FCC Wants Help Interpreting Law to Fund Replacement of Huawei, ZTE Equipment
The Federal Communications Commission is inviting comment on
a rule it’s proposed for reimbursing service providers that must replace any
equipment in their systems from Huawei or ZTE in order to participate in a
publicly funded program to increase access to broadband, in light of
complementary legislation Congress passed in March.
“The Wireline Competition Bureau of the Federal
Communications Commission seeks comment on how the recently enacted Secure and
Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019 signed into law on March 12, 2020,
applies to proposals under consideration in the Commission’s Protecting Against
National Security Threats to the Communications Supply Chain rulemaking and
related proceedings,” reads a Federal Register notice set to publish Tuesday.
In November, the commission unanimously adopted an order
designating Huawei and ZTE national security threats. Any entity receiving
money from the Universal Service Fund—an $8.5 billion a year pool amassed from
fees on consumers’ phone bills to get broadband to low income and hard to reach
places—would not be allowed to use equipment from the two telecommunications
companies over fears they are under control of the Chinese government.
Rural internet service providers that rely on the USF—as
well as low-cost gear from the Chinese companies—were concerned.
The FCC’s rulemaking also included a proposal to refund the
companies. And Congress subsequently passed the Secure and Trusted
Communications Networks Act of 2019, which said $1 billion should be made
available to help the smaller rural providers replace the equipment.
The new law is “largely consistent with the Commission’s
proposals,” the FCC wrote. But there are some big questions to answer,
including what exactly is meant by “advanced communications services”?
“The Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission should
modify the reimbursement program proposed in the [Final Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking] to implement these new statutory requirements,” the notice reads.
“Commenters should also specifically address how the Commission should
interpret “providers of advanced communications service.”
Another big question is about the funding. Some estimates
for replacing the covered equipment say it could cost up to double the amount
indicated in the legislation which does not actually spell out where the $1
billion will come from.
Some advocates for the rural providers have suggested the
money might be made available from the FCC’s spectrum auctions.
“The reimbursement program created by the Secure Networks
Act appears to require an express appropriation from Congress,” the FCC writes.
“The Secure Networks Act, however, does not provide funding for the
reimbursement program and states that the program must be ‘separate from any
Federal universal service program established under section 254 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended.’ The Commission seeks comment on our
reading of these provisions.”
The commission also wants input on how it should go about
constructing a list of alternative equipment providers, as required by the new
law.
Comments
Post a Comment