Privacy International lines up US firms for GDPR breaches

UK data protection and privacy advocacy group Privacy International has submitted complaints to European watchdogs suggesting GDPR violations at several US firms including Oracle, Equifax and Experian.

The complaints have been submitted to regulators in the UK, Ireland and France, bringing the data broker activities of Oracle and Acxiom into question, as well as ad-tech companies Criteo, Quantcast and Tapad, and credit referencing agencies Equifax and Experian. The complaints are specifically focused on the depth of personal data processing, which Privacy International believes violates Articles five and six of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

“It’s been more than five months since the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) came into effect,” a Privacy International statement read. “Fundamentally, the GDPR strengthens rights of individuals with regard to the protection of their data, imposes more stringent obligations on those processing personal data, and provides for stronger regulatory enforcement powers – in theory. In practice, the real test for GDPR will be in its enforcement.

“Nowhere is this more evident than for data broker and ad-tech industries that are premised on exploiting people’s data. Despite exploiting the data of millions of people, are on the whole non-consumer facing and therefore rarely have their practices challenged.”

The GDPR Articles in question relate to the collection and processing of information. Article Five dictates a company has to be completely transparent in how it collects and processes information, but also the reasons for doing so. Reasonable steps must be taken to ensure data is erased once the purpose has been fulfilled, this is known as data minimisation. Article Six states a company must seek consent from the individual to collect and process information for an explicit purpose; broad brush collection, storage and continued exploitation of data is being tackled here.

In both articles, the objective is to ensure companies are being specific in their collection of personal information, and that it is utilised in a timely manner before being deleted once it has served its purpose. These are two of the articles which will hit the data-sharing economy the hardest, and it will be interesting to see how stringently GDPR will be enforced if there is any evidence of wrong-doing.

This is where Privacy International is finding issue with the firms. The advocacy group is challenging the business practises on the principles of transparency, fairness, lawfulness, purpose limitation,

data minimisation, accuracy and integrity and confidentiality. It is also requesting further investigations into Articles 13 and 14 (the right to information), Article 15 (the right of access), Article 22 (automated decision making and profiling), Article 25 (data protection and by design and default) and Article 35 (data protection impact assessments).

While GDPR sounds very scary, the reality is no-one has been punished to the full extent of the regulation yet. This might be because every company has taken the guidance on effectively and is operating entirely within the legal parameters, though we doubt this is the case. It is probably a case of no-one being caught yet.

The threat of a €20 million fine, or one which is up to 3% of a business’ total revenues, is nothing more than a piece of paper at the moment. If there is no evidence or fear authorities will punish to the full extent of the law, GDPR doesn’t act as much of a protection mechanism or a deterrent. When a genuine violation of GDPR is uncovered, Europe needs to bear its teeth and demonstrate there will be no breathing room.

This has been the problem for years in the technology industry; fines have been dished out, though there has been no material impact on the business. The staggering growth of revenues in the industry has far exceeded the ability of regulators to act as judge and executioner. Take the recent fines for Apple and Samsung over planned obsolescence in Italy. The $10 million and $5 million fines for Apple and Samsung would have taken 20 and 16 minutes respectively to pay off. This is not good enough.

Regulators now have the authority to hold the suspect characters in the industry accountable for nefarious actions concerning data protection and privacy, but it has to prove itself capable of wielding the axe. Until Europe shows it has a menacing side, nothing will change for the better.

UK telecoms complaints at an all time low

The latest complaints data shared by UK telecoms regulator Ofcom reveals the level of moaning are at their lowest since it started collating them.

Ofcom has been logging consumer complaints about landline, broadband, mobile and pay TV services since 2010. The fact that they are at their lowest level ever would appear to indicate UK CSPs are doing a great job. Of course people could have just given up, or have become steadily more apathetic, or have found more effective ways to punish errant telcos than moaning to Ofcom, but let’s give them the benefit of the doubt.

“Although we’re encouraged that complaints are at their lowest levels since we started shining a light on this, some telecoms and TV companies are still falling short,” said Jane Rumble, Ofcom’s Director of Consumer Policy. “We expect those providers to up their game and deliver better service to all their customers.”

In the tables below you can see first the historical totals for the four categories of complaints and then the most recent ones for broadband, mobile and pay TV. We haven’t bothered with the landline ones because we figure nobody cares anymore. Now that Vodafone has got its act together there are no outstanding poor performers in mobile and similarly BT seems to have sorted out its pay TV operations.

