Some T-Mobile/Sprint Foes Demanding CPUC Fines for Transaction's Closure
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.…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
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.