NTIA Seen Pausing BEAD Processing for Now; TikTok's Fate Unclear

The daylong conference in Washington showed that tech policy experts are split on whether TikTok will ultimately be banned in the U.S. Speakers tackled issues from online content moderation to network security. FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez said the agency is running the risk of eroding public trust as a neutral and apolitical organization as it continues efforts to weaponize it against media outlets.

Foundation for American Innovation Director-Technology Policy Luke Hogg said it seems clear that the Chinese government won't allow a TikTok sale to a U.S.-based owner. Georgia Tech cybersecurity policy professor Milton Mueller dismissed as implausible the idea that TikTok poses a national security threat. For other apps, the implications of Washington's TikTok approach "are dire," he added. Data exchanges are central to how digital services work, and calling TikTok a national security threat is absurd. He predicted a deal avoiding a sale, such as Congress repealing the law. "Everyone realizes the law was a mistake," passed in panic.

James Lewis, Center for Strategic and International Studies director-technology and public policy program, said the Chinese foreign ministry has signaled it's open to a sale. Less clear is whether a buyer can be found and what governance structure can be worked out that will solve U.S. concerns.

While the U.S. continues to work to ensure Huawei tech is not included in communications networks, the company "has won the battle" with Western security interests, Lewis said. He said Huawei hardware is used widely in Africa and parts of Europe and South America. Hogg said it's easy to focus on Huawei and ZTE and forget there are other hardware manufacturers, such as TP-Link, that should be of equal concern.

Venable cybersecurity lawyer Ari Schwartz said it's encouraging that the State Department is apparently unfreezing $25 million in foreign aid for Costa Rican network security issues, such as building networks without Huawei tech. It shows the U.S. is pushing the issue globally, he said.

The $3 billion approved for the FCC's rip-and-replace program is a waste of money, Mueller said. He said there's no evidence of any hack due to the use of Chinese equipment, or evidence of a Chinese government attempt to use Huawei as an intelligence tool. Lewis replied that numerous nations’ intelligence agencies have determined Huawei is a signals-collection threat.

Pointing to the Salt Typhoon cyberattacks, Schwartz said the Trump administration is likely to keep some aspects of former President Joe Biden's executive order, issued in the last days of his term, concerning the federal approach to cybersecurity. That would send a positive signal about the bipartisan nature of protecting critical infrastructure, Schwartz said. Lewis said the U.S. and China last had serious talks about cybersecurity 10 years ago, and China isn't interested in renewing them. Getting China to the table will be a challenge for the Trump White House, he said.

BEAD

Numerous BEAD policies from the Biden administration, such as union labor guidelines, "will be put in the garbage," O'Rielly said, adding that there also will be a hard push from some corners to dump BEAD's fiber preference.

States have done sizable data collection work and due diligence, laying the groundwork for the idea that 100% coverage is a realistic goal for the first time, said Kathryn de Wit, head of Pew Charitable Trusts' broadband access initiative. Now a focus is needed on getting rid of some barriers to BEAD construction, such as the letters of credit requirement, she said. Nathan Leamer, who served as an aide to former FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, said that between likely new NTIA head Arielle Roth (see 2502050052) and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., the efficient use of money will be a priority.

That focus on efficiency -- such as further pole attachment and permitting reforms -- needs to be balanced with getting deployment done posthaste, said consultant Angie Kronenberg, a former Incompas president. This level of congressional funding will never come along again, she said.

Kronenberg said the absence of Title II regulation of the internet by the FCC opens the door to states regulating and setting affordability requirements. Some states have gone that route, and more could follow, she said, adding that in response, providers will surely seek FCC preemption.

Given the razor-thin majority in Congress and other priorities, lawmakers won't be revisiting and revising the Affordable Connectivity Program soon, O'Rielly said. There needs to be an "immediate patch" legislatively that will address whatever the U.S. Supreme Court decides on USF constitutionality, he said, with broader, contentious issues of contribution and distribution set aside for another day.

Net Neutrality

Senate Commerce Committee members Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., and Ed Markey, D-Mass., separately mentioned the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ January ruling vacating the FCC’s April net neutrality order (see 2501020047) as an inflection point in communications policy, albeit from opposing perspectives. Markey more broadly railed against the FCC and other federal agencies for collectively “waging a relentless war on online speech and independent journalism” in the weeks since Trump returned to office.

Markey warned that the 6th Circuit’s striking of net neutrality “upended the fundamental principle that the [ISPs] should not act as gatekeepers favoring certain users, content or services over others. The decision reverses the simple principle undermining the open internet that users, not internet providers, should determine what succeeds online.” The FCC “has lost its power to oversee” the internet, and “consumers, small businesses and innovators alike will face increased costs, reduced choice and less competition,” he said: “It is a lose-lose-lose.”

Meanwhile, Blackburn said the majority-GOP Congress is “looking forward to backing away from” net neutrality and other forms of “overhanded regulation” in communications policymaking.

Blackburn, in part, wants Congress to take on federal agencies “squatting on unused spectrum” that should shift to commercial use. “About 60% of spectrum bands are under U.S. government control,” which is “why I've called for an audit of federal spectrum usage so we can free up” more airwaves. “We can’t have 21st-century health care, economic development, education or law enforcement without access to 21st-century broadband, which is why it is so important that we address the issue of spectrum.” She co-sponsored the 2024 Spectrum Pipeline Act, which proposes requiring that NTIA identify at least 2,500 MHz of midband spectrum to reallocate within the next five years (see 2403110066).

Content Moderation

Tech platforms “double speak” when they argue against government regulation of their content, panelists said. “They want all the protections of the First Amendment as a speaker, and then all of the protections under [Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act], and they want it both ways,” said Cybersecurity for Democracy's Yael Eisenstat.

Platforms are “outright lying” about how they apply their content-moderation policies, said Digital Progress Institute President Joel Thayer. The fact that regulators can’t force social media companies to rein in “predators” because “some court down the road feels like that might implicate one person's speech interest,” is “a crazy world to live in,” Thayer said.

Ari Cohn, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression's lead counsel-tech policy, said, “If the First Amendment doesn't protect the people or the companies you don't like, it doesn't protect anyone.”

Jacob Mchangama, executive director of the Future of Free Speech Project, pointed out that “the thing that really got [President Vladimir Putin] control over the Russian internet was protecting the children -- that really systemized it.” Thayer said the First Amendment is “a shield for us, not a sword for Big Tech to use to slice down any meaningful legislation.”

Mchangama said it’s not yet clear if the rise of Bluesky and other decentralized social media platforms is the start of a trend of users seeking forums that give them more control, but, he added, that it's a positive step for free speech. Users don't want “huge gatekeepers” to control their social media experience or the government to intercede and compel companies to take action against speech. Said Thayer, a user migration away from platforms like Facebook and X depends partly on antitrust enforcement and the competition large companies face.

State of the Net Notebook

The FCC's Gomez said the agency traditionally has been seen as a stable, expert-driven regulatory body, but it's increasingly diving into partisan issues, such as its investigations of broadcasters. She called that "a clear attempt to weaponize our licensing authority" and influence editorial decisions. With the law and Constitution squarely on the side of press freedom, she said, the agency could end up eroding its public trust. It also will likely get involved in Section 230 reform when it should focus more on expanding connectivity, promoting competition and securing networks.