U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

89–010 

" ! SENATE 116TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPORT

2019

116–66 

Calendar No. 164 

ELIMINATE FROM REGULATORS OPPORTUNITIES TO NATIONALIZE THE INTERNET 

IN EVERY RESPECT ACT 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND 

TRANSPORTATION 

ON

S. 918 

JULY 25, 2019.—Ordered to be printed 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTSE:\Seals\Congress.#13
(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi, Chairman 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

TED CRUZ, Texas RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

MIKE LEE, Utah JON TESTER, Montana 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona 

TODD C. YOUNG, Indiana JACKY ROSEN, Nevada 

RICK SCOTT, Florida 

JOHN KEAST, Staff Director 

DAVID STRICKLAND, Minority Staff Director 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
Calendar No. 164 

116TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 116–66 

ELIMINATE FROM REGULATORS OPPORTUNITIES TO 

NATIONALIZE THE INTERNET IN EVERY RESPECT ACT 

JULY 25, 2019.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. WICKER, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 918] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to 

which was referred the bill (S. 918) to prohibit the President or a 

Federal agency from constructing, operating, or offering wholesale 

or retail services on broadband networks without authorization 

from Congress, and for other purposes, having considered the same, 

reports favorably thereon with amendments and recommends that 

the bill (as amended) do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

S. 918 would prohibit the President or any Federal agency from 

creating or operating a wholesale or retail broadband network. It 

also would task the Government Accountability Office (GAO) with 

conducting a study on the vulnerabilities of U.S. broadband networks to foreign threats. 

BACKGROUND AND NEEDS

American leadership in fourth generation (4G) mobile technology—mobile broadband service allowing high-speed, high-definition video—is credited by one major U.S. wireless trade association 

with a $100 billion increase in annual GDP in 2016, an increase 

in total wireless-related jobs of 84 percent between 2011 and 2014, 

and ‘‘$125 billion in revenue to American companies that could 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
2 

1 ‘‘How America’s 4G Leadership Propelled the U.S. Economy, Recon Analytics’’, at 1 (https:// 

api.ctia.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Recon-Analytics_How-Americas-4G-LeadershipPropelled-US-Economy_2018.pdf). 2Dean DeChiaro, ‘‘Nationalization question hangs over White House’s 5G Announcement’’, 

Roll Call, Apr. 15, 2019 (https://www.rollcall.com/news/policy/nationalization-question-hangswhite-houses-5g-announcement). 3 ‘‘The Global Race to 5G, CTIA’’, at 4 (https://api.ctia.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/ 

Race-to-5G-Report.pdf). 4 Id. 

5David Shepardson, ‘‘Trump team idea to nationalize 5G network to counter China is rejected’’, Reuters, Jan. 29, 2018 (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-5g-fcc/trumpteam-idea-to-nationalize-5g-network-to-counter-china-is-rejected-idUSKBN1FI1T2). 6 ‘‘In 5G Race with China, U.S. Pushes Allies to Fight Huawei’’, New York Times, Jan. 26, 

2019 (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/26/us/politics/huawei-china-us-5g-technology.html). 7 ‘‘Investigative Report on the U.S. National Security Issues Posed by Chinese Telecommunications Companies Huawei and ZTE’’, Report by Chairman Mike Rogers and Ranking Member 

C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, at vi, October 

8, 2012 (https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/9762611). 8 Id. at vi. 

have gone elsewhere if the U.S. hadn’t seized 4G leadership.’’ 1 The 

U.S. wireless industry notes that these benefits are a result of private-sector investment in developing and deploying this technology. 

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai has stated, ‘‘[t]he lesson of 4G is that ultimately Americans benefited from 

the free-market approach.’’ 2 Today, ‘‘America’s wireless industry 

supports over 4.7 million jobs and contributes $475 billion annually 

to the economy.’’ 3

Some parties have suggested that the Nation would benefit from 

the Federal Government taking the lead in the deployment of fifth 

generation (5G) wireless networks.4 They have argued that the 

unique nature of 5G networks and their potential eventual use in 

nearly all facets of the U.S. economy warrant a secure, centralized 

network. These groups also argue that a centralized network would 

have greater speed to market. Many stakeholder groups oppose 

these contentions, citing the success the United States has had 

with the private model of wireless deployment.5 These groups also 

note that U.S. wireless carriers already are in the process of deploying 5G throughout the country. 

This bill would express Congress’s disagreement with the proponents of the Federal Government establishing its own 5G (and 

other broadband) networks to provide wholesale or retail service to 

consumers, and in so doing, would promote continued private sector 

investment, deployment, and innovation in wired and wireless 

broadband. 

This bill also would require that GAO study the potential threats 

facing United States broadband networks from China, Iran, Russia, 

and any other potential foreign adversary; and the risks associated 

with using foreign equipment and services in U.S. broadband networks. This report is necessary given concerns over threats to the 

security of mobile networks. Although mobile technology provides 

enormous benefits for consumers and the American economy, ‘‘what 

is good for consumers is also good for intelligence services and 

cyberattackers.’’ 6 A 2012 House Permanent Select Committee on 

Intelligence report found that ‘‘the risks associated with [two Chinese companies’] provision of equipment to U.S. critical infrastructure could undermine core U.S. national-security interests,’’ 7 and 

encouraged U.S. network providers and systems developers ‘‘to seek 

other vendors for their projects.’’ 8 Indeed, security concerns related 

to wireless networks have been highlighted in the United Kingdom, 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
3 

