FCC flexes its censorship powers, to the detriment of individual freedoms

• If the FCC can ban Chinese telecoms, it logically follows that they can ban any other service provider. And if so, where do you draw the line?
• In a world where censorship is a real possibility, how do we know that incumbent telecom providers won’t get preferential terms over smaller challengers?
• How do we know that their monopoly is not being perpetuated by the very agencies that are meant to pursue the better interests of consumers?
• Blockchain technology can provide solutions and alternatives as it offers enhanced security features that are designed to withstand modern and sophisticated cyberattacks, Chirp founder says

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) said it is ordering the US units of China Telecom, China Unicom and China Mobile to discontinue fixed or mobile broadband internet operations in the US shows the agency is flexing its censorship powers, to the detriment of individual freedoms.

This is not the first time the agency is breathing down the neck of Chinese firms. Huawei was banned  as part of an executive order from then-president Donald Trump on May 15, 2019.

At the start of 2019, Huawei was expected to become the world’s largest smartphone manufacturer by the end of that year, stealing the crown from Samsung, but was dealt with numerous accusations over the years of shady business practices despite with no hard proof.

National security concerns

In November 2022, FCC banned equipment authorisations for Chinese telecommunications and video surveillance equipment deemed to pose a threat to national security and the covered List (which lists both equipment and services) included communications equipment produced by Huawei Technologies, ZTE Corporation, Hytera Communications, Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology, and Dahua Technology (and their subsidiaries and affiliates). 

Now, the FCC said that China Telecom and the other carriers will have 60 days to discontinue broadband services.  The order also applies to Chinese telecom Pacific Networks and its wholly owned subsidiary ComNet.

The FCC had cited national security concerns in revoking or denying Chinese companies the right to provide US telecommunications services.

The FCC had said Chinese telecom firms were “subject to exploitation, influence and control by the Chinese government.”

Geoffrey Starks, FCC Commissioner, said China Telecom’s website shows that the company operates 26 so-called internet points of presence (POPs) in the US and offers colocation, broadband, IP transit and data centre services.

The FCC cited national security concerns about Chinese access to POPs typically located within data centres.

The new FCC move will again force major internet providers to abide by a set of net neutrality regulations, prohibiting them from blocking or throttling traffic.

Monopolistic behaviour

The rules, which broadly prohibit Comcast, AT&T, Verizon and other providers from favoring some types of internet traffic over others.

Tim Kravchunovsky, founder of decentralised wireless network Chirp, said the FCC’s ban on Chinese telecoms only perpetuates the monopolistic behaviour of telecom giants, and points to blockchain technology as an alternative solution.

 “The Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) recent decision to ban major Chinese telecoms from offering their services in the US may seem prudent on the surface, but it masks the extent of the agency’s censorship powers, which should make us all very concerned.”

If the FCC can ban Chinese telecoms, he said it logically follows that they can ban any other service provider. And if so, where do you draw the line?

“In a world where censorship is a real possibility, how do we know that incumbent telecom providers won’t get preferential terms over smaller challengers? How do we know that their monopoly is not being perpetuated by the very agencies that are meant to pursue the better interests of consumers?

“In our modern, interconnected world, outright bans on any service provider are not the answer. It would be far better to invest this time and energy into developing more stringent security and monitoring frameworks to keep both users and the government safe, as well as potential cooperation agreements between international carriers.”

Alternative solution

An industry expert said that business users and internet service providers might see an impact.

Kravchunovsky said that blockchain technology can provide solutions and alternatives as it offers enhanced security features that are designed to withstand modern, sophisticated cyberattacks.

However, he said that it can open up possibilities for global wireless telecommunications that are resistant to censorship, which is a threat to individual rights.

“Perhaps, a far greater one than the national security threat presented by Chinese telecoms,” he added.