The rulemaking desk
FCC policy and the rules behind your connection
Rulemaking is slow, procedural, and decisive. A vote on a Tuesday can change which labs may certify a router for sale in the United States, or whether a satellite operator needs a leasing deal with a carrier before it can serve your phone. This page tracks those decisions as they move, with the dates that matter and the steps still ahead.
What is moving, and when
A short index of the items on the commission's calendar right now. Each entry links to the full report on this site, so you can read the detail rather than the headline.
We keep the list in the order the decisions arrive, not the order they trend.
-
October 29, 2026
Device testing vote
A proposal to bar Chinese labs from testing devices sold in the U.S., and to affect certification bodies where U.S. labs are not treated reciprocally.
-
October 29, 2026
Direct-to-device spectrum auction
A separate item on the same agenda, tied to satellite-to-phone service and the airwaves it would use.
-
By December 2026
7 GHz sharing study
Auction rules are waiting on this engineering work. The 1.6 GHz review follows shortly after.
-
Scheduled hearing
Broadcast license review dispute
A judge hears a request to block the commission's early review of licenses tied to eight company-owned ABC stations.
-
Ahead of November
Robocall rules and AI voices
A request to loosen robocall restrictions before the midterms, covering calls made with AI-generated voices.
The October 29 device-testing vote
The FCC said it will vote on October 29, 2026 on a proposal to bar Chinese labs from testing devices sold in the U.S. The plan would also affect certification bodies in countries that do not offer reciprocal treatment to U.S. labs.
If adopted, equipment authorization for a range of consumer electronics would shift to other facilities, and manufacturers would need to requalify products through different routes. That requalification is the part that reaches a reader's daily life: a router, a modem, or a mesh node held at customs paperwork is a product you cannot buy yet. When the labs that sign off on a device change, the schedule for a product launch changes with them.
The reciprocal-treatment clause is the quieter half of the proposal. It does not name labs so much as set a condition: certification bodies in a country that does not accept results from U.S. labs would face restrictions of their own. Read that way, the vote is less about one country's testing industry than about how equipment approval is recognized across borders.
Read the vote filing report
Two votes, one day
The same October 29 agenda includes a separate item: a new spectrum auction linked to direct-to-device services, intended to expand satellite-to-phone and similar connectivity. Two votes on one day do not usually share a theme, but these do. Both concern who may build and certify the equipment Americans use to get online.
Who tests it
The device-testing item decides which laboratories may certify consumer electronics for sale in the United States, and what happens to certification bodies whose home countries do not accept U.S. lab results.
Who may transmit
The auction item decides how airwaves for satellite-to-phone service are assigned. Licensing terms shape whether a direct-to-device operator can reach your handset without a separate carrier deal.
Spectrum studies that gate the auctions
Auction rules wait on engineering. An NTIA official said the 7 GHz study should be completed by December 2026, and the FCC is expected to propose auction rules soon after that. A review of the 1.6 GHz band is expected to follow shortly.
Until the studies resolve how incumbent users share each band, the commission cannot write rules that would survive a challenge. That is the practical reason a study date matters as much as a vote date: file rules before the interference questions are answered and the whole auction gets tied up in court.
-
1
Sharing study opens
Engineers measure how incumbent users and new services coexist in the band. Results set the technical floor for every rule that follows.
-
2
Study completes, rules proposed
The 7 GHz work is due by December 2026. Auction rules follow soon after, with the 1.6 GHz review close behind.
-
3
Comment window opens
This is the narrow stretch where a technically specific filing can move wording. After the window closes, the record is set.
-
4
Report and Order vote
Final rules adopt, modify, or shelve the proposal. Auction design and timing come out of this step.
A comment filed late does not enter the record.
Deadlines in the rulemaking sequence are the ones worth tracking. Everything else is commentary on them.
Broadcast licenses and judicial review
A U.S. judge is scheduled to hear Disney's request to block the FCC's early review of licenses tied to eight company-owned ABC stations. The dispute is about the regulator's authority to review a license ahead of the normal renewal cycle.
