AI Plus 6G: A Convergence of Mutual Necessity

In conjunction with its annual summit on May 6, CTIA issued a new report devoted to the ongoing merger of wireless technology and AI: Wireless & AI: Driving the Future of Innovation. The report points to the growing co-dependency between the data networks (wired and wireless) and artificial intelligence (AI), a technological advancement that promises to create great value. In doing so, the report discusses several main points that are likely to drive the future of both AI and broadband.

The first principle, which I discussed in an FSF Perspectives earlier this year, is that AI and networks are increasingly interdependent. As the CITA report mentions: “AI requires wireless networks to move data, help coordinate real-time decisions and operate effectively with the physical world. In turn, wireless networks rely on AI to manage the surging complexity and record traffic driven by AI’s own insatiable data demands.

AI without data networks is useless. AI needs the models to download vast amounts of data of all types (code, text, sound, and visual), transport them to any location, process the information, transmit the analysis, and increasingly, act on the results itself without human intervention, a phenomenon the report refers to as "Physical AI." AI will operate across three layers; devices, edge, and the cloud, depending on the speed, complexity, and cost of the task.

Second, the dependence is two-way. While AI is heavily dependent on communications networks to maximize its use of data, the rapid increase in AI’s use of networks demands that the networks use AI to maximize their capacity in the form of transmission capacity, latency, and compute power. Just as the global power of AI depends on networks’ capacity, that capacity must use AI to expand in order to meet these increased needs. 6G networks will respond dynamically to the conditions and demands facing them. Already some are predicting that by the end of the decade one-third of AI traffic needs could go unmet. Accenture estimates that this could reduce potential GDP by $1.4 trillion.

The third point is that the physical merger is already occurring. 6G networks will increasingly connect with a wide variety of machines and sensors. Unlike existing networks, AI will require massive amounts of data to be uploaded into communications networks for analysis. AI traffic is expected to power 75 percent of smartphones within two years. Already, AI traffic is growing three times faster than overall traffic and is expected to account for 30 percent of networks’ traffic by 2034. Finally, 6G networks are expected to increase energy efficiency by 30 percent.

These advancements impact economic growth and national security. AI and wireless are the two top sources of infrastructure investment in the current economy, offsetting some of the uncertainty caused by higher consumer prices and international conflict. The significant dual use capability of AI and network advancements creates significant security implications and places a premium on intelligent and timely regulation. The world’s complexity increasingly cannot be resolved by humans manually reacting to data flows that move faster than human reaction time.

The report focuses on two major areas for policy reform. The first is the allocation of large contiguous blocks of licensed spectrum. The value of spectrum has grown rapidly due both to new uses and the increased capacity of existing uses. As a result, the allocation of spectrum is attracting increased demands from government, industry, and consumer use. The sooner Congress and regulators can develop methods for allocating spectrum to its most valuable uses, the better. The report points to next year’s World Radiocommunication Conference as an important milestone for developing a Western response to international policy.

Finally, permitting reform will also play a large role in determining the pace of innovation. Companies frequently need government approval at the federal, state, or local level before they can start building out Internet infrastructure, whether in the form of home broadband, data centers, or transmission lines. At the state and local levels it is not uncommon for agency officials to demand high fees or costly extraneous requirements as a condition to start construction. While some progress has been made at the federal level, state and local entities still impose significant delays. Both the FCC and Congress need to continue to remove impediments and implement meaningful permitting reform.

The ongoing merger of the communications networks (including eventually 6G) and AI will have vast implications for society. Machines will gather more information, transmit it widely, analyze any correlations within it, and act on the results. This will dramatically expand the information available to humans. The challenge is to use it wisely and for the benefit of all. AI without reliable, secure, high-capacity communications networks is useless, but the networks without AI will collapse.

