Tag Archives: DISH

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.

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.

T-Mobile gives CPUC some insight into post-Sprint merger plans for California, but won’t make it public

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

The hundred-plus pages of testimony submitted by three T-Mobile executives to the California Public Utilities Commission sheds a little more light on what the company intends to do in California when – if – it acquires Sprint and spins off customers, employees and assets to DISH. But most of the specific plans for California submitted to the CPUC last week were filed confidentially.

Chief operating officer Michael Sievert toned down the company’s weasel words about T-Mobile and Sprint workers in California, saying that the number of employees three years after the merger closes will be “equal to, or greater than” the current T-Mobile and Sprint total, even taking into account employees who might be transferred to DISH. However, he didn’t reconcile his pledge with another T-Mobile commitment to open a call center in the San Joaquin Valley and staff it up with 1,000 workers. That leaves open the possibility that hundreds of employees, from all over California, will be given a choice between unemployment or moving to Fresno County to begin a new career as a customer service rep.

Chief technical officer Neville Ray’s testimony boils down to we weren’t planning to use Sprint’s 800 MHz spectrum for 5G or much of anything else, so nothing changed. He also discusses leasing 600 MHz spectrum from DISH – T-Mobile has an option to do so but, according to Ray, hasn’t decided whether or to what extent to exercise it. If T-Mobile did lease that spectrum, though, it would mean cash flowing back to DISH and, presumably, less pressure to do something with it before the Federal Communications Commission takes it back.

In other words, T-Mobile’s option might result in a significant financial benefit to DISH, that could offset some of the financial penalties it might incur if it doesn’t meet its obligations to build out a competitive 5G network. Given DISH’s history of spectrum dealing, there’s reason to question the settlement’s fundamental premise that a new, facilities-based mobile broadband network will result. The lower the net cost of walking away, the less incentive DISH has to meet its nominal commitments.

Ray also submitted California-specific information about T-Mobile’s 5G deployment and service plans, mirroring the national level information given to the FCC. But unlike the national data, T-Mobile wants to keep its promises to California secret. Those could become public as the CPUC review moves ahead, but there’s no particular reason at this point to think they will.

The filing made by executive vice president Thomas Keys made minor updates to his previous testimony, but wasn’t particularly enlightening.

Opponents of the merger have two weeks to digest T-Mobile’s testimony and respond. The CPUC public advocates office’s quest for more information from DISH is running in parallel. Opponents could similarly ask T-Mobile to provide additional data and/or ask for more time to review it all, but at this point the case is still on a trajectory for a final decision in February 2020.

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, but I like to think I’m good looking too. Take it for what it’s worth.

The wonderfulness of the T-Mobile/Sprint merger is only more wonderful, CPUC told

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

Tmobile store la 23oct2019

T-Mobile, Sprint and DISH filed their responses to the latest questions posed by the California Public Utilities Commission as it extends its review of the T-Mobile/Sprint merger to take into account the settlement reached by the companies with federal anti-trust attorneys.

I’m still working through the nearly 200 pages of “testimony”, particularly the statements by T-Mobile executives. From a quick scan, it looks like they’re following the line laid down by the company’s lawyers: nothing to see here, move on. But more on that later. Or check out the links below.

DISH’s chief D.C. staff lobbyist, Jeff Blum, responded to the question posed by commissioner Clifford Rechtschaffen in his ruling extending the CPUC’s review: “what are DISH Network’s California service obligations?”. Responded, but didn’t exactly answer. He detailed DISH’s federal obligations, and since California is still arguably one of the fifty United States the implication is those apply equally here. But he also laid out the fine print, which details granular requirements with granular penalties for granular non-compliance, which doesn’t exactly guarantee that DISH will do anything in particular in California.

Two Sprint executives – chief commercial officer Brandon Draper and staff lobbyist Peter Sywenki – filed declarations that amounted to I know nothing. Since they don’t work for T-Mobile, they aren’t “privy to [T-Mobile’s] business and network plans”.

Two hired gun economists, Mark Israel and Timothy Bresnahan, affirmed their previous paid testimony in support of the merger and offered assurances that what that they described the first time around was, if anything, even better than they thought.

Supplemental Testimony of G. Michael Sievert, 7 November 2019
Supplemental Testimony of Neville R. Ray, 7 November 2019
Supplemental Testimony of Thomas C. Keys, 7 November 2019
Testimony of Jeff Blum on behalf of Dish Network Corporation, 7 November 2019
Supplemental Testimony of Brandon Dow Draper, 7 November 2019
Supplemental Testimony of Peter N. Sywenki, 7 November 2019
Supplemental Testimony of Mark A. Israel, 7 November 2019
Supplemental Testimony of Timothy F. Bresnahan, 7 November 2019

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

I don’t know who Jeff Blum is, and he’s 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.

