Industry Groups United Against Revoking Already-Approved Gear Authorizations

CCA agrees with commenters who strongly urge caution against such rules as they risk resulting in significant burdens to providers and consumers without providing discernible benefit,” it said. Revoking some wireless handsets could disproportionately affect elderly and low-income customers, CCA said: Initial comments “emphasized the burden of identifying all the equipment subject to a revocation and sourcing and distributing/installing new equipment. Revoking equipment authorizations may significantly delay delivery cycles and create shortages as companies scramble to find cost-effective replacements.”

Even those that claim the FCC may have the authority to retroactively revoke authorizations agree that should occur “only in limited circumstances, where necessary, after consultation with national security agencies, and after a robust public process,” CTA said. Acting against individual components, another focus of the FNPRM, also raises questions, the group said. The record shows “legal and practical challenges that would accompany new regulations on individual components” and “identifies potential disruption and increased regulatory burdens that could arise from barring devices based on components,” CTA said.

Revoking existing authorizations “would create serious complications and negatively impact consumers,” TIA said: “No commenters suggest that revoking existing authorizations would have meaningful security benefits.” TIA warned of the cost to carriers if they have to remove additional gear from their networks. A mandate to do so “would perilously divert the resources of carriers and vendors from the nation’s shared goal of expanding broadband to unserved communities and increasing capacity for growing connectivity demands,” the group said.

NCTA counseled against revoking previous authorizations. “Revoking previously approved equipment authorizations could impose a disproportionate burden on network operators, who rely in good faith on the current Covered List and the Commission’s determination that the equipment is safe and legal at the time of purchase, by requiring them to remove previously installed equipment from their networks,” the group said.

FCC decisions to cancel an authorization should be based on “an express finding by an appropriate national security agency that using such equipment poses a concrete and unacceptable risk to national security,” NCTA said: It “must be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the economic and competitive impact, contain mechanisms to prevent unfunded mandates and protect the reliance interests of companies and consumers, and, absent extraordinary circumstances, be prospective only.”

Hikvision was the lone Chinese-based gear maker to file a reply. “The comments -- including multiple comments filed by leading industry trade associations -- overwhelmingly demonstrate that the Commission lacks statutory authority to revoke existing equipment authorizations for reasons unrelated to electromagnetic interference and emission levels,” Hikvision said: “Not a single commenter has explained how either the Secure Equipment Act or the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act could have granted the Commission such revocation authority.”