WebProNews

Tag: FCC

  • Scientists Warn 5G May Pose Serious Health Risks

    Scientists Warn 5G May Pose Serious Health Risks

    There have been several attempts to reassure the public that 5G is safe, with Australian telcos and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) weighing in most recently. With the 5G market starting to take off, not to mention the revolutionary potential the technology promises, it’s understandable why everyone wants to believe it is safe.

    In spite of that, Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD, director of the Center for Family and Community Health in the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley, has written an op-ed in Scientific American to make the case that there is no reason to believe 5G is safe.

    Moskowitz begins by saying, “we believe it is our ethical responsibility to inform the public about what the peer-reviewed scientific literature tells us about the health risks from wireless radiation.”

    After highlighting the FCC’s recent decision not to change the cellular safety standards that were established back in the 1990s, Moskowitz continues:

    “Yet, since the FCC adopted these limits based largely on research from the 1980s, the preponderance of peer-reviewed research, more than 500 studies, have found harmful biologic or health effects from exposure to RFR at intensities too low to cause significant heating.

    “Citing this large body of research, more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for stronger exposure limits. The appeal makes the following assertions:

    “‘Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.’”

    Moskowitz then goes on to discuss the specific dangers of 5G, especially the millimeter wave (mmWave) variety that provides the revolutionary speed 5G promises. Because of its extremely short range, mmWave requires base stations, repeaters and cell antennas to be placed every couple of hundred meters apart, at the farthest. This results in a much greater saturation of electromagnetic fields (EMF) and radiation as previous generations of wireless technology.

    Moskowitz ends his op-ed by suggesting that the only safe way to proceed is to “support the recommendations of the 250 scientists and medical doctors who signed the 5G Appeal that calls for an immediate moratorium on the deployment of 5G and demand that our government fund the research needed to adopt biologically based exposure limits that protect our health and safety.”

    This is similar to the stand a number of Swiss cantons have taken, calling for a halt on 5G deployments until further research can be done.

  • FCC Looking to Make More Mid-Range Spectrum Available For 5G

    FCC Looking to Make More Mid-Range Spectrum Available For 5G

    The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has “proposed changes to the rules governing the 3.1-3.55 GHz band, which would be the first step to making spectrum in this band available for advanced commercial services, including 5G.”

    The spectrum in question—3.1-3.55 GHz—is considered mid-range spectrum, in contrast to the low-band 600 MHz spectrum that makes up T-Mobile’s nationwide 5G network, or the mmWave spectrum that is slowly rolling out in various cities. Low-band spectrum has the benefit of extremely long range and good building penetration, but at the cost of speed. Initial tests show it to be, at most, two to four times faster than LTE, a mere 20 percent faster in other cases. In contrast, mmWave has speeds measured in gigabits rather than megabits, at the expense of range and penetration.

    Carriers plan to use the mid-range spectrum to bridge the divide between low-band and mmWave, providing a balance between speed, range and penetration. Sprint’s vast portfolio of mid-range spectrum, specifically 2.5 GHz, was one of the primary motivations for T-Mobile’s bid to buy the fourth largest U.S. carrier.

    Some analysts have begun to doubt whether T-Mobile will able to complete the merger, as a result of the court case aimed at stopping it. If the merger fails, T-Mobile will need to look elsewhere for mid-range spectrum and these new bands may well be the answer.

  • Analyst Cuts Odds For a Successful Merger Between T-Mobile and Sprint

    Analyst Cuts Odds For a Successful Merger Between T-Mobile and Sprint

    As the trial to prevent the T-Mobile/Sprint merger entered its third day, at least one analyst cut the odds for a successful merger.

    A coalition of 13 states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit to prevent the third and fourth-place carriers from merging, despite both the FCC and DOJ signing off on the deal. In the first day of the trial, documents came to light highlighting a Sprint executive’s belief that the merger would result in higher prices for consumers—one of the main reasons the states are objecting to the merger.

    According to Barron’s, after the first couple of days of testimony, Raymond James analyst Ric Prentiss has lowered the odds of the wireless carriers winning their case from 85 percent to a mere 55 percent. One of the biggest factors is the challenge of propping up Dish Network as a viable 5G competitor. Critics of the deal have made the case that going from four major carriers to three would stifle competition and hurt the market. As a result, T-Mobile and Sprint agreed to sell assets, including Sprint’s prepaid business, to Dish Network in an effort to help it move beyond satellite TV service and become a viable wireless competitor. So far, however, that has been a more difficult sell than anticipated, leading Prentiss to issue his report.