DISH stalls discovery of its California plans, so PAO asks judge to compel cooperation

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

Dish ces press conference 2012

DISH doesn’t want to disclose what its intentions are for the Californian customers, employees, spectrum, cell sites and retail stores it might – or might not – get from T-Mobile and Sprint when – if – the two companies combine. In a motion filed on Tuesday, the California Public Utilities Commission’s public advocates office (PAO) said that DISH stonewalled requests for information about its California-specific privacy policy, and network build out and customer service plans. So, the PAO is asking the administrative law judge managing the CPUC’s review of the merger to “compel responses” from DISH.

Last month, the scope of the CPUC’s inquiry was expanded to include DISH’s future role in California’s telecoms marketplace, following a settlement with federal anti-trust enforcers that calls for pre-paid subscribers, and redundant employees and real estate to be transferred to DISH, in order to keep four competitors alive in the U.S. mobile telecoms market.

The PAO has broad authority to request and, generally, get information from companies involved in mergers and asset transfers. Usually, companies push back and DISH is no different – its answers (see links below) consist largely of complaints that the PAO’s questions “are overbroad, unduly burdensome,
vague, and ambiguous” and “not relevant to the scope of this proceeding”. The bit about the scope of the proceeding is important because DISH, like T-Mobile and Sprint, disputes “the scope of the Commission’s jurisdiction…over wireless services”.

Arm wrestling over information disclosures is common enough. What makes it different in this case is the compressed timeline for the CPUC’s expanded review of the T-Mobile/Sprint merger. Assuming no deviation from the current schedule, the case is on a trajectory for a final commission vote in February. But if there’s a procedural detour to resolve DISH’s role and responsibility in the case or to, once again, allow time to work through a late document dump, the review could be extended for weeks, or even months. Or T-Mobile could make good on its threat to move ahead without the CPUC’s blessing.

More information should be forthcoming later today. T-Mobile, Sprint and, it appears, DISH are due to submit their explanation for why the federal settlement only makes the California wonderfulness of the merger even more wonderful. Or at least no worse. Stay tuned.

DISH Network Corporation’s Responses and Objections To the California Public Advocates Office’s Data Request No. 001, 20 September 2019
DISH Network Corporation’s Responses and Objections To the California Public Advocates Office’s Data Request No. 002, 31 October 2019
Motion of the Public Advocates Office to Compel Responses to Data Requests, 5 November 2019

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, but I like to think I’m good looking too. Take it for what it’s worth.

DISH matters, so CPUC’s T-Mobile/Sprint merger review expands, and extends into 2020

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

Dish kangaroos ces 5jan2015

T-Mobile was ordered yesterday to provide more details about how its proposed acquisition of Sprint and its spin off of subscribers, employees, stores, cell sites and spectrum to DISH will affect customers and communities in California. In a ruling, CPUC commissioner Clifford Rechtschaffen rejected T-Mobile’s insistent requests for immediate approval of the Sprint merger, and instead expanded the “scope” of the California Public Utilities Commission’s review to include a look at commitments the companies made to federal officials, including the side deal with DISH. He included a new schedule for the case, which will extend it until sometime next year.

Rechtschaffen set out a list of eight new questions that T-Mobile has to answer. It’ll need the cooperation, if not the direct participation, of DISH to answer at least two of them, including “what are DISH Network’s California service obligations?” and, specifically, what will happen to the pre-paid, and typically lower income, customers that Sprint will transfer to DISH.

Other questions address how the deals T-Mobile cut with the Federal Communications Commission and federal justice department anti-trust lawyers will affect past promises and future performance in California. The final question on Rechtschaffen’s list drills deep into those details.

In a letter to the FCC in May, T-Mobile made ambitious “commitments” on a national level. For example, it promised that within three years of the merger closing, 85% of people living in rural areas of the U.S. will be covered by 5G service riding on “low-band” (i.e. longer range but lower capacity) frequencies, and 55% by “mid-band” service, which doesn’t go as far but carries more bits. Within six years, that’ll grow to 90% and 67% of the U.S. rural population, respectively. Those promises were reasonably detailed regarding service levels – 90% of the U.S. rural population will have access to 50 Mbps download speeds within six years, for example. Other detailed, quantitative promises include such things as “in home broadband” service and rural 5G cell sites.

T-Mobile must now disclose specifically what those numbers will be for California.

Rechtschaffen also set out a new timetable for the review process. It moves at warp speed by CPUC standards. T-Mobile has two weeks to provide answers to his questions and merger opponents will get two weeks to identify any “alleged material issues of disputed fact”. Witnesses might have to testify and be cross examined in person two weeks later, with both sides submitting their written arguments by 20 December 2019. After that, the schedule is hazy, but typically there would be a couple of weeks for rebuttals, and then a proposed decision would be drafted, which would have to be published at least 30 days before a final commission vote.

Even if the evidentiary hearings are scrapped, that vote won’t happen before February, and it would take barely a nudge to bump it into March or April. Particularly if T-Mobile lawyers resort to the same brilliant sandbagging tactics they used earlier this year. Those document dumps ended up extending the litigation by at least two months.

