OTI-WiFu reply comments defending unlicensed spectrum against LTE-U services

The Open Technology Institute at New America, Public Knowledge, Free Press, and Common Cause submit reply comments in the matter of Office of Engineering and Technology and Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seek Information on Current Trends in LTE-U and LAA Technology (ET Docket No. 15-105)

Click here to download the full comments as a PDF. 

The
Open Technology Institute at New America, Public Knowledge, Free Press and
Common Cause (collectively the “Public Interest Organizations”) submit these
Reply Comments in response to the Commission’s Public Notice in the proceeding referenced above.

The Public Interest Organizations
commend the Commission for this effort to understand the potential consequences
of the use and control of unlicensed spectrum as ancillary to a
license-anchored carrier network. Two of our organizations previously filed ex parte letters in the 3.5 GHz
proceeding, expressing concerns about the potential adverse impact of LTE-Unlicensed/Licensed
Assisted Access (LTE-U/LAA) on consumers using Wi-Fi as well as the obvious
incentives for anti-competitive behavior inherent in a technology designed to
rely on a control channel anchored in expensive licensed spectrum. Accordingly, our groups file these Reply
Comments to help inform the Commission as it considers what steps are needed to
ensure that all technologies and users have fair access to the nation’s
unlicensed spectrum commons.

I. Introduction and Summary

The large and rapidly rising increase in
consumer benefit from wireless broadband Internet access in the U.S. has rested
on the separate but complementary roles of access to licensed and unlicensed
spectrum. The use of Wi-Fi to offload a majority of mobile device traffic has
ushered in a revolution in efficient small cell spectrum re-use. Coexistence
features appropriate to a shared spectrum commons have led to worldwide Wi-Fi
standards that promote spectrum re-use, open entry, decentralized investment, innovation
and competition. Economic studies estimate Wi-Fi’s value to the U.S. economy
exceeds $200 billion annually. To keep this engine of consumer welfare growing,
it would be wise to observe the regulatory version of the Hippocratic Oath:
first, do no harm to the commons.

Coexistence and fair-sharing standards
are built into Wi-Fi’s DNA – and without them it would not be such a boon to
consumers and the economy. Although these features impose an “overhead” cost on
Wi-Fi throughput, this is more than offset by the fact that at low power many
different users can coexist and occupy the same frequencies in a relatively
small area – and without the need for centralized coordination or control. This
“connectivity without permission” is a key ingredient in Wi-Fi’s success in
spurring both innovation and widespread deployment by individuals and business
establishments at the end points of the Internet.

In contrast, LTE-U/LAA is designed to be
centrally controlled by a network anchored in a separate, exclusively-licensed frequency band. 3GPP, the mobile industry
standards body, may ultimately design LAA in a manner that shares fairly with
Wi-Fi and other unlicensed technologies; yet several studies filed by
commenters demonstrate that the version of LTE-U that U.S. carriers plan to
deploy by next year coexists poorly with Wi-Fi, degrading both throughput and
latency (delay). OTI and PK agree with a number of other comments concluding
that fair coexistence will be possible only if LAA implements Listen Before Talk
(LBT) effectively, ideally through a consensus process with IEEE 802.11. Unfortunately, the 3GPP standard-setting
process does not appear to be on a course toward fair coexistence.

The Public Interest Organizations are
particularly concerned that mobile
carriers will have both the ability and strong incentives to use LTE-U and LAA
to engage in anti-competitive behavior harmful to consumers, while for the
first time being able to charge consumers for the use of unlicensed spectrum. Carriers also have powerful incentives to use
LTE-U to deter mobile market entry by “Wi-Fi First” providers, such as wireline
ISPs. Carriers deploying LTE-U will have the apparent option to adjust their
access points to introduce just enough latency to frustrate consumer use of
real-time applications, such as video calling. This anti-competitive
counterattack against Wi-Fi as a carrier substitute is particularly acute and
immediate with respect to LTE-U. Moreover,
mobile carriers deploying LTE-U and LAA operators will entirely avoid
the ill-effects of any resulting poor coexistence on unlicensed bands, since
they can shift their users and traffic at will to their exclusive, licensed
spectrum.

The
Public Interest Organizations are also concerned that both LTE-U and LAA are
designed to be centrally controlled by a network anchored in a separate, exclusively-licensed frequency
band. LTE-U and LAA are radically
different from any current unlicensed technology, all of which operate wholly
in unlicensed spectrum on a standalone basis. If, as a result, access to
licensed frequencies becomes a de facto prerequisite for successful use of
unlicensed spectrum, such an outcome would not only foreclose competition from
“Wi-Fi First” market entrants, but could also foreclose the ability of many
individual firms, retail outlets, municipalities, schools, libraries, community
groups and even some individual homeowners and apartment dwellers to
“disintermediate” the wireless industry owners holding exclusive government
licenses for mobile spectrum. “Connectivity without permission” – the hallmark
of the Wi-Fi revolution – could be snuffed out if the Commission effectively
concurs in giving license-anchored carrier networks superior rights to occupy
and exclude others from fair use of unlicensed spectrum wherever it best serves
such licensees’ business strategy.

The Public Interest Organizations further
observe that Qualcomm has strong patent
licensing incentives to promote licensed carrier-based unlicensed technologies
in a manner that crowds out or disadvantages Wi-Fi deployments. A major
patent-holding company like Qualcomm stands to make more licensing revenues,
block more competitors, and monopolize more strongly a field based on a
standard promulgated by 3GPP than one based on a standard promulgated by IEEE.
Patent licensing thus creates an incentive for pushing for greater adoption of
LAA, and inhibiting use of Wi-Fi, the IEEE standard. Indeed, Qualcomm has
already declared that it is pulling itself out of the Wi-Fi standard-setting
process in view of IEEE’s amended patent policy, saying that it “will not make
licensing commitments under the new policy.”

The Public Interest
Organizations support the recommendations suggested by NCTA, which urge the
Commission to: (1) convene a meeting of
the Chief of the Office of Engineering and Technology and a representative
group of licensed carriers and the unlicensed community to initiate a process
to establish effective sharing mechanisms; (2) establish a working group
composed of Commission staff and engineers from interested parties to carry
forth this work after this initial meeting in weekly meetings; (3) seek monthly
status reports from IEEE and 3GPP on the progress of coordination between these
bodies on establishing effective sharing; and (4) ensure that licensees do not
launch non-standard versions of LTE-U until these processes have been completed
to the Commission’s satisfaction. The Public Interest Organizations further
recommend that the Commission also consider, as part of this collaborative
process, seeking agreement among the parties for public and transparent testing
first of LTE-U and later LAA equipment under a variety of Wi-Fi deployment
scenarios, as well as in conjunction with deployment of Bluetooth and other
unlicensed technologies.

The Commission
has adopted strong rules to preserve and nurture the Internet’s core value of
“innovation without permission.” It likewise should preserve the collaborative culture
of “connectivity without permission” on the open and shared unlicensed bands
that have proved so valuable for innovation, free speech and the U.S. economy.
The slogan “technological neutrality” must not become a glib rationale for
technology designed to make control of licensed frequencies a de facto prerequisite for successful use
of the unlicensed spectrum where license-anchored services operate.