PETER PARKS/AFP via Getty Images

The comment record is now closed on what could become the most operationally disruptive telecom rulemaking of the decade — and what it reveals is not a dispute about whether Chinese state-linked carriers pose a national security threat. Broadband operators broadly concede that point. What they have mounted an aggressive fight over, in filings submitted to the FCC through July 7, is the specific mechanism the agency proposes to cut those carriers out: a prohibition on interconnection so broadly drafted that carriers and legal experts warn it could make it physically impossible for U.S. networks to exchange traffic with large parts of the world. The proceeding is WC Docket No. 26-82, formally titled Protecting Against National Security Threats in Domestic Telecommunications Service.

Why Industry Is Fighting the How, Not the Why

The FCC's proposed rulemaking was adopted unanimously at the commission's April 30 open meeting and published in the Federal Register on May 8, 2026.

The NPRM would do several things at once: strip Covered List entities of the automatic "blanket" domestic Section 214 authorization that has allowed all U.S. telecom carriers to provide interstate services without individual FCC review since 1999, revoke existing blanket authorizations currently held by those entities, and — most controversially — bar U.S. carriers from interconnecting with Covered List entities or the data centers and network infrastructure they operate. The Federal Register publication formalized comment deadlines that ultimately ran through July 7, 2026.

No one in the broadband industry is defending the Chinese carriers. The Covered List currently includes Huawei Technologies, ZTE Corporation, Hytera Communications, Hangzhou Hikvision, Dahua Technology, AO Kaspersky Lab, China Mobile International USA, China Telecom (Americas), China Unicom, and Pacific Networks Corp — a roster of companies the FCC, backed by federal national security agencies, has found to pose an unacceptable risk to U.S. communications.

What the industry is fighting is the scope. "Broad bans on indirect interconnection could make it impossible to deliver traffic to or from the United States, effectively walling us off from parts of the world," CTIA, the wireless industry's trade group, wrote in its June 2026 filing with the commission. INCOMPAS, which represents competitive ISPs and technology companies, pushed back with equal force, arguing that the demand driving traffic through Chinese-linked network nodes doesn't simply disappear when direct interconnection is prohibited. "Cross-border communications between the United States and entities on the Covered List are structurally driven by trade, enterprise connectivity, cloud services, and personal communications demand," the group told the FCC in its June 2026 submission. "This demand does not disappear because U.S. carriers are prohibited from directly" connecting.

How the Internet Actually Connects — and Why It Matters Here

The technical stakes involve a fundamental aspect of how the internet works. Every network — a wireless carrier, a cable company, a cloud provider — is an autonomous system that must exchange traffic with every other autonomous system to provide universal connectivity. That exchange happens through two mechanisms: peering (where networks swap traffic at no cost for mutual benefit) and transit (where one network pays another for access to the broader internet). Both happen at physical locations: meet-me rooms, cross-connects, and PoPs located in data centers across the country.

China Telecom Americas, prior to its domestic service revocations, operated 26 PoPs across the United States, from which it provided IP transit, colocation, and data center services to U.S. and international carriers. Those PoPs are precisely the facilities the FCC's interconnection prohibition would target. The concern isn't theoretical: the FCC's own proposed rulemaking cites evidence that Chinese state carriers have engaged in the "misrouting" of U.S. communications traffic — a finding supported by documented incidents.

Oracle's Director of Internet Analysis confirmed as early as 2017 that China Telecom had "misdirected internet traffic (including out of the United States)" — routing U.S.-to-U.S. traffic through mainland China. Academic researchers Demchak and Shavitt documented in a 2018 paper that China Telecom used its U.S. PoPs to redirect domestic American traffic to China "over days, weeks, and months," concluding the patterns "suggest malicious intent." The company denied wrongdoing.

The problem the NPRM faces is that cutting off those PoPs doesn't just sever the Chinese carrier relationship — it may sever routing paths that U.S. carriers depend on to reach other international networks that happen to interconnect through the same facilities.