    As Barron’s goes on to highlight, Sprint will be the big loser in the event the merger fails, as it has not demonstrated an ability to profitably continue on its own. T-Mobile, on the other hand, is leading the industry in earnings and subscriber growth, and will likely continue just fine on its own. It will, however, need to acquire additional 5G spectrum if the deal should fall through, as it was planning on using Sprint’s ample spectrum to build out the mid-range portion of its 5G network. T-Mobile activated its low-band, long-range 5G network on December 2. Meanwhile, it continues to build out its mmWave, high-speed, short-range network in multiple cities. Sprint’s spectrum would have been ideal as the mid-range bridge. If the deal is blocked, T-Mobile will need to acquire replacement spectrum to bridge the gap between its low-band and mmWave networks.

    With so much at stake, industry analysts, executives, experts and consumers are eagerly watching to see if T-Mobile and Sprint can win their case. In the meantime, we will continue to provide updates as the case develops.

  • DOJ Planning to Review Google-Fitbit Deal Over Privacy Concerns

    DOJ Planning to Review Google-Fitbit Deal Over Privacy Concerns

    According to the New York Post, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is planning to review the Google-Fitbit deal over concerns about consumer privacy.

    We reported last month that Google had agreed to acquire Fitbit for $2.1 billion. As part of the announcement, Google did its best to reassure current users that it would respect their privacy and that their personal data would not be sold to third parties or be used for advertising. A couple of weeks later, it came to light that Facebook had also been interested in the wearable company, losing out in a bidding war against Google. At the end of that article, we made the following observation:

    “While some users have understandably been concerned about privacy in the wake of the announcement Google was purchasing Fitbit, it’s probably a safe bet that far more users would be concerned if Facebook was the buyer.”

    Evidently, the fact that Google is buying Fitbit instead of Facebook is not enough of a consolation prize to prevent regulatory scrutiny. In fact, according to the New York Post, both the DOJ and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) wanted to review the deal, with one source describing it “as a real ‘arm wrestle’ between the agencies.”

    Both agencies are concerned with the privacy implications, given the amount of data Google already has about people’s lives. They fear that allowing Google to purchase Fitbit will give them too much data, especially sensitive health information. Google is already under scrutiny for Project Nightingale, Google’s partnership with the Ascension healthcare group to collect data on millions of patients.

    While the FTC has usually investigated Google’s past deals, the DOJ won out this time due to the fact they are “presently investigating Google for broader anti-competitive issues.”

    Although it’s too early to know how the DOJ will rule, the Public Citizen and the Center for Digital Democracy had previously urged the FTC to block the merger. With increased scrutiny on Google’s handling of customer data, it may be an uphill battle to close the Fitbit deal.

  • T-Mobile, Sprint Merger Case Begins Monday; Major Issues On the Line

    T-Mobile, Sprint Merger Case Begins Monday; Major Issues On the Line

    A case that will have significant ramifications for the U.S. wireless industry will begin Monday, as T-Mobile and Sprint defend their merger plans.

    The number three and four carriers have been pursuing a merger agreement that has been widely opposed by various entities. After initial concerns, both the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) signed off on the merger. Despite the federal agencies backing it, a coalition of nearly 20 states filed a lawsuit to prevent the merger.

    Over the course of the past few months, T-Mobile has been working overtime trying to address concerns the individual states have, in the hopes of whittling down opposition. The strategy has proved relatively successful, as a number of states have dropped out of the lawsuit after receiving concessions from T-Mobile. Texas, Nevada and Colorado are the most recent ones to drop the suit, leaving 13 states and the District of Columbia still pursuing it.

    As The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reports, “legal experts say it is unprecedented for the states to reject such a settlement and sue to block a merger of this size and national scope without the support or involvement of federal authorities.”

    The WSJ report emphasizes the long-term stakes hanging in the balance.

    “A victory for the carriers, which say the merger will allow them to offer better services, could arm other companies with new arguments for the benefits of consolidation. But a win for the coalition could give states newfound power in antitrust enforcement when they are also investigating U.S. tech giants.

    “If the states prevail, ‘companies will have to take them more seriously,’ said New York University law professor Harry First. ‘They’ll have to have really serious discussions with states like California and New York.’”

  • FCC Votes Against Changing Cell Phone Safety Rules; No Evidence of 5G Health Risks

    FCC Votes Against Changing Cell Phone Safety Rules; No Evidence of 5G Health Risks

    With all four of the major U.S. carriers rolling out some form of 5G, there have been widespread concerns about potential health risks, especially regarding the millimeter wave (mmWave) variety.

    Because mmWave has limited range, base stations and repeaters must be placed every couple to few hundred yards apart, blanketing areas with 5G signal and radio frequency (RF) emissions. Physicians, consumer groups and governments around the world have expressed concern, with some jurisdictions even putting a hold on further deployment until more research can be done.

    In a recent report by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), however, the body voted unanimously not to make changes to the guidelines governing wireless safety, believing the current standards are sufficient.

