US refarms 2.5 GHz band from education to 5G

The US telecoms regulator has decided to redirect the 2.5 GHz band away from its current educational use to create more 5G spectrum.

The Federal Communications Commission is positioning this as a move to modernize the outdated regulatory framework for the 2.5 GHz band, which is apparently the single largest band of contiguous spectrum below 3 GHz. The band had been set aside for educational TV use and the FCC move removes any restrictions on who can use it and how. It had previously been made available for free but now the government gets to cash in on yet another auction.

At long last, we remove the burdensome restrictions on this band, allowing incumbents greater flexibility in their use of the spectrum, and introduce a spectrum auction that will ensure that this public resource is finally devoted to its highest-valued use,” said FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. “These groundbreaking reforms will result in more efficient and effective use of these airwaves and represent the latest step in advancing U.S. leadership in 5G.”

According to Pai, most educational users of this spectrum ended up leasing it out for commercial use anyway, which he seems to consider justification enough alone to take it off them. His full statement makes several oblique references to dissent among the FCC commissioners. The motion was opposed by two Commissioners and Pai infers that their obstruction could result in the US falling behind in the 5G race.

One of those dissenters was Jessica Rosenworcel, who often disagrees with Pai. Here’s her tweet on the matter.

“This order turns its back on the schools and educational institutions that have made the 2.5 GHz band their home since 1962,” said Rosenworcel in her statement.  “Today the FCC takes the innovative effort to infuse this band with learning opportunities—an initiative that dates back to the Kennedy Administration—and reverts to uninspired and stale commercial spectrum policy.

“This is a shame. Instead of using these airwaves in creative ways, we take the 2.5 GHz band, cut education from its mission and collapse this spectrum into an overlay auction system that structurally advantages a single nationwide carrier.” She then went on at considerable length about how important education is.

Commissioner Starks was the other dissenter and wrote an essay on the importance of the education sector having access to this spectrum that it made Rosenworcel’s efforts look like a memo. With boring inevitability the two dissenters are both affiliated to the republican party and the three in favour are all republicans, which makes you wonder whether there is any principle involved at all.

As Light Reading informs us, this spectrum is likely to be used largely for rural coverage and especially for fixed wireless access. The US is a big country and there are still plenty of coverage gaps to fill. The education sector is apparently bemoaning the decision but if it has been largely reselling the spectrum maybe it’s the revenue that it will miss the most.

Amazon takes one small step for satellite connectivity

Amazon has submitted its application to the FCC to deliver home broadband services to rural communities in the US through its Kuiper Systems satellite programme.

In a filing with the FCC, Kuiper Systems, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Amazon.com, plans to deliver high-speed, low-latency broadband services to consumers, businesses, and other customers worldwide through a constellation of 3,236 satellites in 98 orbital planes at altitudes of 590 km, 610 km, and 630 km, us Ka-band radio frequencies.

Aside from providing broadband solutions to rural and hard-to-reach communities, the plan is also to enable MNOs to expand wireless services to unserved and underserved mobile customers and provide high-throughput mobile broadband connectivity services for aircraft, maritime vessels, and land vehicles.

While Amazon has plugged its bank account to entice the FCC, it is also leaning on its existing operations as a means to support the new venture. It has stated it has the ‘global terrestrial networking and compute infrastructure required for the Kuiper System’, as well as the ‘customer operations capabilities’ acquired through its various businesses from eCommerce through to AWS cloud computing.

It’s a comprehensive filing from Amazon, and we suspect it peak some interest at the offices of the FCC.

“The Kuiper System will deliver satellite broadband communications services to tens of millions of unserved and underserved consumers and businesses in the United States and around the globe,” the application states.

“According to the FCC’s 2019 Broadband Deployment Report, 21.3 million Americans lack access to fixed terrestrial broadband with benchmark download and upload speeds of 25 Mbps/3 Mbps, and more than 33 million Americans do not have access to mobile LTE broadband speeds of 10 Mbps/3 Mbps. Amazon will help close this digital divide by offering fixed broadband communications services to rural and hard-to-reach areas.”

Once the ugly duckling of the communications family, the satellite segment has been given a new lease of life in recent months. Amazon and Tesla are two companies which are attracting the lion’s share of headlines, but there are several firms, such as OneWeb, Telesat and LeoSat Technologies, with grand plans to launch constellations over the next few years to bridge the connectivity gap.

