Tag Archives: cpuc

DISH might build out 5G in rural California, but don’t bet the ranch

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

Dish neponset

DISH won’t have to build its own 5G network everywhere in California, or even in every county, if the T-Mobile/Sprint merger is approved. Jeff Blum, DISH’s chief Washington, D.C. staff lobbyist, testified at a California Public Utilities Commission hearing on Friday. He ducked and dodged questions about DISH’s exact intentions for the California assets and people that T-Mobile would spin off, under an antitrust settlement reached with the federal justice department, saying plans were still being made, data was still being analysed, decisions were in the hands of other companies and, well, so on.

Topic number one for the hearing was “does the agreement with DISH substantially alleviate any competitive harms of the proposed merger?” In the long run, the answer depends on whether DISH invests enough money – it says $10 billion, others say a lot more – to build a 5G mobile broadband network that will directly compete with those operated by AT&T, Verizon and the combined T-Mobile/Sprint. But DISH’s network won’t have to completely cover California.

An important bit of jargon is “partial economic area” (PEA). The Federal Communications Commission sliced up states and territories into 416 PEAs that represent regional markets. It assigns some mobile broadband spectrum, including the frequencies in the 600 MHz range purchased by DISH, on a PEA by PEA basis. Assuming the merger goes through as is, DISH has until 2025 to build sufficient infrastructure to reach 75% of the population in each of those PEAs.

When pressed about DISH’s plans for rural California, Blum first said that DISH would have to serve all of the state’s 58 counties, or it would face billion dollar fines and/or forfeitures. But further cross examination showed that to be false. He clarified that DISH has 600 MHz spectrum in PEAs that cover all California counties, but its build out obligation is on a PEA, not county, level. Which gives DISH two options for walking away from any given California county or rural community.

First, PEAs typically encompass several counties and cross state lines, as the map below illustrates. One county that got particular attention during Blum’s cross examination – because T-Mobile made a big deal of it – is Kings, in the San Joaquin Valley. It shares a PEA with Fresno, Tulare and Madera counties. DISH could ignore Kings and Madera counties completely, along with a few low income Fresno and Tulare communities, and still easily meet its 75% population coverage requirement.

Del Norte County is in an even more precarious position. It’s the sole California county in a PEA that includes six Oregon counties and it’s home to only 3% of the total population.

There are other examples. If you want to run the numbers, my spreadsheet is here.

Second, DISH could redline an entire PEA if serving it isn’t sufficiently profitable. “If we fail to build in one PEA then we lose that PEA”, Blum said.

Right. Losing responsibility for a service area that you don’t want to serve is a blessing, not a mortal blow.

Blum also outlined a third option: DISH could, in effect, lease frequencies to small local wireless operators. In “a very, very rural area, for example…we see an opportunity to partner with them”, he said. In other words, they’ve thought this through.

DISH’s plans, or lack thereof, for serving rural communities might not matter. Its worth as a competitive counterweight in the mobile broadband marketplace will be determined in urban counties. It would be replacing Sprint, which doesn’t provide credible rural service in California anyway and whose competitive value comes from the heat it generates in urban and suburban communities with denser and richer populations.

Going by the current schedule for the CPUC’s review of the T-Mobile/Sprint/DISH ménage, the next step is for the companies and opponents of the deal to file their arguments one way or the other. Assuming no surprises, that’ll happen on 20 December 2019, which will set the stage for a final CPUC vote as early as February.

Links to the stack of arguments and exhibits everyone has filed are here.

Jeff Blum is not my dad. My dad was Geoff Blum. My clients include California cities who do business with T-Mobile. I like to think that has no bearing on my commentary, but I like to think I’m good looking too. My dad was amused by that. Take it for what it’s worth.

CPUC approves $12 million subsidy for six broadband infrastructure projects

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

Six of the eleven broadband infrastructure projects on the California Public Utilities Commission’s agenda yesterday were approved for subsidies from the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF). The other five were bumped to the CPUC’s next meeting, on 19 December 2019. Links to the most current resolutions are below.