    “After reviewing the extensive record submitted in response to that inquiry, we find no appropriate basis for and thus decline to propose amendments to our existing limits at this time” the report reads. “We take to heart the findings of the Food & Drug Administration (FDA), an expert agency regarding the health impacts of consumer products, that ‘[t]he weight of scientific evidence has not linked cell phones with any health problems.’ Despite requests from some to increase and others to decrease the existing limits, we believe they reflect the best available information concerning safe levels of RF exposure for workers and members of the general public, including inputs from our sister federal agencies charged with regulating safety and health and from well- established international standards.”

    The FCC’s findings echo those by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA). According to ZDNet, Nathan Wahl, ARPANSA government international relations assistant director, told the Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts: “Our assessment of 5G is that it is safe.”

  • Verizon, T-Mobile and US Cellular Exaggerated 4G LTE Coverage

    Verizon, T-Mobile and US Cellular Exaggerated 4G LTE Coverage

    Yesterday we reported on the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) plans to allocate $9 billion to assist rural 5G rollout. It appears that decision was motivated by an investigation showing that Verizon, T-Mobile and US Cellular exaggerated the extent of their 4G LTE coverage.

    The investigation resulted from complaints in 12 states that the three carriers’ coverage was not as good as advertised. FCC staff drove nearly 10,000 miles testing wireless signals on Samsung S9 smartphones.

    “Only 62.3% of staff drive tests achieved at least the minimum download speed predicted by the coverage maps—with U.S. Cellular achieving that speed in only 45.0% of such tests, T-Mobile in 63.2% of tests, and Verizon in 64.3% of tests,” the report says. “Similarly, staff stationary tests showed that each provider achieved sufficient download speeds meeting the minimum cell edge probability in fewer than half of all test locations (20 of 42 locations). In addition, staff was unable to obtain any 4G LTE signal for 38% of drive tests on U.S. Cellular’s network, 21.3% of drive tests on T-Mobile’s network, and 16.2% of drive tests on Verizon’s network, despite each provider reporting coverage in the relevant area.”

    There is more at stake than mere inconvenience, however, as the report goes on to highlight.

    “The Commission and the public must be able to rely on the deployment data that providers submit to the Commission. Inaccurate data jeopardize the ability of the Commission to focus our limited universal service funds on the unserved areas that need the most support.”

    In other words, if coverage maps show an area has excellent wireless reception, the FCC is unlikely to green-light funds to improve coverage in that area. Therefore, areas that inaccurately display coverage could end up being denied funds they desperately need.

    The FCC proposed a number of remedies, including penalties for carriers that overstate coverage and appropriations from Congress to cover the expense of having manual driving checks to verify signal.

    Hopefully, whatever the FCC decides will help resolve the issues wireless customers have experienced for years—where what they pay for doesn’t always match what they were promised.

  • FCC Announces $9 Billion 5G Fund For Rural America

    FCC Announces $9 Billion 5G Fund For Rural America

    Rural America has traditionally lagged behind the rest of the country when it comes to wireless access. Get far enough off the beaten track and wireless coverage pales in comparison to urban environments.

    According to an announcement by the Federal Communications Commission, however, the 5G rollout may finally help close that gap. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai plans on establishing the 5G Fund to provide $9 billion to help carriers deploy 5G in rural areas, especially “areas with sparse populations and/or rugged terrain.” The fund will also use at least $1 billion for precision agricultural needs.

    “5G has the potential to bring many benefits to American consumers and businesses, including wireless networks that are more responsive, more secure, and up to 100 times faster than today’s 4G LTE networks,” said Chairman Pai. “We want to make sure that rural Americans enjoy these benefits, just as residents of large urban areas will. In order to do that, the Universal Service Fund must be forward-looking and support the networks of tomorrow. Moreover, America’s farms and ranches have unique wireless connectivity needs, as I’ve seen across the country. That’s why I will move forward as quickly as possible to establish a 5G Fund that would bring next-generation 5G services to rural areas and would reserve some of that funding for 5G networks that promote precision agriculture. We must ensure that 5G narrows rather than widens the digital divide and that rural Americans receive the benefits that come from wireless innovation.”

    If the FCC succeeds in narrowing the digital divide, it would be a boon for rural communities and households, where even wired high-speed internet lags behind. Widespread 5G access could open a world of economic possibilities for these areas.

  • Colorado Pulls Out of Lawsuit Attempting to Block T-Mobile/Sprint Merger

    Colorado Pulls Out of Lawsuit Attempting to Block T-Mobile/Sprint Merger

    Reuters is reporting that Colorado has become the second state to pull out of a lawsuit seeking to stop T-Mobile and Sprint’s proposed merger.

    The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted last week to approve the merger, following the Department of Justice signing off on the deal in July. Despite the government’s approval, nearly 20 states had joined in a lawsuit aimed at stopping the merger.