Maryland Doesn't Need to Stop Dynamic Pricing

Developments in artificial intelligence continue to raise alarm among the public and lawmakers. Among the many concerns cited about artificial intelligence and automation is dynamic pricing. To this end, Maryland Governor Wes Moore signed legislation last week banning grocery stores and third-party delivery services from using individual shopper data to increase prices "dynamically."

Under dynamic pricing, sellers may use data about shopping behavior to automate and continuously adjust their prices. Under individualized dynamic pricing – sometimes called surveillance pricing in pejorative terms – businesses set different prices for different consumers by charging more to shoppers who appear willing to pay a premium or offering lower prices to customers who might not otherwise buy. Other types of dynamic pricing may include shifting prices at different times of day based on changes in demand or competitive conditions.

The underlying logic of dynamic pricing is straightforward: businesses have always tried to match price to demand, and data-driven tools make doing so easier.

Maryland’s bill drew public support, reflecting broader concern with companies exploring individualized pricing, especially on food and housing as basic needs. Critics frame these practices as predatory: corporations using shadowy algorithms to target and extract as much money as possible from individual shoppers.

However, the alarm reflects a misconception regarding what data collection and algorithmic pricing can actually accomplish. Even the most sophisticated artificial intelligence uses incomplete information and thus imperfect predictions – the same reason why centrally planned economies with government-dictated prices are so inefficient. Consumer preferences change with income, season, family circumstances, competing options, and other infinite variables that are impossible to capture in a dataset. The premise that an algorithm can reliably identify each shopper's maximum willingness to pay overstates the role that data and algorithms play in society.

Dynamic pricing is also already a routine feature of commerce. Airlines adjust fares continuously based on demand, booking patterns, and seat availability. That's why the person sitting next to you on a plane likely paid a different price than you paid for her ticket. Bars and restaurants offer happy hour pricing. Retailers run flash sales, time-limited promotions, and personalized discounts. Even Maryland’s own law acknowledges this reality with its numerous exemptions and clarifications for longstanding practices – promotional pricing, loyalty program discounts, and other temporary price reductions.

Moreover, the alarm over dynamic prices overlooks the consumer benefits. A grocer or other business that makes more sales has more room to keep overall prices low, and dynamic individualized prices can be what closes a sale that otherwise would not have happened. This means that people can buy things that otherwise wouldn’t have fit in their budgets.

Maryland’s law purports to address a public concern by conflating a common business practice with a supposedly harmful predatory practice and without acknowledging the consumer benefits. Maryland should indeed tackle deceptive trade practices in grocery stores and elsewhere, but states should not ban technology before actual harms to consumers materialize. Regulating against possible harms has its consequences – shoppers forgo benefits that they never even see.

PRESS RELEASE: FCC's 'Digital Discrimination' Power Grab Held Unlawful

 

Regarding the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decision issued today holding unlawful the FCC’s rules promulgated in its “Digital Discrimination” proceeding, Free State Foundation President Randolph May issued the following statement:

“The FCC rule adopting a 'disparate impact’ theory purporting to hold broadband providers liable, along with many other entities only tangentially related to the provision of broadband services, for discrimination constituted one of the agency’s more blatant power grabs in an unfortunately long history of bureaucratic aggrandizement. The court of appeals had little difficulty in holding that the Commission exceeded its authority with regard to both the adoption of the disparate impact theory and the coverage of the entities potentially liable under its rules. Now the agency can put its focus on acts of intentional discrimination where it properly belongs.

Aside from getting rid of unlawful rules that sought to aggrandize its power, the court’s decision is important in striking down a loosey-goosey enforcement regime that could have imposed substantial monetary forfeitures on entities not subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction and for actions that they could not have known fell within the ambit of the agency’s rules. In other words, a lawless regime."     

More of the Same: Wireless Prices Continue to Fall

On April 29 CTIA issued the latest results from its regular survey of the price of wireless broadband coverage. The bottom line is that wireless prices continue to fall significantly even as most elements of the Consumer Price Index are increasing. Even with lower prices, wireless plans are delivering faster speeds, more data, and better service. CTIA attributes this history to a combination of spectrum auctions, market competition, and continual innovation.

