Options are running out for net neutrality supporters

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has released a gloating statement after Democrats failed to invalidate the pompously named ‘Restoring Internet Freedom’ order, making the path for net neutrality much rockier.

In June last year, net neutrality was officially struck from the FCC rulebook as the ink dried on the aforementioned order. There has been much protest and opposition to the rules, and while there are still routes to restore the Tom Wheeler-era rules, the number of options are getting smaller. With a new Session of Congress now in play, the path of invalidation is now closed.

As the rules were passed during the previous Session, the Democrats had a limited amount of time to try and invalidate the ‘Restoring Internet Freedom’ order passed by Pai and his Republican Commissioner cronies. Unfortunately for the net neutrality supporters, the 218 votes required in the Senate was a step too far. By close of play on January 2, only 182 votes, the majority of whom where Democrat, were mustered.

“I’m pleased that a strong bipartisan majority of the US House of Representatives declined to reinstate heavy-handed Internet regulation,” said Pai. “They did the right thing – especially considering the positive results for American consumers since the adoption of the Restoring Internet Freedom Order. Over the past year, the Internet has remained free and open.

“In short, the FCC’s light-touch approach is working. In 2019, we’ll continue to pursue our forward-looking agenda to bring digital opportunity to all Americans.”

What does this mean for net neutrality? There is still a route back for the rules, though it is becoming increasingly difficult.

Invalidating the rules was the simplest option, though the Democrats only had one shot at this. A new Session sets the rules in play, though there are other routes, both legal and regulatory.

On the legal side of things, there are still challenges being made to the ‘Restoring Internet Freedom’ order by numerous companies, consumer groups and Attorney Generals throughout the US. While many of the lawsuits are fundamentally arguing the same point, albeit with various different nuances, the courts will be asked to rule on one area in particular; whether the individual States can enforce their own localised legislation on net neutrality.

Central to this conundrum is California. Having agreed to delay the implementation of its own net neutrality rules in the State, judges will have to ponder the age-old debate of Federal vs. State. This is where it gets very complicated; as the internet is not a localised ‘service’, can California guarantee it will only impose the rules on traffic which is restricted to its borders? Should traffic traverse the cables elsewhere, the State has no right to implement net neutrality rules. This is a concept which is stated in the US Constitution.

On the regulatory front, the Democrats could attempt to force through new legislation which would supersede the ‘Restoring Internet Freedom’ order, in the same was this order did to net neutrality. This would be complicated as you have to suspect the Democrats to not have enough bodies in the room to drive through a majority.

All of the options remaining for the net neutrality supporters are time coming however, which is a factor which will certainly work against them. Pai can take his time and attempt to prolong the issue, as the longer it takes to resolve the less interest the general public and other politicians will have. We are fickle people, we get bored easily, and politicians are as shallow as we are fickle. If net neutrality is no longer getting the necessary amount of attention in the press, less enthused politicians will find a new cause to champion in pursuit of PR points.

The net neutrality battle is not over, but, unfortunately, Pai is winning.

Google wins FCC approval for gesture control tests

Google has finally won regulatory approval from the FCC to start testing the more advanced features of Project Soli, a radar-based motion sensor to allow the user to control devices through gestures.

The approval document, which you can read here, will allow Google’s Advanced Technology and Projects unit greater freedoms in testing the technology, which might look familiar if you are a fan of Tom Cruise’s Minority Report. Just when innovation is grinding to a halt in the smartphone segment, Google’s whacky scientists are working on something which could completely revolutionise the smartphone.

Project Soli initially came to be in 2015, though due to concerns the radar system would interfere with other spectrum users, power levels were limited. However, the waiver now allows Google to play with higher power levels while users can also operate the devices when on airplanes.

The idea is of course very simple. Radar sensors are in a small chip which features in the device, which detect hand and finger movements with high accuracy. Various different movements could be used to operate different features of a smart device, perhaps making the touch-screen redundant in the future. Check out the video at the bottom of the page for more details.