And it isn’t just satellites which might be filling the skies over the next few years. Google’s Loon is another business attempting to break the mould when it comes to connectivity. Last week, Google finally received the relevant permissions to start testing its balloons to deliver connectivity, with commercial services set to launch over the coming months.

Even internally the telco industry is seeking to disrupt the status quo. Fixed wireless access for broadband solutions are becoming increasingly popular as a means to deliver connectivity over ‘the last mile’. AT&T and Verizon are charging ahead in the US, with companies like Starry challenging, while numerous telcos have announced their own ambitions in Europe, including Vodafone and Three in the UK.

Although there are still ambitions to deliver the full-fibre dream, the commercial realities seem to be getting in the way. It is incredibly expensive to deliver home broadband through wires, especially when you go to regions such as the US, where the geography is so diverse and vast, or Africa, where ARPU remains a problem in justifying ROI. The digital divide is present everywhere, to varying extremes, and it seems the traditional approach to home broadband is not going to be able to meet demands.

That said, some territories are even out of the reach of Bezos. In the application, Amazon has requested a waiver from delivering connectivity to Alaska, as it would be too far north for the constellation. It perhaps undermines the validation Amazon has put forward, delivering connectivity where it is too difficult for others, though whether this has any material impact remains to be seen.

Although progress is clearly being made here, what is absent from the application are any details on the design of the satellites or timetables for launches. Should permission be granted, we suspect Amazon would move forward very quickly however, Bezos is a space-buff after all.

Interestingly enough, Bezos’ side venture Blue Origin could be in the running to launch the satellites, though Amazon would have to be very careful here. As a publicly-traded company, this could be viewed as a conflict of interest.

The OTTs have constantly been a threat to the delivery of connectivity, a segment owned by the telcos to date, and have faced numerous complications is staging a coup (see Google Fiber). Using satellites might just be a way to carve a niche. It will be an expensive job, but these are companies which have the funds, the desire and the culture to make such a dream a reality.

OTTs Telcos
Cash Cash rich organizations, with incredibly profitable core business models to fuel expansion Incredibly constrained thanks to disruptions to profit-machines such as voice and SMS. Already committed to expensive business of traditional connectivity leaving limited funds for cash-intensive R&D outside bread and butter operations
Desire Constantly searching for new ideas to fuel growth on the spreadsheets. Expectations are high with shareholders and core models will slow down at some point. Do not have the same limitations placed on them (legacy business models and technologies) as the telcos Seem to be fighting too many short-term fires to cast an eye on the horizon. 5G and fibre are taking up so much attention, there seems to be little desire to disrupt themselves. Focusing on protecting what they have
Culture Cultivated a culture of exploration and fail-fast. Willing to fuel ideas without immediate commercial gains if there is potential for profits. More of a big-picture mentality to business Traditional businesses, with traditional leadership and traditional employees. Rarely search beyond the norm for profitability

T-Mobile/Sprint merger might be heading towards a ‘no’ – report

The merger approval process is heading towards the business-end of proceedings, and the omens are not looking particularly healthy for T-Mobile US and Sprint.

The longer the process takes to complete, the more of a feeling there is the transaction might be denied. As it stands, the FCC has seemingly lit the green light, though it does not appear the Department of Justice (DoJ) is on the same page.

According to reports from Bloomberg, the DoJ is considering additional concessions which would force T-Mobile US and Sprint to create a fourth national MNO to preserve competition. How this would be achieved is not detailed, but it is difficult to see how the duo would be happy with this outcome.

If reports turn out to be true, the concessions bar might be set too high for the parties to be comfortable. This is of course assuming the DoJ is happy with the plans laid out by T-Mobile US and Sprint to satisfy the alleged concession.

The long-standing justification for this merger is to create a more competitive alternative to AT&T and Verizon. To do this, T-Mobile US and Sprint executives have argued combining the network and spectrum assets is imperative. This is where the details of how a fourth nationwide player are needed.

A fair assumption would be the DoJ would insist T-Mobile US and Sprint would spin-off some of their assets to create this fourth alternative. Considering the vast investment which would have to be made, both monetary and time, to establish another MNO from the ground up, it is realistically the only option.

