AI Regulation in Telecommunications: A Cross-Jurisdictional Legal Study

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.22211v1
• Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2025 08:30:12 GMT
• Title: AI Regulation in Telecommunications: A Cross-Jurisdictional Legal Study
• Authors: Avinash Agarwal, Peeyush Agarwal, Manisha J. Nene,
• Abstract summary: This paper conducts a comparative legal study of policy instruments across ten countries.<n>It examines how telecom, cybersecurity, data protection, and AI laws approach AI-related risks in infrastructure.
• Score: 0.6117371161379207
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: As Artificial Intelligence (AI) becomes increasingly embedded in critical digital infrastructure, including telecommunications, its integration introduces new risks that existing regulatory frameworks are ill-prepared to address. This paper conducts a comparative legal study of policy instruments across ten countries, examining how telecom, cybersecurity, data protection, and AI laws approach AI-related risks in infrastructure. The study finds that regulatory responses remain siloed, with minimal coordination across these domains. Most frameworks still prioritize traditional cybersecurity and data protection concerns, offering limited recognition of AI-specific vulnerabilities such as model drift, opaque decision-making, and algorithmic bias. Telecommunications regulations, in particular, exhibit little integration of AI considerations, despite AI systems increasingly supporting critical network operations. The paper identifies a governance gap where oversight remains fragmented and reactive, while AI reshapes the digital infrastructure. It provides a foundation for more coherent and anticipatory regulatory strategies spanning technological and institutional boundaries.

Related papers

• Digital Sovereignty Control Framework for Military AI-based Cyber Security [0.0]
  This article aims to define and assess digital sovereign control of data and AI-based models for military cyber security.<n>Grounded on the concepts of digital sovereignty and data sovereignty, the framework aims to protect sensitive defence assets.<n>At the same time, the framework addresses interoperability challenges among allied forces, strategic and legal considerations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-16T13:29:26Z)
• Incorporating AI Incident Reporting into Telecommunications Law and Policy: Insights from India [0.6875312133832078]
  This paper introduces a precise definition and a detailed typology of telecommunications AI incidents.<n>It argues for their recognition as a distinct regulatory concern.<n>The paper proposes policy recommendations centered on integrating AI incident reporting into India's existing telecom governance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-11T14:50:41Z)
• Embodied AI: Emerging Risks and Opportunities for Policy Action [46.48780452120922]
  Embodied AI (EAI) systems can exist in, learn from, reason about, and act in the physical world.<n>EAI systems pose significant risks, including physical harm from malicious use, mass surveillance, as well as economic and societal disruption.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-28T17:59:07Z)
• Never Compromise to Vulnerabilities: A Comprehensive Survey on AI Governance [211.5823259429128]
  We propose a comprehensive framework integrating technical and societal dimensions, structured around three interconnected pillars: Intrinsic Security, Derivative Security, and Social Ethics.<n>We identify three core challenges: (1) the generalization gap, where defenses fail against evolving threats; (2) inadequate evaluation protocols that overlook real-world risks; and (3) fragmented regulations leading to inconsistent oversight.<n>Our framework offers actionable guidance for researchers, engineers, and policymakers to develop AI systems that are not only robust and secure but also ethically aligned and publicly trustworthy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-12T09:42:56Z)
• In-House Evaluation Is Not Enough: Towards Robust Third-Party Flaw Disclosure for General-Purpose AI [93.33036653316591]
  We call for three interventions to advance system safety.<n>First, we propose using standardized AI flaw reports and rules of engagement for researchers.<n>Second, we propose GPAI system providers adopt broadly-scoped flaw disclosure programs.<n>Third, we advocate for the development of improved infrastructure to coordinate distribution of flaw reports.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-21T05:09:46Z)
• Decoding the Black Box: Integrating Moral Imagination with Technical AI Governance [0.0]
  We develop a comprehensive framework designed to regulate AI technologies deployed in high-stakes domains such as defense, finance, healthcare, and education.<n>Our approach combines rigorous technical analysis, quantitative risk assessment, and normative evaluation to expose systemic vulnerabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-09T03:11:32Z)
• Compliance of AI Systems [0.0]
  This paper systematically examines the compliance of AI systems with relevant legislation, focusing on the EU's AI Act.<n>The analysis highlighted many challenges associated with edge devices, which are increasingly being used to deploy AI applications closer and closer to the data sources.<n>The importance of data set compliance is highlighted as a cornerstone for ensuring the trustworthiness, transparency, and explainability of AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-07T16:53:36Z)
• Securing the AI Frontier: Urgent Ethical and Regulatory Imperatives for AI-Driven Cybersecurity [0.0]
  This paper critically examines the evolving ethical and regulatory challenges posed by the integration of artificial intelligence in cybersecurity.<n>We trace the historical development of AI regulation, highlighting major milestones from theoretical discussions in the 1940s to the implementation of recent global frameworks such as the European Union AI Act.<n>Ethical concerns such as bias, transparency, accountability, privacy, and human oversight are explored in depth, along with their implications for AI-driven cybersecurity systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-15T18:17:37Z)
• Position: Mind the Gap-the Growing Disconnect Between Established Vulnerability Disclosure and AI Security [56.219994752894294]
  We argue that adapting existing processes for AI security reporting is doomed to fail due to fundamental shortcomings for the distinctive characteristics of AI systems.<n>Based on our proposal to address these shortcomings, we discuss an approach to AI security reporting and how the new AI paradigm, AI agents, will further reinforce the need for specialized AI security incident reporting advancements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-19T13:50:26Z)
• How VADER is your AI? Towards a definition of artificial intelligence systems appropriate for regulation [39.58317527488534]
  Recent AI regulation proposals adopt AI definitions affecting ICT techniques, approaches, and systems that are not AI.<n>We propose a framework to score how validated as appropriately-defined for regulation (VADER) an AI definition is.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-07T17:41:15Z)
• The risks of risk-based AI regulation: taking liability seriously [46.90451304069951]
  The development and regulation of AI seems to have reached a critical stage. Some experts are calling for a moratorium on the training of AI systems more powerful than GPT-4. This paper analyses the most advanced legal proposal, the European Union's AI Act.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T12:51:37Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.