EchoStar: Chutzpah in Communications Land

 A classic example used to explain the meaning of the Yiddish term "chutzpah" is the joke about a boy who murders his parents and then begs the judge for mercy because he is an orphan.

 

EchoStar hasn't killed anyone. But its ploy to claim payments from the trust fund the FCC required EchoStar to establish as a condition of its approval of the transfer of EchoStar's spectrum licenses to AT&T and SpaceX certainly qualifies as one of the most egregious acts of chutzpah in Communications Land.

 

The background facts are well-known. When the FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) approved EchoStar’s sale of its licenses on May 12, 2026, for tens of billions of dollars, it required EchoStar to set up a trust fund to help pay tower companies and others that helped construct EchoStar's 5G network. While EchoStar was required to build the network as a condition on its licenses, it refused to pay the vendor companies that actually did so.

 

EchoStar has now told a federal bankruptcy court that this fund can be used to pay a loan one EchoStar subsidiary supposedly made to another, a claim so large, according to the WTB, it threatens to "swallow the fund."

 

In a July 30, 2026, order, the WTB firmly rejected EchoStar's act of chutzpah: "We disagree, and clarify what should be obvious – that the fund cannot be used to pay companies that did not build the network. And to ensure that that the purpose of the fund is not perverted, we also modify the fund’s terms to explicitly exclude from payment any claims of EchoStar or its subsidiaries."

 

Never one to give up on a far-fetched gambit – especially one trying to "swallow a fund" meant for the benefit of others – EchoStar has now asked the full Commission, in an August 30 Application for Review, to reverse the Bureau's order. EchoStar contends that, because the agency's order establishing the trust does not explicitly limit the payouts to claims of third parties, it's entitled to take funds from the trust with one hand that it supplied with the other.

 

The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's July 30 order, to ensure its intent in creating the trust fund is carried out, modifies the definition of a fund claim to exclude any claims on behalf of EchoStar or its subsidiaries or affiliates, or any assignee thereof. The Bureau's July 30 order explains what almost certainly was evident to all when the FCC required that the trust fund be established as a condition of its approval of the transfer of EchoStar's spectrum licenses:

 

"The purpose of requiring EchoStar to create the Fund was to ensure that some of the tens of billions of dollars EchoStar is receiving for its wireless licenses be used to pay those who built the 5G network that EchoStar promised and was required to build as a condition on holding those licenses. That purpose is not realized if EchoStar pays the money to itself (directly or indirectly), or uses it to pay other of its debts or those of its subsidiaries or affiliates."

 

In essence, EchoStar's main argument seems to be that the Administrative Procedure Act prevents the Bureau from clarifying its July 30 order to make crystal-clear, if need be, that the lack of an explicit limitation in the agency's original order creating the trust fund did not mean that EchoStar itself would be able to claim payments from the very trust it funded. I don't think the APA does any such thing.

 

If EchoStar's gambit succeeds, not only would the specific tower and other 5G infrastructure builders for whose benefit the trust fund was established be injured, but, as importantly, the prospect for future network build-outs will be diminished as a result of the lack of confidence that contracts will be honored and that the rule of law will prevail.  

 

I forget what happened to the orphan who, in a show of chutzpah, pleaded with the judge for mercy after killing his parents. But you don't need to be an expert in administrative law or in Yiddish to suspect that, in this instance, EchoStar's exercise of chutzpah in Communications Land will be to no avail.

Using the BEAD Savings to Eliminate Mobile Dead Zones

Since being nominated by President Trump and confirmed by the Senate to be Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information and Administrator of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) in July 2025, Arielle Roth has been doing an excellent job in reforming the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program. The $42.45 billion program is intended to subsidize broadband deployment to unserved and underserved areas.

For several years after Congress authorized the BEAD program, it languished under the Biden administration, encumbered by costly extraneous requirements that delayed development of the state plans that were required to be approved to distribute the funds in each state. Even before Administrator Roth assumed office, the Department of Commerce, under the leadership of Secretary Howard Lutnick, required changes to the Biden administration's BEAD rules. These critical Trump administration reforms, implemented by Administrator Roth, in short order led revisions in the state plans that produced substantial "Benefit of the Bargain" cost savings in the states' deployment proposals. This has resulted in a $21 billion surplus. The abandonment of the Biden administration's unreasonably presumptive preference for funding fiber-only deployments, regardless of cost, in favor of a more economically efficient rational technology-neutral approach, played a significant role in producing the surplus.

Administrator Roth is now considering how the $21 billion in savings attributable to the "Benefit of the Bargain" process should be used to best serve the American people.

Along with me, my Free State Foundation colleague Andrew Long has played a key role in advocating reforms to the BEAD program during the Biden administration years, most of which have been adopted by Secretary Lutnick and Administrator Roth. Now, in a recent FSF Perspectives, Mr. Long recites some of the acceptable uses that should be considered for expenditure of the BEAD surplus, including, for example, establishing a reserve fund to ensure the deployment job would be finished, enhancing public safety, and improving the permitting process.

