Back to news

July 22, 2020 | International, C4ISR

To be competitive in 5G, the US must play offense, not defense

Joel Thayer , Harold Feld , and Daniel Hoffman

The Department of Defense and the Department of Transportation are far from the first to try to upend an independent agency's proceeding. However, these executive agencies have been far more aggressive than normal in that pursuit in response to the Federal Communications Commission's April 20 Ligado decision. This dispute significantly compromises the United States' leadership in global markets — by both undermining domestic initiatives and by undercutting our policy positions internationally.

The recent dispute concerning Ligado pits the DoD and DOT on one side, and the Federal Communications Commission, the State Department and Attorney General Bill Barr on the other. This dispute involves the FCC's unanimous decision to grant new wireless entrant Ligado's request to modify its licenses to provide a national, low-power 5G network for Internet of Things services.

The Ligado decision took nearly two decades, all told. It is not overstating to say that what should be a straightforward engineering decision has devolved into a watershed moment that, if Congress doesn't act, may prevent the U.S. from deploying 5G at a rate greater or equal to China or other international sovereigns. Worse, it will deprive Americans of competition, wireless innovation and related economic growth for years to come.

IoT enabled by 5G will revolutionize everything from precision agriculture to self-driving cars. By focusing exclusively on IoT, Ligado can expedite the deployment of this technology while traditional wireless carriers focus on building out consumer-oriented 5G networks. This will accelerate deployment of 5G networks and introduce competition into the nascent IoT market. This is why Barr (whose Antitrust Division concentrates on competition) and the State Department (which wants to see the U.S. retain wireless leadership in global markets) have supported the FCC's decision.

Ostensibly, the DoD and DOT say that Ligado will interfere with sensitive GPS operations. But its rationale does not survive even casual scrutiny. In recent weeks, internal emails from the DoD have surfaced showing that at least some of the DoD's own spectrum experts categorically agreed with the FCC that Ligado posed no threat, but were overruled by their superiors.

The real issue is that the DoD and DOT are the largest and most powerful federal spectrum users. Any growth in 5G will require them to make further adjustments. Oddly, neither agency operates near Ligado's spectrum, and yet they seek to impede Ligado's ability to innovate in it. Put simply, Ligdao is just the unlucky party caught in the middle of their broader interagency spectrum fight.

Congress made the FCC an independent, expert agency to prevent precisely this kind of situation. One of the most important reasons the FCC even exists is to set uniform rules for commercial wireless networks so that equipment can interoperate and companies can innovate, which ensures consumers ultimately reap the benefits of their products.

Unfortunately, the Senate and House Armed Services committees intend to end run the agency by including provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act that, in effect, prevent stakeholders that work with the Defense Department — either directly or indirectly — from using Ligado's network, which includes just about every major company in America.

The U.S. squabbling with itself only yields an uncontested “win” for China. Our competitors are coordinated and not stumbling over themselves on petty spectrum disputes. They are certainly not waiting for the United States government to get its act together.

To the contrary, as the House Appropriations Committee observed in its report on the FCC's budget: “The U.S. is falling behind other countries in the allocation of [5G] spectrum.” Chinese-owned companies Huawei and ZTE have already bought up significant wireless infrastructure for its 5G networks across the globe and have begun deploying IoT services in the same or similar bands the FCC authorized for Ligado. If that happens, it's China that sets the terms for 5G, which adversely affects our nation's security given China's penchant for international data aggregation.

Upending the FCC would hand China a nearly insurmountable advantage in the race to 5G. Also, if Congress sides with the DoD and DOT instead of observing the FCC's 17-year-long rigorous testing and analysis, which included that of the DOT's and the Defense Department's own spectrum experts, then the FCC will be effectively paralyzed going forward. Congress needs to put a stop to these games before they do permanent damage and let the FCC do its job.

Joel Thayer focuses his practice on telecommunications, regulatory and transaction matters, as well as privacy and cybersecurity issues. Harold Feld has worked in telecommunications law for more than 20 years. He is senior vice president of Public Knowledge, a 501(c) that advocates for policies to expand broadband access. Public Knowledge has provided support for Ligado several times in the FCC proceeding. Ligado sponsors its IP3 award at the $5,000 level. Daniel Hoffman worked in the CIA, where he was a three-time station chief and a senior executive clandestine services officer. He has been a Fox News contributor since May 2018.

https://www.c4isrnet.com/opinion/2020/07/23/to-be-competitive-in-5g-the-us-must-play-offense-not-defense/

