January 29, 2016: Additional comments filed in response to a notice of proposed rulemaking adopted last October (TRDaily, Oct. 22, 2015) proposing flexible rules for making four bands above 24 gigahertz available for 5G services have been posted in the FCC’s Electronic Comment Filing System, with additional satellite entities expressing concern about some of the proposals and terrestrial interests seeking some changes.
More than 50 sets of comments have been filed in all. TRDaily reported on the bulk of them yesterday (TRDaily, Jan. 28). The specific bands identified in the NPRM, which followed up on a notice of inquiry adopted in 2014 (TRDaily, Oct. 17, 2014), are the 27.5-28.35 GHz (28 GHz), 37-38.6 GHz (37 GHz), 38.6-40 GHz (39 GHz), and 64-71 GHz bands.
In its comments filed in GN docket 14-177, WT docket 10-112, and IB dockets 97-95 and 15-256, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association urged the FCC to (1) “[a]dopt its proposal to authorize Part 15 unlicensed use of the 64-71 GHz band, subject to an updated version of the technical rules that currently apply in the 57-64 GHz band,” (2) “[a]uthorize opportunistic unlicensed use of the 28, 37, and 39 GHz bands where and when licensed users are not operating, subject to coordination with a database to provide licensees with protection from harmful interference,” (3) “[n]ot adopt a hybrid local area/wide area licensing scheme for the 37 GHz band,” and (4) “[e]xpeditiously issue a further notice of proposed rulemaking regarding additional millimeter wave bands, including those first identified in the NOI.”
Huawei Technologies, Inc., (USA) and Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. said “that the Commission should give strong consideration to adding the 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz bands (or the ‘E-band’) to the bands that will be authorized for mobile services as the band similarly satisfies the suitability criteria for mobile use. … Huawei considers the E-band to be ideally suited for high-density licensed commercial mobile use and, in certain respects, has characteristics as favorable as the lower mmW bands proposed in the NPRM for future anticipated 5G mobile services.”
The filing also stressed “the importance of security in relation to the myriad of services and applications that 5G technologies will make possible, with appropriate features built into system designs.”
XO Communications LLC said it “generally supports the various elements of the Commission’s proposed licensing and regulatory framework for the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service (‘UMFUS’), but favors certain adjustments to these proposed rules and policies. In particular, the Commission should extend its UMFUS framework to the entire Local Multipoint Distribution Service (‘LMDS’) band, rather than just the portion of LMDS spectrum identified in the NPRM. On this issue, the Commission should not be deterred by recent activities at the International Telecommunication Union’s World Radiocommunication Conference 2015. Application of flexible use policies to the LMDS band in the United States will spur innovation and generate enormous public interest benefits, setting an example for the rest of the world.”
XO added that the FCC should “maintain its existing geographic license areas in the LMDS and 39 GHz bands rather than move to county-based licensing, and to adopt a less onerous population coverage requirement in this early stage of 5G mobile development. In any order in this proceeding, the Commission should clarify how incumbent licensees’ existing authorizations – including LMDS and 39 GHz licenses – will transition to the Commission’s new flexible-use regulatory framework.”
The Global VSAT Forum (GVF) noted that the WRC-15 decided not to study the 28 GHz band for 5G use ahead of the WRC-19.
“However we note that the NPRM has proposed to authorize mobile operations in the 27.5-28.35 GHz Ka-band (the ‘28 GHz band’),” it said, adding that the Commission should “reconsider its position in light of the decision of the WRC with regard to the 28 GHz band and consider alternative bands for IMT in the United States.”
GVF said the FCC should instead consider the following bands for 5G services: the 24.25-27.5 GHz, 31.8-33.4 GHz, and 45.5-47.2 GHz bands. The WRC-15 agreed to study each of these bands for 5G use ahead of the WRC-19.
“The Commission at a minimum should elevate individually licensed FSS earth stations in the 28 GHz band to co-primary status,” GVF said. “The demand for satellite broadband services requires the deployment of multiple earth stations which perform aggregation and interconnection of customer terminals to the Internet. Such earth stations communicate with satellites and provide Internet or backhaul connectivity to customers. It is thus critical that FSS operators be allowed to continue deploying FSS earth stations in the band and have certainty that they will be able to access the 28 GHz spectrum on a secure basis in the future, so that they can provide broadband services with data rates comparable with terrestrial deployments.”
O3b Limited noted that it has deployed a global system that relies on 28 GHz Ka-band spectrum.