Interestingly enough, the FCC has not only decided Google is allowed to pursue this technology as there are no technical reasons not to do so, but also believes this project could be in the public interest.

“We further find that grant of the waiver will serve the public interest by providing for innovative device control features using touchless hand gesture technology,” the document states.

The last few years have been a bit of a baron time for smartphone innovation. Apple’s recent financial bombshell perfectly demonstrates this; not even Apple can rise above the mediocrity of innovation and grow revenues. This sort of innovation might just be what the smartphone segment needs.

And perhaps this is a sign of things to come; who knows what a smartphone or smart communications device will look like in the future. Maybe users will revert back to having two separate devices; one specialised for entertainment and the other for communications. With gesture control and voice recognition technologies, is there any need for a screen if communications is the purpose? And if you don’t need a screen, do you need such a big battery? Devices could become significantly smaller and much more power efficient.

Over the last 20 years, mobile communications devices have changed significantly. From big to small and back to big, foldable, slidable and closable, through colourful, sleek and offensive, the concept of the mobile device has always been changing. Who knows what it will actually look like in ten years’ time…

FCC readies ‘Out-of-Office’ emails as budget looms

With President Donald Trump and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi going toe-to-toe over funding for a controversial wall, the FCC has warned it will run out of money on Thursday afternoon.

The inability for the Republicans and Democrats to come to an agreement on federal funding has meant numerous agencies throughout the country are facing closure, the FCC being one of them. Considering FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has been doing his best to lighten the regulatory influence of the agency during his tenure, perhaps colleagues will be able to hear a joyous tap-dance echoing from his office.

“In the event of a continued partial lapse in federal government funding, the Federal Communications Commission will suspend most operations in the middle of the day on Thursday, January 3,” the FCC has said in a statement. “At that time, employees will have up to four hours to complete an orderly shutdown of operations.”

For those who work for the FCC, the political stance being made by the two leaders will mean very little as they sit quietly at home with no pay-cheque. However, work required for the protection of life and property will continue, as will work relating to spectrum auctions, which is funded by auction proceeds. The Office of the Inspector General will also remain open, though most of the FCC function will temporarily cease. More details are expected over the next couple of hours.

What remains to be seen is how long the office will be closed for. After it initially appeared Trump would sign the proposed budget, critics suggested he was going back on his word as there was little funding to create the physical border between the US and Mexico. The wave of criticism from usually friendly media titles forced the hand of the President, and it appears there will be little concession made by either side right now.

Such is the world of politics an agreement will probably be made in the near future. Both sides will suggest they gained the advantage, though (again), this will come as little comfort for those whose bank accounts are getting slimmer as we speak.

FCC sets the rules for third mmWave auction

The FCC has unveiled the rules for the next mmWave auction, set to take place in second half of 2019, for airwaves in the 37 GHz, 39 GHz and 47 GHz spectrum bands.

This will be the third mmWave auction to take place in the US, with the scrap for 28 GHz band spectrum currently underway, and the 24 GHz band auction to follow. While there are numerous different rules which will inevitably lead to squabbling, this is also the second incentive-based auction from the FCC, as the agency looks to promote contiguous blocks of spectrum.

To ensure this is a smooth process the block size will be increased to 100 megahertz across all three spectrum bands, while existing license holders will be afforded the opportunity to ‘rationalise’ their existing holdings. Whether anyone actually chooses to relinquish their assets during this process remains to be seen, though budget has been made available for compensation.

As with most other auctions, this one will take place over two phases. The first will be the pay-to-play section, before moving onto the allocation of specific spectrum.

“Pushing more spectrum into the commercial marketplace is a key component of our 5G FAST plan to maintain American leadership in the next generation of wireless connectivity,” said FCC Chairman Ajit Pai.

“Currently, we’re conducting an auction of 28 GHz band spectrum, to be followed by a 24 GHz band auction. And today, we are taking a critical step towards holding an auction of the Upper 37, 39, and 47 GHz bands in 2019. These and other steps will help us stay ahead of the spectrum curve and allow wireless innovation to thrive on our shores.”