Cruzio’s Equal Access Santa Cruz project was approved, without changes, for a $2.4 million grant. The commission rejected an attempt by Charter Communications to re-litigate its earlier and unsuccessful attempt to kill it. In doing so, commissioners reiterated that incumbent broadband service providers get one, and only one, opportunity to block proposed projects…

Staff also agrees with [the Central Coast Broadband Consortium] and rejects Charter’s request to remove a census block from the project area because Staff has already made a determination on the challenge. [CPUC Decision 18–12–018] set forth a clear process for challenges and Staff‘s determination of the challenge stands.

All five of the projects proposed by the Plumas Sierra Electric Cooperative (PSEC), totalling $9.7 million in grants, were approved too. The commission accepted PSEC’s field test data that demonstrated the lack of mobile broadband service in its Lake Davis project area.

Two projects proposed by Frontier Communications and three by Charter Communications are on hold. Both companies filed comments asking for more money than recommended by CPUC staff. As with the Cruzio project, Charter attempted to re-litigate its opposition to Frontier’s project plans in the Taft area of Kern County. It also objected to pricing obligations that CASF rules would normally impose on the projects that it proposed. It’s not surprising that it’s taking a couple extra weeks to get to a decision on those five projects.

The Central Coast Broadband Consortium assisted Cruzio with its Equal Access Santa Cruz grant application, and I was a part of that effort. I’m not a disinterested commentator. Take it for what it’s worth.

CASF broadband infrastructure grant resolutions, as approved 5 December 2019:
Cruzio – Equal Access Santa Cruz
Plumas Sierra – Mohawk Vista Mid-Mile/Last Mile
Plumas Sierra – Elysian Valley Mid-Mile/Last Mile
Plumas Sierra – Keddie Mid-Mile/Last Mile
Plumas Sierra – Lake Davis Mid-Mile/Last Mile
Plumas Sierra – Eureka Mid-Mile/Last Mile

CASF broadband infrastructure grant resolutions bumped to 19 December 2019:
Charter Communications – Highland Orchid Drive, Country Squire Mobile Estates , Silver Wheel
Frontier Communications – Northeast Project: Phase1
Frontier Communications – Taft Cluster

All documents collected in 2019 regarding the CASF program and projects are here.

Mobile data tests count more than maps, as CPUC votes on broadband subsidies for northeastern California

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

Plumas eureka

A sharp-eyed reader of this humble blog spotted a gap in my collection of comments on the draft resolutions up for a vote tomorrow. H/T to David Espinosa, the manager of the Upstate and Northeast California broadband consortia, who sent me Plumas-Sierra Electric Co-op’s (PSEC) response to both the draft resolutions for its five proposed projects in Plumas and Lassen counties and the objections raised by the CPUC’s public advocates office. Links are below.

Short version: mobile broadband tests showing zero coverage trumped map models; PSEC added a low-income service plan and CPUC staff recommended extra funding as a result.

The big issue is whether or not one of PSEC’s projects – a proposal to serve 125 homes in the Lake Davis area of Plumas County – is located in an area that has no broadband service at all, other than satellite or dial-up. According to the CPUC’s published map, mobile broadband service is available there, so the project was deemed ineligible for bonus money. In its comments, PSEC provided test data that shows zero broadband availability from any of the four major mobile carriers. The discrepancy might be due to the time of year the CPUC took measurements. As PSEC pointed out

Foliage and tree canopy attenuates radio waves, causing signal degradation, particularly in rural forested areas; especially in fall and winter seasons. Topography also impacts mobile coverage. This Project is in rough terrain with dense tree coverage, resulting in less than adequate mobile coverage.

Based on the Broadband Map, the latest mobile coverage testing was carried out in 2017. It is likely that mobile testing was carried out by CPUC when weather was benign. However, deep in fall and winter seasons actual coverage and speed levels can be significantly less due to weather precipitations and winds.

CPUC staff accepted PSEC’s test data, and the draft resolution was revised, with the extra funding for completely unserved areas added back in.

