Introduced in House text (IH) · Matsui / Allen / Walberg · referred to House Energy and Commerce on March 27, 2025
Future Uses of Technology Upholding Reliable and Enhanced Networks Act (FUTURE Networks Act; H.R. 2449)
Registered context series — forecast regardless of this bill
These series are tracked because the bill made them worth watching. They are not resolutions of any bill metric; each entry states what the series is not.
NTIA 11.038 FY2026 obligations
What will USAspending API v2 advanced search spending_over_time report as FY2026 aggregated financial-assistance transaction obligations, in usd_millions, for Assistance Listing 11.038 Public Wireless Supply Chain Innovation Fund Grant Program, grouped by fiscal_year, under the registered query snapshot and first registered snapshot policy?
The Assistance Listing 11.038 award-transaction aggregate (FY2025 awards under this listing were assigned to NIST). Not the proposed 6G Task Force, its work, reports, recommendations, or outcomes; not all NTIA, NIST, Commerce, or FCC obligations or account 013-0565; and no spending is attributed to or treated as caused or authorized by H.R. 2449.
Provisions
Section 2 — 6G Task Force
1. §2: FCC task-force establishment, membership, public comment, and final report
Section 2 — 6G Task Force
1. §2: FCC task-force establishment, membership, public comment, and final report
Section 2 creates one linked administrative process. The FCC must establish the 6G Task Force within 120 days after enactment, and the Chair appoints its members. To the extent practicable, membership must include communications-industry representatives, public-interest or academic representatives, and at least one representative from each of the Federal, State, local, and Tribal government categories. Companies and public-interest or academic entities determined by the Chair to be “not trusted” are excluded under the bill's foreign-adversary or national-security tests. Within 180 days after the Task Force is actually established, it must publish a draft report in both the Federal Register and on the FCC website. It must also accept public comments on the draft and take them into consideration in preparing the final report, but the bill gives those comment steps no separate deadline or minimum period. Within one year after establishment, it must publish the final report in both venues and submit it to the two named congressional committees. The report must address industry-led standards work, standards-body-identified uses and limitations, and intergovernmental coordination on siting, deployment, and adoption. The bill does not itself adopt a technical standard, allocate spectrum, authorize a grant, require network deployment or adoption, or mandate implementation of the report's recommendations. Source limits / honesty note: The supplied 4,203-byte, 680-word cache is a flattened extraction of the introduced-in-House version; it has no page boundaries or metadata sidecar and omits the enacting clause visible in the exact-version PDF. It supplies no implementation evidence, baseline data, or registry mapping. The bill sets procedural deadlines but no quantitative 6G reliability, standards-completion, supply-chain, cybersecurity, siting, deployment, or adoption target, and it creates no recurring report. It also does not require a public establishment notice, membership roster, proof of committee receipt, minimum comment period, or published response-to-comments record. Accordingly, the two metrics below are one-time report-process checks with deliberately empty series_hint values; there are zero recurring, series-backed or downstream-outcome metrics, and the conditional sketches are not currently registry-ready.
Quoted from the bill ▸
“Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall establish a task force to be known as the 6G Task Force.” The Task Force must “not later than 180 days after the date on which the Task Force is established under subsection (a), publish in the Federal Register and on the website of the Commission a draft of the report required by paragraph (1)”; the final-report clause begins, “Not later than 1 year after the date on which the Task Force is established under subsection (a), the Task Force shall publish in the Federal Register and on the website of the Commission” … “a report on sixth-generation wireless technology”.
Countersignable goals
Likely effects — shown regardless of the goals
Enactment-relative task-force deadline
If enacted, the FCC would have to establish the 6G Task Force no later than 120 days after enactment, starting the two later report clocks on the actual establishment date.
Chair-controlled representation and trust exclusions
The FCC Chair would appoint the members, pursue the listed representation only “to the extent practicable,” and avoid appointing representatives of covered companies and public-interest or academic entities that the Chair has determined or determines are not trusted under the bill's two-part definition.
Staged public reporting
The Task Force would publish a draft in both required public venues within 180 days after establishment, accept and consider public comments, then publish the final report in both venues and submit it to the named committees within one year after establishment.
Informational rather than regulatory output
The final product would synthesize identified standards activity, uses, limitations, and coordination options, but the bill would not itself set a 6G standard, compel a deployment or adoption decision, fund a network, or require an agency to implement any recommendation.
Implementation barriers
FCC Chair
The Chair would have to select the specified cross-sector and four-level governmental representation even though the bill specifies no task-force size, nomination process, terms, quorum, staffing, or dedicated appropriation. The membership clause excludes representatives of covered companies and public-interest or academic entities determined to be not trusted, but it sets no separate appointment deadline or candidate-screening procedure.
6G Task Force and FCC
They would have to synthesize evolving work by outside standards bodies, address how government entities can best work together, publish through two venues, accept comments, and revise the report on chained deadlines, while the bill sets no minimum comment period or response-to-comments standard.
Public evaluators
The public-report publications are observable, but the bill does not require public proof of the establishment date, a membership roster, individual trust determinations under every branch of the definition, consideration of comments, or receipt by both congressional committees.
Candidate outcome metrics
Federal Register and FCC website publication dates for the §2(c)(2) draft report, evaluated against 180 days after the Task Force's actual establishment date. Official evidence that public comments were accepted is a separate process check because the 180-day deadline applies only to draft publication; the bill does not require the establishment date to be published or prescribe a comment deadline or minimum period, so neither check is a currently registry-ready series.
Federal Register and FCC website publication dates for the final §2(c)(1) report, evaluated against one year after the Task Force's actual establishment date and audited for the four listed topic areas. Separate evidence would be needed to verify submission to both committees, and qualitative adequacy is not a mechanically resolvable series.
Conditional forecast sketches
P(the §2(c)(2) draft appears in both required public venues by D + 180 days | H.R. 2449 is enacted and the Task Force is publicly documented as established on date D). This is a one-time event conditional; comment acceptance is a separate undated duty, and without enactment or a public establishment date the publication deadline cannot resolve mechanically.
P(the §2(c)(1) final report appears in both required public venues by D + 1 year and addresses the four listed topics | H.R. 2449 is enacted and the Task Force is publicly documented as established on date D). Publication timing is checkable from official records, but topic adequacy and committee receipt require separate audit evidence.