|
|
OAH
Docket No. 11-2500-21391-2 PUC
Docket No. P-421, et al./PA-10-456 |
STATE OF MINNESOTA
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
FOR THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
|
In the Matter of the Joint
Petition for Approval of Indirect Transfer of Control of Qwest Operating
Companies to CenturyLink |
Summary of Public Comments |
Jim Lessard questioned how two land
line companies would work together after the merger and whether CenturyLink
could afford to buy Qwest. He noted that
CenturyLink’s home office is in Monroe, Louisiana, and the regional office is
in LaCrosse, Wisconsin. He also noted
that much of CenturyLink’s workforce was not unionized. In a
separate letter, he questioned whether CenturyLink would honor the contracts
between Qwest and Verizon, DirectTV, Dex and AT&T (for wireless,
television, yellow pages, and Wifi services, respectively).[1]
Ray Owens objected to the merger on
the basis that it would benefit company directors, not stockholders or
customers. He asked the Commission to
show the real reason for the merger.[2]
Daryn McBeth of the Minnesota
Agri-Growth Council described the importance of telecommunication services,
including access to high speed internet, to the long-term sustainability,
competitiveness, and growth of Minnesota’s food and agriculture industry. He urged approval of the merger on the basis
that it would result in enhanced access to broadband and other new
telecommunication services in both urban and rural areas of Minnesota.[3]
Ken Warner, President of the Willmar
Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce, supported the proposed merger between
CenturyLink and Qwest. The Willmar Lakes Area Chamber represents more than 500
business and professional members throughout Kandiyohi County. He asserted that
the combined resources of CenturyLink and Qwest would enhance the
communications infrastructure in Minnesota and that additional network
investment would enable broadband options that could help rural as well as
urban areas achieve their economic development goals.[4]
Allan Bakke, Program Director of Big
Buddies of Western Community Action, provided a non-profit perspective on the
proposed merger of CenturyLink and Qwest Communications. Western Community Action serves residents in
five counties in southwestern Minnesota, by providing food and clothing,
emergency housing, education, and transportation. He stated that both
CenturyLink and Qwest have provided the organization with financial support, including
funding for the Big Buddies Program and an academic mentoring program. Mr. Bakke noted that both CenturyLink and
Qwest have made a commitment to the communities they serve through grants to
both metropolitan and rural non-profits. Big Buddies of Western Community Action
supports the decision of CenturyLink and Qwest to combine their resources in
order to participate in the increasingly competitive communications
marketplace.[5]
Nicki Klanderud, President of the Cambridge
Area Chamber of Commerce, supported the proposed merger. The Chamber’s membership of more than 250
businesses depends on a broad array of telecommunication services to support growth. The Cambridge Chamber urged the Commission to
review and approve the proposed merger as quickly as possible.[6]
Russell Vance noted that since
Windstream Communications acquired Iowa Telecom, close to 75% of the employees
from Sherburne Rural Telephone and Bishop Communications have been terminated
or will lose their jobs by the year’s end.
He expressed concern that similar job losses will occur with the merger
of CenturyLink and Qwest.[7]
Dennis H. Schroeder noted that he had
received service from Century Tel in Wisconsin.
He asserted that the company's capability is not comparable to that of
Qwest. He does not believe that Century
Tel has the strength and ability to service Qwest customers.[8]
Michael Sutherland stated his belief
that Qwest has been dishonest and abusive in its customer dealings. He maintained that Qwest is too large and
many of its customers have no alternative provider for essential communication
services. He contended that this problem
arises from Qwest having too large a share of the market and facing too little
competition in this area. He asserted
that the merger would likely make matters worse.[9]
Silence Do Good urged that the merger
of Qwest and CenturyLink be disapproved for several reasons, including poor
service quality and increased expenses that senior citizens will likely face
for service.[10]
Todd Klingel, President and CEO of the
Regional Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce, wrote in support of the merger of
CenturyLink and Qwest. He expressed his
opinion that technology is rapidly changing and that Minnesota consumers have
many choices for their communications needs.
He believes the merger between CenturyLink and Qwest will provide a greatly
expanded network, with service in 37 states and a national fiber network
stretching 180,000 route miles.[11]
Gary Skalko, Mayor of Mountain Iron,
stated that he was not familiar with CenturyLink but had the opportunity to
learn more about the proposed merger over the past several weeks. He concluded that CenturyLink has sufficient
operational ability and experience in communities like Mountain Iron. He also stated that Qwest had previously responded
to the concerns of Mountain Iron residents by expanding high-speed internet service
in the community. Mr. Skalko stated his
belief that the merger would prepare the community to meet future challenges.[12]
Charlie Weaver, Executive Director of
the Minnesota Business Partnership, expressed support for the merger of
CenturyLink and Qwest. He contended that
the ability to adapt, grow, compete and remain financially strong would separate
long-term industry players from those that will fail. He asserted that the merger will create a
stronger company with an expanded network and a broader range of products and
services. He believes the merger will
make more advanced communications solutions available for business and
consumers.[13]
Teresa Bohnen, President of the St.