CTIA’s Wireless Affordability Tracker is the result of surveys of unlimited and more affordable prepaid plans as well as government data. It shows that the average real price of post-paid unlimited plans fell 10% last year and nearly 35% over the last 5 years. More affordable prepaid plans fell by 2.6% last year and 50% over the last two years.

According to the Consumer Price Index the real price of wireless service fell by 6.6% last year and by 41% over the last decade. The price of smart phones fell by 12.2% last year and 63.4% over the last ten years. This is in contrast to the overall CPI, which increased by 2.7% last year and 37% over a decade. Between 2020 and 2024 the share of spending devoted to wireless subscriptions fell by 15.2% so that it now makes up only 1.73% of the average consumer’s total spending.

Unfortunately, taxes have risen. On average, taxes make up 27.6% of the monthly wireless bill. But for increasing taxes on wireless services, the price declines would be even greater. Reducing wireless taxes would make wireless even more affordable.

Despite lower prices, consumers are getting faster speeds and more capacity. The average speed got 51% faster while Americans used 32% more data. This pushed the price per gigabyte down by 21% in the last year and 40% over the last two years. The price per gigabyte has fallen from $20 in 2015 to under $2 in 2024. Prices of home Internet service dropped by 3% last year.

Today, there are over two hundred different service providers offering thousands of different plans. Lower prices have been rewarded. In 2025 wireless providers attracted 3.4 million new 5G subscribers. These trends are likely to continue. Regulators should ask themselves whether sensible regulatory reform can spur the same combination of competition, innovation, and declining real prices in other markets.

 

 

Let the Market Govern Call Centers

On March 27, the FCC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking for call centers located outside the U.S. On April 21 the National Retail Federation wrote to express its opposition to the proposal. It is not hard to see why. On the surface the proposed rule runs contrary to the Commission’s ongoing efforts to eliminate unnecessary regulation in its "Delete, Delete, Delete" docket. In substance, the Federation calls it “a stunning lack of understanding of how customer service actually works.”

The proposal would interfere with a sophisticated global trade in call center services. This in turn would likely add costs and delays to consumer calls. More important, it would have the Commission go beyond its primary duty of regulating the communications networks that handle international calls of whatever kind and involve it in regulating both the content and organization of specific business calls. Something it is not equipped to do.

The FCC’s proposed rule seeks to accomplish a number of things. It would require call center employees to speak fluent English and limit the amount of consumer service calls that could be made from offshore. Call centers would have to notify callers that the call is being handled offshore and give them the option of transferring it to a call center in the U.S. Finally, the rule would require companies to store sensitive customer only at centers in the U.S.

Call centers do not rank high on consumer satisfaction surveys. However, they perform an important business function. Retailers have a strong incentive to keep consumers satisfied because it is often cheaper to keep an existing customer than to attract a new one. Growing U.S. wages have led companies to move some call centers overseas. Retailers did this not out of a sense of animus toward the U.S., but out of a desire to reduce costs, a benefit that has largely been transferred to customers. Any requirement to move calls back to the U.S. would certainly raise prices and probably waiting times.

Similar proposals have been introduced in Congress. These should also be opposed. As a basic point, there is little evidence of any market failure. Operating call centers involves a balance between cost, waiting times, and call quality. The right balance should be determined by business principles, not politics.

The Commission’s notice requests a great deal of data regarding how its rule would work. Commissioner Anna Gomez refers to the rules as “extensive,” hinting at a large information burden on companies. At present, however, the Commission’s analysis relies heavily on anecdote. The FCC will also have to struggle with other issues, including how to handle non-English speaking consumers, the application to non-voice communications such as bots, requirements for providers of Internet-only services, and automation. The proposal would certainly speed the transition from workers to AI-driven programs.

