The Commission should keep its focus on how to enable consumers to benefit from wireless services and prevent state and local red tape from undermining those benefits.

The science community must move beyond the linear model of scientific research developed and encouraged by Vannevar Bush, and realign scientific exploration with national interests, especially in the face of the growing technological and economic threat posed by China.

Now is the time for the Commission to remove unnecessary regulations that stand in the way of next-generation network deployment.

The Center for Data Innovation recommends that the establishment and implementation of the American AI Exports Program maximizes the expansion of U.S. AI technology and reinforces American leadership globally.

ITIF commends the Trump administration for working to develop an up-to-date, coherent National Strategic Plan for Advanced Manufacturing. The success of this effort will be vital to enhancing the global competitiveness of U.S. advanced manufacturing over the coming decade.

The Commission is right to seek to remove regulatory impediments that hinder licensees from complying with their licenses and serving consumers, but the Public Notice rests on flawed premises that lead it to propose unwise and ineffective policy.

Unfortunately, however complementary the objectives of protecting consumer privacy and promoting competition may be at a high level, complying with several key DMA prohibitions will undermine—not enhance—the privacy goals of the GDPR.

Rather than heed calls to erect more transaction costs in secondary spectrum markets, the Commission should continue down the path of enabling productivity-enhancing spectrum deals without cumbersome Commission processes or conditions.

China has failed to meet its commitments under the U.S.-China POA. It is not a reliable trade partner, as potential commitments to reverse its predatory practices are antithetical to its long-term techno-economic project.

While ITIF commends the CMA for asking whether competition policy is consistent with broader growth and competitiveness goals, in several respects the Discussion Paper appears to condone policies that would run counter to—not ensure—a faster growing and more globally competitive Britain.