However, spinning-off network and spectrum assets to create a fourth nationwide MNO would most likely weaken the position of the newly combined business. Surely this would undermine the initial justification for the merger? If the merged business does not have access to all the current assets of the pair, would it still be in the same league as AT&T and Verizon?

Critics of the deal are already suspicious of the claims the merged business would be able to satisfy the coverage obligations of the FCC, 97% 5G coverage within three years with no price increases, and what would they say if the DoJ forces the pair to release assets?

These reports also compound theories about the different approaches from the FCC and the DoJ. It would appear the two approving agencies are offering different opinions on a merger for the first time. This can perhaps be explained by the objectives of the agencies.

For the FCC, it does appear improving mobile coverage and quality of experience is the main objective, while the DoJ is focused on preserving competition and choice for the consumer. While there might be some common ground between the two objectives, there is also room for opposing opinions.

For T-Mobile US and Sprint, the situation is not looking the healthiest. Accepting these reported concessions might be difficult if the pair are to remain true to their stated objectives, and that is of course assuming the DoJ accept the response on how they will meet the obligations.

It’s all starting to look a little messy for T-Mobile US and Sprint, and we are starting to get stronger feelings no will be the answer at the end of this prolonged saga.

Qualcomm’s share price nosedives after FTC antirust loss

Qualcomm might have some of the most battle-hardened legal experts in the technology world, but it can’t win every fight.

In a ruling coming out of the District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Lucy Koh has ruled the chipset giant had violated the Federal Trade Commission Act. The judgment could have a significant impact on the Qualcomm business model, with Judge Koh suggesting it used its dominant position to impose excessive licensing fees.

While this certainly won’t be the end of Qualcomm dominance in the chipset market, the firm houses too much competence and smarts, it might have a drastic impact on the spreadsheets. And investors seem to be fearing the worst also, with Qualcomm’s share price declining almost 12% in pre-market trading at the time of writing.

“Qualcomm’s licensing practices have strangled competition in the CDMA and the premium LTE modem chip markets for years, and harmed rivals, OEMs, and end consumers in the process,” Judge Koh said in the ruling.

In a filing made in 2017, the Federal Trade Commission argued Qualcomm was employing anticompetitive tactics, using its dominant position in certain segments of the semiconductor market to hamper competition and effectively hold customers to random. The FTC suggested some components licenced by Qualcomm were standard essential parts, meaning they would have to be licenced on ‘fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms’. In short, Qualcomm should not have been charging such a handsome premium on the licences.

The FTC also claimed it was not reasonable for Qualcomm to enter into an exclusive agreement for some components with Apple, shutting other smartphone manufacturers out of the equation.

The Qualcomm business model has been under fire for some time, with the business facing numerous legal challenges in different markets worldwide. Although this is only a single ruling, it remains to be seen whether this sets a precedent and a subsequent domino effect around the world. Qualcomm is on the ropes here, though it will be interesting to see how the firm reacts to this latest antitrust blow.

DoJ doesn’t share FCC enthusiasm for T-Mobile/Sprint – report

The FCC might have a skip in its step after securing concessions from T-Mobile US and Sprint ahead of the proposed merger, but the Department of Justice is not convinced.

Following the approval from FCC Chairman Ajir Pai, and the vote of support from Commissioner Brendan Carr, Sprint share price rose almost 19%. The long-awaited merger to create a genuine challenger to AT&T and Verizon on a national scale looked to be heading in the right direction, only for the DoJ to be the fly in the ointment.

According to Bloomberg, the DoJ believes the concessions made by the pair do not go far enough. This is a move which breaks with tradition, generally the FCC and the DoJ sing from the same hymn sheet when it comes to acquisitions and mergers, though it appears antitrust investigators are still concerned over the threat to competition.

This is perhaps the nuance between the two departments. The DoJ, and various Attorney Generals throughout the US, are primarily concerned with competition, while the FCC rhetoric has been more focused on securing a more efficient and broader 5G rollout.

The concessions have taken the form of three commitments. Firstly, T-Mobile suggests 97% of the population could be covered by 5G within three years. Secondly, Sprint’s prepaid brand Boost would be sold to preserve competition. And finally, there would be no price increases while the 5G network is being deployed.