The PAO objected to the price of PSEC’s proposed plan for low income residents, which also resulted in a lower subsidy amount. PSEC’s answer was to say okay, $15 a month it is. The subsidy bonus that goes along with low income service offerings was added back into the draft resolution.

I’m not a disinterested commentator, so take it for what it’s worth. I provided very minor assistance to Dr. Espinosa, who did the heavy lifting on the response to the original draft Lake Davis resolution. Congratulations to him and the team at PSEC on well-played applications for five needed projects.

Revised draft resolutions, 4 December 2019:
Plumas Sierra – Mohawk Vista Mid-Mile/Last Mile
Plumas Sierra – Elysian Valley Mid-Mile/Last Mile
Plumas Sierra – Keddie Mid-Mile/Last Mile
Plumas Sierra – Lake Davis Mid-Mile/Last Mile
Plumas Sierra – Eureka Mid-Mile/Last Mile

Comments
Plumas Sierra Electric Co-op – comments on the Plumas Sierra – Plumas Sierra – Lake Davis Mid-Mile/Last Mile, 20 November 2019

Plumas Sierra Electric Co-op – comments on the Plumas Sierra – Eureka Mid-Mile/Last Mile project, 21 November 2019

Plumas Sierra Electric Co-op – comments on the Plumas Sierra – Elysian Valley Mid-Mile/Last Mile project, 22 November 2019

Plumas Sierra Electric Co-op – reply comments on the Plumas Sierra – Keddie Mid-Mile/Last Mile project, 27 November 2019

Plumas Sierra Electric Co-op – reply comments on the Plumas Sierra – Mohawk Vista Mid-Mile/Last Mile project, 27 November 2019

All documents collected in 2019 regarding the CASF program and projects are here.

Approval of T-Mobile/Sprint deal could depend on DISH’s testimony at CPUC hearing

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

Tmobile san francisco 18may2019

Executives from T-Mobile, Sprint and, particularly, DISH will be cross examined tomorrow morning, as two days of hearings kick off at the California Public Utilities Commission in San Francisco. Witnesses from the CPUC’s public advocates office will also be on the stand. They’ll all have to explain written testimony they submitted about the wonderfulness, or lack thereof, of T-Mobile’s proposed takeover of Sprint, and asset and people spinoff to DISH.

It’s DISH’s intended role as a new, nationwide mobile telecoms competitor that’s likely to get the sharpest attention. Only one DISH representative will attend, chief D.C. staff lobbyist Jeff Blum. So far, he hasn’t been very forthcoming about DISH’s plan for California, and the CPUC administrative law judge managing the merger review, Karl Bemesderfer, indicated he will drill down on it. During a pre-hearing conference call, Bemesderfer said “I want to hear how DISH is going to do what it says it’s going to do”.

The initial line-up, which could change, has T-Mobile’s executives and a hired economist testifying tomorrow, as well as PAO staff and its hired economist. Blum is due to take the stand on Friday.

Meanwhile, Sprint’s Lifeline billing problem just got a little bit bigger. According to a Wall Street Journal story, Sprint was getting subsidies from the Federal Communications Commission and, presumably, the California Public Utilities Commission for low income customers who weren’t really customers. Weren’t even alive.

As the Benton Institute for Broadband and Society thumbnail of the WSJ story puts it…

Sprint also made mistakes in tallying how many subscribers were using their Lifeline service in 2013 and 2014. Because of an error in how it counted usage at the time, spam texts could keep dormant accounts live and allow Sprint to continue to collect subsidies for those customers, the documents show. In one case, the phone of an Oregon woman who died months earlier was still deemed active.

Living and dead, Sprint was collecting on at least 4,600 dormant customers just in Oregon.

My clients include California cities who do business with T-Mobile. I like to think that has no bearing on my commentary. Take it for what it’s worth.

California broadband subsidies set for CPUC vote, as Charter attempts last minute hit (but not on its own grants)

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

As of last night, all 11 broadband infrastructure projects tentatively approved for subsidies from the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) are slated for a final vote by the California Public Utilities Commission on Thursday. Arguments for and against the projects and grant conditions as drafted have also been filed. Links to (I think) all of the comments are below.

