November 6, 2024 | International, Land, C4ISR, Security
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.
On the same subject
-
-
January 27, 2024 | International, Aerospace
Exclusive: Lockheed Martin to cut 1% of its jobs in cost-cutting push
-
August 7, 2019 | International, Naval
With mounting questions about cost and survivability, a shifting political landscape for US aircraft carriers
By: David B. Larter and Joe Gould WASHINGTON — The new chief of naval operations, Adm. Michael Gilday, was confirmed quickly by the Senate last week, but lawmakers made clear that the cost and growing vulnerability of aircraft carriers to ever-faster and evasive missiles will be among the issues he's expected to tackle when he officially takes the reins. The Navy's main force projection tool, the carrier, became a punching bag for several lawmakers at Gilday's confirmation hearing, as they alternately raised the threat posed by Chinese and Russian hypersonic missiles and berated the Navy's future top admiral for the significant delays and cost overruns associated with the new carrier Gerald R. Ford. At one point during the July 31 hearing, the Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., told Gilday the Navy's arrogance on the carrier “ought to be criminal.” Later on, longtime friend of the Navy Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, warned that hypersonic missiles were a “nightmare weapon” that threatened to make carriers obsolete. And while the lawmakers differed on the future of aircraft carriers and their long-term viability, the hearing left no doubt that Gilday, a career surface warfare officer, has his work cut out for him in proving he can guide the service toward a more stable future for the Navy's most expensive and strategically invaluable assets. To be clear, Inhofe does not oppose carriers, and he has publicly reminded multiple Trump administration officials of the Navy's legal requirement to maintain 11 of them. Inhofe was in the bipartisan chorus of lawmakers who opposed Pentagon plans to cut costs by decommissioning the aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman before the administration scuttledthose plans this year. When it comes to the Ford program, Inhofe plans to keep the Navy on a short leash and pressed Gilday to commit that he would work to prevent the kind of widespread “first-in-class” issues that have plagued the Ford. It's an issue with some urgency behind it, as the Navy prepares to tackle the new Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine for nuclear deterrent patrols, as well as a next-generation frigate, new classes of unmanned warships and a new large surface combatant. “The Navy entered into this contract in 2008, which, combined with other contracts, have ballooned the cost of the ship more than $13 billion without understanding the technical risks, the costs or the schedules, and you know this ought to be criminal,” Inhofe said. The Navy had taken a gamble integrating immature dual-band radar, catapult, arresting gear and weapons elevators, and Inhofe expressed displeasure with the result. Tackling the first-in-class issue will be a priority, Gilday said. “I commit to that and complete transparency as well as taking what we learn from the Ford and ensuring that we don't commit those same mistakes again in the Columbia class and other ships that we need to field in the next few years,” Gilday told Inhofe. ‘Sitting ducks' As for rising threats to the carrier, King believes hypersonic missiles are an existential threat to the Navy and urged Gilday to take the issue head on. “Every aircraft carrier that we own can disappear in a coordinated attack,” King said. “And it is a matter of minutes. Murmansk, [Russia], to the Norwegian Sea is 12 minutes at 6,000 miles an hour. “So I hope you will take back a sense of urgency to the Navy and to the research capacity and to the private sector that this has to be an urgent priority because otherwise we are creating a vulnerability that could in itself lead to instability.” In an interview with Defense News, King said the speed at which the Russians and Chinese are fielding the capability worries him. “My concern is that we are a number of years away from having that capacity, and our adversaries are within a year of deployment,” he said. “And that creates a dangerous gap, in my view. This represents a qualitative gap in offensive warfare that history tells we better figure out how to deal with, or it will mitigate our ... advantage.” King, who represents the state where half the Navy's destroyers are produced, also said he's concerned about the long-term viability of aircraft carriers in a world with hypersonic missiles. “I think it does raise a question of the role of the aircraft carrier if we cannot figure a way to counter this capability,” he said. “I don't want indefensible, $12 billion sitting ducks out there. I'm not prepared to say the carrier is obsolete, but I say that this weapon undermines the viability of the carrier.” Inhofe, in response to another senator's questions about carrier obsolescence, said he disagrees carriers are becoming obsolete, but that he's concerned about the cost. But the threats to the carrier are mounting, experts say. With the advent of ground-launched hypersonic missiles, it's a matter of time before air-launched hypersonic missiles present a nearly insurmountable threat, barring a significant development to counter them. “I think what King's comments reflect is that he sees the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier only getting worse,” said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “Specifically, maybe not so much these kind of boost-glide weapons, but its more about cruise missiles that are hypersonic — air-launched perhaps. “Then you are talking about something that is relatively inexpensive and could be delivered in large numbers, and that would be a bigger deal because missile defenses are not necessarily built for hypersonic weapons. “So we'll have to find a way to deal with this new challenge, or we'll have to rethink how we do things.” https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/08/06/with-mounting-questions-about-cost-and-survivability-a-shifting-political-landscape-for-us-aircraft-carriers/