data and financial information to better understand the impact of the merger on overall capital investment by the Applicants as well as network infrastructure. The resulting settlement includes specific and concrete commitments by the company to invest $323 million in California over three years. Additionally, the parties agreed to a workshop process to identify specific projects to place broadband infrastructure in unserved or underserved communities. The only other active part to the proceeding, CETF, urged the Commission to reject the settlement because they argued that the infrastructure investment elements of the settlement did not go far enough in their commitments. TURN filed joint reply comments to CETF’s opposition defending the settlement. The Commission found that that the settlement the Joint “goes beyond and Applicants’ original proposal” resolves the concerns contained in the Joint Protest. Verified 3. Settlement- service quality and reporting Joint Protest of the Section 854 (c) requires the Commission Application for Approval of to determine if the proposed transaction Transfer of Control, submitted or improve the quality of May 5, 2017, p. 4, 7 will, “maintain for the transaction to be in the service” Reply to Applicants’ public interest. Consumer Joint Protest, filed The Joint Protest urged the Commission May 15, 2017, p. 3, 14, 19 to ensure that this transaction will not Motion for Approval of interfere with the ability to Applicants’ Settlement, June 30, 2017, p. maintain a robust network that can 5, 7. withstand serious threats to public safety, Final Decision at p. 25, 29 support call completion obligations and minimize outages. The Joint Protest specifically requested that the Commission require robust outage reporting.
data and financial information to better understand the impact of the merger on overall capital investment by the Applicants as well as network infrastructure. The resulting settlement includes specific and concrete commitments by the company to invest $323 million in California over three years. Additionally, the parties agreed to a workshop process to identify specific projects to place broadband infrastructure in unserved or underserved communities. The only other active part to the proceeding, CETF, urged the Commission to reject the settlement because they argued that the infrastructure investment elements of the settlement did not go far enough in their commitments. TURN filed joint reply comments to CETF’s opposition defending the settlement. The Commission found that that the settlement “goes beyond the Joint Applicants’ original proposal” and resolves the concerns contained in the Joint Protest. 3. Settlement- service quality and reporting Section 854 (c) requires the Commission to determine if the proposed transaction will, “maintain or improve the quality of service” for the transaction to be in the public interest. The Joint Protest urged the Commission to ensure that this transaction will not interfere with the Applicants’ ability to maintain a robust network that can withstand serious threats to public safety, support call completion obligations and minimize outages. The Joint Protest specifically requested that the Commission require robust outage reporting. Joint Protest of the Application for Approval of Transfer of Control, submitted May 5, 2017, p. 4, 7 Applicants’ Reply to Consumer Joint Protest, filed May 15, 2017, p. 3, 14, 19 Motion for Approval of Settlement, June 30, 2017, p. 5, 7. Final Decision at p. 25, 29 Verified
211741273.docx