5-0 Vote Expected on 6 GHz Order, With Few Tweaks, No Major Changes

Commissioners are expected Thursday to approve 5-0 an order and Further NPRM allowing unlicensed sharing throughout 6 GHz, FCC and industry officials said in interviews last week. A few tweaks are anticipated, but no material changes, despite widespread concerns raised by many groups about harmful interference from indoor devices that don’t use automated frequency control (AFC). Chairman Ajit Pai said agency engineers fully vetted the technology and believe sharing doesn’t pose a risk to the huge number of incumbents across the 1,200 megahertz (see 2004060062).

Former officials said the discussion could look similar to the 5-0 clearance of proposed rules for the 5.9 GHz band in December (see 1912120058). CTIA pushed the FCC to rethink its approach and is hinting at litigation. Current officials said the CTIA opposition came too late to turn the tide. NAB, the National Spectrum Managers Associations and others hope for a few changes (see 2004160051).

“CTIA has supported the introduction of unlicensed use in portions of the 6 GHz band, subject to a robust interference protection regime, since this issue has been under study, starting with the FCC’s mid-band inquiry in 2017,” Scott Bergmann, senior vice president-regulatory affairs, told us. “Based on a review of the record and the draft order, the failure to include any mechanism to locate and stop harmful interference puts at risk life-saving and other critical licensed operations.”

CTIA made closing arguments in a filing posted Friday in docket 18-295, reporting on calls with General Counsel Tom Johnson and aides to Pai and Commissioners Brendan Carr and Geoffrey Starks. “When unlicensed shares in licensed bands, Commission precedent requires an effective mechanism to promptly track and root out harmful interference” like AFC, the group said: “Commission rules require that unlicensed devices must not cause harmful interference to licensed services, and to cease such interference if it occurs.”

Advocates of the order expect few substantial changes. Critics heard little to lend expectations to big ones. There's still hope, they said, and others called the draft a good balance where few get all they want.

Concerns

Senate Energy Committee Chairman Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, urged the FCC to delay its vote until after the U.S. “recovers from” the COVID-19 pandemic and the commission “engages in a meaningful way” with the Department of Energy, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and other electric sector stakeholders. “At a time when the burden on utilities and emergency responders should be reduced in order to devote greater resources to their” pandemic response, the FCC “is instead forcing them to allocate time and resources” to the rulemaking, Murkowski wrote Pai Thursday. She faulted him for taking “seven months to reply to” her concerns, noting he “did not address my questions about how the FCC has been cooperating with regulators and experts in the energy industry to ensure that this FCC proposal will not impact essential communications. I can only assume that the lack of response is because the FCC has failed to adequately cooperate or consult with these entities.” Pai said in his January response the FCC was meeting with DOE and FERC on the rulemaking (see 2001240053).

The Utilities Technology Council has "submitted multiple reports and evidence demonstrating why incumbent users in the band need a strong AFC to protect against likely interference in all levels of the band,” a spokesperson emailed. “We are hopeful that the commission will reconsider that aspect." UTC hopes "the FCC will assert oversight over the multi-stakeholder working group and provide adequate representation of incumbents.”

Big players continue to oppose the FCC's biggest call -- allowing low-power use without AFC. The FCC took a more aggressive stance than in the initial NPRM, allowing use throughout the spectrum. Los Angeles wrote “to add its voice to those expressing concern about potential and harmful interference,” said a Friday posting. AFC is needed “to protect the City’s public safety and utility operations until it is documented that no harmful interference will arise,” the city said. Best Best lawyer Gerard Lederer, who made the filing, told us the city is “very worried about the potential for interference.”

In comments over the past few weeks, “there’s nothing substantively different from the arguments these same entities made before,” said Chris Szymanski, Broadcom director-product marketing and global government affairs. “I’m not seeing any new data that would substantiate a change.” Broadcom would have liked a more aggressive approach on mobile portable devices, and no one got everything they were looking for, he said.

“This order represents a tremendous effort by the FCC staff to achieve … Pai’s directive to maximize the 6 GHz public interest benefit based on physics and sound engineering analysis,” said Alex Roytblat, senior director-regulatory affairs at the Wi-Fi Alliance. “No party in the proceeding got everything they asked for, but this decision strikes the right balance.”

Efforts to roll back key parts of the proposed rules aren’t gaining traction, said Michael Calabrese, director of the Wireless Future Program at New America: “NAB’s proposal to exclude the top 80 MHz of the band for their exclusive use seems to meeting particular disdain,” he said. “Commissioners appear to agree that the innovative power limit for indoor-only use, based on power spectral density, is both very protective of utility and other high-power fixed links, while also encouraging use of the very high-capacity 80 and 160 MHz channels that will make Wi-Fi 6 so much more beneficial than today’s Wi-Fi,” he said. An NAB spokesperson earlier said the group is hopeful.