While mmWave has been a very consistent buzzword for the telco industry over the last couple of years, industry lobby group GSMA feels there is a very good reason for this.

In its latest report, the GSMA suggests unlocking the right spectrum for to deliver innovative 5G services across different industry verticals could add $565 billion to global GDP and $152 billion in tax revenue from 2020 to 2034. For the GSMA, it’s not just about faster, bigger and better, but delivering services which the telcos are not able to today. mmWave is of course crucial to ensuring the 5G jigsaw all fits together appropriately.

“The global mobile ecosystem knows how to make spectrum work to deliver a better future,” said Brett Tarnutzer, Head of Spectrum at the GSMA.

“Mobile operators have a history of maximising the impact of our spectrum resources and no one else has done more to transform spectrum allocations into services that are changing people’s lives. Planning spectrum is essential to enable the highest 5G performance and government backing for mmWave mobile spectrum at WRC-19 will unlock the greatest value from 5G deployments for their citizens.”

Microsoft suggests FCC is telling Porky Pai’s

New Microsoft research suggests the digital divide in the US is much more prominent than any of the politicians, who are supposedly fixing the problem, would let you believe.

The digital divide is one of the most active political ping-pong balls in recent years, with US politicians seemingly using the desirability of bufferless cat videos to gain support in some of the country’s poorest communities. If you believe what the FCC has been telling the media, this disparity has been getting smaller, though it is still large.

The Microsoft research suggests very little or no progress is being made and the FCC is misleading US citizens.

Looking at the statistics, the FCC claims the digital divide currently stands at 22 million across the US. The threshold seems to be what many would consider basic broadband speeds. With so much of the world become digitized it is critical every person is not only granted access to new opportunities, but also allowed to continue using basic services (such as banking) which are increasingly moving into the digital world.

Looking at the Microsoft research, the team is suggesting around half of US citizens, 162 million, are not using the internet at broadband speeds. The difference between the two numbers is quite staggering, and while it does question to competence at the FCC, the answer might be a bit simpler; it’s all a game of politics.

When looking at the figures it is important to understand the FCC estimates on the digital divide are based on those individuals who can theoretically access the internet. There might be various other reasons why they do not, price for example, but these factors do not seem to be considered. Why you might ask? We suspect it is not politically convenient.

If you look at the last US election campaign trail, the idea of the digital divide was a hot topic. Both President Trump and the Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton suggested tackling the issue would be a high priority for their administrations, buying favour in communities which could (and eventually did) turn the tide in the election.

The FCC is a body which is funded via the pockets of the tax payer, therefore it does have to demonstrate it is fulfilling the objectives set out before it. Holding telcos accountable to theoretically offering broadband access is a much simpler job than ensuring these business price it at a cost which would be deemed accessible.

The Microsoft research is based on those who are using the internet at speeds which would be deemed relevant to broadband. Slow broadband could be deemed as bad a no broadband in some cases, with websites timing out or taking so long to load little could be achieved. With this in mind, stories about kids making use of McDonalds wifi to do homework start to make sense.

As you can see from the graph below, wired technologies do generally take a lot longer to reach 100%, especially in a country which is as vast and varied as the US, though broadband has been sluggish in recent years.

Broadband Adoption

But before you start to congratulate Microsoft too much, you must take into account its position is also political, or perhaps PR-drowned is more accurate. One of Microsoft’s more prominent CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) initiatives is closing the digital divide. If the problem is much worse than people originally imagined, the corporation coming in to help looks much more glorious.

On both side of the coin you have to take the claims with a pinch of salt. The FCC will continue to make bold statements on progress to ensure favourable light is shed on the Trump administration at a time where the White House will be starting to consider the next election, while Microsoft has a lot to gain commercially through the Airband Initiative, a five-year commitment to bring broadband access to two million unserved US citizens living in rural communities.

