Cisco Sees 5 GHz Band as Key to Future of Wi-Fi, Spectrum Sharing
The FCC should reject petitions from wireless ISPs seeking looser restrictions on operations in the 5 GHz U-NII-1 and U-NII-3, Cisco said in a filing at the FCC. But Cisco’s arguments were countered by the owners of numerous WISPs concerned about the rule change.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The FCC sought comment in July on seven petitions for reconsideration of its March 31 order that opens up the 5.1 GHz band for Wi-Fi and other unlicensed use (http://fcc.us/XffL9d). The order also harmonizes rules for this new U-NII-1 band with rules for the U-NII-3 band. Cambium Networks, JAB Wireless and the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association questioned the strict out-of-band emissions limits in the higher-powered 5.8 GHz region of the band (http://bit.ly/WNa5U2). Oppositions were due Thursday.
Cisco views the 5 GHz band as critical to the future of Wi-Fi, allowing for broad channels, and as a key test case for sharing and what happens when things go wrong in a shared band, said Mary Brown, Cisco director-spectrum policy, in an interview Thursday. “This issue is like the proverbial canary in the coal mine,” Brown said. “If it is not addressed appropriately, it could signal trouble down the line."
The FCC’s March order recognizes that “certain unlicensed U-NII devices” had caused interference to Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR), radars that tell airports when bad weather is approaching, which are located at major U.S. airports and operate in the 5.60-5.65 GHz band. An FCC investigation found that some WISPs were using radios that did not have technology to avoid radars, retuning them to operate in the TDWR band.
The FCC order “represents an important first step in the Commission’s efforts to reposition the 5 GHz band to meet the growing demand for unlicensed spectrum in a regulatory environment that facilitates sharing with incumbent users,” Cisco said in a filing posted Thursday in docket 13-49 (http://bit.ly/VmVRbf). “Achieving that goal requires on the part of the Commission a careful balancing of a wide range of disparate interests, and it requires on the part of each unlicensed industry segment a willingness to compromise its own self-interest so as to maximize the shared use of the band.”
Cisco argues that WISPs need to change how they operate to avoid problems like those in the TDWR band. It’s “particularly disappointing” that some WISPs “largely responsible for the U-NII-2C abuses” the FCC wants to end “appear disinclined to accept their share of the responsibility for promoting sharing of the 5 GHz band,” Cisco said.
Cisco also opposed petitions by Motorola Solutions and Cambium asking that equipment certificated under the looser rules of Section 15.247 of FCC rules be allowed to operate indefinitely. “This is the very U-NII-3 equipment that was illegally modified by WISPs ... that clearly caused interference to TDWR,” Cisco said.
"This issue is about what should happen when things go wrong in a shared band,” Brown said Thursday. “In 5 GHz, the consequences of bad acts in the TDWR band flowed to everyone and caused 50 MHz of spectrum to be closed. Now that the FCC has re-opened the spectrum with its new rules, the reconsideration round has emerged with a narrow focus -- who bears responsibility for addressing problems and making sure the band can continue to be used?” Many stakeholders had a part to play in causing the problem “and many stakeholders should do their part to find a workable solution,” she said.
WISPA did not file comments, a spokesman said. Numerous WISPs and their customers filed in the docket expressing their support for the WISPA petition.
WISPs play an important role as an alternative to major ISPs, said Mike Lyon, CEO of Ridge Wireless in Cupertino, California. FCC adoption of more stringent standards means WISPs would have to pass the costs down to their users “some of which live paycheck to paycheck as it is and can’t afford any extra costs,” Lyon said in a filing(http://bit.ly/1vO7atJ).
Adam Greene, CEO of webjogger in upstate New York, said he understood the FCC’s concerns with interference. But the revised rules could have “the unintended side effect of putting operations like ours out of business, and moving affordable, high quality access further out of the reach of a primarily rural market,” Greene told the FCC (http://bit.ly/1oMYcD6). Beth Schiller, owner of CvWireless, also in upstate New York, told the FCC the revised rules could put her out of business (http://bit.ly/1uy8krx). Before she launched her business, many in her area had dial-up service as the only option for accessing the Internet, Schiller said. (hbuskirk@warren-news.com)