12. Assignment of Proceeding

Susan P. Kennedy is the Assigned Commissioner and Principal Hearing Officer for this proceeding. Administrative Law Judge Glen Walker is assigned to this proceeding.

Findings of Fact

1. This application was filed pursuant to Pub. Util. Code §§ 851-856.

2. On April 21, 2005, Verizon Communications Inc. and MCI, Inc. filed a joint application to transfer control of MCI's California subsidiaries to Verizon. This transfer will occur indirectly as a result of Verizon obtaining direct control of MCI, neither of which is regulated by the Commission as a public utility, and indirect control of MCI's certified and public utility subsidiaries in California.

3. When the transaction is completed, MCI will become a subsidiary of Verizon. The MCI Subsidiaries in California will still be subsidiaries of MCI, and the authorizations and licenses currently held by the MCI Subsidiaries will continue to be held by the respective entities. The transaction does not involve the merger of any assets, operations, lines, plants, franchises, or permits of the MCI Subsidiaries with the assets, operations, lines, plants, franchises, or permits of any Verizon entity.

4. The parties to the merger transaction are Verizon Communications Inc. and MCI, Inc. Neither party is a California utility. The California utilities that are subsidiaries of Verizon and MCI are not parties to the transaction. Those California subsidiaries are not being utilized to effectuate the transaction, nor are they using their respective parents to effectuate the transaction.

5. No single MCI subsidiary has annual California gross revenues in excess of $500 million.

6. Verizon's California subsidiaries account for approximately 3% of Verizon's annual revenues.

7. In Resolution ALJ 176-3152 on May 5, 2005, the Commission preliminarily determined that this is a ratesetting proceeding and that hearings would be needed to resolve this matter.

8. On August 15, 16, and 18, 2005, the Commission conducted six Public Participation Hearings, in Whittier, Long Beach and San Bernardino, California, to take comments from the public on the proposed merger. These hearings demonstrated broad consumer and community support for the merger.

9. MCI's operations in California account for less than 3% of MCI's overall business.

10. MCI's California subsidiaries are non-dominant and not traditionally regulated utilities.

11. The Commission lacks effective ratemaking authority over MCI and its California subsidiaries.

12. Verizon's California subsidiaries are no longer regulated under traditional cost-of-service regulation.

13. MCI has grown and shrunk under competitive conditions without a guaranteed franchise.

14. This transaction will likely produce significant cost savings and other synergies for the combined firm. These transaction-related benefits will be passed through to customers through competition and market forces.

15. The shareholders of MCI approved the merger on October 6, 2005.

16. On September 16, 2005, the California Attorney General filed an Opinion on the competitive effects of the proposed merger, in which he found that the proposed merger will not adversely affect competition in any relevant market.

17. On September 19, 2005, the Assigned Commissioner issued a ruling denying motions for evidentiary hearings and reached a determination that there are no factual disputes that require evidentiary hearings to resolve and evidentiary hearings are not needed in this proceeding.

18. The Attorney General found that the relevant markets at issue in this transaction are the markets for: (1) local exchange services and long distance services for residential and small business customers (part of the mass market ); (2) long distance services for residential and small business customers (part of the mass market); (3) business applications sold to medium- to large-business and government customers (the enterprise market ); (4) special access services; and (5) Internet backbone services.

19. HHI analysis does not provide relevant insight into the dynamics of the mass market, and is not needed to perform a competitive analysis.

20. MCI's mass market business consists of the provision of local and long distance services, using leased facilities rather than MCI-owned facilities to furnish the local components of its service offerings.

21. MCI's mass market business is in an irreversible decline, due to marketplace developments, recent changes in regulation, and increasing competition in its core long distance business.

22. MCI currently serves relatively few mass market customers in Verizon California's service area.

23. Due to this decline in its mass market business, MCI is not and would not be a meaningful competitor to Verizon California in the mass market absent the transaction.

