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

@davescomm

Details on all 5G phones, as prices drop to $285 ** All actual 5G networks worldwide ** Facebook ordered to repost Italian fascist page. ** Apple China sales down 35%** Qorvo sees 300M 5G 2020 & 750M 2023 mmWave <10%

** Bharti demands India Gov more than double prices and enforce cartel. Sunil Mittal "Situation is dire. It is a matter of survival for everyone." ** Wi-Fi 6 meets ITU 5G criteria @stephenjcrowley ** Samsung $8B for Chinese memory plants ** Morgan paying billions for Altice fiber

Dec 10 Sprint bringing $300-500 5G phones to US 2020. Nokia, Lenovo, HMD ** H., Apple, and AMD doing 5 nm test runs on TSMC's 5 nm. Early results are 15-30% better than 7 nm ** AT&T low-band 5G built to >65% US. Speeds slower than 4G at launch. ** 

Verizon CEO Ronan Dunne: >1/2 VZ 5G "will approximate to a good 4G service" Midband in "low hundreds" Mbps ** CFO John Stephens says AT&T is going to cut capex soon. ** Huawei in 16 days sold 1,000,000 5G Mate 20s.  

----------

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, especially when you find an error. daveb@dslprime.com

Also see

analysisbranch.com,

fastnet.news

huaweireport.com