Of course, there is a very real risk to competition. Taking the number of national telcos from four down to three will mean less choice in the market. Less choice means less opportunity for disruption, even if the hatred from T-Mobile US CEO John Legere towards AT&T and Verizon is effectively teemed from his ears. There are too many examples through history of abuses when it comes to competition for some to be completely comfortable.

You also have to weigh up the current cost of mobile connectivity in the US. Although much has been done to help the consumer, ARPU is still notably more than in Europe, where competition is significantly higher. According to Moneysavingpro.com, the average postpaid contract in the US is as much as $80.25 compared to $30.06 in the UK. US consumers are already feeling the sharp end of the competition stick, and few would want to risk this difference to increase further.

The question is how much pain the consumer can tolerate in pursuit of leadership in the 5G race. Carr has spoken of his primary role at the FCC being focused on creating a leadership position for the US in the 5G era and part of this will depend on getting 5G in the hands of the consumer as quickly as possible. The sooner consumers have 5G, the sooner US firms can scale new services and products before assaulting the international markets. This is a playbook taken from the very successful 4G era.

With the US taking a leadership position in the 4G world, companies like Google, Amazon, Uber, AirBnB and Lyft thrived. These are companies which would have existed without the 4G euphoria, but success was compounded because of the connectivity gains. We are likely to see the same trend in the 5G world, with new products and services being designed for 5G connectivity. The question which remains is where they will call home.

This is the equation the FCC and the DoJ have to balance. The need to protect the consumer against the drive towards future economic success on the global stage. There is not going to be a perfect answer for this one, the US is gambling on the future success of the economy after all.

FCC Chairman convinced by T-Mobile/Sprint concessions

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has publicly stated he believes the concessions made by T-Mobile US and Sprint are enough to ensure the merger would be in the public interest.

Over the course of the weekend, rumours emerged over concessions the pair would have to make to get the support of the FCC, though rarely are sources so spot on. The merged business will now have to commit to a nationwide 5G deployment within three years, sell Sprint’s prepaid brand and promise not to raise prices during the rollout years, if it wants the greenlight of the FCC.

What is worth noting is this is not a greenlight just yet. Pai has said yes, though he will need a majority vote from the Commissioners. Commissioner Brendan Carr has already pledged his support, and we suspect Michael O’Reilly will in the immediate future also. The Democrats might want to throw a spanner in the works, but this would be largely irrelevant with O’Reilly’s support.

“In light of the significant commitments made by T-Mobile and Sprint as well as the facts in the record to date, I believe that this transaction is in the public interest and intend to recommend to my colleagues that the FCC approve it,” Pai said in a statement.

“This is a unique opportunity to speed up the deployment of 5G throughout the United States and bring much faster mobile broadband to rural Americans. We should seize this opportunity.”

As you can imagine, T-Mobile US CEO John Legere certainly has something to say on the matter.

“Let me be clear,” Legere stated in a blog entry. “These aren’t just words, they’re verifiable, enforceable and specific commitments that bring to life how the New T-Mobile will deliver a world-leading nationwide 5G network – truly 5G for all, create more competition in broadband, and continue to give customers more choices, better value and better service.”

The first commitment made by T-Mobile US and Sprint is a nationwide 5G network. Considering Legere has been claiming his team would be the first to rollout a genuine 5G network for some time, it comes as little surprise the FCC will want to hold him accountable.

Over a three-year period, presumably starting when the greenlight is shown, the new 5G network will cover 97% of the population. 75% of the population will be covered with mid-band spectrum, while the full 97% will have low-band. This is a very traditional approach to rolling out a network, as it meets the demands of capacity and efficiency, though there is a sacrifice on speed.

Perhaps more importantly for the FCC, the plan also covers objectives to bridge the digital divide. 85% of the rural population will be connected during this period, increasing to 90% after six years. This is not to say all the farmers fields will be blanketed in 5G, though it does help provide an alternative for the complicated fixed broadband equation in the rural communities.

Moving onto the divestment, selling Sprint’s Boost prepaid brand seems to be enough to satisfy the competition cravings of Pai. What is worth noting is this will not be a complete break-away from the business as it will have to run on the T-Mobile US network. Unfortunately, MVNOs in the US are not as free to operate as those in Europe, as switching the supporting network would mean have to change out all the SIM cards.

This becomes complicated as you do not necessarily know who your customers are in a prepaid business model. The situation certainly encourages more competition, it will after all not be part of the T-Mobile US/Sprint family anymore, but it is far from a perfect scenario.

