it doesn't tell us assigned by whom who's doing the assigning and so i've looked through the record number of through the poundage to see if there is a description of the way that this actually works in the real world never had a phone before i go to the rise and and i say please give me a number for your cell a service they give me a number and then i decide i want to put it to the public if that number the cellular tower in the computers that run that know to do something with the transmission from her from him that they wouldn't do if she were just walking along with a voice question i asked you the assigning here is the action that's taken to associate that number with the cellular service so that the phone will be received the number of calls to the number we receive to transmitted through the to a particular type of entity which is describing the statues of sort of telephone service and it seems to be what we have here with use bruce over internet protocol  momentarily but i would like to start with just taking a step back and looking at the complaint real briefly the district court here got it right when we look at the complaint the playing of pleaded that as we all know that the call from made to a phone number th arrangements with i believe sprint so that sprint would know that if a call came in on this number it could use sprint cellular service i'm not sure which way it's working but that's correct certainly there is a contractual relationship and this was in the thirty six testimony with other sprinter to mobile which is sort of the backup action and there is no dispute that some of these calls went through a cell phone network because most critical is not connected to the internet certainly so but here's why i don't think it makes a difference why why the definition of assigned to doesn't matter in this case and it goes to the hybrid nature of this service the t c p is clear section two twenty seven there's not state that a number assigned to a wireless plan that has a cellular component  has been designated as as a landline and i think if you look at the thirty six deposition testimony those numbers will come in based on how their dial for example if someone quote uses a cell phone obviously a cell phone connection is called into some individual charges for those calls for liability when we look at two twenty seven you have to view that as really an implied exemption if you're using that other service and there is no charge if you're exempt from t c p a liability and you want to make a comment on terminated because she had ordered the number but when you look at the agreement and that would be that a joint appendix agreed to when the services terminated the greeny the agreement doesn't terminated self again think this is an issue of first impression to the contract even if it was expired the plaintiff then reached out to get a benefit from that contract when opposing summary judgment to try to convince the court that this was a number assigned a cell phone of service she relied on the service and she benefit in litigation which is what occurred here to try to use it to benefit medication she should be bound by the actual arbitration clause and it's not like we're looking at another customer where the calls made to the other guy's a customer were specifically dealing with ar