On the same subject

  • Defence Secretary announces first deployment for new sub-hunter aircraft

    February 19, 2019 | International, Aerospace

    Defence Secretary announces first deployment for new sub-hunter aircraft

    Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson has announced that the UK's new fleet of submarine hunting aircraft will take to the skies over the Arctic next year. While visiting Royal Marines and Royal Navy personnel on winter training in Norway, the Defence Secretary announced that as part of their first deployment next year the RAF P8 Maritime Patrol Aircraft will be in the Arctic to counter Russian submarine activity that has reached Cold War levels. This deployment is part of the Defence Arctic Strategy, which will be published this spring, deepening our relationship with regional partners and sharpen our expertise of operating in the extreme cold environment. Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson said: The Arctic Strategy puts us on the front foot in protecting Britain's interests in this expanding new frontier. Whether it's sharpening our skills in sub-zero conditions, learning from longstanding allies like Norway or monitoring submarine threats with our Poseidon aircraft, we will stay vigilant to new challenges. Nine of the P8 Poseidon aircraft will be delivered to RAF Lossiemouth in 2020 at which point they will begin reconnaissance patrols over a wide range including the High North and North Atlantic. While in Norway the Defence Secretary also met with the elite commandos of the Royal Marines and discussed the unique challenge of honing their combat skills hundreds of miles inside the Arctic Circle where temperatures drop as low as -30°C. As part of the Defence Arctic Strategy, the Royal Marines have committed to a 10-year training programme with their Norwegian counterparts, which will see around 1,000 Marines travelling North each year. A long-term NATO ally, Norway is also a fellow member of the Joint Expeditionary Force and Northern Group – two initiatives through which the UK is enhancing its co-operation with key northern European partners. Elsewhere in the region this year, RAF Typhoons will guard NATO's northern flank as part of the Icelandic Air Policing mission. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/defence-secretary-announces-first-deployment-for-new-sub-hunter-aircraft

  • Counter-Drone Technology Supports Remote ID | Unmanned Systems Technology

    March 5, 2021 | International, Aerospace

    Counter-Drone Technology Supports Remote ID | Unmanned Systems Technology

    D-Fend Solutions has confirmed that its EnforceAir counter-small unmanned aerial systems (C-sUAS) technology supports the legislation rule recently passed by...

  • Possible New 'Engine War' Recasts Pratt As Champion Of Competition

    March 16, 2020 | International, Aerospace

    Possible New 'Engine War' Recasts Pratt As Champion Of Competition

    By Steve Trimble Pratt & Whitney's F100 (pictured) is designed to be interchangeable with GE Aviation's F110 as the engine for the Boeing F-15 fleet. A jet engine maker is pressuring the U.S. Defense Department to scrap a plan to award a sole-source contract to a rival for a fleet of new fighters and investigate the opportunity for performance and cost improvements yielded by a competitive selection process. If that narrative sounds familiar, it is because it echoes a role GE Aviation played for more than 40 years, which included a successful bid in the 1980s to launch the “Great Engine War” over the F-15 and F-16 fleets and a failed campaign that ended almost a decade ago to establish the F136 as the alternate engine for the F-35. This time, however, the roles are reversed. Pratt & Whitney, which waged fierce lobbying campaigns against competitive engine policies for the F-15, F-16 and F-35, has switched sides in the debate. In response to the U.S. Air Force's decision to field the F-15EX into production powered solely by GE F110 engines, Pratt has filed two protests with the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which is scheduled to render judgments on both cases by early July. The Air Force sided with GE during the Great Engine War in 1984. Seeking to lower costs and motivate Pratt to resolve stall-stagnation problems with the original F100, the Air Force decided that year to split the engine contract for the F-15 and F-16 between GE's F110 and Pratt's F100. Thirty-six years later, the Air Force now worries about the schedule impact if the GAO sustains either or both of Pratt's protests of the F-15EX engine. Service officials decided to acquire the F-15EX after concluding the F-15C/Ds were too costly to sustain and because it would take too long for the Pratt F135-powered F-35A to replace all of them. Pratt's protests threaten to disrupt that schedule and erode the Air Force's original business case for the F-15EX. “If we have to do an engine competition, it will add time—2-3 years,” said Will Roper, assistant secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, testifying before the House Armed Services Committee on March 10. Only a decade ago, Pratt welcomed a vote by Congress in 2010 to cancel funding for the F-35 program's alternate engine, along with a decision by GE and Rolls-Royce a year later to abandon a plan to self-fund the certification of the F136. But Pratt now embraces the potential benefits of an engine competition for the F-15EX. “Our government supports competition at all levels, and we're interested in providing the F100 as a competitive alternative,” Pratt Military Engines President Matthew Bromberg told Aviation Week. “If we're not competitive in terms of capability, schedule [and] price, I get it. But after the U.S. government spent all this money creating two engines for the F-15 and F-16 platforms, why would it then not compete a 450-engine program?” Asked if the existing F100 would require additional development to meet the Air Force's requirements for the F-15EX, Bromberg replied that he cannot answer that question in the absence of a competitive process that allows Pratt access to the specifications. He also noted that the F100 exclusively powers the Air Force's existing fleet of F-15Es. The F100 and F110 were designed to fit interchangeably in the F-15, although the heavily modified Saudi Arabian F-15SA and the Qatari F-15QA from which the F-15EX was derived are exclusively powered by GE's engine. The GAO does not release complaints filed by protesters up front, but it does release the full text of decisions. It is not clear why Pratt filed two separate protests on the sole-source decision for the GE engine on the F-15EX, but Bromberg advised not reading too much into it. “I'd like to obviously be able to discuss them, but I can't because it's a legal process,” Bromberg said. “I would really view them as a single protest on a single procurement action, and that is a lack of competition.” https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/aircraft-propulsion/possible-new-engine-war-recasts-pratt-champion-competition

All news