New York AG James says she won’t appeal T-Mobile-Sprint lawsuit decision


Shortly after a judge rejected the lawsuit by state attorneys general trying to block the T-Mobile-Sprint merger, there was speculation that the states could try to appeal the decision. However, one of the leaders of the lawsuit has said that they will not appeal.

New York Attorney General Letitia James said today that she won’t appeal the decision in the T-Mobile-Sprint merger case. Rather than appeal, James says she’d like to work with the carriers to help consumers get the best service and prices.

“After a thorough analysis, New York has decided not to move forward with an appeal in this case,” James explained in a statement. “Instead, we hope to work with all the parties to ensure that consumers get the best pricing and service possible, that networks are built out throughout our state, and that good-paying jobs are created here in New York.”

This decision is notable because James was one of the two leaders of the lawsuit against T-Mobile and Sprint’s deal. The other was California Attorney General Xavier Becerra.

Becerra hasn’t said whether he or any of the other 12 states involved in the lawsuit plan to appeal the judge’s decision in the lawsuit.

While the T-Mobile-Sprint merger did get one step closer to completion with the judge’s ruling, it’s still got a few more hurdles to clear before it actually goes through. Those include a possible appeal from the other states in the case as well as a necessary approval from the California Public Utilities Commission. The deal is also facing a Tunney Act review for any possible antitrust issues.

As we wait to see what’ll happen next with the T-Mobile-Sprint merger, you can find New York AG Letitia James’ full statement below.

“I’d like to thank California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and the 12 additional attorneys general from around the nation for their partnership throughout this lawsuit. After a thorough analysis, New York has decided not to move forward with an appeal in this case. Instead, we hope to work with all the parties to ensure that consumers get the best pricing and service possible, that networks are built out throughout our state, and that good-paying jobs are created here in New York. We are gratified that this process has yielded commitments from T-Mobile to create jobs in Rochester and engage in robust national diversity initiatives that will connect our communities with good jobs and technology. We are committed to continuing to fight for affordability and access for all of New York’s mobile customers.”

Source: New York Attorney General Letitia James

Tags: , , ,

  • riverhorse

    “and engage in robust national diversity initiatives”.

    Is also the co-architect of various new NY directives like:
    1. Companies cannot ask about criminal record in job applications.
    2. Police cannot arrest public transportation fare evaders.
    3. Police cannot arrest for marijuana offenses.
    4. No bail for low income arrestees, even repeat offenders.
    5.(this next one is unofficial policy). Police do not arrest people of color without overwhelming proof- the cop has to personally witness a crime in progress or the reporting citizen has to provide some proof evidence.
    If say, you see a perp rob someone and run away- if you flag down a cop and the victim is not around (their train or bus is since gone)- if you say the criminal is black and you don’t have a vid pic- police will not even call it in, much less do
    anything. “Since i didn’t witness it, I cannot do anything without some proof. Just you stating that you witnessed something is not enough. You could have a hidden agenda for all we know.”

    • vrm

      CA is not far behind NY in EXTREME corruption and active promotion of violent crime and disorder. SFO already refuses to arrest criminals for most violations including assault ! The democrats only care about power and will do ANYTHING to get it. As Trump achieves everything he promises (and many things previous politicians promised but never touched), they are resorting to extreme pandering and propaganda for votes, instead of working with him.

      The media, corrupt and working with democrats, enables them. If it weren’t for the media being so corrupt, democrats wouldn’t win a SINGLE seat anywhere.

      I am saying this as an independent who mostly voted for democrats. Until 2016.

      • riverhorse

        Totally agree with everything you say. There’s also the case of the party in power overstepping their bounds forcing a vote for the dreaded opposition just to counterbalance, not to mention we often wind up between a choice of Goofy vs Mickey Mouse for President.
        The poor voter is often stuck between a rock and a hard place.
        After LBJ fiasco & in the face of quasi-Communists Humphrey & McGovern, Nixon was the only option (& he did a lot for the poor, which he doesn’t get credit for).
        Carter was the only option over Ford post- Nixon.
        So was Reagan after the Carter disaster.
        But everything that Reagan accomplished went for naught by spawning the Bushes.
        Still, W was the only option over Gore(& lurking Clintons). And we had to reelect him because the Dimwits wanted to immediately pull out and reverse everything.
        But the Repugnants went overboard arresting foreign & American sports betting executives, nixing stem cell research & marriage choices, Draconian ID & security, etc.
        So you had to give Obama a chance, with the caveat that a smooth talker could either turn out all talk and no action or a liar con.
        And for opposite reasons Trump- could really surprise & outperform; although no Killary was the main reason (moron Bloomberg has a death wish by putting her on his ticket, not that he has any elective chance anyhow).
        Both main parties can be real horrendous. And so the IQ of many voters. They can be for the better candidate for all the wrong reasons, against the worse one for all the wrong ones too. But since it’s only a coin flip, they’re often correct.