The Legal Architecture: Why Blanket Authority Was Never Built for This

Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934 requires telecom carriers to obtain FCC authorization before providing interstate communications services. For more than two decades, the FCC granted this automatically — no application, no review, no case-by-case scrutiny. The 1999 deregulatory reform was a deliberate market-entry policy, designed to lower barriers to competition. No one designing that framework in 1999 anticipated it would eventually extend to Chinese state-owned enterprises operating within U.S. network infrastructure.

The FCC has already used Section 214 revocations against Chinese carriers on an individual basis — revoking China Telecom Americas' international and domestic service authorizations in 2021, China Unicom and Pacific Networks the following year, and ordering all four Chinese state carriers to shut down broadband operations in 2024. Those revocations were litigated and upheld: the D.C. Circuit affirmed the FCC's authority in its 2022 decision on China Telecom Americas, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the China Unicom revocation in 2024.

What the 2026 NPRM proposes is different in kind: not individual revocations but a class-based exclusion, stripping an entire designated category of companies from automatic eligibility for domestic Section 214 authority. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, who advocated for exactly this structural change before taking the commission's top seat, described the continuing operation of Covered List entities under blanket domestic authority as "an unregulated end run" around existing restrictions.

FCC Commissioner Olivia Trusty articulated the commission's urgency when the NPRM was adopted in April. "The nature and scope of physical and cybersecurity threats facing our communications networks today exceed those of any recent era," she said in her statement accompanying the April 2026 NPRM. "It is imperative that we re-examine policies that permit access to U.S. networks to ensure that frameworks originally designed to promote economic growth are not exploited in ways that jeopardize our national and economic security."

What Chinese Law Actually Requires — and Why It Makes Negotiation Impossible

The FCC's insistence on a presumption of denial for any Covered List entity seeking individual authorization is grounded in Chinese domestic law. China's National Intelligence Law (2017) states in Article 7 of that law plainly: "All organizations and citizens shall support, assist, and cooperate with national intelligence efforts." The obligation applies to Chinese entities globally, including their overseas subsidiaries — and it requires compliance regardless of the company's stated privacy policy, the physical location of its servers, or whether it holds a U.S. corporate charter.

China's Data Security Law (2021) and Cybersecurity Law (2017) reinforce that framework with data localization requirements and government-access provisions that cannot be waived by contract or corporate structure.

This is not a contested risk assessment — it is a fixed legal condition of operating under Chinese law. The FCC's prior revocation orders explicitly found that China Telecom and China Unicom were "subject to exploitation, influence and control by the Chinese government" and "highly likely to be forced to comply with Chinese government requests without sufficient legal procedures subject to independent judicial oversight." Those findings were affirmed by federal courts.

The recent Salt Typhoon espionage campaign, in which Chinese state-linked hackers breached nine US telecom providers, accessed court-authorized wiretap systems, and maintained access for over two years before discovery, has substantially hardened the national security community's view of these risks. The FBI and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) issued a public advisory following the breach recommending that Americans use encrypted messaging apps because SMS texts could no longer be considered private.

Does the Rule Have a Backdoor?

The most significant technical gap in the proposed rules may undermine their stated purpose. The NPRM applies exclusively to traditional telecommunications services — voice and data regulated as common carrier services under the Communications Act. It explicitly does not apply to interconnected VoIP or unregulated broadband internet access services.

The FCC has never classified interconnected VoIP as a common carrier telecommunications service requiring Section 214 authorization. The practical consequence: a Covered List entity barred from providing traditional telecom services under the new rules could theoretically reclassify its offerings as VoIP or provide fixed wireless broadband using unlicensed spectrum — bypassing the licensing requirements entirely. The NPRM acknowledges this gap and asks whether the commission should extend restrictions to cover unlicensed wireless services, but it has not proposed rules to close it.

