7/2 Reply Comments on Rules to Maximize Unlicensed Use of 5.9 GHz Band

New America's Open Technology Institute wrote and filed reply comments alongside Public Knowledge (OTI and PK) with the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) responding to arguments in the record regarding the technical rules for the 5.9 GHz band as the Commission opens up 45 megahertz of spectrum in the band for unlicensed use. In the reply comments, OTI and PK reiterated arguments made in initial comments filed in June, including the importance of adopting power levels that harmonize the rules for the 5.9 GHz band with those that oversee unlicensed devices operating in incumbent and soon-to-be-available Wi-Fi bands to ensure the full potential of the band is achieved and restricting any auto safety operations that stay operational in the 5.9 GHz band to only operating safety services. Further, OTI and PK rebut self-interested and legally and logistically flawed arguments from DSRC and auto industry interests seeking repayments for transitioning to C-V2X operations in the upper 30 megahertz of the band.

Available below is an introduction and summary of the reply comments:

The record shows diverse and strong support for common-sense rules in the 5.9 GHz band that will ensure the 45 megahertz of spectrum the Commission is opening up for unlicensed use fully supports a contiguous, high-capacity Wi-Fi band.

First, the record strongly supports the Commission’s proposal to allow indoor U-NII-4 devices to operate at a 23 dBm/MHz or 36 dBm radiated power level for all bandwidths. Adopting this proposal would ensure that the 160 megahertz the Commission is making available across the U-NII-3 and U-NII-4 bands can support the higher throughput and lower latency required for next-generation applications and services in any location with sufficient fixed backhaul.

Second, the record strongly supports moving the Commission’s proposal to eliminate the prohibition on client-to-client communications both indoors or outdoors at power levels up to at least the limitation of 23 dBm EIRP forward (or whatever is ultimately established for C-V2X on-board units). With the coming of Wi-Fi 6, client-to-client data communication will become even more paramount to support a wide range of emerging applications and use cases such as augmented reality, virtual reality, and services that are yet to be invented. Removing this unnecessary burden would allow devices to no longer rely on access points (APs).

Third, the record strongly supports the Commission’s proposal to allow the operation of full Wi-Fi power for outdoor use by U-NII-4 devices under the same governing rules as the U-NII-3 band. Adopting this proposal will free this 45 megahertz of spectrum from automotive purgatory, allowing this underutilized spectrum to help bridge the digital divide in rural, Tribal, and other hard-to-serve areas where WISPs and other local providers require additional unlicensed capacity. The record highlights the reality that exclusion zones may not even be necessary to shield federal radar operations from harmful interference, which eliminates one of the only justifications for maintaining exclusion zones. Similarly, there is strong support for allowing portable devices to operate in any location at power levels of 23 dBm EIRP at least.

Fourth, OTI and PK strongly urge the Commission to reject self-interested demands that the Commission establish a mechanism to compensate incumbent licensees for the costs they incurred to convert DSRC to C-V2X technology and to move to the upper 5.9 GHz band. As a matter of law, incumbents are not entitled to reimbursement and the current proceeding bears little resemblance to any of the previous circumstances under which the Commission exercised its discretion to reimburse incumbents for relocating their spectrum facilities. Here, commenters seek reimbursement for the expense of converting DSRC to C-V2X technology, not relocating their services to the upper part of the 5.9 GHz band. Regardless of whether the Commission opens up the 5.9 GHz band for unlicensed use, these are expenses commenters would incur because DSRC technology has failed by no fault of the Commission or unlicensed technology. Moreover, collecting reimbursement expenses from unlicensed providers is impractical and would set a dangerous precedent.

Finally, the record demonstrates broad agreement that the Commission should restrict any automotive activity in the 5.9 GHz to safety purposes. The band was specifically allocated to auto interests for the sole purpose of administering road safety. There is no reason why the Commission should allow ITS licensees to use spectrum licenses they received for free to support commercial activity when they can bid on and acquire exclusive spectrum licenses to support those services elsewhere.