Bill Overview
Title: Countering Untrusted Telecommunications Abroad Act
Description: This bill requires the Department of State to address the use of untrusted telecommunications equipment (and services). It also requires certain securities issuers to disclose the use of such equipment. The State Department must provide support, such as diplomatic and political support, for certain telecommunications infrastructure projects that have the potential to promote U.S. national security interests. Furthermore, a securities issuer that is required to file annual or quarterly reports with the Securities Exchange Commission must periodically disclose whether it used or contracted to use telecommunications equipment deemed by the Federal Communications Commission to pose an unacceptable risk to U.S. national security or the security and safety of U.S. persons. The disclosure must contain certain information, including whether the equipment is being used in a mobile network run by the issuer. The State Department must report to Congress on (1) the prevalence of such telecommunications equipment in the networks of U.S. allies and partners, and (2) the use of such telecommunications equipment in U.S. embassies and by embassy staff and personnel.
Sponsors: Rep. Wild, Susan [D-PA-7]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals involved in or reliant on telecommunications infrastructure and services
Estimated Size: 1000000
- The bill impacts individuals and organizations involved in international telecommunications, particularly those that rely on or use telecommunications equipment deemed untrusted by the U.S. government.
- Telecommunications companies worldwide, especially those doing business with U.S. securities issuers, will be directly impacted due to required disclosures of equipment use.
- Employees of U.S. embassies and personnel engaged in U.S. diplomatic missions abroad may also be affected due to changes in telecommunications equipment usage.
- There will be indirect impacts on the general population who may rely on services provided by these telecommunications companies or work for companies required to make disclosures.
- The legislation also indirectly affects international partners and allies of the U.S., as it addresses telecommunications equipment in their networks.
Reasoning
- The budget constraints limit the implementation of this policy, focusing on specific segments of the telecommunications and diplomatic sectors.
- Only a subset of U.S. citizens and businesses will experience direct impacts due to the specialized nature of telecommunications infrastructure and securities disclosure compliance.
- The policy is likely to influence those individuals working in U.S. embassies abroad or employees of telecommunications companies, especially those involved in compliance and legal departments.
- The general U.S. population may experience indirect impacts, primarily through changes in service quality or costs as telecom companies adjust to compliance requirements.
- This policy may raise awareness about telecommunications security and influence U.S.-based investors who are more attuned to company disclosures regarding equipment use.
- Given the high potential impact on international relations, any economic shifts in allied countries’ telecommunications sectors could reverberate back to the U.S. market.
Simulated Interviews
Telecommunications Compliance Officer (New York, NY)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is an administrative headache due to increased disclosure responsibilities.
- In the long run, the transparency could be beneficial for the telecom sector's reputation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Investor (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy will influence stock valuations in the telecom sector.
- Potential to uncover risks that were previously unknown, offering investors an edge in strategy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Diplomat (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Concerned about operational disruptions due to outdated equipment being replaced.
- Positive that the policy could enhance security for overseas operations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Telecommunications Engineer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could drive demand for secure systems, boosting my career prospects.
- I hope this leads to more innovation in the field.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Teacher (Houston, TX)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Not directly affected but concerned if costs get passed to consumers.
- Appreciates any steps towards boosting security in tech she uses daily.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Small Business Owner (Miami, FL)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could mean more business opportunities due to increased compliance needs.
- Might slightly increase operational costs if I need to upgrade our own systems.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retired (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Mostly hoping this doesn't lead to increased costs as I'm on a fixed income.
- Security of services is important, but change is also unsettling at times.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Graduate Student in Cybersecurity (Seattle, WA)
Age: 26 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy provides a rich subject for academic research.
- I'm curious to see how it shapes future cybersecurity protocols.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Journalist (Boston, MA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy offers new insights and stories about national security in telecommunications.
- It might help the public become more informed about telecom security risks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
IT Consultant (Denver, CO)
Age: 31 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is an opportunity to expand consulting services in telecom compliance.
- Businesses will need advice, increasing demand for my expertise.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $52000000 (Low: $31000000, High: $73000000)
Year 3: $54000000 (Low: $32000000, High: $76000000)
Year 5: $58000000 (Low: $34000000, High: $81000000)
Year 10: $66000000 (Low: $39000000, High: $92000000)
Year 100: $1000000000 (Low: $700000000, High: $1400000000)
Key Considerations
- The implementation of this bill will require coordination between multiple government agencies, complicating cost estimation and budget allocation.
- There may be significant costs associated with ensuring compliance from the international and commercial entities with interests in telecommunications infrastructure.
- The bill could indirectly promote investments in newer, security-assured telecommunications technologies, benefiting technology sectors.