Yet, buried within its fiscal and tax reforms are provisions that could reshape not only American telecoms policy but global infrastructure investment, spectrum governance, and AI scaling strategies.
From a global capacity standpoint, this legislation signals a strategic shift: towards tighter control of critical digital infrastructure, renewed spectrum monetisation, and a reassertion of the state’s role in deciding who can build and operate the networks of the future.
Spectrum auctions
The most immediate and tangible impact of the OBBB for telecoms is its restoration of the FCC’s spectrum auction authority, which had lapsed due to congressional gridlock in 2023. The bill sets in motion new auctions for key bands: notably 600MHz, 3.1–3.45GHz, and potentially parts of the 6GHz band.
For major US mobile operators such as AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile, this development unlocks significant mid- and low-band spectrum critical to expanding 5G capacity and coverage, particularly in rural and suburban areas where profitability has historically been more elusive.
The inclusion of the 6GHz band, however, has provoked concern. That band has been earmarked in many jurisdictions, including Europe, for unlicensed and shared spectrum use, forming the backbone of emerging Wifi 6E and Wifi 7 deployments.
Its auction for exclusive use in the US would not only threaten Wifi innovation but could create global device ecosystem fragmentation, complicating hardware interoperability and chipset manufacturing.
As a result, trade groups such as the Wi-Fi Alliance and NCTA have raised formal objections, suggesting the move prioritises short-term auction revenue over long-term connectivity innovation.
Telecom infrastructure: Stimulus and strings
Beyond spectrum, the OBBB provides a suite of investment incentives aimed at spurring broadband rollout, especially in underserved regions. These include:
● 100% bonus depreciation for broadband-related capital expenditures
● Targeted tax credits for rural fibre builds
● Preference for investment in “high-need” economic zones (colloquially dubbed “Patriotic Priority Zones” in campaign rhetoric)
These measures mirror the intent, if not the regulatory style, of Europe’s Gigabit Infrastructure Act and are designed to encourage both incumbents and challenger operators to expand coverage footprints.
International vendors, including Ericsson, Nokia, and Samsung, may benefit through increased RAN and transport network procurement.
However, the bill’s “Buy American” sourcing provisions could complicate supply chains and affect vendors that have not localised manufacturing or integration services within the US.
Subsea cables: A rise in regulatory friction
While the OBBB does not directly legislate on subsea cable systems, its broader national security posture is likely to introduce new layers of scrutiny for undersea infrastructure projects.
Analysts indicate the bill implicitly extends the scope of Team Telecom and CFIUS-style review mechanisms over “cross-border digital infrastructure,” a category which cables, particularly those involving China, or linking to sensitive geopolitical regions, certainly fall into.
This follows precedents such as the Pacific Light Cable Network (PLC-N) and Hong Kong Americas Cable, which were blocked or rerouted over similar concerns in recent years. Under the OBBB, cable projects with ambiguous ownership structures or foreign landing points could face longer approval timelines and enhanced reporting obligations.
Additionally, the bill strengthens the government’s authority to mandate disclosure of cable ownership, traffic routing, and vendor sourcing. While this may enhance national security, it introduces potential commercial uncertainty for hyperscalers and carriers operating or co-owning international systems.
Subsea investors should also note the bill’s emphasis on domestic material sourcing for federally incentivised infrastructure. Though it does not prohibit foreign fibre or equipment, it may affect procurement flexibility and drive up costs for consortia reliant on European or Asian suppliers.
AI infrastructure: A silent but strategic beneficiary
Despite the OBBB not directly regulating AI, it creates a favourable financial environment for its infrastructure development, particularly for hyperscalers, colocation providers, and telecoms entering the edge computing market.
Key provisions include:
● Accelerated tax treatment for capital investment in data centres and server farms
● Incentives for clean energy integration, including on-site generation, which is critical for powering AI compute
● Funding for grid resilience in regions hosting “strategic compute nodes”
Taken together, these could dramatically lower the cost of deploying high-density compute, including GPU clusters for training and inference workloads across the US.
One provision that may raise eyebrows is a cybersecurity and disclosure clause requiring providers of “critical compute infrastructure” to notify federal authorities when deploying large-scale models in proximity to national security assets. The scope of this rule remains under interpretation, but it underscores the increasing entanglement of AI and state interests.
For telecoms investing in multi-access edge computing (MEC) or private 5G-AI hybrids, these provisions are likely to be seen as a welcome tailwind - albeit one that comes with strings attached.
A global system in divergence
The OBBB represents a decisive turn in US telecom and digital infrastructure strategy: it seeks to centralise control, monetise national assets like spectrum, and favour domestic players in strategic buildouts. For global markets, this creates several tensions:
● Standards divergence around the 6 GHz band may complicate global harmonisation
● Cross-border investment risk in subsea and edge infrastructure is set to increase
● AI scaling could accelerate in the US - not through regulation, but via favourable tax and infrastructure incentives
Europe, Asia-Pacific, and other markets that favour open access, neutrality, and cross-border cable integration may find themselves at odds with a more fortress-minded US approach.
Still, much will depend on how OBBB is implemented. The FCC’s spectrum allocation plans, the Department of Commerce’s rule-making on subsea disclosures, and the IRS’s guidance on eligible AI infrastructure will all shape the bill’s final impact.
RELATED STORIES
CHIPS Act subsidies under review as Trump seeks better terms
Trump slams AT&T for botched call with faith leaders
SMR stocks skyrocket as Trump backs nuclear tech and AI demand soars