Microsoft is not wrong, and we suspect the way it is judging the digital divide is more accurate (usage vs. theoretical accessibility), but it always worth remembering there is always something to gain.

Net neutrality’s last life kept intact by Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has rejected attempts by the telco industry and the Trump administration to completely erase net neutrality rules from the lawbooks.

With petitions filed by AT&T and various industry lobby groups to quash a ruling made in favour of the Obama-era net neutrality rules in 2015, a ruling which is the only glimmer of hope for net neutrality’s survival, the Supreme Court offered a lifeline. It seems rolling back net neutrality is not enough for FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, as the Republican is seemingly attempting to destroy any future attempts to reinstate the rules, which the 2015 District Court ruling holds.

While Pai and his cronies have effected taken the US back to the light-touch regulatory playing field of 2015, moves made by his predecessor Tom Wheeler to reclassify the internet service providers still stood. In passing net neutrality rules, Wheeler classified ISPs in the same league as telephony providers, and therefore under stricter regulation. This decision was upheld by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which AT&T, NCTA, CTIA, USTelecom, and the American Cable Association were challenging here.

The presence of this case might not have any impact on the telcos today, though it would offer any future administration, who might be pro-net neutrality, a foundation to rebuilt the walls of regulation. Pai doesn’t just want to remove the rules, he wants to drive the concept of net neutrality to extinction with no prospect of return.

This ruling however, is a win for the net neutrality camp, a rare one which just might add enough momentum to sustain life until a change in administration.

“This is good news for net neutrality supporters,” said John Bergmayer, Senior Counsel at Public Knowledge, a pro-net neutrality lobby group which is also suing the FCC for the initial roll back. “The DC Circuit’s previous decision upholding both the FCC’s classification of broadband as a telecommunications service, and its rules prohibiting broadband providers from blocking or degrading internet content, remains in place.

“While the current FCC has repealed those rules – a decision Public Knowledge is currently challenging in court – this means that the previous decision is binding on the current FCC, and on the DC Circuit panel that hears the current challenge. Much of the current FCC’s argument depends on ignoring or contradicting the D.C. Circuit’s earlier findings, but now that these are firmly established as binding law, the Pai FCC’s case is on even weaker ground than before.”

The NCTA, the Internet and Television Association, is unsurprisingly miffed with the decision.

“It is not surprising that the Supreme Court declined to hear this case dealing with the Wheeler FCC’s 2015 Order,” the NCTA said in a statement. “Once the current FCC repealed the 2015 Order, almost all parties – including NCTA – agreed that the case was moot. Today’s decision is not an indication of the Court’s views on the merits but simply reflects the fact that there was nothing left for the Court to rule on.”

It seems the absence of two Republican Supreme Court judges was the deciding factor here. The newly, and controversially, appointed Justice Brett Kavanaugh removed himself from the process, having participated in the judgement of the original appeal, while Chief Justice John Roberts supposedly owns shares in AT&T.

For the pro-net neutrality supporters this was a critical win in the courts. Firstly, for the rules to be reinstated the classification as telcos as common providers is a must, though momentum was gathering for Pai and his cronies in the blood-thirsty mission.

This is not to say net neutrality camp is not without its support, but with President Trump adding his weight to the hunting trip, the pressure was starting to build. Another factor is precedent. The legal community use decisions made elsewhere in the industry for guidance, and there were a lot of decisions going against net neutrality over the last few months. Momentum was building and the issue is becoming increasingly politicised. The light was fading, though the 2015 decision being upheld is a win.

Whether this decision acts as a catalyst for net neutrality momentum and support remains to be seen, though California’s challenge to the FCC is still hanging in the balance. After signing its own net neutrality rules in State Law, despite contradictions with federal agency positions, California has decided to put the implementation of the rules on-hold until it has resolved its own lawsuit with the Department of Justice which argues the state has acted unconstitutionally.

