Pai Spectrum Horizons Proposal Faces Early Questions
Concerns are already being raised about FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s draft NPRM on spectrum above 95 GHz, which he circulated Thursday for a vote at the Feb. 22 commissioners’ meeting (see 1711130059). Federal agencies like NASA are among those with concerns, government officials said. Michael Marcus, a former FCC engineer and proponent of looking at the extreme high-frequency spectrum, said he appreciates that Pai circulated the draft, but parts need a lot more work.
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.
“It has all sorts of problems,” Marcus said. He filed initial comments at the FCC Friday in new docket 18-21. The FCC didn't comment.
The federal government has access to the spectrum on a co-primary basis, which is true of all bands above 48 GHz except for a few minor amateur radio bands. NASA has operations in at least 18 bands at 100-350 GHz, according to a NASA chart. NASA uses the high-frequency spectrum for environmental monitoring and radio astronomy. A former federal official said the NPRM could be more explicit that the federal government retains access to the spectrum on a co-primary basis -- something not mentioned in the factsheet on the NPRM, but in a footnote to the NPRM itself.
The FCC carves out too much of the spectrum to protect government users without asking hard questions about what protections NASA in particular really needs, Marcus told us. Only a few telescopes in the U.S. need to be protected in a few areas, he said. “Due to the physics of upper spectrum, passive allocations have a much greater impact than at lower bands: there is a much greater fraction of spectrum dedicated to passive bands than in lower spectrum and the passive spectrum allocations chops up or balkanizes the remaining spectrum … in a way with no comparable equivalent in lower spectrum,” said the Marcus filing.
The NPRM also doesn’t really address RF safety in the high-frequency spectrum, Marcus said. “It’s a complicated issue,” he said. “It’s not high on anyone’s list of priorities.” Wireless carriers’ defense against local critics of the danger of cellphones is “federal pre-emption,” Marcus said. FCC determinations on safety also inoculate industry, he said. “With no FCC safety standard it’s more awkward if you get sued and it’s more awkward if you have a zoning problem,” Marcus said.
Michael Calabrese, director of the Wireless Future Program at New America, said he expects lots of skepticism on whether the FCC needs to carve up the spectrum in such a specific way at this early stage.
“The draft NPRM seems to violate basic principles about why the government would regulate spectrum where there is no known problem of scarcity or interference,” Calabrese said. “For example, in proposing to license 36 GHz for a very specific point-to-point purpose, this draft NPRM is claiming to be clairvoyant about what highest and best use lays over the technology horizon. One great benefit of an unlicensed allocation, or relying on experimental licenses, is that it creates innovation bands that do not preclude licensing for a particular purpose down the road, after technologies and business models develop.”