New 'FREEDOM Act' Mandates 120-Day Review of Direct-to-Cell Tech for Internet Access in Iran

The newly proposed Feasibility Review of Emerging Equipment for Digital Open Media Act, or the FREEDOM Act, isn't about changing your taxes or setting new workplace rules, but it’s a big deal for foreign policy and technology development. This bill mandates a deep-dive report that could shape how the U.S. approaches internet freedom overseas.

The Mandate: Tech Feasibility Over Censorship

Section 2 of the FREEDOM Act requires the Secretary of State to team up with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Department of the Treasury to produce a detailed report for Congress within 120 days. This isn't a new idea from scratch; it’s an update to a previous report required under the 2025 National Defense Authorization Act. The goal is to figure out the best way to leverage technology to expand internet access in Iran, where digital censorship is a major issue.

Can We Beam Internet from Space?

One of the most interesting parts of this analysis is the focus on direct-to-cell wireless technologies. Think of systems that bypass traditional ground infrastructure—like satellite internet beaming straight to your phone. The report must assess the technical, regulatory, and security challenges of making this kind of access feasible in Iran. This is where the FCC’s expertise comes in, analyzing the nuts and bolts of the radio spectrum and signal strength.

But the bill isn’t naive. It specifically requires the agencies to analyze the countermeasures that could block these efforts. This includes looking at how drone-based platforms and signal jamming could affect the security and resilience of these new communication methods. Essentially, the government is asking: If we try to open up the internet, how exactly will the opposition try to shut it down, and can we beat them?

Who Controls the Wires?

The report also requires a detailed survey of existing telecommunications service providers operating in Iran. This analysis needs to figure out two key things: first, are these providers state-owned or state-controlled? And second, how much foreign investment or participation is involved? This information is crucial because it helps Congress understand the implications of this ownership structure for communications freedom and censorship. If the government owns the pipes, they control the flow of information. The Treasury Department’s involvement here makes sense, as they deal with sanctions and financial oversight related to foreign entities and state-owned enterprises.

For regular folks, while this policy is happening thousands of miles away, it’s a clear signal that the U.S. government is serious about using emerging technology to counter digital authoritarianism. It’s a classic example of policy catching up with tech—trying to figure out if next-generation connectivity can jump over political and physical barriers. The bill itself only mandates a study, not action, but that study will lay the groundwork for future foreign policy decisions on internet access.