    T-Mobile has been working overtime to try to win over the opposing states. Mississippi was the first to change position, following T-Mobile’s commitment to deploy a 5G network in the state. The company had already made considerable concessions in its efforts to win over the FCC and DOJ, but these commitments were specific to Mississippi. The new 5G network will cover at least 62 percent of the state’s population within three years, and within six years will reach 88 percent of the state’s rural population and 92% of the general population.

    Now T-Mobile has been successful using a similar approach to persuade Colorado to pull out of the suit. As part of its agreement with the FCC and DOJ, the combined company would be divesting some of Sprint’s prepaid assets to DISH Network, as the latter company works to become a fourth, alternative carrier. In the agreement with Colorado, T-Mobile agreed to build out its 5G network across much of the state, while DISH pledged to bring in 2,000 jobs.

    With Colorado and Mississippi now supporting the merger, it remains to be seen if the company’s efforts will be successful in winning over other opponents.

  • Citing National Security, FCC Blocks Huawei and ZTE From Federal Subsidies

    Citing National Security, FCC Blocks Huawei and ZTE From Federal Subsidies

    The Verge is reporting that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has voted unanimously to block telecom companies from using federal funds to purchase equipment from Huawei or ZTE.

    The Universal Service Fund (USF) provides $8.5 billion a year in subsidies for carriers to provide wireless services throughout the United States, especially in rural areas. Under the new ruling, carriers would not be able to use money from the USF to purchase equipment from the two companies, both whom have been deemed a threat to national security.

    Huawei and ZTE have both been blacklisted by the U.S. government. In ZTE’s case, the company ran afoul by selling to North Korea and Iran, in violation of sanctions. The restrictions on ZTE were eventually eased in exchange for a $1 billion fine. Huawei, on the other hand, has been accused of being a possible conduit for spying by the Chinese government. Under Chinese law, all companies are required to help the government when prompted. Huawei, however, has been accused of much closer ties to the government and intelligence agencies than the average Chinese corporation.

    Rural carriers may be hit especially hard by the FCC’s decision, as Huawei is widely considered to be one of the most cost-effective solutions, saving companies millions of dollars. The FCC may go even further, however, having voted to consider requiring rural carriers to remove installed Huawei equipment for alternatives.

    At the hearing, FCC commissioner Brendan Carr said: “After all, if equipment poses a threat, it is not enough to stop subsidizing it. It must come out of the network.”

    Huawei continues to deny it is a threat and has denounced the FCC’s ruling.

    “Huawei believes this order is unlawful as the FCC has singled out Huawei based on national security, but it provides no evidence that Huawei poses a security risk,” a company spokesperson said in a statement.

  • T-Mobile Suffers Breach, Sensitive Prepaid Data Exposed

    T-Mobile Suffers Breach, Sensitive Prepaid Data Exposed

    T-Mobile announced it has suffered a data breach, exposing prepaid customers’ sensitive information to hackers.

    T-Mobile has not said when the attack occurred, but they have confirmed that financial data was not compromised. That means that credit card and back account information, as well as social security numbers, were not impacted. The company also stated that no passwords were compromised.

    “The data accessed was information associated with your prepaid service account, including name and billing address (if you provided one when you established your account), phone number, account number, rate plan and features, such as whether you added an international calling feature. Rate plan and features of your voice calling service are ‘customer proprietary network information’ (‘CPNI’) under FCC rules, which require we provide you notice of this incident.”

    The company has not said how many customer accounts were exposed, although a spokesman did tell CNET that the number was a “very small single digit percentage of customers.”

    T-Mobile says all affected customers have been, or shortly will be, notified. If customers have not received notification, it likely means they were not impacted.

  • FCC Approves T-Mobile and Sprint Merger But Opposition Remains

    FCC Approves T-Mobile and Sprint Merger But Opposition Remains

    CNBC is reporting that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has voted to approve the merger between T-Mobile and Sprint. While the deal had earlier received approval from the Department of Justice (DOJ), the FCC’s approval is one of the final steps needed before the merger is finalized.

    The FCC’s commissioners voted along party lines to approve the deal. Chairman Ajit Pai voted with the two Republican commissioners in favor of the deal, with the two Democratic commissioners voting against.

    Jessica Rosenworcel, one of the Democratic commissioners, released a statement voicing her objections.

    “We’ve all seen what happens when markets become more concentrated after a merger like this one,” Rosenworcel said, using airline baggage fees and pharmaceutical drug prices as a point of comparison. “There’s no reason to think this time will be different. Overwhelming evidence demonstrates that the T-Mobile-Sprint merger will reduce competition, raise prices, lower quality, and slow innovation.”