24. As a non-facilities-based provider, MCI's provision of mass market service does not affect industry output.

25. Intermodal competition, principally from cable, wireless, and voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) is intensifying in the mass market in California. Intermodal alternatives have displaced and are continuing to apply competitive price pressure on and continuing to displace a significant amount of traditional wireline service and usage.

26. Mass market consumers' willingness to purchase intermodal alternatives instead of traditional landline service constrains Verizon's wireline service rates for many telecommunications services.

27. Wireless service has displaced a significant amount of long distance and local calling from landlines by consumers with wireless phones. In addition to using wireless phones to complete many long distance and local calls, a significant number of consumers are relying solely on wireless service.

28. Intermodal competition will continue to provide a check on future anticompetitive outcomes in the local exchange market, but for this to remain a viable check in a consolidating and converging industry, consumers must have unfettered access to competitive VoIP services.

29. If consumers have unfettered access to competitive VoIP services, then the merger will have no anticompetitive impacts in the mass market for local exchange services.

30. Without unfettered access to competitive VoIP services, the anticipated benefits of this transaction to consumers and the Commission's statutory obligation to promote access to advanced telecommunications services will be frustrated.

31. Verizon does not have a long-haul backbone of its own or significant long distance facilities.

32. Verizon's purchases of long distance services account for only about 3 percent of that market.

33. MCI has elected to exit the mass market for long distance services.

34. Significant intermodal competition from wireless services is already present in the mass market for long distance services.

35. The merger will have minimal effects on the levels of concentration in the market for long distance services.

36. The proposed merger will have no anti-competitive effects in the mass market for long distance telecommunication services.

37. The market for enterprise services includes the full array of highly differentiated advanced information services, including voice and data services that large businesses and governmental users demand.

38. The enterprise market is highly competitive and includes IXCs (e.g., AT&T, MCI and Sprint), global network service providers (such as Deutsche Telekom and BT), system integrators, CLECs and DLECs, cable companies and equipment vendors.

39. The enterprise market has been competitive for some time and is not highly concentrated.

40. Verizon and MCI focus their marketing efforts on different sectors of the enterprise market.

41. MCI is a leading provider of enterprise services to large national customers. Verizon has had difficulty attracting the type of large enterprise customers MCI serves, particularly those based or with communications needs outside of Verizon s traditional service area.

42. The Federal Communications Commission has repeatedly deemed this market competitive.

43. The merger will not produce anticompetitive effects in the enterprise market.

44. The market for special access involves dedicated point-to-point facilities that are primarily high capacity (e.g. DS1 or greater) connections that can be used to connect an end user to an IXC's point of presence, to connect two end user locations, and to connect end users to CLEC, ISP, wireless or other competitive networks.

45. MCI has few special access facilities in Verizon California's service areas and does not provide a significant level of services in those areas at either the wholesale or retail level.

46. MCI provides only a very limited number of special access circuits on a wholesale basis to CLECs in Verizon California's service areas.

47. MCI serves only a very small number of buildings in Verizon's California territory with its own facilities. MCI fiber facilities in Verizon California's service territory are overwhelmingly located in areas that meet the FCC's criteria for determining that it is economic for competing carriers to deploy new facilities and where competitors have in fact deployed fiber facilities.

48. In the limited number of Verizon California wire center clusters where both Verizon and MCI have fiber facilities, there is at least one competitor other than MCI which has also deployed fiber facilities. In all but one of these clusters more than one additional competitor has deployed fiber.

49. At the level of individual wire centers, there are, on average, more than three competitors with fiber facilities deployed in wire centers in which Verizon and MCI fiber facilities overlap. Each of these overlapping wire centers is located in MSAs that the FCC has declared to be substantially competitive, as reflected in its treatment of MSAs under its pricing flexibility rules.

50. Due to low barriers of entry, loss of MCI as an independent competitor in the market for special access services would have no impact on the current constraints on Verizon's pricing.

51. The Internet backbone and ISP markets are highly unconcentrated and will remain so after the merger.

52. Post-transaction, MCI will remain the fourth largest provider of Internet backbone services, with less than a 10 percent share of the traffic. MCI will face competition from SBC/AT&T, Sprint, Qwest, SAVVIS, AOL, and others.