The public justification for regulating robocalls and scams is clear cut. The need to regulate legitimate call centers is much less so. It would involve the FCC partly determining both the content of consumer calls and the structure of the call industry. Both lie beyond its primary duty of ensuring that communications networks promote the creation of value. A safer alternative would be to promote the collection of best practices for handling calls, securing data, and training workers.

"Soon" (But Not Too Soon), House Republicans Introduce Privacy Bills

In a Tuesday post to the Free State Foundation blog, I repeated the quote – which I first referenced in a January Perspectives from FSF Scholars – that the House Energy and Commerce Committee Privacy Working Group could introduce comprehensive data privacy legislation "soon." In this instance, "soon" translated to "Wednesday." That's when the House Committees on Energy and Commerce and Financial Services jointly introduced a pair of companion bills: the Securing and Establishing Consumer Uniform Rights and Enforcement over Data Act (SECURE Data Act) and the Guidelines for Use, Access, and Responsible Disclosure of Financial Data Act (GUARD Financial Data Act).

The SECURE Data Act is the handiwork of the aforementioned working group, led by Representative John Joyce, M.D. (R-PA). The working group is composed of Republican members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which is chaired by Representative Brett Guthrie (R-KY). The GUARD Financial Data Act, meanwhile, is the product of the Financial Services Committee, led by Chairman French Hill (R-AR).

The two bills are designed to work in tandem: the SECURE Data Act covers consumer data handled by nonfinancial entities but exempts financial institutions and data subject to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), while the GUARD Financial Data Act modernizes the GLBA for the financial sector but exempts nonfinancial firms. As a joint one-pager released by the two committees explained, together the bills "form a common-sense Federal approach that will bring American privacy protections into the twenty-first century."

At a high level, the SECURE Data Act builds on – and, crucially, would preempt – the state-level "patchwork" that I have long lamented. It also wisely rejects a private right of action, leaving enforcement to the FTC and state attorneys general.

*    *    *

The SECURE Data Act establishes a set of now-familiar consumer rights, including the right to access, correct, delete, and transfer personal data. It also creates opt-out rights for targeted advertising, data sales, and certain automated profiling decisions. Processing of "sensitive data" would require opt-in consent, and parental consent would be required for the processing of data of teens (that is, those between the ages of 13 and 16). The processing of data of children under the age of 13 would remain subject to the provisions of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998.

On the business side, the bill imposes data-minimization obligations that would limit the collection of data to what is "adequate, relevant, and reasonably necessary." It also includes data security requirements, privacy notice mandates, and data-protection-assessment requirements. Data brokers would be required to register with the FTC, which would maintain a searchable public registry. And businesses would have to disclose whether personal data is transferred to, processed in, or sold to foreign adversaries.

The SECURE Data Act would apply to businesses that process the personal data of at least 200,000 consumers annually. A separate threshold would cover data sellers that process the data of at least 100,000 consumers and derive over 25 percent of their revenue from the sale of personal data. Businesses with less than $25 million in adjusted gross annual revenue would be exempt.

As noted above, the bill does not create a private right of action. Instead, the FTC and state attorneys general would share enforcement authority. As I previously argued, exclusive enforcement by the FTC is far more likely to serve consumer interests than a private right of action, which would create problematic financial incentives for the plaintiffs' bar.

Perhaps most significant is the SECURE Data Act's broad preemption language, which provides that no state may "prescribe, maintain, or enforce any law, rule, regulation, requirement, standard, or other provision having the force and effect of law, if such law, rule, regulation, requirement, standard, or other provision relates to the provisions of this Act." This would appear to preempt the entire "patchwork" of state-specific privacy laws, now numbering 21, replacing them with a single, workable, nationwide standard.

*    *    *

Of course, the standard caveats apply. As a Republican-only bill, the SECURE Data Act will need to attract bipartisan support if it is to become law. And the usual sticking points – in particular, the bill's rejection of a private right of action and its strong preemption language – could impede its progress, something we certainly have seen happen before to similar pieces of legislation.