    Despite the two agencies signing off on the deal, there is still substantial opposition. Nearly 20 states joined in filing a lawsuit to prevent the deal from going forward, arguing that consolidating the wireless industry around three main players will result in higher prices and less choices for consumers. T-Mobile, on the other hand, has said that combining with Sprint will give it a much better chance of competing with Verizon and AT&T, each of whom have nearly double the number of subscribers as T-Mobile. The combined company would be much closer in size, and have significantly more bandwidth to use for 5G rollout.

    T-Mobile has already made substantial concessions in order to gain support for the merger, resulting in Mississippi withdrawing from the lawsuit once their concerns were met. If T-Mobile is able to continue addressing concerns, there’s a real possibility that remaining opposition may melt away in the wake of the FCC’s decision.

  • Qualcomm Chips Central to Wave of 5G Home Internet Devices

    Qualcomm Chips Central to Wave of 5G Home Internet Devices

    While Apple may be looking to end their dependence on Qualcomm, the future is looking bright for the semiconductor company. In a press release issued today, Qualcomm announced that Netgear, LG, Sharp and Samsung are among 30+ companies building plug-and-play home internet gear based on Qualcomm’s 5G chips.

    According to the FCC, some 19 million Americans still lack access to broadband. One of the most anticipated benefits of 5G deployment is the ability to offer broadband-class home internet wirelessly, otherwise known as fixed wireless access.

    5G home broadband holds the promise of gigabit-per-second speeds, far greater than the speed of current 4G technology, as well as many traditional broadband providers. The wireless tech is also a boon for established neighborhoods, since it doesn’t require excavation of roads and yards to lay fiber optic lines.

    “Our comprehensive Snapdragon X55 5G Modem-RF System architecture, which supports virtually any combination of 5G spectrum bands and modes, from sub-6 to extended-range mmWave, will empower global mobile carriers and OEMs to offer best-in-class 5G performance to homes and businesses, including those in previously underserved areas,” said Cristiano Amon, president, Qualcomm Incorporated. “The widespread adoption of our modem-to-antenna solution translates into enhanced fixed broadband services and additional opportunities to utilize 5G network infrastructure for broad coverage in urban, suburban and rural environments. Due to the development ease of our integrated system and industry movement toward self-installed, plug-and-play CPE devices, we expect OEMs will be able to support fixed broadband deployments beginning in 2020.”

  • Appeal Court Rules on Net Neutrality: Both Sides Declare Victory

    Appeal Court Rules on Net Neutrality: Both Sides Declare Victory

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has ruled on the controversial net neutrality rollbacks passed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). In 2018 the FCC moved to deregulate the broadband and telecommunications industries, setting off a battle that has repercussions for the very core of the Internet.

    At the heart of the issue is whether companies have the right to deprioritize certain kinds of Internet traffic, or charge companies and consumers more to deliver or access certain kinds of content. Proponents of the FCC’s decision praised it as one that would drive innovation and help keep costs low.

    On the other hand, critics warned that it would allow large companies to unfairly shut out smaller competitors. For example, rolling back net neutrality could allow a company like AT&T to charge Netflix exorbitantly more in an effort to protect AT&T’s DirecTV from competition. Alternately, a broadband provider could offer their own content free, while charging customers more to access a competitor’s.

    In response to the FCC’s ruling, a coalition of companies and groups, led by Mozilla, sued the agency in an effort to block the new rules. In today’s ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the FCC’s right to roll back net neutrality, finding that the agency did not overreach its authority in its 2018 ruling.

    At the same time, however, the court handed a partial victory to critics of the FCC’s new rules, as it provides a way for states and localities to implement their own net neutrality requirements. In the FCC’s new rules, the agency had included an order prohibiting state and local governments from implementing their own rules. Now that the appeals court has struck down that order, those entities are free to pursue their own regulations, ensuring net neutrality will live on.

  • FCC Chairman to Robocallers: This Is Not Going To Stand!

    FCC Chairman to Robocallers: This Is Not Going To Stand!

    FCC Chairman Ajit Pai blasted robocallers today in an interview on Fox Business. He said that the FCC has taken aggressive regulatory action and has told the Justice Department that robocalling in one of the FCC’s top consumer protection priorities: “We need you to make this an issue to send a signal to all of the robocallers out there, even the ones who are beyond our shores, that this is not going to stand for America consumers.”

    Ajit Pai, Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, discusses how the FCC is aggressively fighting the annoying and time wasting robocall industry in an interview on Fox Business:

    FCC To Robocallers: This is Not Going To Stand

    There are two different parts of our plan (to combat robocalls). First, is taking aggressive regulatory action. We have told the industry that we expect them to adopt what is called call authentication. That is essentially a digital fingerprint for every phone call this year. If they don’t, the FCC will take action to make sure that they do.