Here I want to call attention to another suggestion deserving serious consideration – T-Mobile's proposal to allow states to use a portion of the BEAD surplus to "End Mobile Dead Zones." T-Mobile proposes that no more than $8 billion should be used to close remaining rural dead zones. According to John Saw, T-Mobile's President and CTO, T-Mobile's analysis shows that, with the capped $8 billion, about 6,000 more mobile macro sites could extend 5G coverage to roughly 99% of Americans, including key rural roads. Using a portion of the BEAD funds this way, to support a national mobile infrastructure program, would alleviate the need for a new USF 5G fund. And by extending 5G coverage to rural locations still lacking it, public safety would be enhanced by eliminating remaining mobile connectivity gaps.

If I had my druthers, I would prefer returning a significant portion of the $21 billion in cost savings to the U. S. Treasury for the benefit of America's taxpayers. Regardless of whether or not that's in the cards, T-Mobile's proposal to use no more than $8 billion of the surplus to build out mobile macro sites to close remaining rural dead zones is certainly worthy of serious consideration. 

Congressman Latta's Bill Would Cut Wireless Permitting Red Tape

On September 4, Representative Bob Latta (R-OH), co-chair of the Rural Broadband Caucus, reintroduced the Winning the International Race for Economic Leadership and Expanding Service to Support (WIRELESS) Leadership Act (the Act). First introduced in February 2021, the Act would "modernize broadband permitting to reduce barriers to deployment."

Among other things, the Act would:

• Establish shot clocks for state and local agencies to act on an application (60 days for the placement of a "small" personal wireless facility using an existing structure, 90 days for other actions relating to a "small" facility or to a larger facility using an existing structure, and 150 days for other actions relating to a larger facility), after which, and upon written notice to the agency, the application would be deemed granted.

• Prohibit "discriminat[ion] among personal wireless service facilities or providers of communications service."

• Ban state and local agencies from exercising their local zoning authority in a manner that would "prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision, improvement, or enhancement of personal wireless services.

• Require that fees be "competitively neutral, technology neutral, and nondiscriminatory"; "established in advance and publicly disclosed"; "calculated based on actual and direct costs" that are "objectively reasonable."

Parties that have been "adversely affected by any final action or failure to act" could seek either expedited judicial relief or administrative relief from the FCC, which would be required to act upon such a request within 120 days.

As Congressman Latta was quoted in the Press Release, "Over the years, billions of dollars have been allocated to expand rural broadband, but without meaningful broadband permitting reform, … all of the federal money will be tied up in burdensome permitting reviews…. " The Act would "streamline state and local permitting, cut through burdensome reviews, and accelerate broadband deployment so more communities can get connected."

President Trump Holds White House Meeting to Discuss EchoStar and FCC Review

News outlets have reported that President Donald Trump held a meeting at the White House with EchoStar Chairman Charlie Ergen and FCC Chairman Brendan Carr on June 12. Although we do not know for certain what was discussed at the White House meeting, it is a supremely safe bet that the conversation included the FCC's current review of EchoStar's compliance with deadlines for reaching wireless facilities construction milestones. Reports indicate the President rightly hopes to prevent a scenario in which a major U.S. company goes bankrupt. 

EchoStar previously acquired wireless spectrum licenses in conjunction with the T-Mobile/Sprint merger and settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice. It has invested billions in private capital to build out a nationwide 5G wireless network, which is available to 80% of Americans. EchoStar's network offers a fourth competitive nationwide facilities-based mobile wireless service, and its network is unique for its deployment of Open Radio Access Network (Open RAN) technology. 

 

Free State Foundation President Randolph May and I expressed our views regarding the FCC's review of EchoStar's compliance with buildout commitments in reply comments filed on June 6.

House Passes Bill for 6G Task Force and Report

On April 28, the U.S. House of Representatives passed, by a unanimous voice vote, H.R. 2449 – the "Future Uses of Technology Upholding Reliable and Enhanced Networks Act" or the "Future Networks Act." Sponsored by Rep. Doris Matsui and co-sponsored by Reps. Rick Allen and Tim Walberg, the Future Networks Act, if it were to be passed by Congress and signed into law by President Donald Trump, would direct the FCC's Chairman to appoint a "6G Task Force" that would prepare and send to Congress a report on developing standards, uses, and related issues involving future 6G wireless networks. 

Under the bill, the members of the 6G Task Force would include representatives of the communications industry, public interest organizations or academic institutions, and representatives of federal, state, local, and tribal governments. The Future Networks Act requires that, within 180 days of the 6G Task Force being established, the group prepare a draft report on 6G wireless technology. The draft report would be published on the FCC's website and in the Federal Register for public comment Following the public comment period, and within 1 year of the 6G Task Force being established, the group would publish their final report and submit it to House and Senate Committees. 

The development of 6G technologies, standards, and spectrum policies no doubt will be a multi-faceted and complex undertaking. A future 6G report by the type of task force proposed in the Future Networks Act could serve as a valuable storehouse of knowledge for Congress, the FCC, and the Executive Branch and help pave the way for a successful eventual launch of 6G wireless networks. Now that the Future Networks Act has passed the House, the Senate should give the bill due consideration. 