Nevertheless, the SECURE Data Act seems to strike an appropriate balance between protecting privacy and fostering innovation, a point made by NCTA – The Internet & Television Association in its supportive statement: the SECURE Data Act's "unified approach will strengthen consumer trust, give individuals meaningful control over their personal information, and provide businesses the certainty needed to innovate, protect data, and drive growth while eliminating the confusing patchwork of state laws that burdens consumers and businesses."

Later Rather Than Sooner: Oklahoma Enacts State Privacy Law No. 21

After a steady stream of state-level privacy statutes, capped by passage of the Rhode Island Data Transparency and Privacy Protection Act in June 2024, for nearly two years the pipeline ran dry. That drought ended on March 20, when Sooner State Governor Kevin Stitt signed into law the Oklahoma Consumer Data Privacy Act (OCDPA). With that, the list of states to have passed a comprehensive data privacy statute now stands (by my count) at 21.

At the federal level, meanwhile, the pickings remain slim. In late March, Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) for the fourth time introduced the Online Protection Act, the shortcomings of which I rehashed in a contemporaneous post to the Free State Foundation blog. Beyond that, hopeful eyes can look only to the House Commerce Committee Privacy Working Group, which was created in February 2025 and sought public input a month later. As I noted in a January Perspectives from FSF Scholars, reporting at that time suggested that the working group could release a draft bill … "soon."

The good news about the OCDPA, which closely tracks the Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act, is that it does not impose more burdensome obligations than existing state laws – and therefore is regarded as a relatively "business-friendly" addition to the state-level "patchwork."

The bad news, of course, is that it further expands that "patchwork," thereby compounding compliance headaches for companies – especially smaller companies and start-ups – and making it even more challenging for consumers to comprehend their rights.

*    *    *

More targeted than other state laws, the OCDPA applies only to businesses operating in Oklahoma or targeting Oklahoma residents that control or process the personal data of either (1) 100,000 or more Oklahoma consumers, or (2) at least 25,000 Oklahoma consumers while deriving over 50 percent of their gross revenue from the "sale" of personal data. (By comparison, that threshold is lower – 25 percent – in most state laws.) In addition, the OCDPA defines "sale" relatively narrowly – that is, only where personal data is exchanged for monetary consideration.

The law establishes a now-familiar set of consumer rights: to access and confirm the processing of personal data, to correct inaccuracies, to delete, and to obtain a portable copy. In addition, consumers can opt out of the processing of personal data for targeted advertising, the sale of their personal data, and profiling.

"Sensitive data" – defined to include racial or ethnic origin, religious beliefs, health diagnoses, sexual orientation, citizenship status, genetic or biometric data used for identification, and precise geolocation data – may not be processed without the consumer's opt-in consent.

Covered businesses must abide by data-minimization principles, limiting collection to what is adequate, relevant, and reasonably necessary. They also must conduct data protection assessments before engaging in activities such as targeted advertising, the sale of personal data, and the processing of "sensitive data."

Two additional features of the OCDPA are worth highlighting. First, enforcement authority rests exclusively with the Oklahoma Attorney General; there is no private right of action. Second, the law includes a permanent, mandatory 30-day "right to cure" period for alleged violations – a feature that stands in contrast to the trend in other states toward sunsetting or eliminating cure periods altogether. Violations may result in penalties of up to $7,500 per incident.

The OCDPA will go into effect on January 1, 2027.

*    *    *

As I've stated countless times, the absence of a comprehensive federal data privacy law that would preempt this now-larger "patchwork" remains a glaring gap. With each new state law – and each set of idiosyncratic definitions of rights, responsibilities, thresholds, exemptions, enforcement mechanisms, and so on – the compliance burden on businesses grows heavier and the regulatory landscape confronting consumers grows murkier.