Frontier Communications made pitches for full funding of their projects as proposed, which were seconded by the California Emerging Technology Fund. Charter Communications made a similar plea, then went on to complain about two other projects – Frontier’s proposal for the Taft area of Kern County and Cruzio’s application for money to extend fiber to the premise service to several low income mobile home communities in Santa Cruz County.

Last June, Charter filed objections to both projects, claiming it already offered broadband service to the specific areas of the communities for which Cruzio and Frontier sought CASF subsidies. CPUC staff upheld some of Charter’s challenges and denied others. The new CASF rules adopted by the commission last year established a quick and transparent process for reviewing objections made by incumbents, which fixed a serious flaw in the CASF program – incumbents were allowed to endlessly challenge proposed projects that threatened their monopoly business models, right up to the eve of a commission vote.

The Central Coast Broadband Consortium responded to Charter’s intransigence (full disclosure: I drafted and submitted those comments) by pointing out that allowing perpetual litigation would lead to failure…

Applicants must spend time and money, often amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars, to prepare and process CASF infrastructure grant proposals. When faced with this significant expense, applicants must weigh it against the probability of success. Previously, the unlimited challenge opportunities afforded incumbent service providers acted as a significant barrier to independent project development. The experience of project applicants who hazarded this process convinced some to never attempt it again. After witnessing these travails, other independent service providers refused to participate in the program.

[The CPUC’s reboot of the CASF program] was wisely crafted to prevent de facto discrimination against independent service providers because their participation in the CASF program is essential to achievement of the program’s goals. Contravening [this decision] by allowing Charter to re-litigate its opposition to the Equal Access Santa Cruz project would, in turn, contravene the Commission’s responsibility to achieve those goals, as required by [California law].

We submitted largely identical comments regarding Frontier’s Taft project.

The CPUC’s public advocates office also weighed in, particularly concerning whether companies receiving grants should be required to offer low income customers affordable broadband rates and whether rules regarding price commitments for all subscribers should be followed – they’re in favor of both.

The next step is for staff to consider all the comments and replies, and make any changes to the proposed grants that seem necessary. The revised draft resolutions should be posted in the next couple of days, although it’s also possible that the commission’s vote could be bumped to a later meeting.

Charter Communications comments on the Charter Communications Highland Orchid Drive, Country Squire Mobile Estates, Silver Wheel projects, 21 November 2019
Public Advocates Office – comments on the Charter Communications Highland Orchid Drive, Country Squire Mobile Estates , Silver Wheel projects, 21 November 2019
Charter Communications – reply comments on the Charter Communications Highland Orchid Drive, Country Squire Mobile Estates, Silver Wheel projects, 26 November 2019

Charter Communications – comments on the Cruzio Equal Access Santa Cruz project, 25 November 2019
Central Coast Broadband Consortium – comments on the Cruzio Equal Access Santa Cruz project, 25 November 2019
Central Coast Broadband Consortium – reply comments on the Cruzio Equal Access Santa Cruz, project 2 December 2019

Charter Communications – comments on the Frontier Communications Taft Cluster project, 25 November 2019
Frontier Communications – comments on the Frontier Communications Taft Cluster project, 25 November 2019
California Emerging Technology Fund – comments on the Frontier Communications Taft Cluster project, 25 November 2019
Central Coast Broadband Consortium – reply comments on the Frontier Communications Taft Cluster project, 2 December 2019

Frontier Communications – comments on the Frontier Communications Northeast Project: Phase1 project, 21 November 2019
California Emerging Technology Fund – comments on the Frontier Communications Northeast Project: Phase1, project, 21 November 2019

Public Advocates Office – comments on the Plumas Sierra – Mohawk Vista Mid-Mile/Last Mile project, 25 November 2019
Public Advocates Office – comments on the Plumas Sierra – Elysian Valley Mid-Mile/Last Mile project, 25 November 2019
Public Advocates Office – comments on the Plumas Sierra – Keddie Mid-Mile/Last Mile project, 20 November 2019

All documents collected in 2019 regarding the CASF program and projects are here.

