IoT, Disaster Items Got FCC Changes From Drafts

The FCC notice of inquiry on future spectrum needs of the IoT was changed from the draft to ask whether rules or standards were slowing progress. Our review is based on a side-by-side comparison of the NOI's final and draft versions. The disaster preparedness NPRM also saw changes, as discussed by FCC officials Thursday (see 2109300069). Both were posted in Friday's Daily Digest.

“To the extent any desirable bands have different levels of encumbrances, what steps can be taken to make such spectrum available for IoT?” the draft asked. The final version, cleared 4-0 before Thursday’s meeting, added the phrase “including existing rules or standards for incumbent protection.”

The change was made at the urging of Commissioner Brendan Carr, FCC officials said Friday: It relates in part to his call for a look at unlicensed use of the U-NII-2C band (5470-5725 MHz) (see 2107130066). U-NII-2C potentially offers 255 MHz for unlicensed use but goes unused because of “costly and cumbersome technical restraints … designed to protect federal operations,” Carr said in March.

A second change is in a brief section on digital equality and asked about authority. “We seek comment on how topics discussed herein may promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility,” both versions said. The final NOI also sought comment on “the scope of the Commission’s relevant legal authority.”

Acting Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel and Commissioner Geoffrey Starks released statements. Rosenworcel mentioned the potential inhibiting effect of regulation. “We ask how we can ensure spectrum availability keeps pace with demand,” she said: “We seek comment on addressing regulatory barriers that may inadvertently impede access to spectrum for IoT deployments.”

Starks warned of negative economic implications of IoT growth. “As IoT becomes dominant in various sectors, it will eliminate many jobs that are predominantly occupied by women or people of color,” he said: “Increased automation and digitalization in manufacturing, agricultural supply chains, and inventory management can eliminate jobs held disproportionately by these groups. Thus, even as we encourage IoT’s growth, we must also acknowledge and address the need to train and reskill our fellow Americans.”

The disaster preparedness NPRM saw differences on roaming under the voluntary wireless network resiliency cooperative framework. Questions were added after the draft circulated. “Are there conditions or other criteria that could be incorporated into the Framework to determine that, once met, roaming should be available automatically in qualifying disaster areas?” the final item asked. A question was added: “Have there been instances where roaming requests have been unreasonably denied or responses to such requests have been unreasonably delayed, or where the roaming-related provisions of the Framework did not work as intended?”

The final document asked about recommendations (see 2109280051) of the Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee’s Disaster Response and Recovery Working Group on “coordination with local governments and building and maintaining formal relationships across industry and government stakeholders.” The draft didn’t mention the BDAC report, written during the last administration (see 2010290057).

On electricity cuts, the final text wrapped in the work of the Cross-Sector Resiliency Forum, which promotes discussions between providers and electric utilities. The NPRM cited a June letter by CTIA, NCTA, USTelecom and the Edison Electric Institute.

A question was added on 911 outages. “We also seek comment on steps the Commission can take to increase its situational awareness of the state of 911 and other emergency services,” the NPRM stated. The power outage section added a paragraph. “We also seek comment on the Commission’s existing requirements for covered 911 service providers to implement reasonable central-office backup power measures,” the final version said: “Are there steps the Commission can take, such as revisions to our resiliency rules or encouraging of voluntary measures, to make it more likely that [public safety answering points] will have the necessary resources to continue service during and after disasters?”