Spectrum Above 95 GHz Getting Its Place in the Regulatory Sun

The FCC is starting to look at the future use of spectrum above 95 GHz, which some had urged years ago (see 1510060037). Office of Engineering and Technology Chief Julius Knapp said last week at the Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee meeting the very high frequency spectrum is in the agency’s crosshairs (see 1708150060). An industry coalition is forming to work with the FCC on access to that spectrum, we learned. Chairman Ajit Pai mentioned spectrum above 95 MHz in a March speech at Carnegie Mellon University’s Software Engineering Institute (see 1703150020).

Michael Marcus, consultant and former FCC engineer, said he met with Pai and Knapp on a proposal to open spectrum above 95 GHz. Marcus said he presented Wednesday on the topic at the International Symposium on Advanced Radio Technologies in Boulder, Colorado. Marcus has long urged the FCC to take a hard look at bands above 95 GHz. The agency didn't comment.

Two petitions have been pending for more than three years on the spectrum, Marcus said. One is by Battelle, filed in 2014, which asked the FCC to amend parts 1 and 101 of its rules to open the 102-109.5 GHz band for fixed point-to-point services (see 1403030054). “The FCC put it out for public comment, it got a handful of comments, none of them opposed, and that was three-and-a-half years ago,” Marcus said. The other petition was filed by IEEE USA in 2013 and asked the federal government to classify the frequency spectrum above 95 GHz as “a new technology or service.” A similar ruling 30 years ago “led to the development of Wi-Fi (IEEE 802.11), a wireless technology that has transformed the way we live, work, and communicate,” IEEE USA said. That also got a few comments, none in opposition, but “hasn’t gone anywhere,” Marcus said. He was a leader on that petition.

Battelle and others have since applied for experimental licenses to use the very high-frequency spectrum, also without success, Marcus said. “Even experimental licenses are getting delayed and hassled and there’s a public record of this,” Marcus said. “Any investor can see that Battelle’s petition went nowhere, that experimental licenses are having bizarre delays and why would anyone invest in this technology if it’s clear that there’s regulatory hostility?” Other experts referred us back to Marcus.

Michael Calabrese, a CSMAC member, said it makes sense to look at the spectrum. "The timing is right for the commission to consider how best to authorize access above 95 GHz,” said Calabrese, director of the Wireless Future Program at New America. “It is most important for the commission to avoid exclusive licenses that would preclude innovative uses of that spectrum in the future. The propagation characteristics suggest an approach that allows for open access and sharing, much as the commission has permitted at 70, 80 and 90 GHz."

Using the spectrum above 95 GHz is complicated, said Doug Brake, senior telecom policy analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. “Moving up much further beyond 95 GHz, spectrum gets really hard to work with. It’s not clear what applications this sort of spectrum might be used for, maybe communications, but more likely spectroscopy stuff,” Brake said. “It’s not clear that we need detailed service rules or even know what those should look like, but that doesn’t mean innovators should face a regulatory limbo. It makes sense to move forward with some basic rules of the road and give those who want to throw R&D money at these bands some certainty.”