USA Today says the slowest rural broadband is in California. The truth is even worse

by Steve Blum • , , ,

San benito pole route 13apr2019

USA Today fell for a click bait post about rural broadband speeds, but at least it was click bait that made a useful point about the growing gap between rural and urban service levels.

The top line, of the USA Today article and the post on an Internet-oriented aggregator website, is that Newcastle, along Interstate 80 in Placer County, has the slowest rural broadband service in the U.S., with an average download speed of 3.7 Mbps. That figure comes from speed tests conducted on another aggregator site.

That’s bad, but it’s not close to being the bottom of barrel.

A quick look at the data I have handy – the provider service reports collected by California Public Utilities Commission and current as of 31 December 2017 – shows that out of the 1,513 incorporated cities and census designated places in California, 184 have zero broadband service according the telephone and, sometimes, cable companies that serve them. sixs others have reported download speeds – both maximum and average – of less than 3.7 Mbps.

Reported speeds are what AT&T and Frontier Communications sell you. Measured speeds – what you actually get – are less, and the maximum speed in a town is usually only available near the telco central office. Cable coverage, whether it’s big boys like Charter and Comcast, or smaller providers like Wave, is usually restricted to neighborhoods where customers and money are sufficiently dense.

Newcastle provides an excellent illustration of this discrepancy. Wave reports service levels of up to 1 gigabit there, and AT&T claims a maximum download speed of 25 Mbps, with a 19 Mbps average throughout the town. The graphic below shows AT&T’s broadband holes in Newcastle, at least the ones they own up to. There’s no way of assessing the validity of the 3.7 Mbps click bait figure, but it certainly reflects the subjective experience of residents, as the anecdotal evidence in the USA Today article shows.

So Newcastle’s broadband service is bad, but it isn’t the worst in California, let alone the entire U.S. Based on the CPUC’s data, out of 1,513 communities, Newcastle has the 518th fastest average download speed and the 584th fastest maximum download speed. It ranks even higher when only residential service is considered.

Two-thirds of Californian communities have slower download speeds than Newcastle, which USA Today says has the slowest broadband service in the U.S. That’s a problem that needs fixing.

Newcastle cpuc map 27nov2019

I’ll be crunching the next round of CPUC data, current as of 31 December 2018, in the next few weeks. We’ll see if anything has changed.

DISH will be grilled on mobile plans for California at CPUC hearing

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

Dish kangaroos ces 5jan2015

DISH is the sole focus of a California Public Utilities Commission hearing next week. Administrative law judge Karl Bemesderfer decided yesterday that there’s enough evidence in hand for the CPUC to evaluate nearly all of the issues surrounding the proposed merger of T-Mobile and Sprint.

Nearly.

In his ruling, Bemesderfer mused…

What then do we need to hear testimony about? The significant change in the terms of the proposed merger that has occurred over the past months is the addition of DISH as a proposed fourth facilities-based wireless carrier, replacing Sprint. The hearings will focus on the impacts of this change on California consumers and the potential competitive harms of the proposed merger.

He didn’t say who would have to testify, but some of the questions he posed are clearly for DISH, such as how the deal to spin off T-Mobile and Sprint customers, employees and assets to DISH will “affect customer service, consumer protections and privacy rights of California consumers” and what happens to “pre-paid customers with incompatible handsets when they are divested to DISH”.

Other issues involve all three companies, such as the continued availability of low income plans and Lifeline subsidies.

But the number one question is whether or not the new and improved DISH will “substantially alleviate any competitive harms of the proposed merger”. That brings in a wide range of possible witnesses, including from an economist hired by the CPUC’s public advocates office, Lee Selwyn, who is not a fan. The squishy role assigned to DISH and its ability to fulfil it “offers no assurance that its presence will work to discipline its larger rivals to any significant degree”, he said in testimony filed last week.

The hearing is scheduled for next Thursday and Friday in San Francisco. Assuming there are no surprises, and particularly no new document dumps, the CPUC’s review of the T-Mobile/Sprint merger is still on track for a commission vote, one way or the other, sometime in February.