Cloud Area Chamber of Commerce, expressed support for the merger. She believes it will provide the opportunity
for the merged company to adapt, grow, and remain financially strong in a
competitive market.[14]
David Ross, President and CEO of the
Duluth Area Chamber of Commerce, wrote in support of the merger between Qwest
and CenturyLink. Mr. Ross suggested
that the merger would allow the companies to meet financial challenges while
offering improved services to business and residential customers.[15]
Richard C. Diedrichsen expressed
support for the merger. He has had Qwest telephone service for more than 29
years and found that it was the only telecommunications company in Minnesota
that specifically solicited input from senior citizens and from people with
motion, vision, speech, and hearing limitations, on methods of assuring that
their products and services were accessible.
He asserted that the merger would build capacity for the company and
allow for improved services to all Minnesotans.[16]
L. A. Ellis had Qwest service in 2004,
and she wrote to say that her service issues took months to resolve. Qwest ultimately acknowledged responsibility
for the problem. While she noted that
the leadership team in 2004 is no longer running the company, the experience
continues to bother her.[17]
Delmer and Mary Swanson have been
seeking high-speed internet in their neighborhood. They are concerned that the merger could
cause an increase in telephone fees with no improvement in service, in which
case they would oppose the merger.[18]
Nicholas Barker is opposed to the
merger because he feels he will not benefit from it.[19]
Lisa Jacobs expressed concern about
what will happen to the service she currently has with Qwest and Verizon if the
merger occurs. She would like to know if there will be any changes to the
packages and/or service plans and whether penalties will apply if the new plans
are not affordable. She has not found
any information on this issue and requested assistance in obtaining such
information.[20]
Mike Sarafolean wrote to say he does
not feel that Qwest properly maintains its lines in Nininger Township near
Hastings. He contended that tree
trimming is needed, but has not been completed.
He urged the Commission to require that Qwest complete any work of this
nature before the merger is approved. He
stated that current rates already include a maintenance and tree trimming
component, and therefore ratepayers have already paid for the service. He does not want to pay more in the future to
a new owner. He provided pictures of
poles requiring maintenance along County Road 42 near Hastings.[21]
Craig Stotesbery suggested that the
merger could jeopardize the health care coverage of Qwest retirees. He suggested making the protection of this
coverage a condition of the merger.[22]
R. P. Labrie wrote to say that if this
merger is allowed, Minnesota will lose several thousand full time jobs,
customer service will suffer, and rates will increase.[23]
Mark
Myles said he had tried unsuccessfully to secure DSL service from Qwest. He stated that Minnesota lags behind the rest
of the nation with regard to high-speed internet service, and he asserted that
the Commission should require a plan for expanding such service before
approving the merger.[24]
Dorothy Maki wrote that she does not
want the merger to be approved in part because of her concern that competition
will be reduced.[25]
Several customers of Integra Telecom
wrote with similar comments. Bryan
Lervick, President and CFO of Northern Power Products, Inc., noted that CenturyLink
will be the first rural carrier to acquire a regional Bell Operating Company. He asserted that CenturyLink has little to no
experience serving major urban areas like Minneapolis-St. Paul. Mr. Lervick expressed concern that the service
of all residents and businesses in the state that rely directly or indirectly
on Qwest’s network may be adversely affected by the merger. He requested that the Commission review those aspects
of the merger to ensure that neither service quality nor local service
competition is harmed by the transaction.[26] These concerns were repeated by Mark Lewis of
Bituminous Roadways, Inc.;[27] David
Sack, IT Manager of the City of Coon Rapids;[28] Barb
Hofmeister, Property Manager of Court International, LLC;[29] Micah
Myers, IT Director of the City of Saint Cloud;[30]
Scott Newman of Newman Long Term Care;[31] and
Renee J. Iwen, Office Manager of Carlson, Caspers, Vandenburgh & Lindquist,
PA.[32]
Larry Foote, President of the Big Pine
Lake Property Owners Association, wrote to oppose the merger of CenturyLink and
Qwest. He related the frustration and
resentment of the Association’s 150-plus members over the failure of CenturyLink-Embarq,
and its predecessor organization, to provide requested DSL service. Although the necessary hardware and software
have been installed all around them—providing DSL service north, south, east
and west— they have been left in a black hole. Mr. Foote suggested that the merged company
would be even less willing to consider their requests for service.[33]
Gertrude Seidl supported the merger of
Qwest and CenturyLink. She recounted her
good experiences as a Qwest customer and said that she believes Qwest has
helped her keep in touch with many aspects of life.[34]
Gary W. Smith, President of Rochester
Area Economic Development, Inc., wrote to support Qwest’s merger with
CenturyLink because he believes it will meet the needs of customers. He maintained that the merged company will be
much stronger financially and should have sufficient cash flow to invest in new
technology, as well as service its debt and provide investors a decent return
on their investments. Mr. Smith urged
that the Commission’s approval of the merger would help the Rochester area
achieve its goals for long-term, sustained economic growth.[35]
Mary Lohnes, Regulatory Affairs
Manager for Midcontinent Communications, noted that Midcontinent offers cable
service, high-speed Internet and telephone service across North and South
Dakota and also serves several Minnesota communities outside of the metropolitan
area. It is an authorized CLEC in the
Dakotas and Minnesota. Ms. Lohnes
indicated that Midcontinent competes with Qwest in many areas and must also
exchange traffic with Qwest pursuant to interconnection agreements (ICAs).