53. There are strong incentives for the combined company to peer on reasonable terms, as to take the opposite course would invite retaliation from providers who collectively carry more than 90 percent of the Internet traffic in North America. For similar reasons, there are no incentives for the combined company to selectively downgrade packets exchanged with competitive networks.

54. The merger will maintain or improve the financial condition of the affected California utility subsidiaries.

55. There is no rational basis for imposing new quality control conditions because of the proposed merger.

56. The transaction will maintain or improve the quality of management of the affected California utility subsidiaries.

57. The transaction will be fair and reasonable to affected California utility employees, both union and non-union.

58. The transaction will be fair and reasonable to the majority of all affected shareholders.

59. The transaction will be beneficial on an overall basis to state and local economies, and the communities in the areas served by the resulting public utility. Specifically, the merger will produce cost savings and other synergies that will be passed through to California customers through competition and market forces. The transaction will also result in the combined company s ability to offer a broader range of services, and more advanced services, to California consumers. The transaction will promote competition in communications in California, resulting in improved quality of service, more competitive prices, and greater technological innovation that will inure to the benefit of customers.

60. The Greenlining Agreement, in combination with the California Emerging Technologies Fund, ensures that the transaction will be beneficial to the local communities in California.

61. This transaction will not affect the structure of MCI's California subsidiaries and the Commission's ability to regulate those subsidiaries will not be diminished. The MCI subsidiaries will continue to be subject to all the terms and conditions that the Commission has previously required. The transaction will therefore not adversely affect the Commission's jurisdiction, nor its ability to regulate effectively the combined company's public utility operations in California.

62. The transfer of MCI's California subsidiaries takes place at the holding company level and will not result in any incremental impact on the environment.

63. Aside from the three conditions imposed on the merger, no other conditions are reasonable nor in the public interest.

64. The material presented by the Applicants and parties to this proceeding has enabled us to reach findings on all issues discussed in § 854.

Conclusions of Law

1. This proceeding is a ratesetting proceeding.

2. No evidentiary hearings are necessary in this proceeding.

3. Consistent with the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, Rule 6.5(b), it is reasonable to affirm the Assigned Commissioner's Ruling of September 19, 2005 that determined that evidentiary hearings were not necessary in this proceeding.

4. The proposed transaction is subject to scrutiny under Pub. Util. Code § 854(a).

5. Pursuant to § 854(a), Applicants must demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed transaction is, on balance, in the public interest.

6.

7. Section853 (b) grants the Commission the authority to determine that §§ 854(b) and (c) do not apply to a transaction if application of the subsections is not necessary in the public interest.

8. In order to determine whether the transaction is in the public interest pursuant to § 854(a), it is reasonable for the Commission to assess the public interest factors enumerated in § 854(c) and undertake an analysis of antitrust and environmental considerations.

9. Applicants have demonstrated that all of the criteria enumerated in § 854(c) are satisfied by this transaction.

10. In order to determine if the transaction will have an adverse effect on competition, the sole material question is whether the elimination of MCI as an independent competitor in any properly defined markets would confer market power on Verizon or enhance any market power it currently possesses.

11. The transaction will not cause an adverse effect on competition in the mass market for local exchange telecommunications services.

12. The transaction will not cause an adverse effect on competition in the mass market for long distance telecommunications services.

13. The transaction will not cause an adverse effect on competition in the enterprise market.

14. The transaction will not cause an adverse effect on competition for the provision of special access services.

15. The transaction will not cause an adverse effect on competition in the market for Internet backbone services.

16. The transaction will not have an adverse effect on competition in any properly defined market and it therefore raises no antitrust concerns.

17. Cross-subsidization is unlikely because Verizon California's rates are not set with reference to its costs and because the Commission will continue to enforce affiliate transaction rules.

18. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that the Commission consider the environmental consequences of projects that are subject to the Commission's review and approval.