A ruling either way will define how much discretion the commission has when it wants to examine a broadcaster outside the standard timetable. That discretion question reaches well past broadcasting: the same authority shapes how the agency treats any licensee it decides to look at early.
Read the hearing report
Robocalls, AI voices, and the midterms
The FCC is reviewing a request from a conservative group to loosen robocall restrictions before the midterms, and the proposal would cover calls made with AI-generated voices. Election-related telecommunications rules are already under scrutiny ahead of November voting.
The commission's decision will determine whether automated political calls expand or stay constrained during the campaign's final weeks. The AI-voice question is the newer half of the filing. Rules written for recorded human voices were not drafted with synthetic speech in mind, so the commission has to decide whether a cloned or generated voice falls under the same restrictions as a recorded one.
Read the robocall filing reportWhat is actually at stake
If the restrictions loosen, automated political calls may increase in the final weeks of the campaign. If they hold, the existing limits stay in place through Election Day — including how generated voices are treated.
We will note the outcome on this page once the commission rules.
How to read a proposed rule
Most coverage skips the mechanics, which is why the mechanics are worth spelling out. A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking opens a comment window, replies follow, and then the commission votes on a Report and Order.
- Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
- The commission publishes what it wants to change and why. This is the first point where the public knows the shape of the proposal.
- Comment and reply window
- Comments open, then replies answer them. A filing that arrives after the deadline does not enter the record, no matter how good it is.
- Report and Order
- The commission votes final rules into effect. This is the step that changes what a company may do, and the step most likely to be challenged in court.
Where public comment actually matters
Comment volume alone rarely changes an outcome, but a technically specific filing can. When the 7 GHz auction rules are proposed, the useful comments will come from engineers describing interference scenarios, not from form letters.
A filing that says how two services will collide, with measurements and a proposed fix, gives the commission something it can put in the record. A filing that says a proposal is bad does not. We note open deadlines as they appear so readers who want to file have time to write something substantive.
If you are preparing a comment, start from the study the rules depend on, not from the headline about them. The study is what a decision has to survive.
What we watch that others skip
We follow the procedural calendar, not just the headlines. That means noting when a study is due, when a vote is scheduled, and when a waiver changes what a company may do without a separate agreement.
Those details are usually the difference between a decision that sticks and one that gets litigated. A waiver granted quietly, for example, can let a service operate months before a rule is final — which matters if you are trying to understand why a connection works the way it does today.
Policy decisions also reach the measurements readers run every day. Equipment rules, spectrum assignments, and licensing terms all shape what a speed test on a given line can show, and what a provider is allowed to do with the capacity behind it.
Questions readers ask about the process
Does a scheduled vote always happen on the schedule date?
Items can move, be dropped from an agenda, or be adopted without discussion. We report the date as the commission lists it and note changes when they are announced, so the calendar on this page stays current.
Why do spectrum studies hold up auction rules?
Rules that do not account for how incumbent users share a band tend not to survive a legal challenge. The commission waits on the engineering study so the auction rules rest on measured sharing limits rather than assumptions.
Can I file a comment as an individual?
Yes, once a proposal opens a comment window, any member of the public can file. What carries weight is specificity: which service, which band, what interference you measured, and what change you are asking for. We list open deadlines on this page as they are announced.
How does policy change affect a speed test result at home?
Indirectly, and over years. Which equipment is approved, how much spectrum is available for fixed and mobile service, and what terms a licensed operator must meet all shape the capacity behind your line. The measurement you run today sits on top of those decisions.
Where do you get the dates on this page?
From the commission's own agenda and filings, and from statements by agency officials. When a date comes from a reported statement rather than a published document, we say so and mark it as expected rather than scheduled.
Keep the calendar in view
Policy updates arrive on a schedule, not on a news cycle. If you want the vote dates, study deadlines, and comment windows as they are announced, we send them in one message rather than a stream of alerts.
Lonnard James Broadband Review · 3003 13th Ave W, Seattle, WA 98119-2021 · +12064389529 · JesseGonzalez@lonnardjames.com · Monday to Friday, 9:00 AM – 6:00 PM