Ofcom Q2 18 complaints historical

Broadband

Ofcom Q2 18 complaints broadband

Mobile

Ofcom Q2 18 complaints mobile

Pay TV

Ofcom Q2 18 complaints pay TV

EU divided on digital tax

Fears over a reaction from the US has sent Finance Ministers from Ireland, Sweden and Denmark cowering back to their spreadsheets as the EU digital tax hits an early stumbling block.

While the collective bargaining power and protection afforded by the European Union is certainly useful, the cumbersome nature of the bureaucratic beast and unanimous decision making ensures it is anything but. As with many proposed rule changes in the past, objections from a handful of member states have slammed the emergency brakes on the digital tax, aimed at holding the internet giants accountable.

According to the Guardian, the Finance Ministers of Ireland, Sweden and Denmark have all aired their criticism not on the concept of the tax, but fears over what President Trump might suggest as a retaliation. There’s a pragmatic approach to business and there’s spineless appeasement to a bully, we’ll let you decide which one this is.

Of course, it would be unfair to herd all of the EU member states into the same cowardly-corner as Ireland, Sweden and Denmark. 12 member states are already moving ahead with their own plans to create a localised digital tax, including the UK as was announced during the Autumn Budget, and some are acting somewhat hawkish about it. The French Government has suggested it would like the tax rates on the playing field by the end of 2018, though Germany seems to be favouring a more watered-down version of the rules.

The EU wide tax on those taking advantage of creative tax regimes, would be the best solution however. A united front against the slippery Silicon Valley internet giants, as well as those from other nations around the world, would of course be the best way to claim that 3% of local revenues, but it is becoming more difficult to imagine that a reality.

The fainthearted trio do of course have something to worry about. Despite Trump slapping tariffs on Chinese goods, and threatening to revamp tax laws so Amazon cannot take advantage of the US tax havens, he would most likely take the US tax as an attack on American values and a threat to the borders. The President is a man or rarely recognises consistency and before too long will probably be describing Jeff Bezos as a close family friend who have been relentlessly pursued by the penny-pinching Europeans.

Ireland also has a lot to lose. After proving it was incapable of managing its finances in a responsible way, the technology giants could be seen as somewhat of a saviour to the economy. Apple, Facebook and Google are just a few names who house a considerable base in the country. Ireland certainly has its own interests to protect.

It’s disappointing to see such weak behaviour in the face of an orange-hued, bullying politician, but at least there are some nations who are prepared to go it alone and hold the internet giants accountable to fair taxation.

Facebook referred to EU over suspect tracking methods

The UK’s Information Commissioners Office has referred an investigation into Facebook to the EU’s lead data protection watchdog over concerns about how the internet giant is tracking users.

The investigation, which was initially launched in May 2017, is primarily focused on the Cambridge Analytica scandal, though this might only be the tip of the iceberg for Facebook. Aside from fining the social media giant, the ICO has referred the case to the Irish Data Protection Commission, as the lead supervisory authority for Facebook under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). As you can see below, Cambridge Analytica might only be the beginning of Facebook’s headache.

“Since we began, the scope of our investigation has extended to 30 organisations, we have formally interviewed 33 individuals and are working through forensic analysis of 700 terabytes of data,” said Information Commissioner Elizabeth Denham. “In layman’s terms, that’s the equivalent of 52 billion pages.

“Now I have published a report to Parliament that brings the various strands of our investigation up to date. It sets out what we have found and what we now know. But it is not the end. Some of the issues uncovered in our investigation are still ongoing or will require further investigation or action.”

Those who practise the dark arts of hyper-targeted advertising rarely give explanations as to how what information is being specifically held and how much of a detailed picture is being built up through primary sourced data and third-party sources. Few have a genuine understanding of the complexities of these advertising machines, though this is the foundation of various investigations. Transparency is the key word here, with many wanting the curtain to be pulled aside and the mechanics explained.

The fine is clear evidence the ICO is not happy with the state of affairs, though continuation of the investigation and referral to the EU overlords suggests there are more skeletons to be uncovered in-between Zuckerberg’s V-neck jumpers and starch ironed chinos.