    Secondly, in terms of enforcement, we have imposed fines (totalling $205 million since 2015) and we have referred those cases to the Department of Justice which is in charge of collecting those fines. We have emphasized to the Department of Justice that this is one of our top consumer protection priorities. We need you to make this an issue to send a signal to all of the robocallers out there, even the ones who are beyond our shores, that this is not going to stand for America consumers.

    FCC Chairman to Robocallers: This Is Not Going To Stand!


  • We Want America To Be the Leader in 5G, Says FCC Chairman

    We Want America To Be the Leader in 5G, Says FCC Chairman

    “We want America to be the leader in 5G,” says FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. “We want to put the building blocks in place so that we can have the possible fastest network so all applications can operate at scale. We think America is the best home for this innovation and investment. If we get it right, especially when it comes to a transformative technology like 5G, we’re confident that we will see even more competition and more innovation.”

    Ajit Pai, Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, discusses how 5G is important to national competitiveness and national security in an interview on Fox Business:

    We Want America To Be the Leader in 5G

    I think 5G is coming online soon. We already see some American carriers doing trials across the United States. That’s in part because we want America to be the leader in 5G. That’s part of the reason the President and I are doing this event to highlight the early success America has had and to forecast some of the steps we are going to take to continue the momentum. We want America to continue to be the leader in this next generation of wireless connectivity.

    We want to put the building blocks in place so that we can have the possible fastest network so all applications can operate at scale. We think America is the best home for this innovation and investment. If we get it right, especially when it comes to a transformative technology like 5G, we’re confident that we will see even more competition and more innovation. Ultimately, that’s what others will have to think about in terms of the appropriate regulatory framework. There’s no question that there have been serious issues raised about privacy and the like that Congress is wrestling with when it comes to regulation of Silicon Valley.

    5G is Critical to National Competitiveness and National Security

    At the FCC and across the United States government we want to make sure that our networks, especially our next generation 5G networks, are secure and reliable. We do have concerns about any company, any entity, that may have to comply with requests from the intelligence services of a foreign country. That is essentially one of the concerns (regarding Huawei) that have been raised here.

    That’s why at the FCC I proposed banning the use of federal funding extended by the FCC from being used on equipment or services that come from companies that have been determined to present a national security threat. This is especially true as we emerge into this 5G environment where some of the networks could be managed from abroad using various software tools. We want to make sure that our networks are secure. That is the base level of expectation that any government should have.

    We have to think very seriously about what types of equipment and services we include in our networks here. We are working with some of our counterparts around the world to emphasize to them how important it is to think about the security of these networks. The United Kingdom, for example, recently put out a cybersecurity report about that company (Huawei) that I would certainly bring to peoples attention. Ultimately, these networks are very critical for national competitiveness and national security. We need to make sure they are as reliable as possible.

    We Want America To Be the Leader in 5G, Says FCC Chairman Ajit Pai


  • SEC Chairman: We Want America to Lead the World in 5G

    SEC Chairman: We Want America to Lead the World in 5G

    FCC Chairman Ajit Pai recently talked about the upcoming White House meeting which Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint are all expected to attend. The FCC Chairman says that it’s vital that we eliminate the local regulatory hurdles that are currently preventing 5G from being implemented in the US.

    FCC Chairman Ajit Pai via CNBC’s Squawk on the Street:

    We Want America to Lead the World in 5G

    We want America to lead the world in 5G just as we led the world in 4G. That, of course, takes private sector initiative but also requires government to set the stage in terms of getting the tools for the industry to use out there into the marketplace.

    First, we want to outline a cross-government strategy, not just the FCC, but the entire Trump Administration is going to be on the same page in terms of asserting US leadership in 5g. We hope to learn from the industry is what are some of the necessary building blocks for 5g? We want America to be the home for innovation and investment for the next generation of wireless connectivity. We need to know what policies are needed in order to promote US leadership and I’m hoping it’ll be a very productive exchange.

    I think there’s a strong case for optimism about it being sooner. We already see some of the nation’s biggest companies doing 5G trials and cities like Indianapolis. We see a lot of investment and innovation in some of the tech sectors but there’s also a reason to be concerned because we see a lot of the regulatory barriers to 5G deployment in terms of the infrastructure that is needed to get out there into the marketplace.

    Local Government Regulations and Fees Holding Back 5G

    These regulations are holding back the case for a 5G deployment. That’s part of the reason why the FCC has been focused on what I call our 5G Fast Plan – Facilitating America’s Superiority in 5G Technology. If we get the spectrum out there, incentivize infrastructure deployment, and modernize our regulations, I’m confident that we can hasten the day when Americans can turn to 5G just as they’ve come to rely on 4G.

    We want to set the table so that every company, big and small, and regardless of where they happen to be trying to put deploy these 5G services, will be able to do so at scale in order to serve American consumers.