 

In an April 2023 blog post, Free State Foundation President Randolph May identified the restoration of the FCC's authority to conduct competitive bidding spectrum license auctions as essential for future 6G network deployment. However, in the near term, there are many opportunities for expanding 5G networks by repurposing spectrum from government use to private use. Seizing those opportunities depends not only on a replenished spectrum pipeline but revival of the Commission's auction authority. The 119th Congress should restore the FCC’s authority on spectrum license auctions and encourage timely replenishment of the spectrum pipeline. 

T-Mobile/UScellular Transaction Ripe for Agency Action

According to the FCC's website (see graphic below), the agency's review of the $4.4 billion T-Mobile/UScellular transaction has entered its final month. The record evidence overwhelmingly indicates that consumers, including but not limited to current UScellular customers, would be better off if this deal were approved. Therefore, action prior to the end of the 180-day shot clock is warranted.

In an Opposition to Petitions to Deny filed on January 8, 2025, FSF President Randolph May and Director of Policy Studies and Senior Fellow Seth Cooper expressed their view that the proposed transaction likely would produce pro-competitive benefits, benefits that would outweigh any potential harms. They also noted that arguments against the transaction generally lack supporting evidence and/or a specific nexus to the instant transaction.

T-Mobile and UScellular, GN Docket No. 24-286

Source: fcc.gov

As Mr. Cooper described in a post to the FSF Blog shortly after the parties filed their Public Interest Statement on September 13, 2025, that regulatory filing "presents a prima facie case that [the] proposed transaction … will bring public interest benefits that outweigh any potential competitive concerns."

Tangible benefits identified and documented include faster 5G mobile broadband speeds, higher data capacity, and greater availability of fixed wireless access (FWA) home broadband service, especially in rural areas.

Potential harms, meanwhile, are unlikely given the robust competition that exists in the mobile broadband marketplace, a landscape documented by the Free State Foundation in June 2024 comments to the FCC for its 2024 Communications Marketplace Competition Report. Consumers can choose between three nationwide providers, EchoStar's upstart network that is available to over 70 percent of the U.S. population, mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) such as Spectrum Mobile and Xfinity Mobile, and regional providers.

Potential harms also would be mitigated by the specific nature of this transaction – in particular, the relative disparity in their respective subscriber bases (126 million versus 4.5 million), the limited extent to which the parties directly compete (as Mr. Cooper pointed out in a February 2025 blog post, the parties "apparently do not have an overlapping competitive presence in thirty-seven percent (37%) of the Cellular Marketing Areas (CMAs) implicated by the proposed deal"), and the fact that T-Mobile sets "its pricing and service terms on a nationwide basis."

In addition, approval of this transaction would enable the efficient and timely reallocation of spectrum to its highest and best use while we wait for Congress to renew the Commission's auction authority – a priority Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz (R-TX) discussed in his Keynote Address at the Free State Foundation's recent Seventeenth Annual Policy Conference (video available here).

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."

Report Highlights Link Between Spectrum Policy and National Security

A new report published by the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) warns that absent a heightened focus on our national spectrum policy, "[t]he security of the United States as a market democracy is at stake." In the simplest of terms, online activity is only as secure as the underlying apps and network infrastructure over which it occurs. If that software and hardware is to come from trusted sources, policymakers must foster an environment in which America's mobile marketplace maintains a powerful say in global technology development, "especially as autocratic nations seek to dominate."

In Part 1 of "Concrete National Security Benefits of Spectrum Allocation for Commercial 5G," CSIS Strategic Technologies Program Senior Fellow Clete Johnson identifies two "difficult technical feats" that the U.S. must and can accomplish if it is to achieve the scale necessary to drive technology development down a secure and trusted path. The first is to better harmonize frequency use, as "[t]he more that U.S. spectrum use is harmonized with that of allies and global markets, the more scale trusted suppliers have for secure technology development." The second is to allocate sufficient spectrum so that capacity does not constrain the economic might of American consumers.

Harmonizing the frequencies allocated to 5G (and successor standards) is essential to achieving economies of scale because technology development is frequency specific: equipment developed for one band typically cannot be used in other bands. As the report points out, however, "the United States is becoming a mid-band spectrum 'island,' operating largely outside the core globally harmonized spectrum bands. If this trajectory continues, the U.S. technology ecosystem will be confined to a U.S.-only spectrum 'dialect' that lacks global influence and scale."

Allocating sufficient spectrum to satisfy growing mobile broadband demand, meanwhile, maximizes the economic ability of 350 million American consumers to shape global technology decisions. As the report explains:

U.S. wireless companies need sufficient spectrum resources to collaborate with like-minded nations in innovating and manufacturing advanced wireless technologies and components – including chipsets, software, radios, and more – for use in both the commercial and federal sectors…. The existing disparity between U.S. licensed mid-band spectrum allocations as compared to the rest of the world has become a major national security challenge, as it has created a platform for China to shape the near-term and future technology environment to its strategic advantage.

