DC BLOX sees a business model for building regional data centers in places like Greenville, South Carolina, Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Birmingham, Alabama, Alan Poole, general counsel of the Atlanta-based company, said during an Incompas webinar Thursday. As connected devices became more powerful, tech companies realized they needed to move data centers and computing power closer to users, Poole said in a conversation with Incompas CEO Chip Pickering during the session. COVID-19 spurred tech growth, Poole said: “The investment in digital infrastructure around that time to help meet the pace of demand was wild, awe-inspiring, and we’re still going through that,” he said. A key element DC BLOX considers is how welcoming a city will be to investment, as data centers require access to land and electricity. The company also examines potential tax incentives to build. Policymakers must ask what they’ll do if one developer takes all the available power, which is “happening all over the country,” Poole said. One center can require up to one gigawatt of power, which is "eye-popping.” Accordingly, the ability of data centers to generate power onsite, including “green” energy, will become increasingly important, he said. Communities should decide whether they want to compete “because there are many [competing] markets” and they are offering tax and other incentives. “At least at DC BLOX we’re doing everything we reasonably can to head off community concerns as soon as possible, because it makes more sense financially.” The availability of large enough fiber pipelines to handle growing demands is also a concern. “Is there enough fiber on all these routes?” Poole asked. “It was assumed, until very recently, that we were never going to need materially bigger conduits and that has proven absolutely untrue.” Some markets getting high-speed internet for the first time don’t have a nearby internet exchange point yet, allowing ISPs to exchange data with other networks: “That’s where the true internet compute happens and if you’re not close to one of those exchanges, you have problems with things like latency that might make real-time videoconferencing … unworkable.” Pickering said he loves the focus on “Tier 2” markets. “Those are great emerging hubs” and data centers “are a critical component and a critical piece of the infrastructure to make those hubs grow, succeed, prosper.” As communications technology rapidly evolves, “electricity is still kind of in the old world,” Pickering said. As the U.S. competes with China, “electricity and energy really is the supply-chain critical component.”

The FCC lacks legal authority to impose handset unlocking rules on carriers and hasn’t done the economic work needed to justify a proposed 60-day unlocking mandate, the Phoenix Center said in reply comments about an NPRM commissioners approved 5-0 in July (see 2407180037). Republican attorneys general from five states said a mandate would be “a significant federal agency overreach.”

The FCC is getting lots of advice on potential changes to its draft order tackling robocalls and robotexts, set for a vote on Thursday (see 2409050045). Republican Commissioners Brendan Carr and Nathan Simington have mentioned concerns about the order but aren't necessarily expected to dissent on what is usually considered a top consumer priority, industry officials said Friday.

The FCC gave the green light to extended milestone deadlines for EchoStar's 5G network buildout Friday, three days after the company filed its request (see 2409190050). EchoStar called the approval "a significant step to promote competition in the wireless market."

The FCC Wireless Bureau on Monday rejected a Competitive Carriers Association’s request for a 15-day delay in the deadline for filing reply comments on proposed handset unlocking rules. Replies remain due Sept. 23 in docket 24-186. T-Mobile, CCA’s largest member, supported the extension, but Incompas, Consumer Reports and Public Knowledge opposed it (see 2409130017). “We do not find persuasive," the bureau said, "CCA’s argument that an extension of time to file reply comments is necessary to ensure the record is ‘complete and robust.’” The bureau noted the NPRM was released July 19 and “all interested parties had adequate notice that reply comments would be due 15 days after the comment deadline.” Initial comments were filed last week (see 2409100048).

