Adelstein Eyes 5G Via US Spending; Simington Has FCC Tech Cautions

Wireless has a big role to play in infrastructure building and looks like it will be part of bipartisan legislation, Wireless Infrastructure Association President Jonathan Adelstein told a Media Institute virtual event. "Fiber-only” may be “well-intentioned” but would “crash on the messy rocks of reality in rural America,” he said. At another event Thursday, Commissioner Nathan Simington raised concerns about how far the FCC can go on data security and privacy.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said he intends to file cloture Monday on “the vehicle for a bipartisan infrastructure bill” reflecting the framework President Joe Biden backed in June (see 2106240070). The vote, likely Wednesday, sets a deadline for senators spearheading work on the bipartisan bill to complete the legislation, which is to include $65 billion for broadband. “The time has come to make progress, and we will,” Schumer said on the Senate floor. “All parties involved in the bipartisan infrastructure bill talks must now finalize their agreement so that the Senate can begin considering that legislation next week.”

The wireless industry has been “in a surprising battle on Capitol Hill to get wireless even included in the biggest infrastructure investment,” Adelstein said. Industry found policymakers proposed a “future-proof strategy” with speeds that were “really code for fiber only,” he said. “This idea hadn’t been properly vetted, considering the complexities of telecom networks.”

WIA is pleased with what it’s hearing about the bipartisan compromise (see 2106240070), Adelstein said. “It’s moving toward a flexible standard that allows wireless to compete for funding.” Congress reportedly will no longer require symmetric speeds, which could be met only by fiber, he said. “An investment of this magnitude is a dangerous time to experiment with putting all our eggs in a single fiber basket,” Adelstein said.

WIA members own most U.S. fiber and it’s important to 5G networks, and wireless can best provide last-mile for many homes, the association chief said. Members of Congress “want to get people connected as quickly as possible,” he said: “Wireless networks get up and running faster.”

Republican senators involved in the bipartisan group noted misgivings with Schumer’s plan. “We’re still working very hard,” said Susan Collins of Maine. “We’re making good progress, and [Schumer] ought to respect that.” There’s “a lot of drafting that has to be done, and there are still a number of outstanding issues that have to be resolved,” said Mitt Romney of Utah. “It would be a dereliction of duty to vote for a bill that hasn’t been drafted.”

Senate Minority Whip John Thune, R-S.D., told reporters that arbitrarily setting a cloture vote is a “bad idea if the bill’s not ready.” Senate Republicans “aren’t going to vote for a bill they haven’t seen,” said Thune, who's also Communications Subcommittee ranking member. Democrats involved in the bipartisan group wouldn’t commit to being able to produce a bill by Schumer’s deadline. “We’ll see,” said Mark Warner of Virginia. “I haven’t seen” final language yet “and neither have you guys,” Jon Tester of Montana told reporters.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Incompas and other groups urged lawmakers to enact “funding that will enable every American to access 21st century broadband infrastructure. Those communities without wired 25/3 Mbps should be prioritized, with additional areas that are unserved at successively higher speeds included as funding permits.” The other groups were the Fiber Broadband Association, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, NTCA and Public Knowledge.

Congress “should require” entities receiving broadband money from the infrastructure measure to “build networks that will be scalable over time to meet the online needs of their communities,” the six groups said. "The minimum speed for eligible projects to receive funds should be 100/100 Mbps.”

Simington told a virtual conference of the Internet Governance Forum-USA the FCC must be cautious in the role it plays on security and privacy. He urged listeners to respond to the June NPRM and notice of inquiry that would further clamp down on gear from companies deemed to pose a security risk in U.S. networks (see 2106170063). “We want to develop as robust of record as we can and take notice of every fact available to us,” Simington said. Any actions by the FCC must be “thoroughly weighed” so “no one has to worry that they will come out of left field, be damaging, be unsettling or just be inappropriate to your industry,” he said.

Simington said he remains focused on RF fingerprinting, which he said is now cost-effective for consumer devices using AI. “We need to be able to audit every physical element of devices,” he said: “We need to trust devices in operation. We need to trust patching. … There’s no good moment to ease off the throttle on security.” Wireless devices today “just aren’t difficult enough to hack,” he said. “Anyone with an Amazon account and a high school education can build a device that interferes, potentially maliciously, with a wireless device or network, through physical layer vulnerability,” he said.

The FCC should encourage voluntary standard setting where possible to make devices more secure, Simington said. “The FCC doesn’t always have to create rules” though “we love to create rules,” he said. The agency can instead be a “clearinghouse” for information and a “neutral arbiter” when there are disagreements, he said. “It’s a way of staving off potentially inconvenient or inappropriate regulation,” he said. The agency should put the most focus on areas “where its regulatory remit is clearest and where it can exert the greatest level of influence,” he said.

The FCC has limited authority on privacy, Simington said. Wireless device security, at the physical level is “clearly within our backyard,” he said. “It has implications not just for the protection of user data but for the proper functioning of the device for its intended use.” He said the FCC role on privacy in general is a “larger conversation” and a “question for Congress.”