She commented that there have been difficulties in
the business relationship between Midcontinent and Qwest over the years. Although the relationship has generally
stabilized at the present time, she indicated that Midcontinent does continue
to have some billing disputes and operations issues with Qwest involving
service calls, replacement of bad demarcation points, timely installation of
facilities at end user locations, billing for Directory Assistance calls on
disconnected lines, obtaining tandem data in order to bill carriers in several
exchanges for carrier access, and other matters.
Ms. Lohnes noted that the transition was very
difficult and time-consuming when Midcontinent converted service from resale of
Qwest’s service to Qwest Platform Plus.
She also indicated that, when Qwest did a switch upgrade in Rapid City,
South Dakota, it caused crossed phone lines and a loss of end-user
information. She expressed concern that
this type of issue could be replicated in Minnesota with the transition from
Qwest to CenturyLink, and that, if changes are made to Qwest’s systems and
operations, it could result in more service problems, billing disputes, and
disrupted service for Midcontinent customers.
Although Midcontinent does not currently operate in any CenturyLink
exchanges, Ms. Lohnes believes based on testimony filed in this matter that
CenturyLink will be more difficult to work with and has less reliable
operations systems than Qwest.
Midcontinent supports placing merger conditions on
approval to ensure that there is a forum for competitive carriers and the new
company to work on any issues that arise; that penalties are in place to create
incentives for the new company to comply with merger conditions; that ICAs and
service intervals remain in place for at least 3.5 years following the merger; that
service penalties are established to create proper incentives and protect
consumers; and that Qwest systems for resold and wholesale services remain in
place after the merger and are only changed if the new system is better and
proper testing and training of competitive carriers has occurred. Midcontinent also urged the Commission to
require the Joint Petitioners to provide more detailed information regarding
the impact of the merger on the telecommunications industry and consumers and
supply a complete integration plan prior to approving the merger, as suggested
by the CWA.[36]
Charles L. Rike, a former employee of
Northwestern Bell who later retired from AT&T, objected to the merger. He contended that service has deteriorated and
prices have increased since the AT&T break-up. Mr. Rike expressed concern that the merger
will cause losses in employment, reductions in safety programs, and generally will
only make matters worse.[37]
Norman Andersen called to protest the
merger of Qwest with a telephone company that he believes is not adequately
funded.[38]
Linda Sullivan called to object to the
merger.[39]
William F. Kruper wrote to say that he
is deeply concerned about the impact of the merger on his pension and
healthcare benefits. He described the loss
or reduction of these benefits as “financially disastrous” both to him and to
numerous other Qwest retirees. He also
expressed concern that Qwest could be dismantled once the merger is approved. He urged the Commission to preclude
CenturyLink from selling Qwest properties after the merger in order to preserve
the quality of service now provided. He also
requested that the Commission require the post-merger company to retain all of
the areas and properties presently under Qwest ownership.[40]
Mrs. Darnell Drinkall maintained that
when Century Tel became CenturyLink her bill increased. She expressed concern that the merger would
increase her bill again.[41]
Robert Mayfield called to oppose to
the merger. He does not think CenturyLink is in a sound position to go forward
with the merger, since it just completed another merger six months ago.[42]
Yolanda Clark, currently a Qwest
customer, expressed her opinion that the bigger companies get, the more money
they have, and the more influence they have on the political process. If the
companies merge, she will take her business elsewhere.[43]
Terry Mahling, currently a Qwest
customer, stated that his research on CenturyLink reflected a company having
terrible customer service; poor internet access; poor service response; and
misleading services, especially regarding the cost of service packages.[44]
James Hoolihan, a Northwestern Bell
retiree, expressed his belief that the merger is in the best interest of
Minnesota telephone customers. He receives a Qwest pension and does not want to
see that threatened in any way.[45]
Bernice Lillquist finds the merger of
companies confusing. She is satisfied
with the way things are and wants the Commission to keep it that way.[46]
L. Francois opposed the merger on the
grounds that it will potentially reduce competition and that it will fail to benefit
residents.[47]
Dolores Fink opposed the merger. She noted
that she has received excellent service from Qwest, but she is uncertain about
CenturyLink.[48]
Frank and Joanne Krejca receive service
with CenturyLink at a residence in Florida.