It said that it “has to date been able to work within the constraints of the U.S. treatment of FSS as secondary to FS in this band. But O3b may have to eliminate or restrict service if it is required to operate secondary to terrestrial mobile services. If the FCC permits mobile service in the 27.5-28.35 GHz band (‘the 28 GHz band’), it should do so in a way that does not negate or impair the enormous investments satellite operators and their customers have made to expand broadband service. It must also provide a clear and assured path for future investment and growth in satellite services.
“The NPRM’s proposal to assign terrestrial mobile licenses by geographic area would impair existing satellite services and inhibit future growth, even while leaving the mmW bands unused in large areas,” O3b added. “Geographic licensing is inappropriate for mmW bands that, in a mobile deployment, may cover the area of a city block (or two) even with a clear line of sight. The NPRM acknowledges the need for mmW policy to account for this property of the mmW bands. … If the FCC permits mobile service in the mmW bands, and in the 28 GHz band in particular, it should do so on a traditional site-licensed basis. … Applications for new facilities (or clusters of facilities) should protect licensed facilities and conform to general operating parameters established by industry consensus and incorporated in the FCC’s rules. Any mutual exclusivity should be resolved first through coordination and, failing coordination, through auction, as required by the FCC’s auction authority.”
Inmarsat Mobile Networks, Inc., expressed concern “that the Commission’s proposed rule changes in the 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and 39 GHz bands will deprive its constellation of the spectrum it needs to provide, expand, and enhance its services. If adopted without change, these draft rules would place at risk mission-critical communications that support aid organizations, critical sectors of the global economy, and the U.S. military. They would frustrate billions of dollars of investment capital sunk into advanced satellite networks, including Global Xpress, and threaten continued innovation in satellite services in the United States and across the globe. And they would hinder new networks—including the terrestrial broadband networks and the Internet-of-Things (‘IoT’) the Commission wishes to promote—from realizing the full potential made possible by heterogeneous solutions that capitalize on the coverage, reliability, and security only satellite networks can provide.”
Inmarsat added that “to provide FSS operators with the certainty they need to continue, expand, and enhance their services, the Commission should automatically upgrade FSS earth stations to co-primary status in the 28 GHz band, and retain the co-primary allocation for FSS earth stations in the 39 GHz and 37 GHz bands. The Commission should, at the very least, grant co-primary status to all gateway earth stations authorized to operate at the time of the Commission’s first flexible use auction in the 28 GHz band, provided that the earth station can demonstrate that it will not cause harmful interference to existing terrestrial services.”
The Boeing Company said “the Commission should reconsider its apparent decision to authorize 5G mobile operations in the 27.5-28.35 GHz Ka-band (‘28 GHz band’). Instead, the Commission should expand the authority of satellite services to operate in this spectrum on a primary basis. The Commission should also refrain from introducing 5G technologies in the 37-38.6 GHz (‘37 GHz band’) and the 38.6-40 GHz band (‘39 GHz band’) until the international community has completed the studies called for by the 2015 World Radiocommunication Conference on the potential use of the 37 and 39 GHz bands for satellite, 5G terrestrial, or a combination of both services.
“The Commission should adopt its longstanding proposal to authorize fixed satellite service (‘FSS’) operations in the 42.0-42.5 GHz band,” Boeing added. “This band is contiguous with an existing FSS allocation and could be used effectively and efficiently for this purpose. FSS is also well prepared to protect adjacent radioastronomy operations, such as through the use of spot beams to selectively transmit to limited geographic areas. The Commission can also make the most of limited spectrum is by extending its rules for the FSS to permit the use of transmit/receive terminals on mobile platforms in the 28 GHz band.”
Boeing also said it “supports expanding the spectrum that is available for Part 15 unlicensed operations. Permitting Part 15 operations in the 64-71 GHz band by non-federal users will provide more opportunities for the development and marketing of industrial and consumer equipment that utilize unlicensed wireless communications for function and user control. Likewise, authorizing Part 15 operations in the 57-71 GHz band on board aircraft can benefit airline passengers and aircraft operators while continuing to protect radio astronomy services.”
Echodyne Corp., a developer of radar technology, said, “Identifying new frequency bands for future innovation and service deployment is an important goal, and one that Echodyne shares with the Commission. As the Commission proceeds on this path, it should ensure that its actions continue to protect radionavigation services, which will be essential to important technological developments in the near-term.” – Paul Kirby, paul.kirby@wolterskluwer.com
Courtesy TRDaily