The report proposes several ways to address this situation. They include:

• Reframing the spectrum deficit as "an optimization challenge, not a scarcity problem."
• Moving from a "zero-sum" mindset that pits government and commercial uses against each other to a collaborative environment that promotes "static" and, in the longer term, "dynamic" spectrum sharing solutions.
• Restoring the FCC's spectrum auction authority.
• Aggressively pursuing harmonization opportunities, which may include the 7/8 GHz band, so that America speaks the same "frequency 'language'" as its allies.

The report's forthcoming Part 2 primarily will focus "on the importance of agile spectrum management capabilities in the context of electronic warfare."

T-Mobile/UScellular Transaction Likely to Benefit Wireless 5G Consumers

On September 13, T-Mobile filed a public interest statement with the FCC in support of its proposed transaction with US Cellular. If approved, the T-Mobile/UScellular transaction likely would produce pro-competitive results. The merger would benefit UScellular subscribers by giving them access to a 5G mobile wireless network with faster speeds and higher data capacity. It also would enhance residential broadband competition by expanding consumer access in UScellular's service regions, especially in rural areas. On its face, the proposed combination does not appear to pose any significant competitive harm. The Commission should conduct a timely review of the T-Mobile/UScellular transaction and issue its decision within the agency’s 180-day shot clock.

The proposed T-Mobile/UScellular deal reportedly would result in T-Mobile acquiring UScellular's wireless operations, subscribers, and about 30% of its spectrum licenses for $4.4 billion. UScellular is a multi-regional wireless provider that serves about 4.5 million subscribers – or about 1% of the nation’s mobile wireless services market. Its subscribership has been declining in recent years. Strong competition from cable hybrid wireless mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) Spectrum Mobile and Xfinity Mobile partly account for US Cellular's declines. Moreover, UScellular has lagged behind AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon – the three major nationwide mobile wireless providers in 5G network deployment.

Revenue reductions resulting from subscriber losses, as well as the burdens of servicing $2.9 billion in debts, are limiting its resources for future network investment. If UScellular were to continue operating as a standalone mobile provider, its competitiveness would probably diminish further.

T-Mobile's public interest statement presents a prima facie case that its proposed transaction with UScellular will bring public interest benefits that outweigh any potential competitive concerns. Today's dynamic wireless market provides the analytical context for the proposed T-Mobile/UScellular deal. As explained in the Free State Foundation’s June 2024 public comments to the FCC for its forthcoming 2024 Communications Marketplace Competition Report, there is effective competition among the mobile wireless segment of the broadband market. In 2022 and 2023, the three nationwide wireless providers significantly upgraded and expanded their 5G network coverage. Additionally, aspiring national provider EchoStar (which recently acquired DISH Network) announced in March of this year that its 5G network covers over 70% of the U.S. population. The large footprints of Xfinity Mobile and Spectrum Mobile also support competitive 5G wireless services to at least 16 million subscribers and counting.

Moreover, the T-Mobile/UScellular transaction is unlikely to reduce wireless competition. T-Mobile faces little challenge from UScellular due to its small market share, with a footprint that spans only about 10% of the nation's geographic territory. T-Mobile is the second-largest wireless provider, with nearly 126 million total subscriptions versus UScellular's 4.5 million. T-Mobile makes its pricing and service terms on a nationwide basis, and thus UScellular's presence in a given area is unlikely to impact T-Mobile's price offerings. According to the public interest statement, T-Mobile and UScellular do not have an overlapping competitive presence in only about 37% of the Cellular Marketing Areas (CMAs) that are implicated by the proposed transaction.* If the it is approved, most consumers would continue to have choices among nationwide providers T-Mobile, Verizon, and AT&T, and many consumers also would have choices among DISH Wireless and a cable wireless MVNO. 

Furthermore, T-Mobile's analysis indicates that the proposed acquisition of 30% of UScellular's spectrum portfolio would not trigger the FCC's spectrum screen analytical trigger in any cellular marketing area. This presumes that T-Mobile completes planned sales of certain spectrum licenses that it currently holds in the 800 MHz and 3.45 GHz bands. 

Under the terms of the proposed T-Mobile/UScellular transaction, UScellular subscribers would have the option of staying on their existing rate plans. T-Mobile estimates that at least some of UScellular's subscribers would experience a price decrease by changing to comparable plans offered by T-Mobile. If correct, and given existing competition in the market, the deal would not likely cause rates to increase for consumers. 

The transfer of spectrum licenses contemplated in the proposed T-Mobile/UScellular transaction triggers the FCC's review of the transaction under its public interest standard. The Commission's merger review process includes opportunity for public comments that could shed added light on the proposed deal. The agency will undertake its examination of the representations made in the public interest statement – including information redacted from public view – and it will more closely examine the potential effects in local markets. However, at this stage of the proceeding, the T-Mobile/UScellular transaction appears to be a strong candidate for approval. 

