Overview
Title
To direct the Secretary of Commerce to submit to Congress a report containing an assessment of the value, cost, and feasibility of a trans-Atlantic submarine fiber optic cable connecting the contiguous United States, the United States Virgin Islands, Ghana, and Nigeria.
ELI5 AI
The bill wants the Secretary of Commerce to tell Congress if it's a good idea to put a long internet cable underwater from the U.S. to some other places like the Virgin Islands, Ghana, and Nigeria, and they want to know how much it would cost and if it's possible to do.
Summary AI
S. 5328 is a proposed bill that requires the Secretary of Commerce to submit a report to Congress. This report will assess the value, cost, and feasibility of creating a trans-Atlantic submarine fiber optic cable linking the contiguous United States, the United States Virgin Islands, Ghana, and Nigeria. The goal is to enhance U.S. national security and explore digital, economic, and geopolitical opportunities associated with the cable. The report must be prepared without forcing any organization to provide data, and it should be publicly accessible, although it may include a classified section.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary
The bill, introduced in the U.S. Senate as S. 5328, directs the Secretary of Commerce to produce a detailed report regarding the construction of a trans-Atlantic submarine fiber optic cable. This cable is envisioned to connect the contiguous United States, the United States Virgin Islands, Ghana, and Nigeria. The proposed study seeks to evaluate the cable’s value, cost, feasibility, and its potential to enhance national security. The report is expected to consider several factors, including digital and national security, economic opportunities, infrastructure readiness, and connectivity potential. The deadline for submitting this report is set at one year from the enactment of the law, and it should be submitted in an unclassified form, though it may include a classified annex.
Summary of Significant Issues
Several notable issues arise within the bill’s framework:
Feasibility Assessment: The bill does not specify how the feasibility of the proposed cable will be evaluated. This omission could lead to ambiguity and inconsistency in the determination process, leaving room for subjective interpretations.
Definitions of 'Trusted' and 'Not Trusted': The bill’s reliance on definitions from the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019 for determining which entities are "trusted" or "not trusted" may introduce ambiguity if interpretations of that Act evolve over time.
Funding and Cost Estimation: The lack of a specific funding mechanism or cost estimation raises concerns about potential additional government spending without proper oversight or accountability measures in place.
Discretionary Power of the Secretary: The bill permits the Secretary to include "any other related matters" in the report, a provision that could confer excessive discretionary power without clear guidelines.
Classification of the Report: Although the report is to be submitted in an unclassified form, the potential inclusion of a classified annex might limit transparency, leaving the public uncertain about what findings will be disclosed.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
Broad Public Impact
The bill suggests potential broad impacts, primarily aimed at enhancing connectivity and possibly improving national security through better infrastructure. If the project proceeds beyond the report stage, it might lead to improved internet connectivity, possibly lowering costs or increasing service quality for users along the cable’s path.
Moreover, the focus on both the economy and national security highlights the dual priority of ensuring robust communication channels that are secure and economically beneficial. However, without concrete fiscal planning or cost estimations, public concerns about government overspending might arise.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For stakeholders such as telecommunication companies, technology firms, and infrastructure providers, the bill could present significant opportunities for collaboration and profit. The international reach of the project involving Ghana and Nigeria also opens doors for diplomatic and business engagement in the realm of global communication networks.
Conversely, stakeholders might face risks associated with regulatory challenges or changes in policy interpretations, particularly concerning "trusted" and "not trusted" definitions. Concerns about international partnerships and compliance with evolving global telecommunications standards could further complicate implementation.
Overall, while the bill outlines a forward-looking plan that could enhance communication infrastructure and foster economic opportunities, it leaves critical questions unresolved about funding, regulatory clarity, and the ultimate feasibility of the initiative. These factors must be addressed to have a fully informed and constructive discourse about the potential national and international ramifications.
Issues
The lack of specific mention of how the feasibility of the cable will be assessed in Section 1(c) could lead to ambiguity or subjectivity in determining feasibility, affecting the overall evaluation and transparency of the report.
The definitions of 'trusted' and 'not trusted' in Section 1(a) depend heavily on determinations from the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019, potentially causing ambiguity if interpretations of that Act change over time.
The absence of a specific funding mechanism or cost estimation in Section 1 makes it difficult to evaluate potential wasteful spending, which is critical given the scope and scale of the proposed project.
The provision in Section 1(c)(9) allowing the Secretary to determine 'any other related matters' at their discretion is vague, potentially granting the Secretary significant power without clear guidelines or oversight.
The provision in Section 1(e) for the report to be unclassified but with a potential classified annex raises questions about transparency and what will be made publicly available.
The definition of 'covered cable' in Section 1(a) is simply a reference to subsection (b), which lacks the actual details needed for clarity on what constitutes a 'covered cable.'
The report requires assessments of digital security, national security, and economic opportunities in Section 1(c)(1), yet lacks clear definitions or parameters for these assessments, which could lead to inconsistent or incomplete findings.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Assessment of trans-Atlantic submarine fiber optic cable Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The text outlines the requirements for a report evaluating the feasibility and value of a trans-Atlantic submarine fiber optic cable that would connect the United States with Ghana, Nigeria, and the United States Virgin Islands. The report, due one year after the law is enacted, will assess security, economic opportunities, and connectivity, among other things, and should be presented in an unclassified form.