FCC to List Telecom Companies with Ties to 'Foreign Adversaries': New Transparency Rule Kicks Off in 120 Days

The "Foreign Adversary Communications Transparency Act" is basically forcing the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to publish a who's-who list of companies holding FCC licenses that also have significant ownership or control by entities from countries the U.S. considers adversaries. The whole point? Shining a light on potential foreign influence in our communications networks. Think of it like this, if a company is taking money or direction from a country on the US's "naughty list", the FCC has to flag them.

Decoding the "Foreign Adversary" List

The bill starts by targeting specific licenses. Within 120 days, the FCC has to put up a list of companies with licenses granted under specific sections of the Communications Act of 1934 and other rules. The list includes companies where a "covered entity"—basically, a government or company from a "covered country" (those on the U.S. adversaries list, as defined in section 4872(f)(2) of title 10, United States Code)—has a significant financial stake or voting interest, or where a national security agency decides they're calling the shots. For example, if a telecom company operating in the U.S. has substantial investment from a company based in a "covered country," it's going to end up on this list.

But it doesn't stop there. Within 18 months, the FCC has to come up with rules to collect information on all other FCC license holders with similar foreign ties. And within a year after that, those companies get added to the list, too. This means that, over time, the scope will widen to include a broader range of communications companies. The FCC will update this list every year, so it stays current. They're also skipping the usual paperwork requirements (thanks to a Paperwork Reduction Act exemption), which should, in theory, speed things up.

Real-World Radar: Who and How?

So, what does this mean for you? Well, if you're a business owner relying on a particular telecom provider, you'll be able to see if that provider has significant ties to a country that might raise eyebrows. For the average person, it's about knowing who's potentially influencing the infrastructure behind your calls, internet, and data. National security agencies also get a clearer view of potential vulnerabilities. For instance, a construction company bidding on government contracts might want to know if their communications provider is on this list. A small business owner might choose a different provider if they're concerned about data security.

The Tricky Part: Defining 'Control'

One potential snag? The bill doesn’t spell out exactly what “control” means. This could be a sticking point. Does it mean owning a majority of shares? Having a say in day-to-day operations? The lack of a clear definition leaves room for interpretation, and that could mean some companies get unfairly targeted while others slip through the cracks. The bill also skips some standard paperwork requirements, which could make the whole process less transparent than intended. While the goal is to protect national security and boost transparency, there’s a real question of how this will play out in practice, especially for companies with legitimate foreign investment that poses no real threat.