Importantly, the Commission should complete its transaction review within the agency's informal 180-day shot clock. Delays in completing reviews can accelerate subscriber losses in small providers and have other harmful impacts.

(*12/19/2024 - a correction has been made in this post to the percentage of CMAs in which the parties have an overlapping presence)

(*02/04/2025 - further edits have been made to more accurately refer to the transaction as an acquisition of assets and not a merger between the parties)

CTIA Once Again Asks FCC to Declare that Light Poles Are "Poles"

In a letter dated June 7, 2024, CTIA urges the Commission to at long last clarify that the term "pole" in Section 224 of the Communications Act encompasses both utility poles and light poles. Doing so, it argues, will "bring uniformity to the pole attachment and broadband deployment processes leading to more and faster broadband being available to more people."

In a 2019 Petition for Declaratory Ruling, CTIA asked the FCC, among other things, to "declare that the term 'pole' in Section 224 includes light poles and that utilities must afford nondiscriminatory access to light poles on rates, terms and conditions consistent with Section 244 and the Commission's implementing pole attachment rules."

And while the Wireline Competition Bureau did issue a Declaratory Ruling in July 2020 addressing other aspects of CTIA's petition, it sidestepped this particular topic, writing in a footnote that "[w]e do not address CTIA's request concerning light poles in this Declaratory Ruling, and this issue remains pending."

In light of rapidly growing demand for 5G, including fixed wireless access home broadband, CTIA once again is seeking clarification from the FCC that the reference in Section 224(f)(1) to "any pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way owned or controlled by" a utility includes light poles.

Light poles and other "street furniture," it turns out, are "well-suited" for the attachment of small cells, which are predicted to make up more than 80 percent of infrastructure deployments going forward. This is especially true in areas where power lines are buried underground and, consequently, utility poles are not available.

Given the current uncertainty, however, CTIA reports that "wireless providers that have sought access to light poles have faced opposition from electric utilities, including flat denials of access, as well as attachment charges that exceed lawful rates." A ruling by the Commission that "any pole" includes a light pole, it maintains, "will serve the public interest by preventing disputes with electric utilities over this issue, thereby removing barriers to wireless deployment."

Future U.S. Competitiveness Requires More Licensed Spectrum

On May 6, CTIA published a report, "How Licensed Spectrum Fuels U.S. Competitiveness." CTIA's report makes a case for why more full-power licensed commercial spectrum – especially in the mid-band – is needed to ensure that the U.S. remains a competitive leader and realizes its full economic potential in the years ahead.

CTIA's report emphasizes wireless-enabled U.S. economic gains in international export-focused sectors, including agriculture, transportation, as well as pharmaceuticals, health care, and life sciences. Its overview of the economic benefits of wireless to manufacturing, machinery, and equipment is particularly insightful:

• "Wireless connectivity is a critical innovation-enhancing input that boosts productivity across several key traded sectors, while constitutive parts of the wireless industry, like equipment, components, chips, devices, and software, are also themselves exported around the world."

•  "A healthy U.S. 5G ecosystem makes for a stronger U.S. semiconductor industry" to fabricate chips used to power smartphones and other wireless devices.

• "U.S. firms enjoy over 25 percent of global handset market share and dominate smartphone operating systems worldwide" due partly to early US leadership in 4G LTE networks. 

• The U.S. is "a significant player in development of the intellectual property underlying wireless communications. With this IP, U.S. firms are major contributors to wireless communications standards, which are then used around the world."

• "Researchers estimate the global 5G value chain, including network operators, providers of underlying technology and components, device and equipment manufacturers, and 5G application developers, will contribute $3.6 trillion in economic output by 2035."

• "A significant component of this economic potential comes from efficiency-driving insights from Internet of Things (IoT) deployments… More spectrum will ensure 5G networks have the capacity to support a deeper integration of IoT sensors and devices to further enhance use cases across industries."

• "Increasing U.S. manufacturing productivity—squeezing more from each dollar invested—is essential to making American manufacturing more globally competitive, and how to do this is a key consideration for policymakers who are looking to encourage manufacturers to produce more goods in America."

• "The Manufacturing Institute surveyed manufacturing leaders on the impact of 5G on their business, finding manufacturers believe 5G can help lower costs by an estimated average of 38%, while increasing machine productivity by an estimated 42% and workforce productivity by 41%."

• "This productivity impact comes from many 5G applications, such as smart factory connectivity, real-time insights from digital twins, and enhanced training and maintenance capabilities."

However, the report cites other report findings that the U.S. faces a "spectrum crunch." According to the report: "Researchers estimate that by 2027, U.S. operators will need an additional 400 megahertz of full-powered mid-band license spectrum, even accounting for optimistic growth in infrastructure, spectral efficiency, and Wi-Fi offload." This projected deficit increases to almost 1,500 MHz by 2032. By contrast, "China has already allocated 1460 megahertz of mid-band spectrum for 5G." That amount is 3.2 times more than the U.S.  Also, "[r]esearchers estimate that China may dedicate up to a total of 1660 megahertz of mid-band spectrum for 5G in the coming years."