19. There are no environmental consequences of this merger.

20. It is reasonable for the Commission to approve this transaction, subject to the two conditions proposed herein.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Assigned Commissioner's Ruling of September 16, 2005 that determined that this proceeding did not require evidentiary hearings is affirmed. Under Rule 6.6 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules), this order is a final determination that evidentiary hearings should not be set in this ratesetting proceeding.

2. The ORA Motion of September 28, 2005 requesting a full Commission confirmation of the Assigned Commissioner's Ruling of September 16, 2005, among other things, is granted consistent with Ordering Paragraph 1 above. In all other respects, the motion is denied.

3. The joint application of In the Matter of the Joint Application of Verizon Communications, Inc. (Verizon) and MCI, Inc. (MCI) to transfer control of MCI's California utility subsidiaries to Verizon, which will occur indirectly as a result of Verizon's acquisition of MCI is granted subject to three conditions. Those conditions are:

3. Applicants shall file and serve a written notice in this proceeding of the transfer of control and merger of their companies as set forth in this order. The authority to transfer control and merge granted herein shall expire 365 days from the effective date of this order.

4. Within 30 days of the issuing date of any decision by another jurisdiction which materially changes the terms of the proposed transaction as it affects any of Applicants' California utility operations, Applicants shall file a copy of that decision with the Commission, with a copy served on the service list in this proceeding and the Director of the Telecommunications Division. The filing shall also include an analysis of the impact of any terms and conditions contained therein as they affect any of Applicants' California utility operations.

5. Applicants shall notify the Commission, with a copy served on the service list in this proceeding and the Director of the Telecommunications Division, of the date the merger is consummated. The notice shall be served within 30 days of merger consummation.

6. In the event that the books and records of Applicants or any affiliates thereof are required for inspection by the Commission or its staff, Applicants shall either produce such records at the Commission's offices, or reimburse the Commission for the reasonable costs incurred in having Commission staff travel to any of Applicants' offices.

7. If Applicants consummate the proposed merger authorized herein, their failure to comply with any element of this order shall constitute a violation of a Commission order, and subject Applicants to penalties and sanctions consistent with law

This order is effective today.

Dated November 18, 2005, at San Francisco, California.

I dissent.

/s/ GEOFFREY F. BROWN

Commissioner

I dissent.

/s/ DIAN M. GRUENEICH

Commissioner

I reserve the right to file a concurrence.

/s/ JOHN A. BOHN

Commissioner

Appendix A: Cases Exempting NDIEC and CLEC Transactions from § 854 (b) Review

1. Re Application of Resurgens Communications Group, Inc. to Acquire Control of Comm Sys. Network Servs., Inc., TMC Communications, Inc. and TMC Communications, L.P., Decision 91-09-095, 41 Cal. P.U.C. 2d 429, 1991 Cal. PUC LEXIS 607 (Sept. 30, 1991).

2. Re Joint Application of AT&T Corp., Italy Merger Corp. and Tele-Communications, Inc. for Approval Required for the Change in Control of TCI Telephony Servs. of California, Inc. That Will Occur Indirectly as a Result of the Merger of AT&T Corp. and Tele-Communications, Inc., Decision 99-03-019, 85 Cal. P.U.C. 2d 249, 1999 Cal. PUC LEXIS 382 (Mar. 4, 1999).

3. Re Joint Application of AT&T Corp. ("AT&T"), Teleport Communications Group Inc. ("TCG") and TA Merger Corp. for Approval Required for the Change in Control of TCG's California Subsidiaries That Will Occur Indirectly as a Result of the Merger of AT&T and TCG, Decision 98-05-022, 80 Cal. P.U.C. 2d 273, 1998 Cal. PUC LEXIS 533 (May 7, 1998). Application of MidAmerican Communications Corp. to Transfer, and of LDDS Communications, Inc., to Acquire, Certain Shares and Control of MidAmerican Communications Corp., and for Permission and Approval For MidAmerican Communications Corp. to Borrow, Guaranty, and Grant a Security Interest in Collateral, Decision 91-06-061, 40 Cal. P.U.C. 2d 637, 1991 Cal. PUC LEXIS 388 (June 24, 1991);

4. In re Request of WorldCom, Inc. and Intermedia Communications Inc., for Approval to Transfer Control of Intermedia Communications Inc. and its Wholly-owned Subsidiary to WorldCom, Inc., Decision 01-03-079, 2001 Cal. PUC LEXIS 219 (Mar. 27, 2001).