They related their experience with CenturyLink’s autowithdrawal payment
system, which withdraws their payments eight to 12 days before the due date. They expressed their belief that CenturyLink
engages in bad practices. They oppose the
merger.[49]
Kurt Anderson described how, in 2007, Qwest imposed a
difficult set of email domain changes that have adversely affected his law
firm. He requested that the Commission
prohibit this conduct and affirmatively require companies to maintain all email
domains.[50]
Chris Bryant urged the Commission to obtain
answers for the following questions: (1) will the combined company guarantee
that there will be no price increase within all entities or services for one
year; (2) will the combined company provide a specific description if the benefits
for customers, company shareholders, and employees; and (3) will the merged
company be called Qwest, to reflect the greater customer footprint of that corporate
identity.[51]
Bruce Boyne expressed his belief that
the Commission should be coming up with ways to break up these huge
corporations rather than allowing them to get bigger. He explained that in
rural Minnesota, customers are not fortunate enough to choose between telephone
suppliers. Customer service seems to
deteriorate as the corporation gets larger. For these reasons, he is opposed the merger.[52]
Bill Dean is strongly opposed to the
merger based on his experience with rental condominiums in Florida, using CenturyLink
for land-line telephone service. His
order was not timely completed, and his efforts to correct the problem resulted
in a difficult situation that was never fully resolved. He urged the Commission to keep Minnesota
away from that kind of poor customer service.[53]
Bennett Dy is opposed to the merger. He said that Qwest already provides good
service; CenturyLink is an unknown regarding service.[54]
Bill Dix is opposed to the merger. For
years CenturyLink and its predecessors have talked about broadband but have never
delivered it to his area. He obtained mobile
broadband through Verizon and has reasonable, but very expensive, service. His inquiry to CenturyLink obtained the reply
that the service would be made available if he obtained another 50 customers to
order it as well. Mr. Dix suspects that
Qwest customers will be taking a step backwards with CenturyLink as their
provider.[55]
B. Huberty lives about 25 miles from
Minneapolis and St. Paul and has been unable to receive broadband service from
CenturyLink for more than eight years. The commentator recommended having both
companies provide at a minimum 100% full broadband coverage to their customers
before allowing the merger.[56]
D. H. Johnsen wrote to share his
belief that with the merger a monopoly will occur. The commentator recommended
not letting the company merge to preserve competition.[57]
Elizabeth Lamin stated her belief that
the merger will significantly limit competition and ultimately hurt consumers
by raising rates. She noted that CenturyLink
just merged with another company in the last year. She opined that its rush to purchase as many
companies as possible does not benefit the general public. The resulting enormous company will not be
able to integrate to serve Qwest customers as effectively and as competitively.[58]
Jerry Linser said that Qwest service
is at best weak, and the new company will not change the level of service
provided. He asserted that, as with past
mergers of this type, the only persons to gain are the CEOs and the large investors.
He recommended that the merger not be approved
because it will not enhance service. He expressed
his desire for the Commission to keep utility companies at a manageable size
and to stay properly regulated.[59]
A commentator described his hope for a
two-year commitment from CenturyLink for no price increases.[60]
John Mosher is a disabled individual
living on a small federal pension. He described his efforts to get high-speed
internet for twenty years. He contended
that Qwest had denied him this service, and a PUC Commissioner has told him
that he would not have high-speed internet in his lifetime. Mr. Mosher detailed the frustrations in
seeking employment or even installing software updates with his dial-up
internet connection being so slow and with disconnections every five to ten minutes.
While Mr. Mosher contended that he would
love to have any company other than Qwest as his provider, he said he has heard
that CenturyLink has an even worse track record.[61]
David Stewart said he is strongly
opposed to the merger because it is an effort to eliminate competition.[62]
Darman Taluki of Digirati Networks,
Inc., expressed his opposition to the merger. He believes that CenturyLink lacks
the expertise or the size to absorb Qwest. He compared the likely outcome to when Qwest
purchased U.S. West and poor service resulted.