Cross-examination of T-Mobile testimony ordered by CPUC, as DISH’s competitive credibility challenged

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

Perry mason cross exam

T-Mobile and, perhaps, Sprint and DISH executives will be cross-examined next week, as the California Public Utilities Commission’s review of the T-Mobile/Sprint merger continues. Karl Bemesderfer, the administrative law judge managing the case, ruled yesterday that an evidentiary hearing next week is necessary, with the exact topics likely determined later today.

A key question raised by opponents of the deal is whether the federal anti-trust settlement that calls for T-Mobile to spin off spectrum, facilities, customers and employees to DISH will create an effective fourth competitor in California’s mobile marketplace. The answer depends on whether DISH can and will fulfil its end of the bargain and build out a 5G network that can provide competitive pressure on the combined T-Mobile/Sprint company, as well as AT&T and Verizon.

Lee Selwyn, an economist hired by the CPUC’s public advocates office, which opposes the merger, said in testimony filed last week that DISH can’t…

Throughout this proceeding, the Joint Applicants have repeatedly claimed that neither Sprint nor T-Mobile, each standing alone, possesses the resources necessary to construct a robust nationwide 5G wireless network, yet DISH is and will be far smaller than either of these two stand-alone companies…

A larger scale of operations enables the service provider to spread its fixed costs over successively larger numbers of customers, thereby achieving successively lower average costs and, as a result, increasing the firm’s competitiveness overall. DISH’s scale of operations will necessarily be far smaller than either that of pre-merger Sprint or T-Mobile, making it all the more difficult for this newly-minted fourth wireless [mobile network operator] to compete with the three substantially larger incumbents. Sprint is a far stronger competitor in a four-firm market than DISH can possibly become…

This is by no means to suggest that DISH’s late entry into this well-established market cannot be profitable for DISH. DISH has some 12-million DBS and streaming TV subscribers, and may be able to leverage those relationships into a profitable business…But DISH’s ability to profitably address a small fraction (less than 3%) of the national wireless services market offers no assurance that its presence will work to discipline its larger rivals to any significant degree.

DISH CEO Charlie Ergen has a long history of economically rational behavior. It’s how he grew a small store in Tennessee into a media distribution giant worth billions of dollars. So far, DISH’s legal team has resisted offering any hard details about future plans. Next week’s hearing is an opportunity to fix that problem.

T-Mobile’s “loopholes” and DISH’s number games could leave rural California unserved, merger opponents say

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

Tmobile billboard

Opponents of T-Mobile’s proposed takeover of Sprint filed their opinions of the deal as it currently stands at the California Public Utilities Commission on Friday. There’s a few hundred pages of testimony and exhibits to plow through, which are linked below if you’re interested.

One issue in front of the CPUC, which has to decide whether to allow the merger to happen, is the effect it would have on rural broadband service. That includes promises from T-Mobile and DISH, which is being spun up as a competitive replacement to Sprint.

Kristina Donnelly, an analyst with CPUC’s public advocates office, pointed out that the promises T-Mobile made to the FCC and the deal it cut to pay $35 million to the California Emerging Technology Fund (CETF) don’t amount to much, and could leave rural Californians without 5G service…

T-Mobile included many loopholes in both the FCC and CETF commitments that New T-Mobile can later use to circumvent build-out responsibilities…

Aside from the ineffectual nature of certain monetary fines contained in the [settlement with with the federal justice department], there are other concerns with how the FCC commitments and the CETF [memorandum of understanding] commitments are structured. For example, the 90 percent build-out commitment in the CETF MOU would allow New T-Mobile to avoid costly rural deployments. In fact, this commitment is structured in a way that means most rural areas may not see any purported 5G coverage or speed benefits of the proposed merger.