    By far the biggest barrier is the domestic regulatory barriers that we face. For example, it takes one to two hours to install a small cell on a utility pole that’s necessary for 5G. In some cases, it can take a year or two years to get the regulatory approval for deploying that small cell. That by far is one of the greatest barriers to getting the wide-scale deployment of 5G technologies in the future.

    Additionally, the spectrum that is necessary to get out into the marketplace has been a barrier. We’ve been working aggressively to fix that and we’ve already teed-up over the next year or so more spectrum for the commercial sector use then all of the mobile broadband providers today hold combined. I think those building blocks domestically are much more important for 5G in order to be deployed at scale.

    We Don’t Want to Cede the Mantel of Wireless Leadership to China

    China saw the success that the United States had in 4G and they want to claim that success for themselves. When it comes to 5G we want the United States to be the haven for innovation and investment not just out of some parochial concern but because we truly believe in a free and open Internet and the power of innovation and in the importance of the private sector leading this revolution. We think that this market-based approach is a superior one.

    We, of course, don’t want to cede the mantle of wireless leadership to any other country and our concern is that if China is the first mover in 5G that they will be able to draw some of that capital, some of that talent, and ultimately some of that innovation to their shores.

    I think about some of the applications here in terms of precision agriculture and telemedicine and the Internet of Things and all kinds of other applications we can’t even conceive today. All that could be on tap if we make the right decisions here in the United States and I think that’s going to be a boon for American consumers and for our Internet economy.

  • The Death of Net Neutrality and What it Means for Consumers

    The Death of Net Neutrality and What it Means for Consumers

    It finally happened. The repeal of net neutrality laws by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) took effect on Monday.

    According to the FCC, the repeal will put an end to the “unnecessary, heavy-handed regulations” implemented by the previous administration and move forward with “common-sense regulations that will promote investment and broadband deployment.”

    The net neutrality rules, which were passed in 2015 during the tenure of President Barack Obama, prevented internet providers from giving special treatment to specific websites or charging them more for particular content. However, current FCC Chairman Ajit Pai opposed these regulations as he believed they impeded innovation.

    What It Means for Consumers

    Most internet users and consumer advocates are rightly worried that the repeal of Title II, or the net neutrality bill, means that broadband providers would start to sell their services in bundles, much like how cable television is packaged. For instance, some providers might require users to pay for a social media premium bundle in order to access platforms like Instagram and Twitter.

    There are also concerns that without the protections of the neutrality law, internet providers can slow down their competitor’s traffic or any other site they want to slow down. Conversely, they can also create “fast lanes,” which companies with deep enough pockets can take advantage of in return for faster connectivity.

    This also means that the playing field could be biased against small companies or eCommerce startups that will have to fight harder for exposure. Freelancers and other remote workers might also have to shell out more money to work from home.

    Can Net Neutrality be Revived?

    While it’s understandable for consumers to be wary about the FCC repeal, it will reportedly be months before any changes are felt. In the meantime, several states have already taken steps to protect net neutrality. The governors of Montana, New York, and Washington have either signed a law or issued executive orders to counter federal rules regarding the internet.

    There’s also a motion in the lower House right now that could push Republicans to vote to reinstate the 2015 net neutrality rules. Voters still have a say on this as they can either force their state representative to take a stand or vote out and replace them with someone who supports their stand on a free internet.

    For their part, some internet providers have publicly pledged that they will not throttle or block sites even with the repeal of Title II. Their only argument against the bill was the fact that the FCC had so much control over their business and that the regulations made expansion difficult.

  • Did Senate Democrats Really Save Net Neutrality? The House Has Yet to Vote

    Did Senate Democrats Really Save Net Neutrality? The House Has Yet to Vote

    The US Senate voted on Wednesday to save net neutrality. The chambers used the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to stop the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) decision to undo regulations regarding Internet usage set during the term of President Barack Obama.

    The bill was passed with a 52 to 47 vote, with the Democrats and Independents receiving some surprising support from Republicans John Kennedy and Lisa Murkowski. The duo represents Louisiana and Alaska respectively. As expected, Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine also voted in favor of net neutrality.

    Collins had long announced her support for the CRA move, but Kennedy and Murkowski’s stand on the matter was relatively unknown.

    Kennedy later admitted to the Washington Post that it was difficult to make a decision but it all boiled down to who you were going to trust. As Kennedy explained, those who trusted their cable companies won’t be happy with his vote but “If you don’t trust your cable company, you will.”

    Meanwhile, Murkowski emphasized in a statement that she’s still against some of Obama’s FCC’s regulations but understands the need to safeguard the rights of Internet users.

    “I have voted to pass this resolution today so that we can reset the discussion and move beyond the politics at play here to what is really needed—lasting legislation that will provide certainty and move us beyond shifting regulatory standards that depend on who is running the FCC,” the senator explained.