Incompas, Consumer Reports and Public Knowledge urged the FCC to ignore the Competitive Carriers Association’s request for a 15-day delay in the deadline for filing reply comments on proposed handset unlocking rules. The FCC heard little agreement this week in initial comments (see 2409100048). Absent extension, replies are due Sept. 23. “Given the importance of this proceeding” delaying the proceeding would be “harmful to consumers and competitive providers,” the three groups said in a filing posted Friday in docket 24-186: “This proceeding does not have an overwhelming number of comments or technical components to review, which makes the record here manageable to respond to by the current reply comment deadline.” T-Mobile, CCA’s largest member, supported the extension. “The proposed rule would have a significant impact on wireless providers’ business operations and impact important Commission policy objectives concerning digital equity and national security,” T-Mobile said. The “modest” extension that CCA is seeking “would facilitate a more robust round of reply comments that will allow the Commission to make a better-informed decision considering the potential significant impact of its proposed rules,” the carrier said. CCA said the FCC “should ensure all interested parties have sufficient time to meaningfully participate in this proceeding and extend the reply comment deadline to ensure the development of a fulsome and robust record.” If granted, the new deadline would be Oct. 8. Meanwhile, T-Mobile representatives met this week with FCC Commissioner Geoffrey Starks to raise legal objections to the proposed rules, the same questions that have permeated many FCC proceedings in the wake of recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Two years ago, SCOTUS elaborated on a new major questions test for weighing agency decisions in West Virginia v. EPA (see 2206300066). “While well-meaning, the proposed rule would hamper carriers’ ability to offer installment plans -- thereby harming competition and consumer choice, particularly for low-income consumers,” T-Mobile said: “Furthermore, the Commission fails to point to specific statutory authorization for an unlocking mandate," which "would have profound economic consequences, thus raising a ‘major question’ that would require clear statutory authority from Congress.”

A group of companies and associations, including Federated Wireless and Charter Communications, urged the FCC in comments this week to adopt a nonexclusive, nonauctioned shared licensed framework in the lower 37 GHz band. The band is one of five targeted for further study in the administration’s national spectrum strategy (see 2311130048). Comments were due Monday in docket 24-243 and most were posted on Tuesday.

The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation warned of potential unintended consequences if the FCC approves industrywide handset unlocking rules, as proposed in a July NPRM (see 2407180037). Comments were due Monday in docket 24-186. “The NPRM’s tentative conclusions in favor [of] a uniform 60-day unlocking requirement overstate the benefits of the Commission’s proposal relative to its costs,” ITIF warned. Handsets are often tied to a carrier because they are subsidized, the group added. “This bargained-for exchange is beneficial to consumers who may be more price sensitive and thus willing to forgo some future flexibility in exchange for more money in their pockets at the time of purchase,” ITIF said: “Mandatory unlocking denies consumers this choice.” Incompas supports unlocking requirements, President Angie Kronenberg said Monday. "The practice of locking phones makes it more difficult for consumers to change providers,” she said: “Unlocking requirements allow customers to switch networks more easily, which means larger providers are incentivized to compete for customers rather than locking them into a plan -- enabling smaller providers to better compete.”

CTIA, Incompas, NCTA, the Wireless Infrastructure Association and six other communications industry groups urged House leaders Thursday that they should “prioritize consideration” of the House Commerce Committee-cleared American Broadband Deployment Act (HR-3557) “in the final months of this Congress.” House Commerce last year advanced HR-3557, a package of GOP-led connectivity permitting revamp measures, without Democratic support (see 2305240069). Some local government advocates have since also vocally opposed HR-3557 (see 2311060069). Congress’ bid to achieve the “goal of universal connectivity” via the $65 billion it allocated in the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act “will ultimately be limited unless certain barriers are removed today,” the industry groups said in a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y. The measure “would go a long way to address these barriers” by mandating “clear and streamlined” rules that will prevent permitting bottlenecks. The groups cited language in HR-3557 that “will codify several deployment streamlining orders and interpretations that the FCC has adopted over the past ten years," including the commission’s 2018 order that removed local barriers to small-cell deployment (see 1803220027). The bill also “takes proactive steps to improve siting on federal lands and reduce unnecessary red tape for applications to deploy or improve communications networks,” the industry groups told Johnson and Jeffries.

Incompas urged the FCC to provide more certainty to prospective pole attachers and adopt "specific timeframes" for make-ready for larger pole orders. Providers also should be allowed to engage in self-help "when warranted," the group said in a meeting with Wireline Bureau staff per an ex parte filing Wednesday in docket 17-84. Providers "continue to experience barriers when seeking to attach to utility poles," Incompas said, noting that timelines for orders exceeding 3,000 poles would be a "significant improvement over the current standard." The group noted that allowing providers to qualify their own contractors for self-help work would remove the "bottleneck at the estimate phase."