He contended that, with virtually no competition in the market, the post-merger
company will be able to dictate price hikes and other negative impacts on
consumers.[63]
Andy Tan expressed his support for competition
and objected to the merger as monopolizing DSL access in Minnesota.[64]
Dianna Thompson does not know much
about CenturyLink and would prefer to keep her business with Qwest.[65]
Paul and Loretta Trepanier are opposed
to the merger.[66]
Eric Watkins questioned whether the
merger would abrogate his DSL “Price for Life” contractual agreement with
Qwest.[67]
Steve White expressed concern that the
merger will reduce his service and extend the length of time before high-speed
internet is available to his home in Faribault. He also expressed concern that CenturyLink, as
a smaller company, would be burdened with debt to pay for the merger and thereby
unable to maintain or improve service to Minnesota.[68]
Tom Adams is currently served by Qwest
DSL at a speed of 1.5 mbps, the maximum available in Rochester. He said when he was finally able to open the
60-page document to read about the merger, the document could not be searched. He questioned why the document was not
searchable.[69]
Stephanie Aaron said she is against
the merger. She is concerned about the quality and price of her phone service
being affected by the merger.[70]
Paul Boettger is concerned that there
will be a hike in the cost of telephone service and a “sticker shock” increase
for high-speed internet if the merger is allowed.[71]
E. A. Cox described his concern that
prices will rise and that the interests of older customers will be forgotten during
this difficult economy. The commentator
asked the Commission to disapprove the merger.[72]
A commentator identified only as “Deathburger”
has had Qwest service within the last year, and currently has CenturyLink
service. This customer found Qwest’s
services satisfactory but has had nothing but trouble with CenturyLink. The customer maintained that CenturyLink
transferred long-distance service without permission and refused to adjust the
bill even after being informed that the service was not requested or desired. The customer does not want CenturyLink to be
in a position of broader control.[73]
Tom Hell asked the Commission to ensure
that the present programs and deals Qwest made with customers remain valid as
many customers have relied on those promises.[74]
Jacqueline Hubbard would like to know
if the approved merger would change the current phone bill along with the
service.[75]
Nancy Eiben is a retiree from Qwest
Communications and expressed her concern about the potential for changes to her
retirement benefits arising from the merger.
She urged the Commission to ensure that employees and retirees are
treated justly and with honor by either company.[76]
John Jankila expressed his hope that
the Commission has verified that the merger will result in service improvements. He suggested that it is not always true that a
company is better because it is bigger. He noted that he has been a Qwest customer
for years and he would like to see the system improve, while keeping costs at
current levels.[77]
John Iacono suggested that a highly
leveraged buyout would result in rate increases and said he wants assurance of
no rate increases for at least two years after the merger.[78]
Joy Jurewicz compared the proposed
merger with the Qwest-U.S. West merger and suggested that job cuts would
negatively affect service. She suggested
that the merger be conditioned on limiting job reductions to no more than 5% of
the existing jobs in a geographic area.
She noted that accounts she serviced when she worked for Qwest have not
been assigned to anyone for servicing.[79]
Brian Knapek said he thinks the merger
would be good for rural customers because of CenturyLink’s experience in
providing rural service.[80]
An anonymous commentator questioned
what impact to existing bundled packages would result from the merger.[81]
Dan King said he is opposed to the merger, based on
bad reviews of CenturyLink’s service and feedback from a CenturyLink customer
who is having problems with broadband internet.[82]
Karen Larson compared the merger to
the Qwest-U.S. West merger and asserted that prices for cellular, internet, and
DirectTV services are all going to increase to the point of becoming unaffordable.[83]
James Lendway is opposed to merger of
Qwest and CenturyLink. He said he believes that mergers of big companies stifle
competition and should not be allowed.[84]
Marti Maltby, Case Manager for GRH
Housing, suggested that she would support the merger if it meant that the managers
at Qwest are removed from their positions and the entire customer service
division of Qwest is revamped to rectify the problems the company currently
creates for its customers. The commentator said that Qwest’s failure to
implement service blocks as requested costs the non-profit agency thousands of
dollars in unauthorized calls by persons receiving housing though that
agency. The commentator expressed hope
