California. Joint Reply to CETF Indeed, in public statements, Comments, TURN, ORA, CenturyLink stated it had plans to reduce Greenlining, filed July 25, its current investment levels nationwide 2017. by millions of dollars as a result of this Final Decision, p. 24 transaction. TURN, working with ORA and Greenlining, urged the Commission to require the Applicants to make commitments to continue investment in its California network and to support further deployment of broadband infrastructure to benefit unserved and underserved communities. During settlement talks, the parties exchanged
Application relying on similar grounds as their previous protest of the Advice Letter. In their Application, the companies repeated their arguments that neither Section 854(b) or (c) were applicable to the review of their Application. However, as discussed below, the Final Decision supports the thorough review called for by TURN and the other consumer advocates to support the Commission’s public interest analysis. And, in the Final Decision, the Commission notes that it “may apply the more rigorous standard of §854(b) and (c) as guidance for our review of this merger.” 2. Settlement- capital investment and broadband Section 854(c) requires the Commission to consider whether a merger transaction will “be beneficial …to state and local economies, and to the communities in the area served by the resulting public utility.” Although the Applicants broadly asserted that this transaction will benefit California consumers, TURN, ORA and Greenlining argued that the Application did not provide sufficient evidence of those benefits and made no specific commitments to improve service or invest in its network in California. Indeed, in public statements, CenturyLink stated it had plans to reduce its current investment levels nationwide by millions of dollars as a result of this transaction. TURN, working with ORA and Greenlining, urged the Commission to require the Applicants to make commitments to continue investment in its California network and to support further deployment of broadband infrastructure to benefit unserved and underserved communities. During settlement talks, the parties exchanged Application for Approval of the Transfer of Control, filed March 22, 2017, p. 18-20. Joint Protest of the Application for Approval of Transfer of Control, submitted May 5, 2017, p. 5-6. Motion for Approval of Settlement, June 30, 2017, p. 5, 8. Comments on Settlement Motion, CETF, filed July 21, 2017. Joint Reply to CETF Comments, TURN, ORA, Greenlining, filed July 25, 2017. Final Decision, p. 24 Verified