        Speaking of coin, go crypto! (Trump better not mess with it)

  • Cheikh Aidara

    Go TMobile go

    • SurvivingSunnyvale

      We don’t yet know how back the infection will be from the lousy Sprint management.

  • Shaun Michalak

    “Instead, we hope to work with all the parties to ensure that consumers
    get the best pricing and service possible, that networks are built out
    throughout our state, and that good-paying jobs are created here in New

    So they try to work with her, and she refuses.. and then, after she does not get her way, now she wants to act all buddy buddy with them?? If that was her intention, for the people, then why didn’t she work with them from the start.. No, instead she wanted to throw her position around like she was superior, did underhanded tactics to make T-Mobile look like a villain, then when it did not work, now she is trying to make it look like she actually cares about the people.. How pathetic..

    If I was T-Mobile, I would tell her to bug off.. She had her chance and refused.. So now they are going to do things her way, and there is nothing that she can do about it.. She lost any leverage that she had as a bargaining tool the second she went through with the hearing, and lost..

  • Translation: our politically charged lawsuit failed and now we have to try and save face so people don’t see us for who we really are .

  • Reagan1

    The shakedown didn’t work…sorry, Letitia.

  • JG

    If they’re not going to continue going after T-Mobile, it would be nice if they turned their pro-competitive efforts toward the wired broadband industry.

    The majority of Americans (some 70%) have a single ISP to “chose” from. Its been awhile since I’ve been in a maths class, but I’m pretty sure 3 > 1.

    I’d love to see the AGs (or whoever has the authority to do so) “encourage” competition with the ISPs. So our cable bills don’t go up every other month… So we’re not billed a rental fee for modems we supply ourselves…

    When Google would bring Fiber into a new community, incumbent Spectrum or Comcast would suddenly be able to offer gigabyte services themselves, lock prices in at $70 per month for life (or at least until Google leaves – then they forget its a life time contract and prices start to skyrocket again)…

    • BoricuaBoy88

      I’m pretty sure I read somewhere that President Trump recently signed some bill prohibiting ISP’s from charging rental surcharges on self-provided modems and routers, so that’s a nice first step. I’ll try to find a link.

      • JG

        Yeah, I saw that to. It was a rider on a budget bill or something like that. Search Ars Technica for “Frontier” and you should find a write up about it from a few weeks ago.

        It’s a nice gesture, but it doesn’t really help. Cable companies know they have a local geographical monopolies. It’s either them or no internet.

        5G might help, if you live downtown Chicago, NYC, San Francisco etc. But that’s all based largely on mmWave 5G which won’t really come to rural areas any time soon, if at all. I just ran a speed test. My LTE speed right now is 4Mbps down. The fastest I’ve seen locally was in the 12-15Mbps range. Even with the 20% speed bump low band 5G has over LTE, we’re still not in the 25Mbps+ range to be broadband and no where close to the 100Mbps I get from my wired provider. Maybe after the merger or if I switch to “dumb or dumber”…

        I am definitely looking forward to SpaceX and Amazon’s satellite based internet. Hopefully they’ll be able to offer 100Mbps speeds… And even better if they can minimize the base station enough it could be embedded into a phone/tablet/Chromebook case or maybe a dongle or whatever so our devices can connect on the go as well…

        • riverhorse

          I thought i read several gigabit, along with 1ms latency.
          If true this will change almost everything almost overnight.

        • Shaun Michalak

          My question with the SpaceX thing is.. How reliable is this going to be?? Think about Direct TV and Dish.. Both of them use satellites for service, but in the end, they still have problems with service when it comes to service being blocked from trees and stuff.. The weather also plays a factor too.. If say plane or helicopter flies by, wouldn’t that disrupt your service?? If so, that means a lot of disruption of service for anyone near a hospital, airport, etc.. I checked with both, Dish and Direct, and both places told me that there was no place for them to install a dish on my house, where they could and would install it, for me to get service, because of trees and stuff around the property, and up the street.. I do not see this being any different with SpaceX.

        • Shaun Michalak

          “I just ran a speed test. My LTE speed right now is 4Mbps down. The
          fastest I’ve seen locally was in the 12-15Mbps range. Even with the 20%
          speed bump low band 5G has over LTE”

          You have to remember.. That 20% speed increase is mainly due to more spectrum in place.. T-Mobile installed something like 30mhz or so, or spectrum, which is why there is a speed increase.. This comment was not based on 5G’s max capabilities, but based on what they have on their towers right now. The thing is, once they get all that spectrum from Sprint, their spectrum is going to pretty much triple, and with a lot of it being higher frequencies, that means higher speeds then low band too. Once they get it all installed, it would not surprise me if your average speeds went from 4mb to 30mb down.. But they have to get it first.