that the proposed merger would lead to greatly enhanced customer service over
Qwest’s current service level.[85]
Mark Howard is a Qwest customer and
employee, and he wrote to support the merger.[86]
Chris and Joe Mauch wrote to say that
CenturyLink should be required to honor all of Qwest’s pricing and long-term
contracts.[87]
Bryan Logan expressed concern about
the impact of the merger on the “Price for life” and bundled Direct TV contracts
he has with Qwest. He does not want to pay
early termination fees or pay a higher price for the service if DirectTV is not
offered.[88]
Mike Lorenson was a customer of
CenturyTel, and he wrote to say that he was not impressed with its services. He
is not in favor of the transfer of ownership. If the merger occurs, he suggested
that he will switch to a different internet service provider.[89]
John Poons suggested that broadband internet
should be included free of charge as part of basic phone service. He believes the customer could use those
savings to purchase other optional services.[90]
Karen Smudski is a Qwest customer who
noted that her research found many negative comments on CenturyLink’s billing
practices. She expressed concern that if
Qwest is owned by CenturyLink she will receive improper bills and poor customer
service. She urged that the Commission
scrutinize the merger and only allow if CenturyLink has clearly demonstrated an
improved approach to both billing and customer care.[91]
An anonymous commentator objected to
the merger unless the service remains as good or better and the rates are less
for the next ten years.[92]
Bob Skjegstad opposed the merger of
the two companies. He noted that Qwest
has been a great company, and he has does not want Qwest to be turned over to
CenturyLink.[93]
Jonathan Murray urged that the
Commission ensure that contracts to lock in a lifetime rate for internet
service are continued in force after the merger.[94]
Robert Panning contracted for Qwest
DSL with MSN premium with a lifetime monthly fixed fee, and he questioned
whether that agreement will be honored by CenturyLink at the same monthly fee.[95]
Gary Person questioned whether his
current agreements with Qwest will be honored and whether he will retain that “price
for life” on his internet as agreed and a discount on Direct TV.[96]
Ed Stallings related his first-hand
experience with CenturyTel at his cabin.
He expressed concern over the level of internet service he will receive
from CenturyLink once it acquires Qwest. Mr. Stallings questioned options will he have
for obtaining a different vendor if the merger is approved.[97]
Terri Leino expressed concern and
frustration about the proposed merger, comparing it to sales of home
mortgages. The commentator suggested
that “if it isn’t broke, don’t fix it.”[98]
John Thomas disapproved of the merger.[99]
An anonymous commentator who
identified himself only as “TAXRIDDER” requested that the Commission ensure
that Qwest’s lifetime internet rate of $26 remain in effect when CenturyLink
takes over.[100]
Dean Tulledge noted that Qwest has
been unable to provide broadband service in a rural area within seven miles of
Rochester. He expressed hope that CenturyLink
would do better.[101]
Dave Linger urged the Commission to
provide stability in customer choices for telecommunication services. He compared the situation to the mergers in
the 1980’s and 1990’s and suggested that the financial outcomes are not sufficiently
beneficial to offset the negative impact to customers.[102]
Nellie Harris opposed the merger on
the ground that it would bring Minnesota closer to a monopoly.[103]
A caller identified only as “Lois”
expressed concern that the merger will eliminate jobs, and if so, she opposed
the merger.[104]
Loyal Merritt opposed the merger on
the ground that it would result in less competition and higher prices.[105]
Kathy Letendre opposed the merger.[106]
Jane Pollock stated that she wants
Qwest to continue.[107]
Charles Delve opposed the merger because
it would harm consumers and result in large conglomerates.[108]
Theresa Rokusek opposed the merger on
the basis that the company would be too large and customers would have no
influence on its operations.l[109]
Gene Thompson opposed the merger.[110]
Lane Raichert is a small business
owner who wrote to support the merger if it would improve customer service over
Qwest’s current terrible service.[111]
Margaret Linhart said she opposed the merger
because it would result in unaffordable service.[112]
A commentator named Nesvick expressed concern
about possible changes in price and service that may occur due to the merger.[113]
Roger Kohler expressed satisfaction with
Qwest’s residential phone service, and he opposed the merger.[114]
John Caess is opposed to the merger.
He wants to continue doing business with Qwest.[115]
Elaine Magstead does not approve of
the merger.[116]
Norman Beckman has CenturyLink service
in southern Minnesota, and he uses the Bismarck cooperative service at another property
in South Dakota. He said the Bismarck
rates are one-third of the cost of CenturyLink.