“We have referred our ongoing concerns about Facebook’s targeting functions and techniques that are used to monitor individuals’ browsing habits, interactions and behaviour across the internet and different devices to the to the IDPC,” said Denham.

The initial focus of the investigation might have been political influence, though the more details which emerge, the less comfortable pro-privacy bureaucrats in Brussels are likely to feel. Regulating the slippery Silicon Valley natives has always been a tricky job, but with the Facebook advertising machine becoming increasingly exposed, the rulebook governing the data sharing economy might well be in need of a refresh.

GSMA reckons spectrum might come in handy for 5G

In a new ‘industry position’ mobile trade association the GSMA warns that clever new 5G tech won’t be much good without the spectrum to carry it.

The executive summary is the standard stuff about a new generation of wireless tech opening up a bunch of new opportunities, but this is just the setup. We won’t be able to do any of this cool stuff, you see, unless governments and regulators do a better job of giving operators the swathes of spectrum they will need to deliver on the promise of 5G.

“Operators urgently need more spectrum to deliver the endless array of services that 5G will enable – our 5G future depends heavily on the decisions governments are making in the next year as we head into WRC-19,” said Brett Tarnutzer, Head of Spectrum at the GSMA.

“Without strong government support to allocate sufficient spectrum to next generation mobile services, it will be impossible to achieve the global scale that will make 5G affordable and accessible for everyone. There is a real opportunity for innovation from 5G, but this hinges on governments focusing on making enough spectrum available, not maximising auction revenues for short term gains.”

WRC-19 refers to the World Radiocommunications Conference 2019. It will be the first one for four years and it’s the event at which the world has a think about things like allocating radio spectrum according to current needs. So it’s a rare opportunity for organisations such as the GSMA to try and get their members some more of that precious resource.

“Governments and regulators have a major role to play in ensuring that consumers get the best outcome from 5G,” said Tarnutzer. “Once spectrum is allocated to mobile at WRC, licensing that spectrum at a national level, as history has shown, can take up to 10 years. Therefore, it is essential that governments take the right action now.”

The fact that the GSMA still feel the need to spell out the importance of radio spectrum to governments and regulators is faintly depressing, considering what a redundant point that should be. But this sort of thing is where such organisations earn their keep, by packaging the bleedin obvious into things like industry positions, which presumably increases the chances of bureaucratic types taking it seriously.

Here’s the GSMA’s list of demands:

  1. 5G needs wider frequency bands to support higher speeds and larger amounts of traffic. Regulators that make available 80-100 MHz of spectrum per operator in prime 5G mid-bands (e.g. 3.5 GHz) and around 1 GHz per operator in vital millimeter wave bands (i.e. above 24 GHz), will best support the very fastest 5G services.
  2. 5G needs spectrum within three key frequency ranges to deliver widespread coverage and support all use cases:
  • Sub-1GHz spectrum to extend high-speed 5G mobile broadband coverage across urban, suburban and rural areas and to help support Internet of Things (IoT) services
  • Spectrum from 1-6 GHz to offer a good mix of coverage and capacity for 5G services
  • Spectrum above 6 GHz for 5G services such as ultra-high-speed mobile broadband
  1. It is essential that governments support the 26 GHz, 40 GHz (37-43.5 GHz) and 66-71 GHz bands for mobile at WRC-19. A sufficient amount of harmonised 5G spectrum in these bands is critical to enabling the fastest 5G speeds, low-cost devices and international roaming and to minimising cross-border interference.
  2. Governments and regulators should avoid inflating 5G spectrum prices (e.g. setting high auction reserve prices) as they risk limiting network investment and driving up the cost of services.
  3. Regulators should avoid setting aside spectrum for verticals in key mobile spectrum bands; sharing approaches, such as leasing, are better options where vertical industries require access to spectrum.

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.

Ofcom officially releases BT from its Openreach undertakings

Measures BT undertook in 2005 to placate Ofcom over its wholesale operations are officially no longer relevant, so it doesn’t need to bother.

This seems to be a bit of a formality, since the legal separation of Openreach from BT is supposed to mean BT has no direct influence over the fixed line wholesaler. But at the very least it marks a milestone in BT’s relationship with Ofcom and gives Philip Jansen one less thing to worry about when he takes over next year.