5. Joint Application of Access One Communications Corp., Formerly Known as CLEC Holding Corp., OmniCall Acquisition Corp., and OmniCall, Inc. for Approval of Transfer of Control, Decision 00-01-059, 2000 Cal. PUC LEXIS 85 (Jan. 28, 2000).

6. Application of American Network Exch., Inc. and its Subsidiary, Amnex (California), Inc., to Transfer, and of Nycom Info. Servs., Inc., to Acquire Control of a Certificate by Merging American Network Exch., Inc. into Amnex Acquisition Corp., a Subsidiary of Nycom Info. Servs., Inc., Decision 90-03-047, 35 Cal. P.U.C. 2d 664, 1990 Cal. PUC LEXIS 154 (Mar. 19, 1990). Application of State Communications, Inc., TriVergent Communications, Inc., Gabriel Communications, Inc., and Triangle Acquisition, Inc. for Approval of a Transfer of Control, Decision 01-02-005, 2001 Cal. PUC LEXIS 139 (Feb. 8, 2001).

7. Re Joint Application of NetMoves Corp., Certain Shareholders of NetMoves Corp., and Mail.com Inc., for Approval of an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Related Transactions, Decision 00-12-053, 2000 Cal. PUC LEXIS 1055 (Dec. 21, 2000). Application for Auth. for AppliedTheory Corp. to Acquire Control of CRL Network Servs., Inc., a California Corp., Pursuant to Article 6 of Chapter 4 of the California Pub. Util. Code, Decision 00-09-033, 2000 Cal. PUC LEXIS 693 (Sept. 7, 2000)

8. Re Application for Auth. to Transfer Control of StormTel, Inc., F/K/A Z-Tel, Inc., to CCC Merger Corp., Decision 00-09-035, 2000 Cal. PUC LEXIS 695 (Sept. 7, 2000).

9. Joint Application for Auth. for LDDS Communications, Inc. to Merge with Metromedia Communications Corp. and Resurgens Communications Group, Inc., Decision 93-08-039, 50 Cal. P.U.C. 2d 611, 1993 Cal. PUC LEXIS 586 (Aug. 18, 1993).

10. Joint Application for Auth. for LDDS Communications, Inc. to Acquire Control of Dial-Net, Inc., Decision 93-03-029, 48 Cal. P.U.C. 2d 420, 1993 Cal. PUC LEXIS 169 (Mar. 11, 1993).

11. Joint Application of Evercom Sys., Inc. and H.I.G. Capital Partners III, LP for Approval of Acquisition by H.I.G. Capital Partners III, LP of Indirect Control Over Evercom Sys., Inc., Decision 04-11-010, 2004 Cal. PUC LEXIS 534 (Nov. 10, 2004).

12. Joint Application of T-NETIX Telecommunications Servs., Inc. and H.I.G. Capital Partners III, LP for Approval of Acquisition by H.I.G. Capital Partners III, LP of Indirect Control Over T-NETIX Telecommunications Servs., Inc., Decision 04-11-004, 2004 Cal. PUC LEXIS 505 (Nov. 9, 2004).

13. Re Application of MCCC ICG Holdings LLC and, ICG Communications, Inc. to Complete a Transfer of Control of ICG Telecom Group, Inc. an Authorized Carrier, Decision 04-10-005, 2004 Cal. PUC LEXIS 483 (Oct. 7, 2004).