Mr. Beckman opposed the merger.[117]
Junelle Evenson wrote to say that she likes
Qwest and does not want it to change.[118]
Don Koehler is opposed to the merger. He wants to keep the service local and small.[119]
Tom Reynolds opposed the merger on the
basis that it lacked any benefits. He questioned
the compensation expected by the officers of Qwest because of the merger.[120]
An anonymous caller stated that the merger should not
affect Qwest’s service. The caller
considered Qwest’s existing service to be dependable.[121]
Becky Stuc expressed concerned as to how
the merger will affect the elderly and disabled. She suggested that, while some mergers result
in no initial changes, companies will often wait a few years to alter names,
services and other things. The commentator asserted that such changes can be
very confusing for those who are elderly and/or disabled. She said she hoped that the merger would not
result in major changes for Qwest.[122]
Ruth Schoenfeld said she wondered if
her bills would still come in the way they have before. She does not have
e-mail or internet and asked to receive information by mail.[123]
Natalie Cook expressed her opinion
that this merger is another step towards monopoly and that soon the state would
have one phone company, one airline, and everything sold would be made in
China.[124]
An anonymous caller objected to the
merger.[125]
Philip W. Ringgenberg made two
suggestions to the Commission. First, he
recommended that Qwest no longer be required to provide services to other
companies at a rate lower than Qwest charges its own customers. Second, he recommended that any transfer of
control of Qwest be conditioned on employees and retiree benefits remaining at
their existing levels.[126]
Laurel Yarrow opposed the merger on
the ground that Qwest is already too big.
She noted that big corporations should be broken up, and the current
situation is nothing like the free market.[127]
Eunice Holmes said she hoped that the
company continues to provide land lines because she does not find cell phones to
have the dependability, quality, and reliability of land lines. She described her land line as being at times
her life line.[128]
[1] Public
Comment eFiled January 3, 2011, eDocket No. 20111-58079-01.
[2] Public
Comment eFiled January 3, 2011, eDocket No. 20111-58079-01.
[3] Public
Comment eFiled December 27, 2010, eDocket No. 201012-57873-01.
[4] Public
Comment eFiled November 15, 2010, eDocket No. 201011-56521-01.
[5] Public
Comment eFiled November 8, 2010, eDocket No. 201011-56285-01.
[6] Public
Comment eFiled November 1, 2010, eDocket
No. 201011-56073-01.
[7] Public
Comment eFiled November 1, 2010, eDocket
No. 201011-56073-01.
[8] Public
Comment eFiled October 29, 2010, eDocket
No. 201010-55947-01.
[9] Public
Comment eFiled October 29, 2010, eDocket
No. 201010-55947-01.
[10] Public Comment eFiled October 25, 2010, eDocket No.
201010-55809-01.
[11] Public Comment eFiled October 18,
2010, eDocket No. 201010-55577-01.
[12] Public
Comment eFiled October 11, 2010, eDocket No. 201010-55376-01.
[13] Public
Comment eFiled October 4, 2010, eDocket No. 201010-55165-01.
[14] Public
Comment eFiled October 4, 2010, eDocket No. 201010-55165-01.
[15] Public Comment eFiled October 11, 2010, eDocket No.
201010-55376-01.
[16] Public
Comment eFiled October 4, 2010, eDocket No. 201010-55165-01.
[17] Public Comment eFiled September 27, 2010, eDocket No. 20109-54820-01.
[18] Public
Comment eFiled September 27, 2010, eDocket No. 20109-54820-01.
[19] Public
Comment eFiled September 27, 2010, eDocket No. 20109-54820-01.
[20] Public
Comment eFiled September 27, 2010, eDocket No. 20109-54820-01.
[21] Public
Comment eFiled September 27, 2010, eDocket No. 20109-54820-01.
[22] Public
Comment eFiled September 27, 2010, eDocket No. 20109-54820-01.
[23] Public
Comment eFiled September 27, 2010, eDocket No. 20109-54820-01.
[24] Public
Comment eFiled September 27, 2010, eDocket No. 20109-54820-01.
[25] Public
Comment eFiled September 27, 2010, eDocket No. 20109-54820-01.
[26] Public Comment
eFiled September 24, 2010, eDocket No. 20109-54809-01
[27] Public
Comment eFiled September 24, 2010, eDocket No. 20109-54809-01.
[28] Public
Comment eFiled September 24, 2010, eDocket No. 20109-54809-01.
[29] Public
Comment eFiled September 24, 2010, eDocket No. 20109-54809-01.
[30] Public
Comment eFiled September 24, 2010, eDocket No. 20109-54809-01.
[31] Public
Comment eFiled September 10, 2010, eDocket No. 20109-54612-01.
[32] Public
Comment eFiled September 10, 2010, eDocket No. 20109-54612-01.
[33] Public
Comment eFiled September 24, 2010, eDocket No. 20109-54809-01.
[34] Public
Comment eFiled September 24, 2010, eDocket No. 20109-54809-01.
[35] Public
Comment eFiled September 10, 2010, eDocket No. 20109-54612-01.
[36] Public
Comment eFiled September 10, 2010, eDocket No. 20109-54392-01.
