CSIS Reiterates Importance of Spectrum to National Security

Recently published commentary from the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) makes familiar points regarding America's pressing need for additional, globally harmonized commercial spectrum – but also places the continuing spectrum-allocation impasse in a broader, geopolitical context characterized by serious national security and intelligence implications.

"Spectrum Allocations and Twenty-First-Century National Security," by James Andrew Lewis, echoes arguments raised by another CSIS scholar, Clete Johnson, that I summarized in an October 2024 post to the FSF Blog. Namely, that Congress must act quickly to renew the FCC's spectrum auction authority and work with the Department of Defense and other federal agencies to ensure that the same bands used in other parts of the world are made available for commercial use in the U.S.

The concern, according to Mr. Lewis, is China:

The United States is in a global competition with China over markets, rule setting, and technological leadership…. To remain competitive, the United States will need to adjust how it has allocated radio spectrum to emphasize commercial innovation. The government-centric spectrum allocations of the last century will need to change if we are not to fall behind. 

Specifically, U.S. policymakers must appreciate that, going forward, technological innovation by the commercial, rather than the government, sector is the key to national security in the twenty-first century: "[c]ommercial technologies underpin modern military strength." And that to facilitate that technological innovation, domestic commercial interests must have access to the same spectrum bands used in the rest of the world:

If the United States does not use a harmonized spectrum, it shrinks the economies of scale that trusted vendors need to compete with Huawei…. In simple terms, people will build devices to use specific spectrum bands for commercial purposes designated by the WRC. Essentially, if the United States does not use spectrum allocated everywhere else for commercial purposes, it will be handicapped in any competition.

In other words, U.S. policymakers must move beyond the antiquated notion that government control of certain bands, in and of itself, enhances our national security – and instead recognize that military might today hinges in large part upon America's ability to dictate the technological standards for mobile networks used worldwide. Commercial access to globally harmonized spectrum bands is critical to achieving that objective.

Mr. Lewis concludes with a warning: "[t]he timing for action is short, perhaps a year or two since a failure to act puts the United States at the cusp of a great strategic blunder that will let an ambitious China build the network that forms the backbone of the global economy."

Court Hears Arguments on Challenges to FCC's New Title II Order

On October 31, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit heard oral arguments in case MPC No. 185 Open Internet Rule. The case consolidates several legal challenges against the FCC's April 2024 Securing and Safeguarding the Open Internet Order. The Commission's order turned broadband Internet access services into a public utility and subjected broadband Internet service providers (ISPs) to rate regulation.

By an August 1, 2024 order, a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit stayed the Commission's order pending resolution of legal merits of challenges to that order. The court's decision to stay the agency's order was discussed in an August 23 Perspectives from FSF Scholars by FSF President Randolph May, "The Sixth Circuit Stays the FCC's Latest Net Neutrality Flip-Flop." A different panel was designated to decide the legal merits.

 

Oral arguments before the three-judge merits panel lasted approximately one hour. Judge Raymond M. Kethledge pressed legal counsel on the meaning of statutory terms – such as "information services" under Title I of the Communications and "telecommunications services" under Title II. Other judges expressed greater interest in the "major questions doctrine," pointedly asked the "major questions doctrine" is still operative following the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper-Bright v. Raimondo and whether reclassifying broadband Internet access services under Title II and subjecting it to public utility regulation and rate controls amounts to a matter of economic and political significance under the “major questions doctrine.” 

 

The Free State Foundation’s 2017 initial comments and reply comments in the FCC's Restoring Internet Freedom proceeding emphasized the statutory definitional case for why broadband Internet access services are Title I "information services." 

 

Moreover, FSF's 2023 initial comments and reply comments in the Safeguarding and Securing the Open Internet proceeding explained why reclassifying broadband Internet access services under Title II and thereby subjecting those services to a public utility regime with rate regulation triggers the "major questions doctrine." That is, turning broadband ISPs into public utilities and asserting control over their rates is a politically and economically significant matter. Congress nowhere provided the FCC clear authority to make such a momentous decision. 

 

The Sixth Circuit panel that issued the August 2024 stay decision in MPC No. 185 Open Internet Rule concluded that the FCC's order likely violated the "major questions doctrine." But the Sixth Circuit's merits panel that just held oral arguments will offer its view in due time. The judges will more comprehensively answer the disputed questions about the Commission’s authority.

The Rate Regulation Difference: A Biden FCC v. A Trump FCC

 I’ve been asked many times in the last days and weeks about the likely differences in communications law and policy between a Harris FCC or a Trump FCC. As Yogi Berra declared, “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future!” 

True enough, and a reason to be cautious.

 

Nevertheless, while I hope I'm wrong, I’m comfortable hazarding this prediction: A Harris FCC will likely move to regulate the rates charged by broadband Internet service providers, while a Trump FCC would not. And to my mind, this is a big deal, because rate regulation of ISPs almost certainly will stifle investment and innovation and lead to less consumer choice.

 

“Price controls” – explicitly favored by Vice President Kamala Harris in various market segments – is just another way of saying “rate regulation.” Remember, price controls always lead to a curtailment of supply. In the context of broadband, that means less network infrastructure deployment, less new services made available, and less variety of service offerings from which consumers may choose.

 

The rate regulation may be implemented in connection with innocuous-sounding programs, such as elimination of “data caps” and elimination of “free data” plans, or mandates for “affordable” service options.

Rate regulation, of course, all the same.