New Trump Order Could Impact Telecom Company Licenses Past and Present
"I have heard concerns that this [attorney general's control] risks greater politicization of the process," said Washington, D.C., telecom lawyer Brian Murray.
April 07, 2020 at 05:04 PM
4 minute read
The new executive order by President Donald Trump involving review of licensing for telecommunications companies that have "foreign participation" has raised a number of legal concerns.
Trump signed the Order on Establishing the Committee for the Assessment of Foreign Participation in the United States Telecommunications Services Sector on April 3 and almost immediately telecom attorney Brian Murray said general counsel started calling.
The order says the new committee can review the granting or transfer of licenses by the Federal Communications Commission for "risks to national security or law enforcement interests."
It also says the committee "may review existing licenses to identify any additional or new risks to national security or law enforcement interests of the U.S." In other words, any telecom network applying for a license, seeking to transfer a license or holding an existing license could be affected.
The U.S. Department of Justice said Tuesday that Attorney General William Barr would head the committee. "In the digital age, our telecommunications networks are more important than ever, and not just to the economy," Barr said in a statement. "This is a national security and public safety issue. That's why the federal government must be vigilant and ensure that a foreign adversary cannot undermine the networks our country depends on."
Still, the order has some general counsel worried. Murray, a partner at Wilkinson Barker Knauer in Washington, D.C., told Corporate Counsel, "If I were a general counsel, I would be concerned about the extent to which the FCC, aided and abetted by this committee, might start to reopen old business. Especially if I'm a company with some amount of foreign ownership or a foreign role in my business, such as equipment."
Two general counsel, he said, have already questioned him about that aspect of the order.
Other concerns mentioned to Murray include:
- Will the reviewing of past licenses be broadened to include experimental licenses or licenses granting special temporary authority?
- The order specifically puts the attorney general in charge of the committee, which includes the Secretaries of Homeland Security and Defense along with other interagency officials. "I have heard concerns that this [attorney general control] risks greater politicization of the process," Murray said.
- Previously, the FCC used the phrase "foreign participation" to mean foreign investment or control. Will the committee expand the phrase to include use of foreign equipment in U.S. systems or other types of foreign influence on U.S. licensed companies?
- The FCC has been trying to reform its rulemaking authority involving foreign ownership since 2016. Will the order resolve all the open issues discussed under that process?
FCC chairman Ajit Pai on Monday issued a statement applauding the order. Pai added, "Now that this executive order has been issued, the FCC will move forward to conclude our own pending rulemaking on reform of the foreign ownership review process. As we demonstrated last year in rejecting the China Mobile application, this FCC will not hesitate to act to protect our networks from foreign threats."
The executive order formalizes what was an informal interagency process in the past, dubbed Team Telecom. Murray calls the new committee Team Telecom 2.0.
The federal government has talked of formalizing the process for several years, he said, so the concept of the committee didn't surprise him. However, "certainly seeing it emerge from the shadows of the coronavirus on a Saturday afternoon did," he said.
The best-case scenario, Murray said, would be if the new committee "merely memorializes the unwritten protocols as they existed, but with more predictability."
Some of general counsel's concerns may be addressed soon because the order also mandates the committee, within 90 days, to reach a memorandum of understanding on how to implement the process.
"We don't know if the memorandum will be made public," Murray said. "We hope it will be. If not, the concerns will remain."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllIn Lawsuit, Ex-Google Employee Says Company’s Layoffs Targeted Parents and Others on Leave
6 minute readPre-Internet High Court Ruling Hobbling Efforts to Keep Tech Giants from Using Below-Cost Pricing to Bury Rivals
6 minute readWill Khan Resign? FTC Chair Isn't Saying Whether She'll Stick Around After Giving Up Gavel
$25M Grubhub Settlement Sheds Light on How Other Gig Economy Firms Can Avoid Regulatory Trouble
8 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Considering the Implications of the 2024 Presidential Election for Jurors in White Collar Cases
- 22024 in Review: Judges Met Out Punishments for Ex-Apple, FDIC, Moody's Legal Leaders
- 3What We Heard From Litigation Leaders in 2024
- 4Akin and Simpson Create New Practice Groups With Integrated Teams
- 5Thursday Newspaper
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250