California commissioners met behind closed doors without any stakeholders Monday to discuss T-Mobile/Sprint, said a California Public Utilities Commission agenda released Friday. The CPUC didn’t comment. Friday, consumer and union opponents opposed the carriers’ motion to withdraw their wireline application, one of two legal moves that laid the foundation for T-Mobile to close its Sprint buy without CPUC approval. The carriers ignore that a state law prohibiting regulating IP-enabled services lapsed in January (see 1909230048), said the CPUC Public Advocates Office, Communications Workers of America and others in docket A.18-07-011. The companies pledged not to combine California operations until they get OK at Thursday's public meeting (see 2004080029). Even if the CPUC grants withdrawal, T-Mobile promises to honor 50 voluntary commitments, including from a memorandum of understanding with the California Emerging Technology Fund, CETF wrote Monday. The deal will close and any conditions can be renegotiated, especially in light of COVID-19, New Street analyst Blair Levin wrote investors Sunday.
Public safety answering points are adapting to call-volume changes from the coronavirus and adjusting internal procedures to keep call takers healthy, 911 officials said in interviews this month. The New York City Fire Department Bureau of Emergency Medical Services (FDNY EMS) is having “record call volume,” Deputy Commissioner Frank Dwyer emailed.
T-Mobile/Sprint critics seek fines after the carriers closed the deal without California Public Utilities Commission approval. Fine applicants for violating Section 854 of PUC code, which gives the commission authority over transfers, said The Utility Reform Network and Greenlining Institute. Don’t let closing early “stand without consequence,” and don’t remove proposed conditions, they said. Intervenors’ efforts to add 40 conditions ignore CPUC “jurisdictional limitations over wireless transfers,” the companies replied: They're "generally infeasible, unsupported by the record, anti-competitive, unfair, unduly onerous, and inappropriate to the extent they go beyond the voluntary commitments.” The California commission isn’t preempted by the FCC to review the wireless deal, said the CPUC Public Advocates Office. The CPUC has “full discretion and authority to approve or deny a wireless merger,” and lawfully may impose jobs conditions, Communications Workers of America replied. CWA protested Sprint’s advice letter relinquishing its wireline certificate, saying it should file a formal application. PAO earlier sought the same (see 2004080029). Parties held phone calls with CPUC President Marybel Batjer's office before the commissioners’ vote scheduled this Thursday, disclosed CWA, Greenlining, PAO and others. Commissioner Liane Randolph’s office called the combining companies April 2, her office said.
Pay for Wi-Fi hot spots and other devices for students through the California Advanced Services Fund, commented the state Education Department Thursday to the California Public Utilities Commission. U.S. E-rate doesn’t cover that, Ed said. The department would apply and disseminate devices to students through county education offices, it said in docket R.12-10-012. Others supported rolling application deadlines. CalTel and other small rural LECs urged the same for infrastructure. “This will allow providers to assess areas of need in light of evolving information and react to changing broadband usage patterns brought on by the statewide ‘shelter-in-place’ order,” the small telcos said. The California Cable & Telecommunications Association isn’t against rolling deadlines if limited to addressing COVID-19 and opposes “wholesale changes to the CASF program made under pressure during a [COVID-19] crisis.” Streamline procedures for awarding and administering CASF infrastructure grants, commented AT&T. GeoLinks sought increased upfront costs to expedite projects. Fund public housing deployment, said San Francisco. The Electronic Frontier Foundation urged sought network performance and outage data to analyze “why ISPs have seemingly yielded wildly different results across the state when it comes to delivering broadband access during the pandemic.” Fiber seems to best absorb increased demand, EFF said. Consumer and rural advocates seek changes (see 2004090056).
Some seek to upgrade rural internet speeds amid the public health crisis by overhauling the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF). Increasing standards could fit into a legislative agenda likely focused on COVID-19, rural officials said in interviews this week. Consumer advocates urged the California Public Utilities Commission to reprioritize CASF. Comments were due Thursday.
