4.0.b. SWCSR 09-08-2016 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Again, Frontier's response indicates it is unable to provide the information needed for a complete application at this time--- information that is critical for the City to makes it determination under Minnesota law. As such, the Application is materially deficient without this information. (iii) Terms and conditions under which particular service is to be provided to governmental and education entities.5 Frontier's Application states: "Frontier will provide at no charge expanded basic service to all government buildings, schools, and public libraries located within its service footprint so long as those locations are capable of receiving service from Frontier and no other cable provider is providing service at such locations." Because Charter already provides service to most public buildings, this "commitment" is entirely hollow. (iv) A schedule of proposed rates in relation to the services to be provided and a proposed policy regarding unusual or difficult connection of service.6 Frontier's Application states: "Final rates have yet to be determined..." The statute clearly requires proposed rates, not final rates. Again, Frontier is either unwilling or unprepared to provide the statutorily required information necessary to move forward at this time. Frontier also failed to provide any policy for unusual connections. (v) Plans for financing the proposed system,which must indicate every significant anticipated source of capital and significant limitations or conditions with respect to the availability of the indicated sources of capital. Frontier's Application states: The Application refers the City to SEC filings by the ultimate parent company. Again, this response is wholly inadequate under the statute, as it fails to provide the detailed information required by Minnesota law. B. The City Must Honor the Competitive Equity Provisions In State Law and Charter's Franchise. 5 Id. at (a)(4). 6 Id. at (a)(5). 7 Id. at(a)(9). 3