14. Joint Application for Approval of Agreement and Plan of Merger By and Among World Access, Inc., WorldxChange Communications, Inc. and Communication Telesystems Int'l D/B/A WorldxChange, and Request for Expedited Ex Parte Relief, Decision 00-10-064, 2000 Cal. PUC LEXIS 752 (Oct. 19, 2000).

15. Joint Application for Approval of Agreement and Plan of Merger by and Among World Access, Inc. and Star Telecommunications, Inc. d/b/a CEO Telecommunications and for the Change in Control of California Certificated Subsidiaries, Decision 00-10-013, 2000 Cal. PUC LEXIS 812 (Oct. 5, 2000).

16. Joint Application and Request for Expedited Ex Parte Treatment of KDD America, Inc. and DDI Corp. for Approval of Transfer of Control, Decision 03-08-058, 2000 Cal. PUC LEXIS 1134 (Aug. 21, 2003).

17. Joint Application of Telscape Int'l, Inc., Telscape USA, Inc., MSN Communications, Inc., Pointe Communications Corp., and Pointe Local Exch. Co. for Approval of Transfers of Control and Related Transactions, Decision 00-09-031, 2000 Cal. PUC LEXIS 681 (Sept. 7, 2000).

18. Joint Application of Zenex Long Distance, Inc., Prestige Invs., Inc., Shareholders of Prestige Invs., Inc., and Lone Wolf Energy, Inc. for Approval of a Merger and Acquisition of Prestige Invs., Inc., Decision 00-07-033, 2000 Cal. PUC LEXIS 586, (July 18, 2000).

19. Re Time Warner Inc. and AOL Time Warner Inc. for Approval of the Change in Control of Time Warner Connect That Will Occur Indirectly as a Result of the Merger of Time Warner Inc. and America Online, Inc., Decision 00-04-045, 2000 Cal. PUC LEXIS 180 (Apr. 13, 2000).

20. Re Time Warner Inc. and AOL Time Warner Inc. for Approval of the Change in Control of Time Warner Telecom of California, L.P. That Will Occur Indirectly as a Result of the Merger of Time Warner Inc. and America Online, Inc., Decision 00-04-044, 2000 Cal. PUC LEXIS 179 (Apr. 13, 2000).

21. Joint Application Under Pub. Util. Code § 854 for Approval of the Merger of ACN Communications, Inc. and Arrival Communications of California, Inc., Decision 00-04-043, 2000 Cal. PUC LEXIS 178 (Apr. 12, 2000).

22. Application of HTC Communications, LLC for Approval Nunc Pro Tunc to Transfer Control to Pointe Communications Corp. and for Other Related Transactions, Decision 00-04-014, 2000 Cal. PUC LEXIS 192 (Apr. 6, 2000).

23. Joint Application of Empire One Telecommunications, Inc. and EOT Acquisition Corp. for Approval of the Transfer of Empire One's Assets and Assignment of Empire One's Certificates of Pub. Convenience and Necessity to EOT, Decision 00-02-029, 2000 Cal. PUC LEXIS 73 (Feb. 8, 2000).

24. Joint Application for Approval of Acquisition by U.S. TelePacific Holdings Corp. of U.S. TelePacific Corp., Decision 99-11-066, 1999 Cal. PUC LEXIS 796 (Nov. 30, 1999).

25. Joint Application and Request for Expedited Ex Parte Treatment by Econophone Servs., Inc. and Viatel, Inc. for Approval of Agreement and Plan of Merger, Decision 99-11-035, 1999 Cal. PUC LEXIS 848 (Nov. 4, 1999).

26. Application of MVX Communications, LLC for Auth. to Transfer Control to MVX.Com Communications, Inc., Decision 99-10-044, 1999 Cal. PUC LEXIS 706 (Oct. 19, 1999).

27. In re Application of Global Crossing Ltd. and Frontier Corp. for Approval to Transfer Control of Frontier Corp.'s California Operating Subsidiaries to Global Crossing Ltd., Decision 99-06-099, 1999 Cal. PUC LEXIS 470 (June 30, 1999).