9 ‘‘What is Huawei, and why the arrest of its CFO matters’’, CNN Business, Dec. 9, 2018 

(https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/06/tech/what-is-huawei/index.html). 

and New Zealand and Australia have barred one Chinese company’s equipment from their mobile networks.9

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS

If enacted, S. 918 would do the following: 

• Prohibit the President and Federal agencies from constructing, 

operating, or offering wholesale or retail service on a 

broadband network, without authorization from Congress 

signed into law by the President. • Require GAO to conduct a study on the vulnerabilities of 

broadband networks in the United States to foreign threats. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

S. 918, the E-FRONTIER Act, was introduced on March 27, 2019, 

by Senator Ted Cruz (for himself and Senator Cortez-Masto) and 

was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate. On April 3, 2019, the Committee met in 

open Executive Session and, by voice vote, ordered S. 918 reported 

favorably with an amendment offered by Senator Markey, which 

also was adopted by voice vote. 

This bill is identical to S. 3255, as amended, which was introduced by Senator Cruz (for himself and Senator Cortez-Masto) during the 115th Congress. 

The House version of this bill, H.R. 2063, was introduced on 

April 3, 2019, by Representative Tony Ca ́ rdenas (for himself and 

Representatives Brooks, Vela, and Banks), and was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives. 

ESTIMATED COSTS

In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the Congressional Budget 

Act of 1974, the Committee provides the following cost estimate, 

prepared by the Congressional Budget Office: 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 6 here SR66.001
4 

S. 918 would prohibit the President or federal agencies from constructing, operating, or offering wholesale or retail service on a 

broadband network unless an act of Congress provides the authority to do so. In addition, the bill would require the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a study on the potential 

threats facing U.S. broadband networks from certain foreign countries and adversaries and to report to the Congress on methods to 

reduce the vulnerabilities of those networks. 

Based on the cost of similar activities, CBO estimates that the 

study and report would cost less than $500,000. Any spending 

would be subject to the availability of appropriations. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is David Hughes. The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant 

Director for Budget Analysis. 

REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

Because S. 918 does not create any new programs, the legislation 

will have no additional regulatory impact, and will result in no additional reporting requirements. The legislation will have no further effect on the number or types of individuals and businesses 

regulated, the economic impact of such regulation, the personal privacy of affected individuals, or the paperwork required from such 

individuals and businesses. The bill would direct the Government 

Accountability Office to prepare a report to Congress on U.S. 

broadband network vulnerabilities. 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING

In compliance with paragraph 4(b) of rule XLIV of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides that no provisions 

contained in the bill, as reported, meet the definition of congressionally directed spending items under the rule. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title. 

This section would provide that the bill may be cited as the 

‘‘Eliminate From Regulators Opportunities to Nationalize The 

Internet In Every Respect Act’’ or the ‘‘E-FRONTIER Act’’. 

Section 2. Prohibition against the President or a Federal agency 

constructing, operating, or offering services on broadband networks. 

Subsection (a) of this section defines four terms for purposes of 

this section. The following definition included in subsection (a) is 

of particular importance: 

Broadband Network.—The term ‘‘broadband network’’ means a 

communications network, the primary purpose of which is to provide consumers with the capability to transmit data to and receive 

data from all or substantially all internet endpoints. This definition 

expressly includes a next-generation mobile broadband network. 

Subsection (b) of this section would prohibit the President and 

Federal agencies from constructing, operating, or offering wholesale 

or retail service on a broadband network, unless a duly enacted Act 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
5 

10 47 U.S.C. 606. 11 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq. 

of Congress signed into law by the President provides the authority 

to take such an action. 

The Committee intends for the prohibition on constructing and 

operating a broadband network also to cover situations where the 

Federal Government contracts with, or creates a partnership with, 

a private sector entity to construct or operate such a network, or 

otherwise takes steps (such as leasing or allowing access to wireless spectrum otherwise allocated to the Federal Government) that 

directly facilitate the construction of such a network by another 

private sector entity. 

Subsection (c) of this section sets forth five rules of construction 

limiting the prohibition in subsection (b). First, subsection (b) 

would not limit, restrict, or circumvent the implementation of the 

nationwide public safety broadband network, operated by the First 

Responder Network Authority, or any rules implementing that network. Second, subsection (b) would not affect the authority granted 

to the President under section 706 of the Communications Act of 

1934.10 Third, subsection (b) would not prevent an agency from 

providing another agency with access to a broadband network. 

Fourth, subsection (b) would not prevent a private entity from obtaining access to a broadband network at a facility owned or operated by the Federal Government, but only if such entity is under 

contract to provide services at that facility. Finally, subsection (b) 

would not affect the authority of the Federal Communications Commission under the Communications Act of 1934.11

Section 3. Report on vulnerabilities of United States broadband networks. 

Subsection (a) of this section defines two terms used in the section. 

Subsection (b) of this section would require that the Comptroller 

General of the United States conduct a study and submit to the appropriate committees of Congress (as defined in subsection (a) of 

this section) a report on vulnerabilities of U.S. broadband networks. That study and report must include the following: (1) a discussion and analysis of the potential threats facing United States 

broadband networks from China, Iran, Russia, and any other potential foreign adversary of the United States; (2) a discussion and 

analysis of the risks associated with using foreign equipment and 

services in U.S. broadband networks; and (3) recommendations, if 

any, on how service providers can reduce vulnerabilities in their 

U.S. broadband networks to foreign threats. The report must be 

submitted within 180 days of enactment of the E-FRONTIER Act. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that the bill as reported 

would make no change to existing law. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS