Subsea Cable Interests Challenge FCC's SLTE Licensing Proposal
The FCC's proposal to license submarine line terminal equipment (SLTE) owners and operators is facing strong opposition from the industry, according to comments posted Friday in docket 24-523. The commission in August adopted a submarine cable licensing further NPRM that proposed SLTE blanket licensing (see 2508070037).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
The agency saw comments arguing against the FNPRM's tentative conclusion that the Cable Landing License Act gives it statutory authority to regulate SLTE. Nothing in the legislation suggests that Congress intended to extend licensing obligations to cable system components not involved in landing or operating the system, the Telecommunications Industry Association said. Microsoft said the proposed licensing regime will add to the industry's regulatory burdens, hurting the submarine cable capacity market. SLTE owners and operators should be subject to notification and certification requirements, not licensing ones, it added.
The North American Submarine Cable Association (NASCA) advised the agency to "simplify radically" its proposed SLTE licensing and reporting requirements via a notification and certification process that screens out problematic ownership, equipment and vendors while imposing bright-line security requirements. The agency acknowledged in the FNPRM that it lacks information about SLTE owners and operators, NASCA said, yet the proposal to license SLTE operations and put the same conditions on them that it puts on submarine cable licensees "is anything but the 'targeted' regulatory framework" that the FCC wants.
The Submarine Cable Coalition suggested that SLTE ownership and control be a class of blanket licenses that are distinct from cable landing licenses. It also urged an exemption from SLTE licensing for holders of cable landing licenses, since such licensees "have already undergone fulsome review and vetting, making dual licensure unnecessary."
In addition, the docket saw wide agreement that there should be a streamlined application process for trusted providers. The current licensing process is "increasingly burdensome," with reviews often taking more than three years, the Technology Industry Association said.
Don't prematurely adopt any "rip and replace"-style requirement for submarine cable systems, CTIA urged. With subsea cables carrying nearly 99% of global internet traffic, "acting blindly here risks disrupting national economies and threatening the long-term viability and success of submarine cable infrastructure," it said. Even if the agency eventually goes that route, a narrowly tailored rip and replace requirement "is likely to be unsuccessful without clear direction and support from Congress."
Any prohibition on the use of equipment or services that pose a security risk "should target an identifiable risk," NASCA said. Such prohibitions also shouldn't apply to existing systems licensed to land in foreign adversary jurisdictions, which couldn't continue to operate without that equipment and those services, it said.