Davis Wright Tremaine attorneys K.C. Halm, Doug Orvis, and Kasey McGee flagged this and a companion ambiguity in a May 2026 analysis: the NPRM's interconnection prohibition focuses on Section 251 of the Communications Act, which governs carrier-to-carrier relationships in traditional telecommunications, but does not specifically address SIP peering or IP-based interconnection. "Such services potentially could be part of any final requirement," they wrote — a live legal question the final rule will need to resolve.

The Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which has argued that the FCC should go further than the NPRM proposes, noted in its July 2026 filing that the commission's prior case-by-case revocation model leaves "dangerous enforcement gaps despite previously demonstrated risks," because companies must be targeted individually rather than treated as a designated class.

The Affiliate Problem: How Far Does the Reach Extend?

The NPRM proposes extending restrictions not only to Covered List entities directly but to their subsidiaries, affiliates, and — in its broadest formulation — potentially to any carrier "owned, controlled, or directed by a foreign adversary." This is the provision that has alarmed international telecom operators most acutely.

Unlike the entities specifically named on the Covered List, the NPRM's foreign adversary formulation relies on a definition in 47 CFR §1.70001(g) rather than on a separately maintained list. There is, as Davis Wright Tremaine noted, "no definitive list of which foreign-controlled carriers would be included." The operative question for a global carrier partner of a U.S. operator: does relying on Huawei network equipment, without any direct Chinese state affiliation or equity stake, bring a carrier within the prohibition's scope?

If it does, the practical consequence extends well beyond Chinese state entities. A significant proportion of telecom infrastructure in Asia, Africa, and Latin America runs on Huawei equipment. Those carriers are not Chinese state enterprises. But their equipment supply chain relationship could, under a broad affiliate interpretation, cut off their interconnection with U.S. networks — disrupting bilateral carrier agreements that underpin the global routing of voice, data, and enterprise connectivity.

The Router Preview: What Implementation Looks Like in Practice

The friction over the Section 214 NPRM is already previewed in the ongoing disputes over the FCC's March 2026 decision to add all foreign-made consumer routers to the Covered List — an action the Global Electronics Association warned in a May 2026 report could disrupt supply chains and raise consumer prices.

The GEA noted that despite broad perceptions of Chinese router dominance, GEA router supply research found Chinese-origin imports accounted for approximately 1.1% of total U.S. router import value in 2025. The consumer impact comes through a different channel: approximately 70% of U.S. households receive routers from ISPs, meaning supply disruptions propagate directly to consumers through ISP equipment procurement pipelines rather than through retail shelves.

NCTA — the cable industry's trade association — sought and received a partial waiver from the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology on June 10, 2026, after warning that router manufacturers would face "sudden and abrupt disruptions" and "supply shortages imminently" if they could not substitute alternative memory components in already-approved designs. AT&T, Verizon, Arcadyan, and Sercomm received similar accommodations. A joint petition from ACA Connects and USTelecom remained pending as of the publication of this article.

What National Security Advocates Are Demanding

While the broadband industry has argued for narrowing the rules, national security analysts have taken the opposite position. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies argued in its July 2026 filing that the FCC should not merely stop granting new blanket authorizations — it should revoke existing ones and explicitly prohibit interconnection, treating the Covered List designation itself as automatic grounds for removal rather than the starting point for individual review.

The think tank pointed to a structural gap the industry filings did not contest: despite existing equipment restrictions barring new Huawei and ZTE gear from U.S. networks, operators are not required to remove equipment already installed. That means known-compromised Huawei and ZTE gear remains embedded in live U.S. networks, operating legally — a gap the FDD's July filing documents at length.

That gap has taken on new salience in light of the Salt Typhoon campaign. The Washington Examiner reported in January 2025 that Volt Typhoon, a companion Chinese state APT group, had embedded malicious software in small-business and home-office routers to create dormant "cyber bombs" positioned to attack water treatment facilities, the electrical grid, and oil and gas pipelines in the event of military conflict.