The previous milestone was the official transfer of 31,000 staff from BT Group to Openreach at the start of this month. “This is an important day for Openreach as we’re fulfilling the commitments to Ofcom under the Digital Communications Review,” said Openreach Chairman Mike McTighe at the time. “Openreach now has its own Board, greater strategic and operational independence, a separate brand and an independent workforce – and we’re ambitious for the future.”

The long and short of it seems to be that Openreach now has a separate and distinct relationship with Ofcom and will be assessed solely on its own merits, with no BT baggage. This is probably good news for everyone and is ultimately what all this ‘legal separation’ business is supposed to be about. It should also protect Openreach from accusations of favouring BT. You can read the full statement here.

A possible manifestation of this new, unfettered Openreach may have been the announcement last week that it is dropping the price of full fibre broadband infrastructure to new homes by 75%. Openreach got a nice lot of kudos from public figures for doing its bit to improve fibre coverage, so job done there.

UK government eyes up Silicon Valley for tax raid

Chancellor of the Exchequer Phillip Hammond has confirmed a ‘digital tax’ in the autumn budget aimed at holding the internet players accountable to reasonable tax rates.

In recent years, the internet giants of the US have become known as much for creatively sidestepping the tax man as they have for innovative products and services, but the playing field is shifting. The European Commission is currently attempting to align the interests of all member states to impose its own tax regime, though Hammond isn’t waiting for the boresome Brussels bureaucrats.

“The UK has been leading attempts to deliver international corporate tax reform for the digital age,” said Hammond in the House of Commons while unveiling the budget. “A new global agreement is the best long-term solution. But progress is painfully slow. We cannot simply talk forever.

“So we will now introduce a UK Digital Services Tax. This will be a narrowly-targeted tax on the UK-generated revenues of specific digital platform business models. It will be carefully designed to ensure it is established tech giants – rather than our tech start-ups – that shoulder the burden of this new tax.”

This is the tricky aspect of the new tax; how do you hold the internet giants accountable within placing too much of a burden on the start-ups? These are companies which need assistance to thrive, and an important segment for the UK. Start-ups, most importantly technology start-ups, have been targeted by the UK government to stimulate the economy in a post-Brexit world, but with the threat of digital tax, will these companies want to choose the UK?

The tax will be targeted at revenues generated through search engines, social media platforms and online marketplaces. Long story short, 2% of total revenues generated in the UK will be claimed by the tax man, generated £400 million a year, in theory. The new tax regime will come into place in April 2020, though should the European Commission come up with its own approach, the whole scheme might be scrapped.

For years the internet giants have been shifting profits around and claiming suspect charges to reduce exposure to the tax man. According to a Tax Watch UK study looking at Apple, Google, Facebook, Cisco Systems and Microsoft, the tax liability in 2017 was estimated at £1.26 billion, though only £191 million was paid.

Politically the digital tax is a win for the Conservative government, though at a time where the UK needs to make as many friends as possible while going through an expensive divorce, it is an interesting approach. With a no-deal Brexit looking increasingly likely, the UK needs to attract new investment into the economy and build relationships with trade partners. Taking a combative approach to tax is hardly going to get the internet giants on side, and might well irritate the US government.

Tackling the creative accountants in Silicon Valley has been a government discussion for years, though whether the aggressive approach from the UK will stimulate any progress through the rest of the world remains to be seen.

New York wades in to the T-Mobile/Sprint debate

New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood could prove to be another hurdle for T-Mobile and Sprint to overcome in their headache-inducing merger.

The problem for the pair is there seem to be a lot more objections surrounding the tie-up than there has been support. After T-Mobile CEO John Legere seemingly got little response from his appeal to MVNOs to support the transaction, the wild-eyed leader has opened up to opinions from staff; a dangerous move considering some would certainly be under threat of redundancy.

Perhaps what the duo didn’t need are objections from the New York Attorney General Office over fears the consumer might get screwed. According to the New York Post, the objection is relatively simple. T-Mobile runs a prepaid service called MetroPCS, while Sprint has Boost and Virgin Mobile. Bringing all three into the same business could lead to one or more being scrapped, reducing competition. Secondly, all three are incredibly aggressive on pricing, but again, bringing all three into the same business could end this trend of undercutting, and an increase in price. The New Yorkers are concerned tariffs could become too expensive for some.