Elsewhere around the US, various states are lining up their own, local, net neutrality rules. Washington State has already signed its own into law, while states such as Hawaii and New York are seemingly waiting for various rulings. While the approach might be broadly similar, there will be differences in each state. This patch-work of regulatory environment is something the US government is very keen to avoid, and it would turn into an operational disaster for the telcos.

In a separate lawsuit, 23 Attorney Generals throughout the US, including Maine, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Delaware, led by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, are challenging the original 3-2 decision made by the FCC to roll back the net neutrality rules. The criss-cross of lawsuits, each of which relies somewhat on another decision and precedent, is starting to become complicated.

The dominos are certainly lining up across the US, each decision may send the entire stack into freefall. The weight of each ruling is getting heavier and heavier.

FCC modifies frequency policy to encourage 5G investment

Changes to licence regulations on 3.5 Ghz have been approved by the FCC in an effort to encourage the 5G rollout.

The 150 MHz wide spectrum on the 3.5 GHz (3550MHz to 3700MHz.) band, or Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS), is very busy. Following the rules of the FCC established in 2015, three tiers of users are sharing this band. There are the Incumbent Access Users, in particular the US Navy Radar Operators; the Priority Access Licenses (PALs) which are mainly commercial users like the telcos; and dinally, General Authorized Access (GAA) users which are permitted to use any portion of the 150 MHz frequency so long as it has not been granted to the other two tiers.

FCC Commissioner Michael O’Rielly, who was tasked to lead the review of current regulations and deliberation of new policies with special focus on PALs, claimed the old rules “would not support large-scale deployments, such as mobile or 5G networks… The rules in place favored small-scale, fixed networks, by making it unattractive for any other type of deployment. Basically, the rules were designed so that a select group could get licenses on the cheap.”

The Report and Order published by the FCC on Tuesday October 23 has kept the three tiers in place, but has made modifications to the specific implementations, including:

  • Changes the size of PAL license areas from census tracts to counties;
  • Extends the PAL license term to ten years and makes these licenses renewable;
  • Establishes end-of-term performance requirements;
  • Ensures seven PALs are available in each license area;
  • Allows the use of bidding credits for rural and Tribal entities;
  • Permits partitioning and disaggregation of PALs;
  • Updates information security requirements to protect registration information; and
  • Facilitates transmission over wider channels while maintaining protections for other services

In addition to extending the license term from three years to ten years and changing it from unrenewable to renewable, the new rules also did away with the limitations on the number of PALs a single applicant can have in one licence area (currently capped at four) and the bandwidth a PAL can use (currently limited to 10 MHz).

Ajit Pai, Chairman of FCC, admitted there has been debate on the new size of PAL licence, with different entrenched interest either arguing for maintaining the current census tract-sized licence, or demanding vastly enlarged areas. He had to cite support from Rural Wireless Association and Competitive Carrier Association, which represents smaller carriers, to defend the Commission’s  decision to opt for county-size license.

“We find that county-based licenses are just right,” said Pai. “This compromise will allow most interested parties, large and small, to bid on 3.5 GHz spectrum in order to provide 5G services. License sizes aside, we make other necessary changes today to promote investment and innovation in the 3.5 GHz band, including extending the license terms and giving an expectancy of license renewal.”

Pai also reassured the GAA users that “even after PALs are granted, General Authorized Access users can provide service in the PAL spectrum until licensees deploy. Taken together, these reforms will help make this band a sandbox for 5G and represent another aspect of our comprehensive 5G FAST plan to secure American leadership in the next generation of wireless connectivity.”

The rule modifications might not look revolutionary, but they should prove positive for more aggressive 5G rollout in the US. With the extended licence term and the possibility of renewal the new regulations provide more confidence to investors looking at long term. Meanwhile, it also strikes a balance both to encourage scale and to protect operators with local ambitions only.

Vermont follows Califorina into the dock over net neutrality

The State of Vermont has been hit with a net neutrality lawsuit after passing a Senate Bill and signing an Executive Order forcing ISPs to follow the banned principles for government contracts.