T-Mobile and Sprint will wait to combine California operations until the California Public Utilities Commission finalizes a proposed OK at its April 16 meeting, company officials told the agency. CEO Mike Sievert and other T-Mobile officials teleconferenced Thursday with Commissioner Cliff Rechtschaffen, who's assigned to the deal review, T-Mobile said in a Wednesday filing in docket A.18-07-011. Last Thursday and Friday, Sprint and T-Mobile officials not including Sievert called aides to Commissioners Liane Randolph, Martha Guzman Aceves and Genevieve Shiroma. The carriers said "just a few key conditions needed to change," including ones on back-up power, CalSpeed testing, extending buildout requirements to 2030, maintaining the LTE network through decommissioning and in-home broadband. The carriers are committed to state LifeLine and Boost Mobile low-income pilot. The deal will support broadband that the COVID-19 pandemic showed is critically important, the California Emerging Technology Fund told aides to Randolph in a Tuesday call, CETF disclosed Wednesday. California public advocates protested Sprint's trying to give up its wireline certificate by advice letter, one of two legal moves that laid the foundation for T-Mobile to close its Sprint buy without CPUC approval (see 2004010069). Sprint must file a formal application; and the requested relief is “unjust, unreasonable, and/or discriminatory,” the CPUC Public Advocates Office wrote. The acquiree didn't address the status of its California customers “and how the technology transition was noticed, the fact that Sprint’s legal interpretation ignores the current status of state law regarding VoIP service,” and implications for T-Mobile/Sprint. Sprint didn't comment now.
Don’t use an industry dispute with three Missouri cities as a “basis for a sweeping preemption of local governments’ rights of way ordinances and fees,” NATOA replied to a petition from Bluebird Network and Uniti Leasing (see 2003240036). The FCC shouldn’t intervene because Telecom Act Section 253 says local governments shouldn’t have to go to Washington, D.C., to defend local actions, NATOA said. That’s especially so with the petition that’s “fraught with factual disagreements that preclude resolution through a declaratory ruling on this record,” it said. Pre-empting the Missouri cities' “unlawful duplicative fees ... will set a meaningful precedent for other similarly-situated localities,” T-Mobile replied. It would show FCC support for telecom deployment, said Crown Castle. The FCC “would be comfortably within precedent” if it determines duplicative obligations are preempted and clarifies that “any fees in excess of a locality’s reasonable costs run afoul of Section 253,” said Bluebird and Uniti: It “would pave the way for the quick resolution of this matter and ... create a clear standard that would reduce uncertainty and speed the deployment of broadband facilities nationwide.” Replies were posted through Wednesday in docket 20-46.
The California Public Utilities Commission teed up a COVID-19 resolution for members' April 16 meeting to retroactively apply emergency customer protection measures from March 4 until the emergency ends. Meanwhile, industry opposed CPUC plans for power backup, among other comments. Also Friday, the CPUC clarified a state LifeLine rule.
CTIA questioned the legality of proposed backup power rules and other resiliency measures Friday. The California Public Utilities Commission proposed requiring 72-hour backup for all essential communications equipment (see 2003090026). The wireless industry thinks that's “overly prescriptive, unmoored from the record, impossible to achieve, and places the burden on wireless carriers to maintain power to their networks regardless of the severity of adverse conditions, such as those that prevent electric utilities from maintaining commercial power,” said comments in docket R.18-03-011. Santa Clara County supported requiring 72-hour backup power. In October, the county had one 66-hour outage and another was 94 hours, and Pacific Gas and Electric has promised future outages will be shorter, the locality said. The requirement could be longer than 72 hours, suggested a rural counties group. “It cannot be acceptable for 9-1-1 or emergency notification services to go dark for any period.” The Communications Workers of America said voluntary commitments aren’t enough.
Litigation may be next for T-Mobile and the California Public Utilities Commission, after the carrier closed on buying Sprint without OK (see 2004010069). Assigned Commissioner Cliff Rechtschaffen ruled Wednesday that T-Mobile and Sprint may not combine California operations until after the PUC issues a final decision. Both carriers “have California subsidiaries that are public utility telephone corporations under state law, and subject to the jurisdiction of this agency,” so merging California operations needs commission OK, the commissioner wrote in docket A.18-07-011. T-Mobile didn’t comment Thursday. Litigation is certain, blogged Tellus Venture Associates President Steve Blum, predicting the carriers will ignore the order. “T-Mobile says its mobile business isn’t governed by California law. Rechtschaffen says it is, and it’s a good bet his fellow commissioners agree.” The agency “could sue to enforce its claimed jurisdiction over wireless mergers,” American Enterprise Institute Daniel Lyons blogged Thursday. “Even if it won, it would be difficult to unwind the merger.” Stakes “may be higher than simply California’s ability to attach conditions to the deal,” he said. “Other states may be satisfied with the law’s present ambiguity and have reason to fear a court battle that might limit state authority further.” Communications Workers of America slammed closing early, commenting to seek conditions to preserve jobs, current pay levels and employee rights. The California Emerging Technology Fund mostly supported the CPUC’s proposed conditional OK, asking the commission make the carriers' commitments to CETF enforceable and scale back some new proposed conditions. Proposed conditions aren’t enforceable and don’t mitigate anti-competitive effects, commented CPUC’s Public Advocates Office. They don’t protect universal service, said The Utility Reform Network. The deal would harm communities of color, said the Greenlining Institute.