 

CTIA's report calls for more full-power, mid-band spectrum for wide-area commercial 5G networks to ensure strong U.S. competitiveness against leading foreign rival China. It makes a call to fast action to license suitable sections of the lower 3 GHz and 7/8 GHz bands for full-power networks. As the report states, "policymakers should rely on tried-and-true auctions to identify those entities best positioned to generate the greatest value out of the limited frequencies available."

 

Free State Foundation President Randolph May and Senior Fellow Andrew Long reiterated the need for a replenished spectrum pipeline in January 2024 public comments to the NTIA for its Implementation Plan for the National Spectrum Strategy. The importance of re-establishing the FCC's statutory authority to conduct competitive bidding spectrum license auctions as well as the importance of more spectrum availability – both licensed and unlicensed – were discussed during the "Hot Topics in Communications Law and Policy" panel at the Free State Foundation's Sixteenth Annual Policy Conference. The panel video is available online. 

Report IDs Key Stats on Wireless Infrastructure, But Regulatory Threat Looms

On April 16, the Wireless Industry Association (WIA) released its report, "Wireless Infrastructure By The Numbers: 2023 Key Industry Statistics." As the title indicates, WIA's report provides a high-level look at the overall number of cell towers, macro sites, and small cell facilities that mobile service providers use to offer mobile broadband Internet access services. According to WIA's report, as of 2023, there were 153,400 cellular towers in operation in the U.S., in addition to nearly 245,000 macrocell sites and 202,100 outdoor small cells in operation. The report found that there also were nearly 776,000 indoor small cell nodes in use as of last year. These figures surely have grown since 2023.  

Moreover, WIA's report found that "[t]he U.S. cellular industry spent $11.6 billion building additional capacity and coverage into the nation’s wireless networks in 2023." Another interesting observation in the report is that "[m]ore towers and cell sites are being deployed but the amount spent building networks is flat" because "[a]s wireless network technologies mature and evolve, network equipment becomes more efficient and cost effective." Also, "[t]he amount spent on maintaining and operating the cellular networks increased but build spending dropped" due to larger networks increasing the necessary maintenance costs.

 

The deployment and operation of 4G LTE and 5G wireless networks depends on private market investment remaining strong. Subjecting mobile broadband networks to public utility regulation – as the FCC proposes in its Draft Order to be considered for a vote at the agency’s April 25 meeting – would undermine the ability of wireless infrastructure owners and operators to use their property and generate returns. This would reduce incentives to build and upgrade such infrastructure. The 2018 Restoring Internet Freedom Order found that the imposition of public utility regulation under the now-repealed 2015 Title II Order inhibited investment: 

The Commission has long recognized that regulatory burdens and uncertainty, such as those inherent in Title II, can deter investment by regulated entities and, until the Title II Order, its regulatory framework for cable, wireline, and wireless broadband Internet access services reflected that reality. This concern is well-documented in the economics literature on regulatory theory, and the record also supports the theory that the regulation imposed by Title II will negatively impact investment. The balance of the evidence in the record suggests that Title II classification has reduced ISP investment in broadband networks, as well as hampered innovation, because of regulatory uncertainty. The record also demonstrates that small ISPs, many of which serve rural consumers, have been particularly harmed by Title II. And there is no convincing evidence of increased investment in the edge that would compensate for the reduction in network investment.  

Imposing restrictions on 5G network slicing – either by outright prohibitions or by regulatory uncertainty under the vague "general conduct" standard contained in the Draft Order – also would be detrimental to wireless innovation and investment, including investment in the physical infrastructure that supports 5G uses. For more on this topic, see Free State President Randolph May's and Senior Fellow Andrew Long's April 2 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "The 'Network Slicing' Debate Exposes How Title II Will Kill Innovation." Also, check out FSF President May's FSF Blog post from April 18: "Don't."

FSF Scholars Warn Against the Title II Threat to Innovative 5G Network Slicing

On April 2, the Free State Foundation released a Perspectives from FSF Scholars by President Randolph May and Senior Fellow Andrew Long titled "The 'Network Slicing' Debate Exposes How Title II Will Kill Innovation." Their Perspectives paper provides a helpful descriptive overview of 5G mobile network slicing and how it can provide optimal service for different use cases, including broadband Internet access services, telemedicine, Internet-of-Things, and more. But as FSF President May and Mr. Long explain, the Commission's proposal to reclassify broadband Internet access services as a Title II "telecommunications service” under the Communications Act threatens to impede these breakthrough uses of next-generation broadband networks. Their paper concludes: "To encourage continued investment and innovation, the Commission should shelve its entire proposal to impose a public utility straitjacket on Internet providers and let technological advancements and marketplace competition do the job of enhancing consumer welfare."

FSF President May and Mr. Long's Perspectives paper is worthwhile reading on network slicing and the harm to innovation posed by Title II regulation. Also, an April 5 FedSoc Blog post by former NTIA Administrator John Kneuer, titled "Network Slicing and Net Neutrality" elaborates on these same matters and cites favorably to that paper. 

