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.

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.

Frontier Communications asked the West Virginia Public Service Commission to reject a Freedom of Information Act request to release an unredacted version of commission’s audit, citing “nonpublic, trade secret and confidential sensitive information,” it said Wednesday in case 18-0291-T-P (see 2002200022). The telco said it “faces serious operational and financial challenges in West Virginia.” The agency ordered parties to respond to the request by April 18. The carrier must respond to the audit report April 20. Comments are due May 11.

The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities sought review by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals of the U.S. District Court in New Jersey order last month denying reconsideration of a temporary injunction in a cable case (see 2003100066). Attorney General Gurbir Grewal (D) Thursday notified (in Pacer) the U.S. District Court in Newark about the appeal. Altice sued the BPU for trying to require the company to pro-rate bills, saying that violates the Cable Act. The company didn't comment.

The District of Columbia Public Service Commission asked Verizon to say more about a December outage that the carrier claims was the reason it exceeded out-of-service clearing time. The carrier asked to waive the standard for that month due to catastrophic damage it said took time to repair. “Waiver may be appropriate in circumstances in which the failure is not due to general lack of preparedness for such events and diligence in repairing," the PSC ordered Thursday in case 990. The telco must respond by May 11. Comments are May 26, replies June 10.

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.

Three more Colorado towns will opt out of a 2005 state restriction on municipal broadband. Fredrick, Johnstown and Monument residents voted on SB-152 questions Tuesday. More than 100 of Colorado’s approximately 270 municipalities have opted out (see map), said Colorado Municipal League Legislative and Policy Advocate Brandy DeLange.

Maine should respond by May 27 to the telecom industry seeking an immediate ruling that the state’s ISP privacy law is unconstitutional, the U.S. District Court of Maine said Tuesday in case 1:20-cv-00055. ACA Connects, USTelecom and other industry groups Monday filed a motion (in Pacer) for judgment on the pleadings. Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey’s (D) answer (see 2004030075) to the complaint “confirms that the material facts supporting these allegations are undisputed, the Court should enter judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor on the pleadings and declare the Statute unconstitutional, thereby barring Defendant from enforcing it against Plaintiffs and their members,” industry said. The court Monday set (in Pacer) an expected trial date of Nov. 3 and other deadlines, including discovery by Aug. 24 and all dispositive motions Sept. 14.

New York’s final state budget includes neither net neutrality nor an industry-backed section to streamline small-cells deployment by pre-empting local governments. Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) announced highlights Thursday; the telecom provisions disappeared from S-7508. COVID-19 response and opposition from localities and workers’ union derailed the 5G measure (see 2003200042).

ISP associations challenging Maine’s broadband privacy law lack standing and failed to state a claim for relief, argued Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey (D)'s Friday answer (in Pacer) to the industry complaint at the U.S. District Court of Maine (case 1:20-cv-00055). The claims are barred by laches and the matter isn’t ripe or otherwise justiciable, he said.