Wi-Fi Advocates Raise Concerns on NHTSA Proposal for 5.9 GHz Band

Industry groups and companies, eager to gain access to the 5.9 GHz band for Wi-Fi, raised concerns about a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration rulemaking notice on dedicated short-range communications (DSRC) technology and other vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications. But auto industry commenters said the technologies that would be allowed as a result of new rules are critical to public safety. Public interest and free-market groups were on the same page on the 5.9 GHz issue. There was speculation early in the Trump administration the White House might kill the rulemaking (see 1612130050), released in December in the late days of the Obama presidency. Comments were posted in docket NHTSA-2016-0126.

“The Department of Transportation should quickly determine how many DSRC channels are needed for V2V and other time-sensitive safety communications and then let the FCC do its job to facilitate sharing of the remainder of the band with Wi-Fi users for commercial and safety-related but not time-critical applications,” said Michael Calabrese, director of the Wireless Future Program at New America. “Our comments conclude that separating the two or three DSRC channels needed for real-time safety signaling, while sharing the remaining channels with Wi-Fi, strikes the best balance between the public’s interest in both crash avoidance and faster, more affordable broadband connectivity.” Calabrese also told us NHTSA’s proposed plan would require all V2V signaling to occur on a single, dedicated DSRC channel of 10 MHz. Calabrese said FCC action is unlikely before the Office of Engineering and Technology wraps up the current round of interference tests.

Ajit Pai, before being named FCC chairman, supported opening up the 5.9 GHz band to unlicensed use, said Roger Entner, analyst at Recon Analytics. "I don't see any obvious reasons why Chairman Pai would reconsider his position."

The 5.9 band “is one of many issues that has been languishing at the FCC for too many years,” said Richard Bennett, network architect and free-market blogger. “Several years ago, Qualcomm proposed a resolution that would enable automakers and Wi-Fi users to get what they need. At the time, the proposal was thought to be too late but years have passed with no action from the FCC. Clearing the docket of issues that have been gathering dust should be a priority.”

“Vehicle connectivity promises to play an important and integrated role in crash prevention and easing traffic congestion, and that can result in improved safety and mobility as well as reduced greenhouse gas emissions,” the Auto Alliance said in a statement. The alliance urged NHTSA to release a Supplemental NPRM allowing automakers to provide further comment. “This SNPRM should include more specifics than the current proposal on critical topics including test criteria and the Security Credential Management System,” the group said.

"As vehicles become more connected and automated, it is important that the policy environment support the deployment of this lifesaving technology,” said John Bozzella, president of Global Automakers, in a statement. “This is smart regulation that will make our roadways safer and create a competitive marketplace for further safety applications. … Our roads will be shared by various levels of automated and conventional vehicles. V2V and the safety spectrum are the code that will connect this network and ensure vehicles can communicate in the same language without interference.” An FCC official and others also discussed V2V at a separate event Thursday (see 1704130019).

Groups representing automakers and others in the transportation sphere filed comments through the Safety Spectrum Coalition. "The advancements represented by DSRC are especially timely and important," the coalition said. "Preliminary 2016 data from the National Safety Council estimates that as many as 40,000 people died as a result of motor vehicle crashes last year. That marks a 14 percent increase over 2014, the most dramatic two-year escalation since 1964." The proposed rule "provides the regulatory framework and certainty necessary to drive not only substantial and rapid light-duty fleet deployment of V2V technology, but also spur innovation, competition, and deployment in the aftermarket and infrastructure industries to bring even further safety benefits to our roads," the coalition said.

Public Knowledge, New America’s Open Technology Institute and Consumer Federation of America said DSRC as proposed in the NPRM raises big privacy and security issues that are never addressed. The risks grow if the spectrum is used for commercial purposes rather just for safety, the groups said. “Real-time V2V safety-of-life applications are inherently narrowband and designed to require only a fraction of the 75 megahertz of spectrum currently allocated for [intelligent transportation] and DSRC technology,” the filing said.

“The 5.9 GHz band is critical to next-generation wireless broadband. Unfortunately, the NPRM engages in faulty analysis to arrive at a misguided proposal that would threaten a critical part of the country’s wireless future,” NCTA commented. "NCTA therefore urges NHTSA to (1) amend its cost-benefit analysis to properly account for the costs its mandate would impose on broadband consumers and investors; and (2) consider how it can advance vehicle safety while supporting the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) efforts to permit efficient, shared use of the 5.9 GHz band.”

The Competitive Enterprise Institute said NHTSA puts far too much emphasis on DSRC and the deployment of roadside equipment (RSE). “At a time where state and local transportation infrastructure facilities face large maintenance backlogs, approaching reconstruction needs, and uncertain funding, NHTSA’s failure to adequately consider fiscal burdens in its analysis of alternatives is troubling,” CEI commented. “Further, questions remain as to NHTSA’s authority to even regulate the public RSE network.” Many past auto safety mandates such as seat belts, air bags, and backup cameras "involved ideas for which there were no other obvious alternatives on the horizon,” the Cato Institute wrote. “While they may or may not have been cost-effective, they at least had the virtue of not forestalling new and better technologies. The V2V mandate doesn’t have that virtue.”