    Under the Obama administration, regulations prevented broadband providers from blocking, limiting or discriminating against lawful internet content. However, the FCC voted last December to disregard those rules. The FCC’s decision was slated to take effect on June 11, but the new Senate measure effectively blocks that order.

    While the vote to block the FCC might be a major triumph for those supporting net neutrality, they still have a long fight ahead of it. For one, the bill still needs to be approved by the House and signed by President Trump.

    This is where things will potentially get tricky, as net neutrality activists would still have to secure the support of more than 20 Republicans. This is despite having the unanimous support of Democrats. Meanwhile, the White House has been vocal of its support for FCC head Ajit Pai’s move to reverse the regulations set under the previous administration.

    Net neutrality supporters remain hopeful, though. After all, President Trump has changed his mind several times on key issues. There’s also the fact that some Republicans might feel that siding against net neutrality could cause problems in the upcoming midterm elections.

  • The End is Near: Net Neutrality Rules Set to Expire on June 11

    The End is Near: Net Neutrality Rules Set to Expire on June 11

    The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has announced that net neutrality protections will be repealed on June 11, 30 days after the notice was filed on Thursday. Alongside the expiration, new rules governing Internet service providers will also take effect.

    According to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, previous rules were deemed as “utility-styled and heavy-handed.” He also emphasized that the Internet has always been open and free, so there was no need for any restrictions made during the Obama presidency.

    “The Internet wasn’t broken in 2015, when the prior FCC buckled to political pressure and imposed heavy-handed Title II rules on the Internet economy,” Pai expressed in a statement. Despite opposition, Pai’s “Restoring Internet Freedom” proposal was green-lighted in December of last year. However, by April of 2018, only a few of the provisions were implemented due to a prolonged bureaucratic process. But on May 2, the Office of Management and Budget finally signed off the remaining key points.

    Set in the Obama-era, open-internet rules prevented service providers from blocking or slowing down access to specific sites and charging consumers more for faster content loading. Several Internet service providers (ISPs) were accused of throttling and restricting the access of their customers to rival companies with similar offerings. It was a practice that indicated a massive government oversight and jumpstarted FCC investigations under the 2015 rules.

    Once net neutrality rules expire, transparency rules will take effect and ISPs like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T are mandated to inform their customers when they will limit or restrict content and offer faster options at higher fees. These companies also pledged to be impartial against legal content.

    For net neutrality advocates, the fight for an open Internet continues ahead of the June deadline. Democrat senators have presented a petition to reverse Pai’s repeal and the Senate is set to vote on it next week. Even if the legislation passes Senate and Congress hurdles, President Donald Trump is expected to reject it.  

    More than 20 states have filed a lawsuit to block the net neutrality repeal. Several states have adopted laws enforcing the principles of net neutrality within their borders. FCC, however, has asserted authority over any state legislation inconsistent with the repeal.  

  • Net Neutrality Repeal Takes Effect in April, States are Fighting Back with Last-Minute Lawsuits

    Net Neutrality Repeal Takes Effect in April, States are Fighting Back with Last-Minute Lawsuits

    The days of net neutrality are numbered. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has finally set April 23 as the date when the Obama-era regulations will cease to take effect according to a copy of the order published on Thursday with the Federal Register. But of course, various net neutrality supporters are not going to take this one lying down and are expected to file lawsuits as a last-ditch effort to challenge the repeal.

    Net neutrality regulations were put in place during the Obama administration to ensure that all internet traffic is treated equally. With this safeguard in place, broadband companies can’t just slow down or block traffic from certain sites or prioritize other sites when it comes to bandwidth allocation. In addition, internet service providers are barred from accepting money to prioritize certain companies’ websites and make them more accessible to customers.

    Since broadband companies and ISPs act more or less as the net’s gatekeepers, the rules are seen by their supporters as a way to deter abuse of this power. Big tech companies such as Twitter, Google, and Facebook were supportive of net neutrality while big telecom firms such as Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T opposed the regulations and clamored for their repeal.

    Net neutrality opponents scored a major victory last December when FCC voted 3-2 to have the laws repealed. However, supporters are expected to fight back by filing lawsuits questioning the repeal. In fact, attorneys general in more than 20 states, as well as tech companies such as Mozilla, have already filed lawsuits last month to stop the repeal from taking effect. They are expected to refile their lawsuits within 10 days after FCC’s order was published in the Federal Register.

    Congress is given a 60 day period to pass a resolution to reverse FCC’s repeal. Democrats, who support net neutrality, say that they already have 50 votes in the Senate and lack only one more to pass the bill. Such a bill might face a tough time in the House of Representatives considering that Republicans control a larger majority.

    However, some states are not waiting for a vote on the bill and have passed net neutrality laws within their areas. For instance, New Jersey, New York, and already have their own net neutrality policies that ISPs need to adhere to.

    [Featured image via Pixabay]