Finally, Legere has promised tariffs will not become more expensive during the deployment period, another worry for the FCC should the duo want to meet the ambitious objectives to compete with AT&T and Verizon. However, it does appear Legere is promising 5G tariffs will not include a premium either.

And now onto the other side of the aisle. Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel has tweeted her opinions on the concessions and it appears she is not convinced.

“We’ve seen this kind of consolidation in airlines and with drug companies. It hasn’t worked out well for consumers. But now the @FCC wants to bless the same kind of consolidation for wireless carriers. I have serious doubts.”

Rosenworcel has also suggested the decision should be put out for public consultation. We suspect Pai will want to avoid this scenario, as it would be incredibly time-demanding; the Chairman will want the merger distraction off his desk as soon as possible.

Commissioner Geoffrey Starks is yet to make a comment, but DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT go on his Twitter page if you haven’t watched the latest Game of Thrones episode.

We understand the Democrat and Republican Commissioners are going to be at each other’s throats over pretty much every decision, however trolling any innocent individual with a GoT spoiler is a low blow.

Starks and your correspondent are going to have some issues.

FCC reveals glacial progress on the resale of location data by operators

US operators have been reselling the location data they accumulate about their subscribers and have been slow to deliver on promises to stop.

This practice was already well-known by the time it was highlighted in an expose at the start of this year. At the time operators were quick to stress that they’re pulling out all the stops to protect their customers’ personal data but Federal Communications Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel was apparently skeptical. Frustrated by their deafening silence on the matter she wrote to the four US MNOs at the start of the month to ask them what they were playing at.

Rosenworcel received relatively prompt responses from those operators and decided to publish them alongside a mea culpa that was probably directed more at other FCC Commissioners than herself. “The FCC has been totally silent about press reports that for a few hundred dollars shady middlemen can sell your location within a few hundred meters based on your wireless phone data. That’s unacceptable,” she said.

“I don’t recall consenting to this surveillance when I signed up for wireless service—and I bet neither do you. This is an issue that affects the privacy and security of every American with a wireless phone. It is chilling to think what a black market for this data could mean in the hands of criminals, stalkers, and those who wish to do us harm. I will continue to press this agency to make public what it knows about what happened. But I do not believe consumers should be kept in the dark. That is why I am making these letters available today.”

You can read the contrite and exculpatory responses here, but in case you can’t be bothered here’s a summary. AT&T said it started phasing out this sort of thing in June 2018, while still making location data available in emergencies. Additionally the letter attempted to distance AT&T from the reports in question and said it had stopped sharing and data with location aggregators and LBS providers on 29 March 2019.

Sprint said it current works with just one LBS (location based services) provider but will pack that in by the end of this month. T-Mobile said it had terminated all contracts with LBS types by 9 March 2019 and went on at considerable length to correct what it considers to be flawed reporting on how it used to handle this sort of thing. Verizon said it had terminated all location deals by the end of March 2019.

So that would appear to be that. All the operators have said they don’t deal with location data aggregators anymore and presumably Rosenworcel is a happy Commissioner. But the fact that they’ve only just stopped reselling their customer’s personal data, and even then only after persistent nagging and bad publicity, is a further illustration of how cavalier the tech industry has been with personal data to date.

China Mobile somehow surprised at FCC snub

There was no squabbling over party-politics here; both the Republicans and the Democrats agree China Mobile should not be allowed a licence to operate telco services in the US.

Making an entry for the least surprising decision ever made, the FCC has announced it will deny China Mobile, the Chinese state-owned telco, a licence to operate in the US. Despite the outcome being glaringly obvious, China Mobile is irritated at the decision, suggesting there is no reason to deny the application.

“CMI (China Mobile International) complies with and adheres to the local laws and regulations in every country it operates. In the spirit of openness and free trade, CMI applied to obtain International 214 License from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), aiming to support telecommunication needs to customers in both countries, enhancing connections between the two markets,” the company said in a statement.

“After 7 years and 8 months of application, FCC now denies CMI’s bid to operate in the U.S. without apparent reasons and basis. It is out of market economy principles and contradicts the trend of economic globalization.”

