TLPS Proposal a Chance To Clarify Licensed/Unlicensed Relationship, PK Says
Public Knowledge used Globalstar's proposed terrestrial low-power service (TLPS) proceeding to swipe at Qualcomm, which backs LTE-U that groups like PK and the cable industry contend can interfere with Wi-Fi. PK said the FCC should use Globalstar's TLPS proceeding as an opportunity to make it clear unlicensed is "equal to, not subordinate to, licensed spectrum," in a filing posted Friday in dockets 13-213 and 15-105. That wouldn't recast Part 15 rules on interference, Public Knowledge said. Instead it would add to "a steady evolution in the Commission's thinking" illustrated by its 2013 order approving Progeny's E-911 locator service for commercial use in the 902-928 MHz band (see 1306070030), PK said.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Since Communications Act Section 333 rules prohibit "knowingly or maliciously" causing interference, a decision on Globalstar's TLPS -- or a stand-alone declaratory ruling -- would be a good place for making clear "knowingly" includes deploying or using a device that creates "unacceptable" interference levels as defined in the Progeny order, Public Knowledge said. That wouldn't mean any new protections that would supersede the agency's Part 15 rules -- which say unlicensed devices must accept interference regardless of the source of that interference -- but would mean violations of Section 333 that cause interference to Part 15 devices would be a violation, PK said.
Claiming the proposed TLPS service would give Globalstar "a uniquely privileged position against other users of the 2.4 GHz Part 15 band," PK repeated its argument that Wi-Fi channel 14 should be open to unlicensed users. Barring that, it said, a "use or share" condition should let Part 15 users have access to channel 14 under the same rules as TLPS until deployment of TLPS in a particular geographic area. Regardless, the FCC should consider Globalstar's evidence that TLPS helps alleviate congestion on Part 15 Wi-Fi systems, PK said. "While this does not confer the same benefit as allowing all traffic to use Channel 14, it does potentially confer significant benefit to the unlicensed space."
The filing "is another step forward, offering creative and thoughtful insights, including the acknowledgment that TLPS 'does potentially confer significant benefit to the unlicensed space,'" Globalstar said in a statement Friday. The company said it "has made it a priority to meet with the parties interested in the TLPS proceeding to find common ground," it said. "We are particularly grateful for the productive dialogue we've had with the public interest community, and our September 10 filing reflected a number of their ideas. We hope it will help the FCC move forward promptly to adopt the rules it proposed over two years ago. The FCC’s new rules will enable us to increase broadband capacity quickly and relieve significant wireless congestion."
The agency, when certifying Part 15 devices, also needs to look at the controls in place to ensure it doesn't cause unacceptable interference, Public Knowledge said. It then pointed to dueling LAA/LTE-U standards being created by 3GPP and the LTE-Forum, respectively, with 3GPP involving multiple stakeholders, including the FCC as a monitor, and considering coexistence requirements elsewhere on the planet; while LTE-U Forum is apparently "a front for Qualcomm" and far less transparent in the information it makes available. Qualcomm didn't comment.
Clarifying Section 333 so knowingly causing interference "is designed to remove uncertainty and facilitate speedy equipment certification by reassuring existing users that Commissioner oversight does not end with certification," Public Knowledge said. PK said it would also "encourage companies such as Qualcomm to avoid needless antagonizing other Part 15 stakeholders by asserting a right to act with reckless disregard in the Part 15 space and to concentrate on developing a record that demonstrates its devices will not cause unacceptable levels of interference."