Industry: FCC Should Pause Before Issuing More Gear Authorization Rules

CTA said in comments this week that if the FCC clamps down on component parts, it should “take a targeted, risk-based approach based on functionality,” provide clarity on how to comply with the rule and “include a reasonable transition period based on global production cycles.” New marketing restrictions shouldn’t impose “significant burdens on trusted manufacturers and the equipment authorization process without commensurate security benefits.”

CTA and other commenters also asked that any updates to the FCC “covered list” of unsecure companies directly reflect determinations made by “an enumerated source,” as defined in the Secure Networks Act approved by Congress in 2019. By acting independently, the FCC “would deviate from Congressional direction” and “supplant the work of other agencies and interagency bodies” that Congress or the president “have tasked with conducting the large-scale national security reviews necessary to make these determinations,” CTA said.

TIA likewise urged the FCC to take a cautious approach and rely on recommendations by “enumerated sources,” as defined by Congress. “Overbroad component level restrictions could unintentionally favor vendors from foreign adversaries with flexible and opaque supply chains, undermining U.S. and allied industry competitiveness.” The FCC should also provide industry with time to adjust to new restrictions, the group said. To find “suitable alternatives to newly prohibited components, manufacturers need time to source, test, and integrate new parts into their products.”

USTelecom emphasized the importance of taking a careful approach in any new rules. Expanding the new component parts rule adopted in the order to take in additional component parts or parts produced by companies not on the covered list “would impose significant burdens on the companies” in the information and communications technology device ecosystem “and U.S. global competitiveness in the ICT equipment market writ large,” the group said. Prohibiting “a wide range of specific components” could harm competition “by causing supply chain disruptions and increasing prices for companies and consumers alike,” which could “impact U.S. economic competitiveness globally.”

NTCA warned that the proposed definition of critical infrastructure in the FNPRM is “vague and inconsistent with established definitions.” The definition could lead to confusion and unnecessarily penalize communications providers who “neither assemble the equipment nor seek Commission authorization for such equipment.” The group also said the FCC’s proposed definition of marketing “imposes uncertainty and liability on communications providers without enhancing national security.”

Small providers routinely sell used gear to other parties when they purchase new equipment and “have no more awareness of the manufacturer of components contained within the equipment than when they purchase the equipment,” NTCA added.

Among other issues commenters raised, Sony Group opposed the FNPRM's proposal that an FCC ID be visible on the outside of all product packaging. To comply with that mandate, “manufacturers would need to undertake packaging redesigns, replace printed materials, and rotate or rework existing inventory,” the company said. “These actions would impose additional cost burdens and extend manufacturing lead times.”

SiriusXM said the FCC should put the burden on online platforms like Amazon, eBay and Alibaba, as well as other retailers, to ensure that equipment they sell as FCC certified is “in fact” certified. Sirius XM noted that its satellite digital audio radio service in the 2.3 GHz band is “susceptible to interference from other equipment operating in or around the SDARS band that will mute their satellite radio reception.” The company has repeatedly brought to the FCC’s attention the “numerous consumer devices sold to U.S. customers that operate in the SDARS band unlawfully.”