The rural loophole isn’t small. In DISH’s case, it’s the size of 48 counties, according to Lee Selwyn, an economist hired by the PAO. Noting that DISH promised to reach 20% of the U.S. population by 2022 and 70% by 2023, Selwyn testified “in the context of California” that means…

DISH can meet the 20% coverage commitment by serving less than all of Los Angeles County only. DISH can meet the 70% commitment by serving most, but not even all, of just ten of the state’s 58 counties. While DISH has talked about how it will serve rural areas, the small number of cell sites that it apparently plans to deploy raise questions as to the veracity of that promise. While I do not expect that DISH will actually pursue the type of highly concentrated geographic coverage that these commitments would seem to allow, there is no question but that DISH can meet these 20% and 70% coverage goals at considerably lower cost by focusing its investments in the more densely populated parts of the State.

Debbie Goldman, a Washington, D.C. staffer for the Communications Workers of America, invoked T-Mobile’s erstwhile disdain for DISH to drive that point home…

T-Mobile itself highlighted DISH’s lack of fitness as a buyer in an FCC filing in March, 2019, commenting that DISH has a track record of price increases for its services, speculative warehousing of spectrum, and failing to meet FCC-imposed deadlines. T-Mobile additionally commented that “DISH stands out for its efforts to game the regulatory system” and “has little interest in actually delivering real 5G service.”

There might or might not be a formal hearing next week where either side can cross examine the other, although the PAO is asking for one. So far, the CPUC’s extended review of the T-Mobile/Sprint deal is still running on a trajectory that could land a final decision in February.

Opposition testimony and exhibits filed on 22 November 2019

CPUC public advocates office:
Kristina Donnelly, testimony
Kristina Donnelly, exhibits
Shelly Lyser, testimony
Eileen Odell, testimony
Cameron Reed, testimony
Cameron Reed, exhibits
Lee Selwyn, testimony

Communications Workers of America:
Debbie Goldman, testimony
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
Attachment D

Paul Goodman, Greenlining Institute

Sunne Wright McPeak, California Emerging Technology Fund

Links to the stack of arguments and exhibits everyone has filed are here.

My clients include California cities who do business with T-Mobile. I like to think that has no bearing on my commentary. Take it for what it’s worth.

Telephone and cable companies stonewalled California emergency officials during massive power outages

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

Cell site outages 28oct2019

Mobile carriers generally cooperated with California emergency officials during the week long siege of public safety power shutoffs in October, while cable and telephone companies hid behind confidentiality claims. Paul Troxel, who heads the 911 program at the California office of emergency services, testified at a California Public Utilities Commission hearing on Wednesday and told commissioners that neither the state’s emergency operations center or local officials knew where access to 911 service and disaster information, such as evacuation orders, were unavailable…

Outage data was not reported by all providers. Some providers were very responsive and provided outage data as requested by Cal OES, while others were slow to respond due to confidentiality concerns related to outage data. Frankly, information from the wireline and VoIP providers was not provided until the end of the event. Because of the lack of complete reporting, Cal OES had to work with the Federal Communications Commission to activate the disaster information reporting system.

The FCC’s data isn’t intended to support real time operations. It’s typically 12 to 24 hours old and only aggregated data is provided – at the county level for mobile carriers and the state level for telephone and cable companies. But it did provide a useful check on the accuracy of the data provided voluntarily by telecoms companies through their industry association, which is their standard method.

It didn’t work so well. According to Troxel, at one point the industry’s organisation, the California Utilities Emergency Association (CUEA), reported that 57,000 wireline customers were out of service, while the FCC’s disaster information reporting system said the figure was 224,000. CUEA’s mobile outage reports weren’t much better – in one county the FCC said 133 cell sites were down while CUEA claimed only nine were. The problems with the industry association’s data were severe enough that OES requested reports directly from telecoms companies, with varying degrees of success.

During the hearing, Verizon, T-Mobile and, perhaps, AT&T executives promised to provide timely, detailed outage information in future emergencies, and make it public. A senior AT&T operations executive said the company would do so, after a company lawyer deflected the question by extolling the wonderfulness of the current system – that’s an arm wrestling match that needs to be resolved. The other representatives, from Frontier Communications, Comcast, Charter Communications, Cox and Sprint, wouldn’t make any promises at all.