Industry Hopes Congress Funds FCC Network Security Rules

The Competitive Carriers Association supports that law “and we continue to urge Congress to ensure funds are available for carriers that are required to replace certain network equipment,” emailed President Steve Berry. “There is broad industry support, as evidenced by today’s joint association letter to congressional leaders, for Congress to include provisions in any upcoming legislation to fully fund the program, and the funding request is also supported by the FCC.” Berry is “encouraged” by the discussions with Congress. “National security and robust telecommunications services are more important than ever before, and I am optimistic that Congress will continue its work to fully fund this law,” he said.

The Rural Wireless Association “remains hopeful that this can be dealt with as part of COVID-19 economic stimulus package, and knows it is a priority for key Senate Commerce Committee members and House Commerce members,” said Counsel Carri Bennet. “Time is ticking,” she said: “Delaying the appropriation of funding means continued security risks.” If the COVID package doesn’t “doesn’t materialize this summer,” RWA expects it to be put into the FY 2021 appropriations bill and budgeted for 2021, she said. RWA didn’t sign the industry letter.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai “has identified getting the law funded as a top priority,” said Dileep Srihari, senior policy counsel at CompTIA, which did sign: “We’ve heard the administration also wants to get it funded so we’re hopeful that Congress will make it happen this year."

“Our telecommunications networks have never been more important than they are today,” said the letter to leaders in the House and Senate, citing the pandemic. “Our members have seen significant increases in network traffic reflecting seismic shifts across critical aspects of day-to- day life, as economic, educational, health, and social connections move online for us to stay connected while apart. … However, operators who through no fault of their own previously deployed Huawei and ZTE equipment are paralyzed.”

In rural areas, where the equipment is most commonly deployed, operators’ “ability to continue providing high-quality services may be jeopardized if they do not have the necessary resources to ‘rip and replace’ existing covered equipment,” the letter said. It was also signed by the Information Technology Industry Council, NTCA, Telecommunications Industry Association, Wireless Infrastructure Association and WTA.

TIA was “disappointed that the FCC’s request for additional funding was not included in the stimulus package that passed the House last week,” said Director-Government Affairs Colin Andrews: “We’re hopeful that the broad, bipartisan support for this effort will allow for the Senate to include this critical funding in their version of the package, or for Congress to provide this needed assistance in an appropriation bill later this year.”

Comments Filed

Industry groups raised concerns in response to a March notice by the Public Safety Bureau (see 2003130083). Huawei protested the move to require carriers to remove its equipment.

“The Commission does not have statutory authority to mandate removal of equipment,” Huawei commented in docket 18-89, posted Thursday. “Nothing in the Networks Act even purports to provide statutory authority for the Commission to mandate such removal, or to independently impose such a requirement on all or a subset of carriers.” ZTE didn't comment.

Address the “mismatch” between the definition of “covered equipment and services” in the act and rules proposed, USTelecom said. “The Commission creates a bright-line definition of ‘covered’ equipment, but the statutory prohibitions are not so sweeping.” Reconciling the definitions is critical because the act directs the FCC to establish a program to reimburse providers for replacing covered equipment, the group said: “Given the limited budget available to replace covered equipment under the Secure Networks Act, it is important for the Commission to include a criticality assessment, consistent with Congressional intent, when determining covered equipment in order to maximize the benefit" to security.

“Hew closely to Congress’s instructions,” CTIA advised: “Doing so will contribute to a unified, federal approach to supply chain security, which is critical given the complexity of information and communications technology supply chain issues and the many efforts underway across government and industry.” Paying to replace the equipment must come through “an express appropriation” from Congress and from elsewhere in the USF, CTIA said.

The reimbursement framework should reflect “the realities of the replacement process,” CCA said. “Transitioning from covered equipment and services to new replacements will be a multi-step process involving numerous entities,” the group said: “The Commission should allow providers to submit cost estimates that cover all stages of the process that apply to them.”

Follow what Congress directed and develop a list of “categories of replacements,” and the commission should take this approach rather than “naming specific ‘suggested’ suppliers,” Ericsson said. The list should be “broadly inclusive of the offerings of suppliers of virtual network equipment and services,” the company said. Ericsson said it's well positioned to work with carriers to replace suspect equipment with equipment from a trusted provider.

Northern Michigan University said it should be eligible for funding to replace its existing Huawei equipment, even though it's not required to make changes under FCC rules. “NMU would suffer from a declining Huawei US market where the purchase of additional components or the maintenance of its existing hardware and software from this company would be unavailable,” the university suggested: “NMU fears this replacement cost would negatively affect the network’s sustainability.”