For nearly three decades, telecom giants in the United States, supported by an army of consultants, think tanks, and lobbyists, have succeeded in resisting coherent federal oversight of the industry. Whether it concerned the establishment of modest privacy standards or the necessity for basic pricing transparency, the prevailing argument has been that a lack of regulatory intervention would unleash the wonders of free-market efficiency. However, the reality is starkly different: the result has been an uncompetitive, inconsistent broadband landscape characterized by high costs and inadequate customer service.

One may argue that the consequences of this lax oversight are now inescapably clear. The recent wave of hacking incidents culminated in a criminal intrusion dubbed “Salt Typhoon,” which profoundly compromised the infrastructure of nine major U.S. Internet Service Providers (ISPs). This breach not only underscores the vulnerabilities within our telecom sector but also illustrates the potential national security risks posed by years of regulatory neglect and political corruption.

Intriguingly, while attention has been fixated on foreign threats, the Salt Typhoon hack serves as an unsettling reminder that domestic shortcomings are equally, if not more, perilous. U.S. officials are currently grappling with a situation where they are still unsure of the full scale of the breach, largely due to sophisticated tactics employed by the attackers to erase their digital footprints. This uncertainty raises alarming questions about whether these intruders remain embedded within critical networks.

Anne Neuberger, the White House Cybersecurity Chief, has highlighted the disparity between U.S. regulatory measures and those of other nations. In conversations with British officials, she learned that more robust regulations overseas would likely have led to a quicker identification and containment of the cyberattack, reducing its impact significantly. Her conclusion is sobering: “That’s a powerful message.”

Despite the implications of such a severe incident, U.S. media coverage on the hack remains lackluster, dwarfing the hyperbolic scrutiny associated with issues like TikTok’s security controversies. Few publications are willing to connect the dots between the relentless lobbying efforts of telecom companies for deregulation—often seen as a euphemism for systemic corruption—and the Salt Typhoon hack itself.

As the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) prepares to deliberate on strengthening cybersecurity regulations, the leadership of new Trump-era appointee Brendan Carr raises apprehensions about the sincerity of this initiative. Carr’s historical reluctance to challenge the telecom sector on significant issues casts doubt on the likelihood of meaningful reform. Furthermore, ongoing challenges to net neutrality threaten the FCC’s already limited authority over cybersecurity measures.

The historical context of the Salt Typhoon breach highlights a paradox: while officials worried about foreign threats from companies like Huawei, the true vulnerability lay within our own borders. The amalgamation of outdated administrative practices, regulatory complacency, and overt corruption has culminated in a crisis where our telecommunications infrastructure is left dangerously exposed.