28. Re Claricom Networks, Inc., Application for Approval of an Indirect Change in Control from Claricom Holdings, Inc. to Sigma Acquisition Corp., Decision 99-02-093, 85 Cal. P.U.C. 2d 210, 1999 Cal. PUC LEXIS 69 (Feb. 19, 1999).

29. Application of Teleglobe Inc. and Excel Communications, Inc. for Approval of Agreement and Plan of Merger, Decision 98-09-084, 1998 Cal. PUC LEXIS 990 (Sept. 24, 1998).

30. Application of PWT Acquisition Corp. and Pac-West Telecomm, Inc. for Approval to Transfer Control of Pac-West Telecomm, Inc., Decision 98-09-050, 1998 Cal. PUC LEXIS 961 (Sept. 11, 1998).

31. Application of Qwest Communications Int'l, Inc., LCI Int'l, Inc., LCI Int'l Telecom, Corp., and USLD Communications, Inc. for Approval of a Transfer of Control, Decision 98-06-001, 1998 Cal. PUC LEXIS 385 (June 1, 1998).

32. Re Application of WorldCom, Inc. and Brooks Fiber Props., Inc. for Approval of Agreement and Plan of Merger, Decision 97-11-091, 1997 Cal. PUC LEXIS 1071 (Nov. 21, 1997).

33. Re Joint Application of SmarTalk TeleServices, Inc. and ConQuest Operator Servs. Corp. for an Order Authorizing the Acquisition by Merger of ConQuest Operator Servs. Corp. Pursuant to Cal. Pub. Util. Code §§ 851-854, Decision 97-11-046, 76 Cal. P.U.C. 2d 547, 1997 Cal. PUC LEXIS 1055 (Nov. 13, 1997).

34. Application for Auth. for Avery Communications, Inc., to Acquire Control of Home Owners Long Distance, Inc., Decision 96-09-049, 1996 Cal. PUC LEXIS 924 (Sept. 11, 1996).

35. Joint Application of Continental Telecommunications of California, Inc., Continental Cablevision, Inc. and U S West, Inc. for Auth. to Transfer Control of Continental Telecommunications of California, Inc. from Continental Cablevision, Inc. to U S West, Inc., Decision 96-08-015, 67 Cal. P.U.C. 2d 214, 1996 Cal. PUC LEXIS 836 (Aug. 2, 1996).

36. Application for Auth. to Transfer Control of Western Union Communications, Inc. to First Data Corp., Decision 95-10-051, 1995 Cal. PUC LEXIS 907 (Oct. 23, 1995).

37. Re Donyda, Inc. d/b/a/ Call America of Palm Desert and Call America of San Diego, Transferor, and California Acquisition Corp. d/b/a/ Valley Acquisition Corp., Transferee, Application for Consent to Transfer Control of a Resale Common Carrier.

38. Re Application of Inland Call America, Inc., Transferor, and Telecom Acquisition Corp., Transferee, Application for Consent to Transfer Control of a Resale Common Carrier, Decision 95-07-051, 60 Cal. P.U.C. 2d 590, 1995 Cal. PUC LEXIS 601 (July 19, 1995).

39. Joint Application for Auth. for MfsGaAqCo No. 1 to Merge with RealCom Office Communications, Inc., Decision 94-07-078, 55 Cal. P.U.C. 2d 505, 1994 Cal. PUC LEXIS 964 (July 28, 1994).

40. Joint Application for Auth. for LDDS Communications, Inc. to Acquire Control of Advanced Telecommunications Corp., Decision 92-09-097, 45 Cal. P.U.C. 2d 658, 1992 Cal. PUC LEXIS 805 (Sept. 29, 1992).

41. Re Application of American Network, Inc. and ATE, Inc. for Authorization to Merge Amnet Subsidiary, Inc., a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of American Network, Inc., into ATE, Inc., Decision 86-11-011, 22 Cal. P.U.C. 2d 304,1986 Cal. PUC LEXIS 676 (Nov. 5, 1986).

Previous PageTop Of PageGo To First Page