What Comes Next

The comment record closed July 7, 2026. The FCC has not published a final rule timeline, and the complexity of the proceeding — covering blanket authority revocation, interconnection prohibition scope, VoIP classification gaps, affiliate definitions, and unlicensed spectrum coverage — makes a final order before late 2026 unlikely.

The FCC's own WC Docket 26-82 rulemaking listed the interconnection proposals among the most consequential it has considered in decades. The agency acknowledged that it needs to answer, among other questions: how narrowly or broadly to define which commercial arrangements are covered, whether to delegate PoP-specific waiver authority to the Wireline Competition Bureau, and whether the commission's authority extends to IP-based peering that doesn't involve traditional Section 251 arrangements.

For broadband operators, the period before a final rule is a compliance planning challenge without clear guidance — they cannot fully audit their interconnection relationships until they know which arrangements are within scope, but the cost of preparing to unwind those arrangements is itself substantial.

The FCC's position, articulated through unanimous votes and Chairman Carr's public statements, is that the cost of inaction — leaving Chinese state carriers with continued operational presence in U.S. network infrastructure — is higher. The dispute ahead is not about that tradeoff. It is about whether the rule that results from this proceeding is precise enough to eliminate the risk it targets, or broad enough to create a new one.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can Chinese carriers like China Telecom or China Mobile still operate in the United States?

Mostly no — and the FCC is trying to close what remains. The FCC revoked domestic and international service authorizations for China Telecom Americas, China Unicom, Pacific Networks, and China Mobile between 2019 and 2024. Those revocations were upheld in federal court. What the proposed rules target is the residual presence these companies maintain: they still operate data centers and network infrastructure in the U.S. under blanket domestic Section 214 authority that was never individually reviewed. The NPRM would strip that remaining authority and bar U.S. carriers from interconnecting with those facilities. Details are in the FCC NPRM official text.

What is a blanket Section 214 authorization, and why does it matter?

Section 214 of the Communications Act requires FCC approval before a carrier can provide interstate telecommunications services. Since 1999, the FCC has granted this approval automatically — a streamlined deregulatory approach designed to lower barriers to market entry. That automatic "blanket" grant means Chinese state-linked carriers have been able to operate data centers, provide IP transit, and maintain network infrastructure in the U.S. without ever undergoing the individual national security review that would apply to, say, a new international 214 application. The NPRM proposes to end that automatic approval for Covered List entities and require them to apply individually, with a presumption of denial.

Could Chinese carriers find a workaround through VoIP or wireless services?

This is the rule's most significant technical gap, and the FCC has acknowledged it without yet proposing a fix. The proposed restrictions apply to traditional telecommunications services regulated under the Communications Act — but interconnected VoIP has never been classified as a common carrier telecom service requiring Section 214 authorization. A Covered List entity could theoretically provide the same connectivity through VoIP or fixed wireless broadband using unlicensed spectrum, services the NPRM explicitly does not cover. The commission is seeking comment on whether to extend the restrictions, but no final rule has closed that gap. The FCC NPRM document discusses this VoIP classification question in detail.

Why can't the FCC just negotiate security conditions with Chinese carriers instead of banning them?

China's domestic law makes negotiated mitigation structurally implausible. China's National Intelligence Law Article 7 requires all Chinese organizations to "support, assist, and cooperate with national intelligence efforts" — an obligation that applies to overseas subsidiaries and cannot be waived by contract, corporate structure, or a company's stated privacy policy. The FCC found in its revocation orders that China Telecom and China Unicom were "highly likely to be forced to comply with Chinese government requests without sufficient legal procedures subject to independent judicial oversight." That legal condition is fixed; it cannot be negotiated away. The Data Security Law (2021) and Cybersecurity Law (2017) impose additional data localization and government-access obligations with the same effect.