    • BoricuaBoy88
    • Joe

      T-mobile does plane on using 5G to provide home wifi service.The sprint deal was a big part of it being possible since they need the additional spectrum.

      • JG

        True. But while cellular data will be sufficient to pull up the occasional site or shoot off an email or whatever while your out and about, it is by far not a proper replacement for a wired internet connection.

        Spectrum offers either a 100 or 400Mbps plan, and they do fairly good job of keeping speeds around that mark.

        T-Mobile, on the other hand averages around 5Mbps on LTE. The fastest speed I’ve seen around here is 12Mbps on an HSPA+ Chromebook on display at Walmart. Even with the 20% speed boost 5G brings over LTE… They’re still below the threshold for broadband.

        Even with Sprint’s additional spectrum I doubt they’ll be able to come anywhere close to 100Mbps connection speeds… Much less the 1Gbps we could potentially have should Spectrum have to compete with anyone enough to encourage them to actually improve their networks….

        • Joe

          While you are correct about wireless not being a real replacement for wired I don’t think you understand the market. The in home WiFi would be for people that don’t rely on a perfectly stable supper high speed connection. It is for the people that use it to consume content. Second for the home wifi part of 5G to become a reality I suspect it will be a combination of mmWave spectrum where they set up a receiver on the roof of a home and a tower in the neighborhood (this way there is no interference). Then they will use midband as a blanket back up for mmWave for when the signal get interapted by rain or something. Remember mmWave is much much faster than LTE, midBand is fairly bit faster then LTE, and Low band is about 20% as you said. So in reality I am sure they would be able to provide a fairly consistent high speed internet for home consumers.

          As far as people that require a more stable and consistent service they will have to stick with ISPs.

          ISPs for the most part have great service the problem is there prices can be insane when there is no one else to turn to.

          BTW I have hit over 100Mbps on LTE often enough. And yes I also have only gotten 1Mbps on LTE.

        • Shaun Michalak

          Remember mmWave is much much faster than LTE, midBand is fairly bit faster then LTE, and Low band is about 20% as you said

          I have no idea where you got that.. LTE is a tchnology, or standard.. It is not LTE on just one frequency.. It does not matter if you are on 1.9ghz mid band, or 600mhz low band.. It is still LTE on both of them.. So how can midband LTE be a bit faster then LTE, when it is LTE?? That kind of makes no sense..

        • Joe

          Yes LTE is a standard but builive it or not it acts different on mid band low bad. I am not an electrical engineer or a radio engineer so I don’t really know the technical details but even if you compare low band to mid band same band width same distance from tower same number of people on the tower the low band will be slightly slower than the mid band (Neville Ray has said this before). If you compare mid band and low band with the same bandwidth and same number of people but at there respective maximum range the difference becomes even grater.

          EDIT: BTW my sentence was supposed to be written like this to make more scene.

          Remember mmWave 5G is much much faster than LTE, midBand 5G is fairly bit faster then LTE, and Low band 5G is about 20% as you said.

        • Shaun Michalak

          I think of it like this.. The higher the frequency, the more data points that there are that can be used, for faster speeds and more data per segment.. That is why mmWave is faster.. It is because of the higher frequency.. Just the same as why midband with give higher speeds then low band.. Higher frequencies which means more data points for data transmissions.

          The thing is, with 5G, the only thing that really makes it faster then 4G is 2 things.. First.. Lower connection times.. The lower the connection time, the faster it can respond, which makes the number of times it connect higher in a set amount of time.. But this only speeds it up a certain amount.. Not excessively..

          Second would be the fact that it can make more parallel connections.. Instead of making 10 connections at a time, it may be able to make 100.. this means it can potentially make 10 times more connections for 10 times the speed then before.

          The thing is, if you only have 30mb of speed available, you are still going to be stuck in the max speed of 4G speed range. The main reason that they are saying 20% more speed right now is one reason.. That is because of the extra bandwidth that they installed on the towers, using the new band 71, to make up for the lack of available bandwidth.

        • Shaun Michalak

          Your first paragraph is true.. The main reason that they use both, mid and low band, is because they both compensate for the others weaknesses.. Midband is better for high speeds.. But, low band is better for distance and penetration.. Think of it like someone throwing a stone on the water.. Each time it bounces off of the water, it looses some of its power to continue.. Well, that is exactly what happens when the signal goes through walls, trees, etc.. The more it goes through these things, the more the signal looses its power from bouncing around through them..