Report Shows U.S. Needs to Allocate and Harmonize More Mid-Spectrum for Wireless Use

On February 7, CTIA released a report by Accenture titled "Advancing U.S. Wireless Excellence – The Case for Global Spectrum Harmonization." The report itself is excellent in describing both the economic benefits of allocating mid-band spectrum for commercial wireless use and the benefits of harmonizing U.S. spectrum allocations in the mid-band range with other nations. 

But to reap those benefits, the U.S. needs to maintain its leading role by making more mid-band spectrum available. In its report, Accenture found that, as of 2023, the five leading countries in mid-band spectrum availability dedicated an average of 652 MHz to commercial wireless use. But the U.S. faced a 202 MHz mid-band spectrum deficit compared to those nations. Accenture projects that in the year 2027, the five leading nations will dedicate an average of 970 MHz of mid-band spectrum to commercial wireless use. But due to the lack of spectrum in the pipeline in the U.S., our nation's spectrum deficit will grow to 520 MHz in 2027.

 

Accenture identifies the 3.3-3.45 GHz band, the 4.4-4.94 GHz band, and the 7.125-8.5 GHz band as ideal for commercial use and global spectrum harmonization. As explained in the report, spectrum harmonization could benefit U.S. consumers and businesses to the tune of tens of billions of dollars: 

Spectrum harmonization can standardize network equipment and wireless device production, resulting in less market variation in radio requirements for these technologies. With more harmonization, fewer variations of network radios and wireless devices must be produced, and complex devices that support a wide range of frequencies can be simplified. These efficiencies result in cost savings for end users and drive additional downstream benefits (e.g., accelerated network deployment, earlier adoption of industry use cases, etc.) unlocking approximately $23B-$44B in value for industry and consumers over the next 10 years. Additionally, harmonization will improve network performance through minimized downtime, reduced interference, and better roaming.

And the Accenture report estimates that the overall economic benefits of industry expansion, innovation, and job creation from future U.S. leadership in a more harmonized wireless ecosystem total between $125 billion and $155 billion over a decade. 

But the U.S. will miss out if it fails to promptly replenish the spectrum pipeline with mid-band spectrum for licensed commercial wireless use. On January 2 of this year, Free State Foundation Randolph May and Senior Fellow Andrew Long submitted public comments to the NTIA regarding the agency's implementation of the National Spectrum Strategy. As explained in FSF's comments, although the NTIA's November 13, 2023 Strategy identifies 2,786 MHz of spectrum for study, that is no guarantee that a single megahertz actually will be dedicated for commercial wireless use and the Strategy "fails to tackle the difficult work necessary to rationally balance government and commercial demands for this high-value, limited resource." FSF's comments conclude: "The reality… is that NTIA must embrace the challenging work required to identify – and in fact repurpose – government-held spectrum that would better serve our nation's interests were it put to commercial use, whether on a licensed or unlicensed basis. And do so in a timely manner." 

For more, see my November 2023 blog post, "NTIA Releases National Spectrum Strategy, But Pipeline Remains Empty."

Fixed Wireless Services Made Big Strides in 2023

On January 25, it was reported that T-Mobile added 541,000 fixed wireless access (FWA) subscribers during the fourth quarter of 2023. T-Mobile reportedly gained about 2.1 million subscribers to its 5G-enabled FWA residential broadband Internet services in 2023. Also, it was reported that Verizon gained 375,000 FWA subscribers in the fourth quarter of last year. According to reports, upwards of 80% of Verizon’s FWA subscriber additions are served in markets where Verizon obtained mid-band spectrum through the Commission's C-Band spectrum license auction. All told, T-Mobile and Verizon have a combined total of nearly 8 million FWA subs, with T-Mobile having about 4.78 million.

Importantly, AT&T launched its FWA services mid-way through 2023. AT&T is just getting started and it reportedly gained 67,000 FWA subscribers in the fourth quarter, bringing AT&T's total up to about 93,000. 

FWA has perhaps been the biggest breakthrough in the broadband internet services market to take place since the FCC released its Restoring Internet Freedom Order in 2018. Market entry by three nationwide FWA providers provides an ideal platform for accessing broadband in many rural areas. And in many cases, FWA entry boosts the number of fixed broadband access competitors for Americans in local markets already served by cable, fiber, and satellite broadband services. 

 

In the RIF Order, the Commission "conclude[d] that reclassification of broadband Internet access service from Title II to Title I is likely to increase ISP investment and output." The launch and rapid rollout of FWA is a critical output and it has been enabled by heavy capital investment, including investment in spectrum licenses won at competitive bidding auctions. 

 

On January 17, Free State Foundation President Randolph May and I filed reply comments in the FCC's Safeguarding and Securing the Open Internet proceeding. In those reply comments, we recommended that the Commission keep the free market-oriented, light-touch regulatory framework for broadband Internet services established under the RIF Order. In FSF's reply comments, we quoted many of the doomsday predictions made by pro-public utility regulation supporters about how the Internet would grind to a slow halt or stop and everyday users would be shuffled off into Internet slow lanes while fat cats would ride high on Internet fast lanes. None of that ever happened. In fact, the opposite happened, as speeds have continued to increase since early 2018 and next-generation broadband services like FWA deployed nationwide to boost access and competition. 

