The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation last week called for greater cooperation between the U.S. and Europe on cybersecurity labeling of IoT products. Last month, the FCC approved the U.S. program (see 2403140034). The report urges coordination on technical standards and “potentially” a mutual recognition agreement. “An aligned EU-U.S. approach would allow firms to only test once in order to comply with both systems,” ITIF said: “Cooperation on IoT cybersecurity labeling would avoid creating yet another regulatory point of conflict in the transatlantic trade and technology relationship.”

The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation called on regulators to rethink their spectrum sharing approach, refocusing on a top tier providing licenses for full-power use of a band, with reliable access at all times. “The dichotomy between dynamic spectrum sharing and exclusive licensing is a false one,” ITIF said in a report released Monday: “Reliable, full-power access is possible within a dynamic sharing framework if the FCC auctions super-priority rights to commercial users.” ITIF cited the model provided by the citizens broadband radio service band, which offered three tiers, with priority access licenses (PALs) sold in an FCC auction, with lesser rights than the incumbent Navy systems the rules are designed to protect. “We should not confuse the particulars of that band with the principles of the dynamic sharing system,” the report said. “In a band with significantly fewer incumbency interests, rights amenable to proponents of exclusive, shared, and unlicensed spectrum can coexist within a dynamic sharing system with only a minor alteration: Instead of just protecting incumbents and auctioning PALs that are secondary to the incumbents’ rights, the FCC should also auction licenses for the same type of rights the Navy has in the CBRS band.” ITIF noted widespread industry criticism of how CBRS works. Part of the reason “for decrying CBRS is that it should hardly qualify as ‘sharing’ when the federal incumbent retains the right to do whatever it wants whenever and wherever it wants,” the report said. ITIF noted there have been no reports of Navy systems suffering harmful interference since CBRS was launched. “Any party that thinks the Navy has reliable, full-power access in the current CBRS band should leap at the opportunity to get the same deal in another band,” ITIF said.

CTIA and other industry players sought to keep pressure on the Biden administration to make more mid-band spectrum available for 5G and eventually 6G in comments on the implementation plan for the national spectrum strategy. Others stressed the importance of spectrum sharing. NTIA has not yet posted the comments, which were due Wednesday.

Merger guidelines released Monday will provide greater transparency into FTC and DOJ antitrust enforcement, but regulators will continue to base cases on facts and the law, the agencies said Monday.

Most people in the U.S. "would be surprised to find out" that there are "search engine options other than Google,” said Megan Gray, CEO, GrayMatters Law & Policy, on an Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) webinar Wednesday discussing implications of the DOJ v. Google antitrust trial that concluded last month in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Closing argument for the 2020 case (docket 1:20-cv-03010) is scheduled for May 1 before U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta.

An Information Technology and Innovation Foundation report, released Monday, calls on the federal policymakers to develop policies that consider tradeoffs of licensed, unlicensed and shared spectrum, and make allocations for the right reasons. “Licensed spectrum is good for providing the certainty needed to sustain wireless applications that require large, sustained investments,” but revenue from license auctions should be seen as “a side effect, not a goal in itself,” the report said. Spectrum auctions can generate lots of revenue, but “it is the market mechanism (including tradability on secondary markets) and the type of rights embodied by an exclusive license that make it a productive allocation,” it said. Unlicensed spectrum, “is a good way to prevent usage rights from becoming too fragmented,” but claims of congestion shouldn’t justify making more available, ITIF said: “One commonly cited claim is that unlicensed spectrum’s uses are important and valuable, and therefore more bandwidth should be freed up to ensure more reliable access to it. The problem with this argument is that licensed spectrum exists precisely for those who can’t operate under the uncertainties associated with unlicensed spectrum.” Spectrum sharing has become increasingly necessary as spectrum becomes more congested, ITIF said. Dynamic sharing “could even become the first-best allocation if technological advances enable a generalized use-or-share framework” and “there can be little objection, from a policy perspective, to allowing additional uses of a licensed band that does not cause harmful interference to the licensee,” the report said. But there are also limitations, ITIF said, noting power levels permitted in the citizens broadband radio service band are “327 times lower than those in the exclusively licensed band just above it.”

The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation raised concerns last week about NTIA's comments to the FCC on digital discrimination. NTIA's use of the term "pricing practices" was a "poor disguise" to encourage adoption of rate regulation, ITIF said in a letter posted Friday in docket 22-69 (see 2310060067). It would be "an extreme step that would be harmful to the goal of universal connectivity and continued broadband investment," the group said. ITIF encouraged the FCC to "resist mission creep" with its ultimate digital discrimination rules. The International Center for Law & Economics agreed, adding the FCC "has for years been explicit about its apprehension to impose direct rate regulation." It also asked the agency to reject NTIA's proposal to adopt a disparate impact standard in the definition of digital discrimination. "Mere statistical correlation between outcomes and protected characteristics is insufficient to demonstrate discrimination," the group said.

It’s good for the federal government to fund chips in states that have already spent their own money, rather than trying to spread money across every area that hasn’t invested in semiconductors, said panelists on an Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) webinar Wednesday. State officials discussed their roles in helping the Chips Act succeed. “Piggybacking on the work we’re doing is what is going to see us succeed,” said Kevin Younis, New York Empire State Development chief operating officer. “There has to be strategic cluster-based investments [or] we’re not going to succeed. With the peanut butter spread over the whole sandwich, you won’t taste it.” States can help the Chips Act succeed by addressing the workforce gap and cutting red tape, said David Isaacs, Semiconductor Industry Association vice president-government affairs. "There's a huge gap throughout the economy in skilled workers," with the semiconductor industry “just a small slice of the overall pie,” said Isaacs. An SIA report said about 58% of needed jobs may not be filled, including engineers, computer scientists and technicians, he said: “We need to see federal-state partnerships with industry and education to train these workers.” Also, states can play an important role speeding projects by streamlining permitting and other regulatory approval processes, he said. Arizona Commerce Authority CEO Sandra Watson said her state is “constantly having conversations about the regulatory environment and how to make that easier on industry.”

Export Compliance Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. You can find any article by searching for the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

The Internet Technology and Innovation Foundation's Center for Data Innovation says The COOL Online Act, which exited the Senate Commerce Committee in late July (see 2307280069) "presents a significant risk for online retailers," and would result in uneven enforcement of country of origin labeling in stores and at retailers online.