Made back in 2011, China Mobile filed an application under Section 214 of the Communications Act and section 63.18 of the Commission’s rules to provide international facilities-based and resale services between the US and abroad. It might have taken almost eight years to make a decision, but it is exactly what you would have expected.

“Simply put, granting China Mobile’s application would not be in the public interest,” said FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. “China Mobile ultimately is owned and controlled by the Chinese government. That makes it vulnerable to exploitation, influence, and control by that government.”

“As a fierce supporter of promoting competition, permitting foreign ownership, and facilitating open markets, I nonetheless find the situation confronting us to be extremely serious, and the action we take today to block China Mobile from accessing the US telecommunications market to be a necessary step, drastic though it may be,” Commissioner Michael O’Reilly said.

This is a decision which has the full support of the FCC as well, with all Commissioners voting the same direction. Unsurprisingly, all of the Commissioners spoke of national security, the importance of communications networks in today’s society and the lack of trust in China Mobile. Simply put, the FCC doesn’t want a puppet of the Chinese state poking around its telco infrastructure.

The Huawei case is slightly nuanced as the ties back to the Chinese government are largely based on a piece of legislation and founder Ren Zhengfei’s time in the People’s Liberation Army. Here, there is no murkiness or grey areas; China Mobile is owned by the state, directly.

US official overseeing country’s frequency strategy has resigned

David Redl, heading National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), responsible for the US’ strategy on frequency and 5G, abruptly resigned from his post.

The circumstances of his resignation were not disclosed, but the Wall Street Journal reported that Redl has had conflicts with other political appointees at the current administration, including officials at the FCC. Redl, together with the Commerce Secretary, was tasked by President Trump to develop the country’s “National Spectrum Strategy” last October.

A few days before his resignation, Redl used his speech at Satellite Industry Association’s annual dinner to voice his concerns. “We don’t have to choose between making more spectrum available for the private sector and sustaining our critical government systems. We also don’t have to choose between terrestrial 5G and satellite services,” Redl said on that occasion. “To start with, satellite will play an important role in 5G connectivity, but perhaps more to the point these uses are not mutually exclusive; it’s just going to take hard work for them to continue to coexist in a more contentious spectrum environment.”

Meanwhile, FCC would not wait to have the “comprehensive, balanced and forward-looking” spectrum strategy in place before it pressed ahead with the auction of the mmWave frequencies, including the 24GHz and 37GHz bands that are also being coveted by the satellite industry. “I can’t recall ever in the past watching two different arms of an administration get into this kind of public disagreements,” FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel commented.

In other cases, Redl’s opinions often carried a lot of weight in FCC’s decision making. Before the decision was taken to deny China Mobile the operation licence, Redl’s earlier note had already set the tone. Ajit Pai, the FCC Chairman, in his statement called Redl “a longtime colleague, who served with distinction during his 18 months at NTIA.  He was a vocal advocate within the Department of Commerce for repurposing federal spectrum for commercial use and fostering the private sector’s lead in 5G deployment.  I thank David for his service and wish him all the best in his future endeavors.”

It may or may not be related, but Redl’s resignation also coincided with fresh pressure from the US on the UK to join the alliance to ban Huawei from the country’s 5G networks. The DC-based news outlet The Hill reported that Diane Rinaldo, Redl’s former deputy, would be taking over as acting administrator.

The FCC unanimously concludes China Mobile can’t be trusted

The Federal Communications Commission was never going to let China Mobile set up in the US market and now it’s official.

Last month FCC Chairman Ajit Pai made it clear he was against China Mobile USA’s application to provide telecommunications services between the United States and other countries and that he hoped his fellow commissioners agreed. Often there is dissent among the five commissioners, usually along partisan political lines, but this time nobody dared stick up for China Mobile.

“After an extensive review of the record in this proceeding, the Commission finds that due to several factors related to China Mobile USA’s ownership and control by the Chinese government, grant of the application would raise substantial and serious national security and law enforcement risks that cannot be addressed through a mitigation agreement between China Mobile and the federal government,” said the FCC announcement.

The long and short of it is that the US state doesn’t trust the Chinese state and therefore doesn’t trust anything owned by it. This is pretty similar to the Huawei argument, with the difference that in this case they seem to see even closer ties with the state. At time of writing the commissioners had yet to publish their statements on the matter, but one of them apparently wants the FCC to take another look at China Telecom and China Unicom too.