It's common procedure at the FCC to ignore the rules about open disclosure. The latest Sprint filing "redacts" far too much. I sent this note to Sprint's lawyers and filed it.

Gina, Sam, Steven
I just reviewed your filing on behalf of Sprint and saw many redactions. I believe that at least four of the redactions were inappropriate, although IANAL. I was able to obtain from standard industry sources the figures involved. Any Sprint competitor would also be able to access that data.
In addition, you do not even indicate the general nature of the data you are redacted in the appendices.


I do not want to make a test case because I have better things to do with my time. But I am reaching out for affordable representation if needed.
As some of the most experienced telecom lawyers in the country, I believe you know the requirements of the regulations.
I have reported on telecom since 1999, often including policy matters. I did two workshops at the FCC for the broadband plan and have often been involved in FCC issues.
I have no interest in this material other than to use it in my reporting and analysis of the deal. I have no financial interest in any fashion and no relationship with any of the companies involved except as a reporter. I bear no malice against your client. (In fact for two years I've disagreed with Craig because I believe Sprint is in better shape than he does.)
I hope you will promptly amend your filing to limit your redactions to items that would be unlikely to be discovered by a diligent competitor.
--------------
I am willing to accept any reasonable restrictions on my access. For example, I am willing to sign an agreement not to share any of the material except in my reporting and FCC filings. I will be glad to send any of my material to you in advance for a factcheck. (I do that often, although it's not standard journalist practice. It actually catches mistakes.)
Please respond to me by Friday, if only with a no comment.
I will file this in the proceeding. I do not know the requirements for a reporter to disclose but will do so voluntarily.
I with forward this to the FCC people I believe are involved in the proceeding and the disclosure rules.
Dave Burstein

P.S. I have previously filed FOI requests at the FCC, and did win once.

dave ask

Newsfeed

Samsung has delivered 5G chip samples to BBK's Oppo and Vivo, the #2 or #3 phones manufacturer. Samsung is facing off against Qualcomm in the 5G market. Qualcomm is unfazed and reportedly moving the production of their next chip from TSMC to Samsung. 

Sprint's 2.5 GHz 5G is delivering 100-500 megabit downloads consistently. That bodes well for China Mobile, using the same frequencies.

Vodafone, BT, and soon 3UK are delivering modestly sized 5G mid-band networks. Vodafone is also live in Spain and Italy. 

Sunrise in Switzerland is using 5G mid-band for fixed wireless in rural areas.  

More newsfeed

----------

Welcome  1,000,000 Koreans bought 5G in the first ten weeks. The demand is there, and most of the technology works. Meanwhile, the hype is unreal. Time for reporting closer to the truth.

The estimates you hear about 5G costs are wildly exaggerated. Verizon is building the most advanced wireless network while reducing capex. Deutsche Telekom and Orange/France Telecom also confirm they won't raise capex.

Massive MIMO in either 4G or "5G" can increase capacity 3X to 7X, including putting 2.3 GHz to 4.2 GHz to use. Carrier Aggregation, 256 QAM, and other tools double and triple that. Verizon sees cost/bit dropping 40% per year.

Cisco & others see traffic growth slowing to 30%/year or less.  I infer overcapacity almost everywhere.  

Believe it or not, 80+% of 5G (mid-band) for several years will be slower than good 4G, which is more developed.