Report Chronicles the Competitiveness of Today's Wireless Services Market

On December 11, CTIA released a report by Compass Lexecon titled "An Economic Analysis of Mobile Wireless Competition in the United States." The report provides an excellent overview of data points demonstrating that the wireless market is effectively competitive. And as the report rightly concludes, the competitive state of the wireless market means that imposing "utility regulation like that found in Title II of the Communications Act is both unnecessary andlikely to be a harmful deterrent to future investment and industry performance due to imposed costs and diverted resources."

The Compass Lexecon report cites strong capital investment in wireless network infrastructure:  $364 billion in nominal dollars invested 2010 to 2022. It also cites rapid network deployment and upgrades, with a 64% increase in cell cites activated over the prior decade and 5G deployment by 3 nationwide wireless providers to 98% of the population. Also, speeds have quadrupled over the past seven years and doubled over the past three years. The number of devices and data usage per wireless user have risen, with overall U.S. mobile traffic growing at a compound rate of about 55% between 2010 and 2022, and overall subscribership grew at a compound annual rate of about 5% during that same time span. And inflation-adjusted wireless price indices published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics declined by 18%-to-19% since 2017, with the price of wireless declining over the past 24-month period while the price of other products has risen 12%. 

 

Citations to those data points as well as to other positive indicators of wireless competition are contained in Compass Lexecon's report. It is a worthwhile read.  

 

On December 14, the Free State Foundation filed public comments with the FCC in its Safeguarding and Securing the Open Internet proceeding. In those comments, we cite the strong competitive conditions of the wireless and overall broadband markets and make the case that imposing public utility regulation on broadband Internet access services is unjustified and harmful to investment and innovation. Wireless services have thrived in a light-touch regulatory environment and wireless competition is an important check on anticompetitive conduct. Wireless consumers are not facing any actual or likely harm that warrants public utility regulation, and regulating wireless services as a public utility would not expand or increase deployment of those services to anyone who does not already have it. 

NTIA Releases National Spectrum Strategy, But Pipeline Remains Empty

On November 13, the NTIA released its National Spectrum Strategy (NSS). The document's release in advance of the December 31, 2023 deadline set by the White House is welcome as far as it goes. However, at the same time, the NSS doesn't appear to move the ball forward in any practical sense because it doesn't actually designate any spectrum for repurposing but instead simply identifies five bands for future studying – of up to two years – for "potential repurposing." There is a widely-acknowledged pressing need to dedicate more spectrum for commercial wireless services, but from a reading of the NSS it appears that the empty spectrum pipeline won't be replenished anytime soon.

The matter of most immediate importance covered in the National Spectrum Strategy is its first "pillar": "A Spectrum Pipeline to Ensure U.S. Leadership in Advanced and Emerging Technologies." The NSS selected five different spectrum bands totaling 2,786 megahertz (MHz) of spectrum for "in-depth near term study to determine suitability for potential repurposing to address the nation's ever-evolving needs." According to the NSS, "[t]hese spectrum bands are a mix of Federal and shared Federal/non-Federal bands—with an emphasis on mid-band frequencies—that will be studied for a variety of uses, including terrestrial wireless broadband, innovative space services, and unmanned aviation and other autonomous vehicle operations." Those five bands are: (1) Lower 3 GHz (3.1-3.45 GHz); (2) 5030-5091 MHz; (3) 7125-8400 MHz; (4) 18.1-18.6 GHz; and (5) 37.0-37.6 GHz. 

 

Additional "pillars" in the NSS address long-term planning for supporting spectrum use, improving spectrum access and efficiency through innovation and emerging technologies, and future spectrum-related workforce development. The NSS states that the NTIA's next step is to develop an Implementation Plan for carrying out the objectives identified in the report. That Implementation Plan reportedly will be completed within 120 days of the release of the NSS. A Presidential Memorandum issued on November 13 states that the Plan will include a schedule for detailed studies of the selected bands to be completed within 2 years of the submission of the NSS or within 2 years of receipt of funding for agency studies under the Spectrum Pipeline Act of 2015.

 

The 2015 Act ought to serve as a reminder that spectrum resource needs have long been recognized, but the federal progress on actually addressing those needs, across multiple Administrations, has been slow. Hopefully, the Implementation Plan will likewise be submitted ahead of schedule and the spectrum band studies also are completed rapidly so that significant progress finally becomes discernable and spectrum is actually repurposed to support 5G and future 6G services. Until then, the spectrum pipeline remains empty.

 

In April of this year, Free State Foundation President Randolph May and I submitted comments to the NTIA in its Development of a National Spectrum Strategy proceeding. See also my April 18 blog post, "FSF Calls for Fast Action on Mid-Band Spectrum." FSF scholars will have more to say in the near future on the NSS and spectrum policy.