While objections from a few lawyers might not be the worst thing in the world for T-Mobile and Sprint, it seems there is a queue forming. In fact, the FCC released a notice last week which stated the Attorney General Offices of Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Mississippi, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia have all requested information to assist their own investigations into the merger. The lawyers are lurking, and the more who gather around the fire, the less pleasing the situation appears for T-Mobile and Sprint.

This of course might mean nothing. All major parties in the US are perfectly entitled to do their own due diligence surrounding the deal as transitioning from a market with four major telcos down to three is a massive move. Considering there will be regions across the country where this transaction effectively creates a communications monopoly, every chance to scrutinise the deal should be taken.

As it stands, the self-appointed shot-clock on approving the deal at the FCC is on hold. This again is simply down to the magnitude and the potentially significant consequences of the deal, and should not be surprising at all, but the longer it stands still, we suspect the more nervous executives will become. Mergers of this nature have already been shot down in the US, and this deal does seem to be hanging in the balance.

Trump set sights on spectrum strategy

US President Donald Trump has unveiled plans to create a National Spectrum Strategy to prepare the country prepare for the introduction of 5G wireless networks.

The presidential memorandum, which was signed last week, directs the Secretary of Commerce to work with agencies and policy makers on all levels to develop a National Spectrum Strategy. As part of the strategy, the Secretary of the department will report annually to the President on efforts to repurpose spectrum, while a Spectrum Strategy Task Force will also be created which, including representatives from the Office of Management and Budget, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the National Security Council, the National Space Council, and the Council of Economic Advisers.

“American companies and institutions rely heavily on high-speed wireless connections, with increasing demands on both speed and capacity,” the memorandum states. “Wireless technologies are helping to bring broadband to rural, unserved, and underserved parts of America. Spectrum-dependent systems also are indispensable to the performance of many important United States Government missions. And as a Nation, our dependence on these airwaves is likely to continue to grow.”

Within 180 days, executive departments and agencies are required to report to the Secretary of Commerce on their anticipated future spectrum requirements, while the OSTP shall submit a report to the President on emerging technologies and the expected impact on spectrum demand. Once these reports have been submitted and assessed, the Secretary of Commerce will have to brief the White House on the status of existing efforts and planned near- to mid-term spectrum repurposing initiatives, as well as a long-term National Spectrum Strategy that includes legislative, regulatory, or other policy recommendations to rework the approach to spectrum management.

While work on spectrum has been underway for some time, this intervention from the White House demonstrates the importance of 5G to the US economy, and perhaps its long-standing battle with the Chinese to maintain control of the global economy.  Although Silicon Valley still maintains the leadership position on the worldwide technology and telecommunications industry, this grip is not quite as ironclad as it was in previous years. With digital taking over in the cockpit as the driver for almost every ‘developed’ economy around the world, a flexible, future-proofed spectrum policy is critical.

“We commend the administration for recognizing the importance of establishing a national spectrum strategy,” said CTIA President Meredith Baker. “With the right approach based on licensed wireless spectrum, America’s wireless carriers will invest hundreds of billions of dollars and create millions of jobs to deploy next-generation networks and win the global 5G race.”

“Spectrum has become one of the most critical inputs for the communications and information technologies that are driving America’s economic growth,” a statement from the NCTA reads. “The services that rely on unlicensed spectrum alone generated more than $525 billion in value for the U.S. economy in 2017. We look forward to engaging in constructive dialogue with the White House, NTIA, and the FCC on the development of a balanced national spectrum policy that will meet the growing need for both licensed and unlicensed spectrum to support next-generation wireless technologies.”

The attention from the White House will certainly be welcomed by the industry, though some have questioned why it has taken so long. With the Trump administration focusing on other areas, in particular looking outwards, some critics have questioned why it has taken so long for the White House to take a firm position in the 5G world. Democrat FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel is one who has questioned the sluggish nature of the administration, particularly focused on reports and action, suggesting it has allowed other countries such as China and Korea to steal valuable yards in the 5G race.

While specifics are relatively thin for the moment, the spectrum strategy might go some way to settle bickering in the industry. A good example is the battle between the autonomous vehicles camp, which is currently guarding largely unused spectrum reserved to allow vehicles to communicate, and telcos who want the assets opened up for wifi. This is only one example, but without a comprehensive, forward-looking, strategy in place, these arguments will not be settled.

Such a policy will provide much needed clarity in the industry, though six months is a long-time to wait with the 5G world fast approaching.