NCTA, Wi-Fi Alliance Defend FCC 5.9 GHz Order at DC Circuit
NCTA and the Wi-Fi Alliance urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to reject challenges to an FCC order dividing the 5.9 GHz band (see 2110210031). The appeal “encourages this Court to second-guess the FCC” in areas…
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.
where the court has shown deference, said their final brief filed Friday: That includes when the commission acts “as a spectrum manager," makes “predictive judgments within [its] … expertise” or acts on an issue requiring “a high level of technical expertise.” The FCC had a record on which to act, intervenors said. “The record underlying the Order -- going back 7 years … included thousands of pages of submissions from advocates on all sides.” Intervenors said the U.S. needs more spectrum for Wi-Fi and 5.9 GHz is uniquely suited to address demand. “The Order effectively expands that current 5.725-5.850 GHz Wi-Fi band to support wider, more efficient channels using the latest Wi-Fi standards,” they said: “Consumers can begin using the 5.9 GHz band more quickly and cost-effectively than other bands. Existing equipment can support use of the band with simple upgrades, and manufacturers can readily begin to produce new devices using the already-available 5.725-5.850 GHz spectrum.” Oral argument is Jan. 25. CTIA also filed (in Pacer) in support of the FCC. “Petitioners posit a fragmented scheme of spectrum-management authority that opens the door to conflicting agency judgments concerning the public interest,” the group says: “The FCC’s spectrum-allocation decisions frequently touch on areas regulated by other agencies -- but that does not deprive the FCC of its preeminence in spectrum management.” Continental Automotive Systems repeated (in Pacer) its earlier arguments against the order (see 2111120055).