          Since midband bounces more then low band, the low band will go more directly through, and the midband will bounce around inside that object, say 3 times more, so there is 3 times more momentum lost in that solid object, which is why signals seems to loose a lot of their power inside buildings and stuff.

          Midband gives the speeds, and lowband makes up in distance and penetration value, for a better signal where mid band may have problems.. This is the exact reason why you see people complain about Sprint.. They have no low band, so they have nothing to compensate for midbands flaw, which means not very good reception in homes. But at the same time, this is the major flaw in mmWave.. While it gives more data collection points because of the higher frequencies, the problem is, it does not have the power to penetrate walls, so you really will get no singal even 5 feet inside of homes.. The frequency is so high, that it bounces around, and off of walls so much, that it looses all of its power before it gets inside the house. Which is also why they have to put up access points, or antennas, every 300 hundred feet, instead of one every 5 miles..

        • marque2

          I have found that if I can get a decent phone connection “3 bars” I can easily check webpages, and stream Netflix / youtube using 4g now. I move around a lot – and there are apartments I have rented where I have not needed to get cable at all. Seems like about 10mb/s works fine. If you have one of those newer 4K TV’s you would probably need a bit more to get full resolution.

          People only think the 4g won’t work because most haven’t tried it. Also, if Tmobile ever enforces the tethering / hotspot limits it would be difficult to use.

        • Ryan Loftus

          Send an email or use an occasional website? Have you ever use the mobile hotspot or are you in a terrible location? I am able to do everything on my mobile hotspot including online gaming with no issues. There was one month I had to download 400gb of online games to my Xbox and it did it just fine overnight. The only problem I’ve ever had was streaming Netflix during peak hours, it would buffer for a few minutes and play HD. I can deal with a little buffering for $20 a month opposed to $70 a month LOL

    • marque2

      ‘The majority of Americans (some 70%) have a single ISP to “chose” from’

      This is not a problem because the Broadband ISP’s bribe local governments and politicians to keep the monopoly. They didn’t care about Tmobile/Sprint hurting people, they wanted a ruling so they could get graft payments in exchange for the official blessing of the AG. Nothing will get done about cable providers until the wireless Cell folks start providing wireless Internet.


    Ok soooo.. Wait another year or more for Sprint Towers to turn into T-Mobile Towers?!? I was hoping to at least getting to roam on Sprint towers after this decision.. Currently I have NO native signal at my home either inside or out.. I have to resort to WiFi calling to make calls and text.

    At the rate this merger has been taking, I might actually go with SpaceX Starlink Satellite service sometime this year once they get about 400+ satellites up.. They’ve got 302 now..

    • Shaun Michalak

      They can not do it until they get approval.. They are still waiting for the California commission to approve it.. That is all they are waiting for.. But to be fair, even if you could jump off of Sprint, Sprint has no low band worth using for coverage, and they have a limited amount of mid band (1900mhz) for use too, so it is not like you would get great speeds off of them.. Especially in areas that have a lot of traffic.. Where I live, I have a Sprint Hotspot, but use T-Mobile for cell service.. I am in the middle of town.. Here, even though T-Mobile has a lot more customers then Sprint, half of the time, I have not even get a good enough data connection to do a speed test on my Sprint box.. It is because of their lack of mid band to be able to provide good service for all people.

  • Joe

    Once the deal is official T-mobile will truly be set up to have the best 5G network. They currently have low band which is for broad coverage and deep building penetration 5G (aka glorified LTE). Then with sprints mid band spectrum they can provide much faster 5G speeds to cites and all main roads and non rural areas. And the last pice of the puzzle for high congestion in building and home internet is mmW 5G which they will hopefully pickup some spectrum at the next auction. I bet Verizon will end up being put in the situation T-mobile was about 10 years ago if they don’t do something about mid band and or low band 5G.

    • Shaun Michalak

      I think T-Mobile already did pick up some mmWave at the government auctions.. The thing is, unless it is really highly congested, I just do not see it being a major player in the grand scheme of things.. No matter how you look at it, they have to have a station up every couple hundred feet.. This is great for relieving congestion off of the towers in extremely high congested areas.. But it only helps in those areas.. Across the US, I can only say that they will end up installing this in coverage, probably only something like 3% of the US total.. Not great when you want constant coverage.. I guess if you mostly stay within that 3%, then great.. But for most people, I do not see it being any kind of game changer.

      I really do not see it with Verizon being put in the same situation as T-Mobile 10 years ago.. Even if they do not have the speeds, 10 year ago, T-Mobile only had what?? 10 to 15% coverage across the country?? People want coverage, and Verizon is not going to drop their coverage down to anything like that. They may not have the speeds, but until T-Mobile gets the coverage to really compete on the same level, that will still bring people to Verizon, even if their speeds are slower.

  • Mike Thaler

    How do we report off-topic posts?