[37] Public
Comment eFiled September 10, 2010, eDocket No. 20109-54612-01.
[38] Public
Comment eFiled September 13, 2010, eDocket No. 20109-54388-01.
[39] Public
Comment eFiled September 13, 2010, eDocket No. 20109-54388-01.
[40] Public
Comment eFiled September 7, 2010, eDocket No. 20109-54195-01.
[41] Public
Comment eFiled September 7, 2010, eDocket No. 20109-54195-01.
[42] Public
Comment eFiled August 30, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53944-01.
[43] Public Comment eFiled August 30, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53944-01.
[44] Public
Comment eFiled August 30, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53944-01.
[45] Public
Comment eFiled August 23, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53757-01.
[46] Public
Comment eFiled August 23, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53757-01.
[47] Public
Comment eFiled August 23, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53757-01.
[48] Public
Comment eFiled August 23, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53757-01.
[49] Public
Comment eFiled August 23, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53757-01.
[50] Public
Comment eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-02.
[51] Public
Comment eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-02.
[52] Public
Comment eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-02.
[53] Public
Comment eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-02.
[54] Public
Comment eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-02.
[55] Public
Comment eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-02.
[56] Public
Comment eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-02.
[57] Public
Comment eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-02.
[58] Public Comment eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-02.
[59] Public
Comment eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-02.
[60] Public
Comment eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-02.
[61] Public
Comment eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-02.
[62] Public
Comment eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-02.
[63] Public
Comment eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-02.
[64] Public
Comment eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-02.
[65] Public
Comment eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-02.
[66] Public
Comment eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-02.
[67] Public Comment eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-02; see also Public Comment (Watkins) eFiled September 27, 2010, eDocket No. 20109-54820-01.
[68] Public
Comment eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-02.
[69] Public
Comment eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-01.
[70] Public
Comment eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-01.
[71] Public
Comment eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-01.
[72] Public
Comment eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-01.
[73] Public
Comment eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-01.
[74] Public
Comment eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-01.
[75] Public Comment eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-01.
[76] Public Comment
eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-01.
[77] Public
Comment eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-01.
[78] Public
Comment eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-01.
[79] Public
Comment eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-01.
[80] Public
Comment eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-01.
[81] Public
Comment eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-01.
[82] Public
Comment eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-01.
[83] Public
Comment eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-01.
[84] Public
Comment eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-01.
[85] Public
Comment eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-01.
[86] Public
Comment eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-01.
[87] Public
Comment eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-01.
[88] Public
Comment eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-01.
[89] Public
Comment eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-01.
[90] Public
Comment eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-01.
[91] Public Comment eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-01.
[92] Public
Comment eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-01.
[93] Public
Comment eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-01.
[94] Public
Comment eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-01.
[95] Public
Comment eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-01.
[96] Public
Comment eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-01.
[97] Public
Comment eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-01.
[98] Public
Comment eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-01.
[99] Public
Comment eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-01.
[100] Public
Comment eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-01.
[101] Public
Comment eFiled August 17, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53557-01.
[102] Public Comment
eFiled August 16, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53536-01.
[103] Public
Comment eFiled August 16, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53536-01.
[104] Public
Comment eFiled August 16, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53536-01.
[105] Public
Comment eFiled August 16, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53536-01.
[106] Public
Comment eFiled August 16, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53536-01.
[107] Public
Comment eFiled August 16, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53536-01.
[108] Public
Comment eFiled August 16, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53536-01.
[109] Public
Comment eFiled August 16, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53536-01.
[110] Public
Comment eFiled August 16, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53536-01.
[111] Public
Comment eFiled August 16, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53536-01.
[112] Public
Comment eFiled August 16, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53536-01.
[113] Public Comment eFiled August 16, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53536-01.
[114] Public
Comment eFiled August 16, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53536-01.
[115] Public
Comment eFiled August 16, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53536-01.
[116] Public
Comment eFiled August 16, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53536-01.
[117] Public
Comment eFiled August 16, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53536-01.
[118] Public
Comment eFiled August 16, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53536-01.
[119] Public
Comment eFiled August 16, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53536-01.
[120] Public
Comment eFiled August 16, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53536-01.
[121] Public
Comment eFiled August 16, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53536-01.
[122] Public
Comment eFiled August 16, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53536-01.
[123] Public Comment eFiled August 16, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53536-01.
[124] Public
Comment eFiled August 16, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53536-01.
[125] Public
Comment eFiled August 16, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53536-01.
[126] Public
Comment eFiled August 16, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53536-01.
[127] Public
Comment eFiled August 16, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53536-01.
[128] Public Comment
eFiled August 16, 2010, eDocket No. 20108-53536-01.