US Regulator to Drop Network Security Mandate for Telecom Providers, Relying on Voluntary Commitments Instead.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will vote in November to repeal a ruling that requires telecom providers to secure their networks, following pressure from the biggest lobby groups representing internet service providers. The move marks a significant shift in the agency's stance on network security, and it comes as some lawmakers and experts have questioned the effectiveness of the previous mandate.
The FCC's decision is seen as a victory for the telecom industry, which had opposed the original rule. In January 2025, the agency adopted a declaratory ruling that found telecommunications carriers have a legal obligation to secure their networks against unlawful access and interception under the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA). However, some lawmakers and industry groups argued that the law only requires carriers to facilitate lawful intercepts from law enforcement.
The new draft order, which will be voted on in November, argues that the previous interpretation of CALEA was "unlawful because the FCC purported to read a statute that required telecommunications carriers to allow lawful wiretaps within a certain portion of their network as a provision that required carriers to adopt specific network management practices in every portion of their network." Instead, the order suggests that the FCC can achieve cybersecurity through a "collaborative" approach via "federal-private partnerships" and more targeted, legally sound rulemaking.
The decision has been welcomed by industry groups, which have argued that voluntary commitments from carriers are sufficient to address security concerns. The CTIA-The Wireless Association, NCTA-The Internet & Television Association, and USTelecom-The Broadband Association filed a petition asking the FCC to reverse the original ruling in February, citing concerns about the law's scope and the agency's authority.
However, some experts have questioned the effectiveness of the new approach. "The problem is not just that carriers don't take cybersecurity seriously enough," said one expert, who wished to remain anonymous. "It's that the FCC doesn't understand how security works in the network." Others have warned that relying solely on voluntary commitments from carriers could leave consumers vulnerable to cyber threats.
As the debate over network security continues, lawmakers are grappling with the implications of the FCC's decision. Some have called for more stringent regulations, while others argue that the current approach is a step in the right direction. One thing is clear: the telecom industry's shift towards voluntary commitments has significant implications for consumers and the broader cybersecurity landscape.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will vote in November to repeal a ruling that requires telecom providers to secure their networks, following pressure from the biggest lobby groups representing internet service providers. The move marks a significant shift in the agency's stance on network security, and it comes as some lawmakers and experts have questioned the effectiveness of the previous mandate.
The FCC's decision is seen as a victory for the telecom industry, which had opposed the original rule. In January 2025, the agency adopted a declaratory ruling that found telecommunications carriers have a legal obligation to secure their networks against unlawful access and interception under the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA). However, some lawmakers and industry groups argued that the law only requires carriers to facilitate lawful intercepts from law enforcement.
The new draft order, which will be voted on in November, argues that the previous interpretation of CALEA was "unlawful because the FCC purported to read a statute that required telecommunications carriers to allow lawful wiretaps within a certain portion of their network as a provision that required carriers to adopt specific network management practices in every portion of their network." Instead, the order suggests that the FCC can achieve cybersecurity through a "collaborative" approach via "federal-private partnerships" and more targeted, legally sound rulemaking.
The decision has been welcomed by industry groups, which have argued that voluntary commitments from carriers are sufficient to address security concerns. The CTIA-The Wireless Association, NCTA-The Internet & Television Association, and USTelecom-The Broadband Association filed a petition asking the FCC to reverse the original ruling in February, citing concerns about the law's scope and the agency's authority.
However, some experts have questioned the effectiveness of the new approach. "The problem is not just that carriers don't take cybersecurity seriously enough," said one expert, who wished to remain anonymous. "It's that the FCC doesn't understand how security works in the network." Others have warned that relying solely on voluntary commitments from carriers could leave consumers vulnerable to cyber threats.
As the debate over network security continues, lawmakers are grappling with the implications of the FCC's decision. Some have called for more stringent regulations, while others argue that the current approach is a step in the right direction. One thing is clear: the telecom industry's shift towards voluntary commitments has significant implications for consumers and the broader cybersecurity landscape.
This new move from the US Regulator is kinda crazy lol... I mean, who doesn't want their network to be secure? But seriously, it's like they're trying to cut corners by relying on voluntary commitments from telecom providers. I'm all for collaboration and federal-private partnerships, but cybersecurity isn't just about feeling good, it's about having real security measures in place 
. What if carriers just wing it and we end up with a bunch of vulnerable networks? That would be bad news for consumers 
. it's like trying to get kids to clean up after themselves - if you don't set clear expectations and consequences, they might just slack off 
. the question now is, what will lawmakers do next? will they step in with more stringent regulations or let the industry figure things out for itself? either way, it's a wake-up call for all of us to take our own cyber security seriously 
.
it sounds like a good idea on paper, but what if they just don't care? 
it's gonna be interesting to see how this plays out, especially with cyber threats getting more aggressive all the time 
. It's like they're expecting us to just trust the carriers to do the right thing without any strings attached? I remember when we had dial-up internet, it was super slow but at least we knew what we were getting. Now it seems like they're letting these big corporations just do whatever they want and we're supposed to be okay with that 
the telco industry just got a free pass to secure their networks... aka they're gonna do whatever they want without any consequences 
I mean, isn't network security like, super important 
? We can't just rely on telecom providers to do the right thing voluntarily 
They gotta secure our networks or else hackers are gonna have a field day 
We need more rules not less 
. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for less regulatory red tape, but this feels like a recipe for disaster 
. I mean, what kind of experts think this is a good idea? The ones who are getting paid off by the telcos, I guess 
.
it might seem like a good idea at first, but if you don't address the root issue (in this case, telecom providers not taking cybersecurity seriously), it's just gonna leak again. industry groups are happy with voluntary commitments because they think it's easy to check off a box and forget about security concerns 
but what happens when someone tries to "hack" into their network? won't those voluntary commitments be enough to protect them? the real question is, who's gonna foot the bill for cybersecurity when things go wrong? 
The problem is that when it comes to cybersecurity, we need strict regulations and enforcement, not some half-baked "collaborative" approach that sounds like a corporate PR spin.
. 
. But if carriers aren't required to take specific steps to secure their networks, how are we supposed to trust that they're doing enough? 
.
. But not when it comes to something as critical as network security 
. And don't even get me started on how this will affect consumers - we're basically at their mercy now 
just saw this news and I'm lowkey disappointed 
. On one hand, relying on voluntary commitments from carriers does make sense in terms of easing regulatory burdens and allowing companies to take ownership of their own security practices 
. But on the other hand, when you have an industry with as much power and influence as telecom, it's hard not to worry that they'll use this newfound freedom to slack off 
The telecom industry is basically saying "we got this" and that's just not reassuring for consumers 
The fact that lawmakers are already debating the implications tells me there's more to this story than meets the eye 
Like, if they all agree to do something, does anyone really check in to make sure they're following through? 
. I mean, shouldn't we be making it harder for the telcos to avoid taking security seriously instead of just letting them opt out? 