The lawsuit, filed by the CTIA, cable industry lobby NCTA, telco lobby USTelecom, the New England Cable & Telecommunications Association, and the American Cable Association (ACA), calls into question requirements for ISPs to follow net neutrality rules should they want to be considered for government contracts. The lawsuit follows the same argument as the California case; it contradicts the Communications Act, the ‘Restoring Internet Freedom’ rules and two clauses in the US Constitution.
“This case concerns two interrelated attempts by the State of Vermont to unconstitutionally regulate the provision of broadband Internet service” the filing states.
“As the FCC has repeatedly recognized, Internet traffic flows freely between states, making it difficult or impossible for a provider to distinguish traffic moving within Vermont from traffic that crosses stateborders. Both the Supremacy Clause and the dormant Commerce Clause protect broadband Internet service providers from a patch work of inconsistent regulations that are impossible for them to comply with as a practical matter. The Court should declare that the Executive Order and S.289 are preempted and unconstitutional, and should permanently enjoin the Defendants from enforcing or giving effect to them.”

Senate Bill 289 was signed by Governor Phil Scott on May 22, while the Executive Order from Scott was signed in February. The telco lobbyists might be a bit slow off the mark, but this is a bit more of a complicated matter.

In California, and Washington State for that matter, net neutrality rules are being applied to the ISPs in every context. This is a much easier position for the telcos to push back against, though in the Vermont case it is only conditions for public sector contracts. The argument here is relatively nuanced; organizations should be allowed to apply their buying power to place requirements on vendors competing for lucrative contracts, but it does contradict rules set forward by the FCC.

Because this is not a blanket approach to net neutrality regulations, as is the case in California and Washington State, there is a better chance of the rules standing. The rules are being applied to specific relationships which lean on conditional approval and benchmarks for applicability. These are not unusual concepts in the world of procurement, but the net neutrality seems to be too contentious for any exceptions to be considered. The court will be interferring with market dynamics in Vermont, it is a delicate matter.

Another interesting idea is that of precedent. States such as Hawaii, New Jersey, Montana and Rhode Island have all passed similar rules, dictating ISPs wanting to compete for public sector contracts would have to adhere to net neutrality principles, and will be watching the outcome of this case closely. If Vermont wins there is precedent to maintain their position, however a win from the telco coalition will destroy the foundations.

Both cases, California and Vermont, come down to the old state versus federal battle ground and the interpretation of clauses in the Communications Act and the US Constitution. This is the bueaty and beast of the legal world, interpretation of the law and its implications means so much. The telco lobbyists do have a strong position though, especially considering the potential for a constitutional crisis.

Finally, perhaps the most interesting aspect of this on-going saga are the lawsuits themselves. In searching for a more light-touch regulatory landscape, the telco lobbyists are, ironically, seeking state intervention to maintain their position.

FCC drafts in external opinion to figure out the T-Mobile-Sprint conundrum

Perhaps realising the gravity of the situation, the FCC has drafted in outside help to assess the impact of the T-Mobile-Sprint merger on the US economy.

David Sibley will help the team as an outside consultant reporting into David Lawrence, who is leading the merger taskforce. This should not be seen as an unusual move from the FCC, though perhaps such external opinions should have been brought in earlier considering the impact this merger will have on the telco landscape and competition.

“We are fortunate that Professor Sibley is bringing his considerable economic experience and expertise to bear in this review,” said FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. “Rigorous economic analysis plays an important role in all of the Commission’s work and will be essential to a thorough investigation into whether approval of this transaction would be in the public interest.”

This is the big question. The merger will bring the number of national telcos down from four to three, but is this a good or bad move. There are arguments on both sides.

The bad side of the argument is a simple one. Removing one of the major telcos from the ecosystem will reduce competition and hurt the consumer through higher pricing due to a lack of choice. This is not a complicated point to make and a genuine concern, especially in a country like the US which where telcos do not operate everywhere. The risk of monopolies or duopolies in certain areas increases.

