Sprint redacted 230Sprint's latest merger filing has 40 "redactions," holding back some of the most critical information the public needs to judge whether the transaction is in the public interest. Particularly egregious are the redactions of Appendix A & Appendix B. They don't even note the subject. 

The usual reason for the FCC allowing such "highly confidential" treatment is the information would give competitors a significant advantage. I have reviewed some of the 30+ omissions and am confident that in many cases the information would be available to competitors from analysts and common industry sources. Some can be inferred from public Sprint statements.

Sprint's lawyers - Sam Feder, Regina Keeney, & Steve Sunshine - were once senior FCC officials and surely know the requirements. I believe they are all senior partners in important D.C. firms, jobs which probably pay US$5 million per year.  They also know the regulations are almost never enforced, which I believe is a scandal at the FCC.

The filing concludes, "Absent completing its transaction with T-Mobile, Sprint will have limited options, and is likely to be forced down either a repositioning path and/or a restructuring path." Proponents of the merger believe that 3 carriers would be more competitive than 4 and/or the merger will have a major impact on 5G in the U.S. If those arguments are insufficient, likely insolvency might still win approval.  

dave ask

@analysisbranch for latest updates

----------

Welcome  Asia is installing hundreds of thousands of 5G radios and adding 5G subs by the tens of millions. The west is far behind. 200,000,000 in 2020

The demand is there, and most of the technology works. Meanwhile, the hype is unreal. Time for reporting closer to the truth.

I'm Dave Burstein, Editor. I've been reporting telecom since 1999. I love to hear from readers and say thank you when you find an error. daveb@dslprime.com

Also see

analysisbranch.com,

fastnet.news

huaweireport.com