The joker in the deck is T-Mobile’s vague threat to close the Sprint merger without the CPUC’s blessing, and its stated intention not to “address DISH’s fitness as a wireless provider or its viability as a fourth competitor”, since it doesn’t consider those issues “properly within the scope” of the CPUC’s review. If T-Mobile decides to look for a judge who agrees, all bets are off.

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, but I like to think I’m good looking too. Take it for what it’s worth.

T-Mobile tells CPUC it does not “intend to address DISH’s fitness” in Sprint merger review

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

The Federal Communications Commission formally approved T-Mobile’s takeover of Sprint on Wednesday, but California’s blessing (or not) will almost certainly wait until sometime next year. How far into next year the California Public Utilities Commission’s review of the merger goes will depend on whether T-Mobile’s plan to transfer people, spectrum, stores and cell sites to DISH, to create a new U.S. mobile carrier to replace Sprint as a fourth competitor in the market, is deemed relevant.

T-Mobile’s lawyers think it’s irrelevant, and don’t want to cooperate if the CPUC’s inquiry heads in that direction. In a very small print footnote, in an email sent yesterday to the administrative law judge (ALJ) managing the CPUC’s inquiry, T-Mobile’s lead California attorney Suzanne Toller said…

Joint Applicants [T-Mobile and Sprint] do not intend to address DISH’s fitness as a wireless provider or its viability as a fourth competitor, as those matters are not properly within the scope of these proceedings.

The “scope of these proceedings” is still to be determined. ALJ Karl Bemesderfer must decide if he will allow opponents of the merger to challenge T-Mobile’s claim that its arrangement with DISH and other aspects of its settlement with the federal justice department’s anti-trust unit have no meaningful effect on the California wonderfulness of the Sprint merger. He framed it, in part, as a due process question during a hearing last week, and indicated he was considering a request made by opponents, with specific attention to DISH’s capabilities and intentions, for several months of additional testimony, rebuttal and arguments.

Lawyerly bluster aside, the “properly” bit seems to be at the base of the vague threat to ignore Californian proceedings that T-Mobile’s legal team floated at the hearing. If the effect of the merger on competition in California’s broadband market is “properly” within the CPUC’s jurisdiction, then DISH is fair game and T-Mobile will have to wait for a decision. If the question is completely in the hands of federal agencies, then we already have the answer.

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, but I like to think I’m good looking too. Take it for what it’s worth.

With or without California’s approval, T-Mobile looks for quick consummation of Sprint merger

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

Tmobile san francisco 18may2019

Does DISH matter? That’s the question that’ll determine whether the California Public Utilities Commission makes a (relatively) fast decision to allow T-Mobile to acquire Sprint. If it doesn’t, lawyers for T-Mobile and its allies hinted that the deal might move ahead without Californian conditions or, indeed, permission.

Yesterday, CPUC administrative law judge Karl Bemesderfer listened to arguments from lawyers on T-Mobile’s side who pressed for a quick end to the case, and from opponents of the deal who pushed for lengthy, formal litigation. At issue is T-Mobile’s (and Sprint’s, but T-Mobile is running the show) proposal to shift people, spectrum and real estate to DISH, and create a new, fourth competitor in California’s mobile broadband marketplace.

That agreement was reached with anti-trust lawyers working for the federal justice department, after the CPUC’s nearly year-long inquiry was closed. T-Mobile’s ace legal team asked Bemesderfer to “take notice” of the settement, which led him to formally re-open the record and, perhaps, restart a process that could run until sometime next spring.

At the end of the 80 minute “pre-hearing conference” – CPUC-speak for a hearing to decide if there’s going to be a hearing – Bemesderfer cut to the chase…

Both sides have raised, I think, quite compelling points. Joint applicants have made the case that the California-only commitments have not been altered by the post closing-of-the record events in Washington. And I also think joint intervenors have made a case that they have a due process right to test that proposition…

I thank you all for coming and supplying me with your thoughts, and I will go think about this for a while and then I’ll supply you with mine.

Then there’s the vague threat T-Mobile’s lawyer floated about what might happen if the CPUC is the last regulatory agency in the U.S. that doesn’t approve the deal. Suzanne Toller said that it would raise “a number of some very interesting questions about the scope of the commission’s jurisdiction” over T-Mobile, Sprint or any other mobile carrier.

Translation: jam us up and we’ll jam you up in federal court.

Rachelle Chong, a lawyer representing the California Emerging Technology Fund, which flipped from opposing the deal to enthusiastically supporting it after accepting a $35 million payoff honorarium from T-Mobile that it can only cash in if the deal goes through, put it more bluntly. She expressed “very serious concern” about what would happen “if T-Mobile were to pack up its bags and leave California because it can’t get its approvals for this deal”.

Translation: T-Mobile won’t give us the money. Its other California-specific commitments are toast too.

There’s no chance T-Mobile will turn off its network in California, but there’s a real possibility that it can get a federal (or even Californian) judge to say the CPUC is out of bounds. At that point, all promises are off the table.

There’s no particular timeline for Bemesderfer to issue a decision, but a week or two wouldn’t be a crazy guess.

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. I like to think I’m good looking too. Take it for what it’s worth.