On the positive side, while the number of massive telcos decreases, competition increases as the merged entity would offer a more valid threat to AT&T and Verizon through the combined scale. T-Mobile US CEO John Legere often refers to AT&T and Verizon as the duopoly, and while this is an exaggeration, they are miles ahead of T-Mobile and Sprint in third and fourth place. T-Mobile and Sprint are not at the right scale to compete with the leaders individually, but together the merged organization would offer greater scale. The theory here is reducing competitors would make the market more competitive, therefore better for the consumer.

This is the conundrum which the FCC needs to decide on. Evidence and experts will be aplenty on both sides of the argument, though Sibley certainly adds some expertise to the team.

Sibley is currently the John Michael Stuart Centennial Professor of Economics at the University of Texas at Austin. Prior this role, Sibley worked Head of the Economics Research Group at Bell Communications Research, as well as the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Economic Analysis in the Antitrust Division of the US Department of Justice. He also represented the US in OECD discussions.

As it stands, the merger shot clock is currently on pause, with the FCC deciding it does not want to be rushed. The approval or rejection of mergers and acquisitions are targeted to be completed within a 180-day window, though the FCC is offered the luxury of taking longer if it is a particularly complicated case. This is proving to be one, with the FCC requesting input from competitors of the pair recently, most notably from players outside the mobile ecosystem, suggesting it is investigating the impact on such segments as broadband.

FCC lays out the FAST track to 5G

The FCC has unveiled the grand plan for 5G, outlining the strategy it will put in place to place the US at the top of the technology league table.

Facilitate America’s Superiority in 5G Technology (the 5G FAST plan) strategy takes into account three areas; spectrum, infrastructure policy and modernising outdated regulations. The objective is a simple one to envisage, but more sticky to complete; how can the US ensure it does not lose its leadership position in the technology world to China?

As you can see from the video below, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai is clearly excited about ‘claiming the 5G future for America’.

Starting on spectrum, the FCC highlighted it is critical to ensure there is as much available to the telcos as possible. In the high bands, the 28 GHz and 24 GHz bands will be available in auction later this year, while the upper 37 GHz, 39 GHz, and 47 GHz bands will hit the lots in 2019. These auctions will release almost five gigahertz of 5G spectrum into the market, while the FCC is attempting to free up another 2.75 gigahertz in the 26 and 42 GHz bands. In the mid-bands, the FCC is working to find more available assets in the 2.5 GHz, 3.5 GHz, and 3.7-4.2 GHz bands. Changes are also on the horizon for the lower-end bands (600 MHz, 800 MHz, and 900 MHz), while unlicensed spectrum is getting some attention for next generation wifi cases.

Looking at the infrastructure policy side of things, the FCC has adopted new procedures to review applications on a federal level, while also forcing local authorities to accept similar rules. Removing red-tape and speeding up the lethargic public sector is not something we will attempt to criticise, though there has been resistance to the new rules at state and county levels, with some suggesting there is too much of a burden on the public offices. It would not surprise anyone to see some form of legal challenge to these rules from a sow-moving coalition of local authorities.

Finally, modernising regulations across the communications industry is likely to be a contentious claim, especially considering some believe the eradication of net neutrality to be a backwards step. The pompously named ‘Restoring Internet Freedom’ act is only one factor here though. Other areas which have received attention include ‘One-Touch Make-Ready’, rules governing the attachment of new network equipment to utility poles, and Business Data Services, an initiative to remove certain rate regulation. The theory here is the less barriers to launch new services, the more incentive to invest in future-proofed fire networks.

While some will certainly object to some of the moves made by the FCC, you can’t argue with the US approach in combatting the leadership threat from China. Various governments around the world have boasted about the desire and critical need to take a leadership role in the digital economy of tomorrow, though few actions support the rhetoric (have a look at most of what the UK government does). The US is not going to let its leadership position in the technology world be taken away easily.