Rosenworcel Proposes Look at Fixed-Wireless Use of Lower 12 GHz Band

“We decline to add a mobile allocation or adopt service rules for expanded terrestrial, high-powered, two-way mobile operations in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band,” the draft says: “However, we remain interested in potential expanded terrestrial use.” The item asks about permitting one-way, point-to-point or point-to-multipoint fixed links at a higher power than current rules for the multi-channel video and data distribution service allow. It asks about appropriate power levels and other technical questions.

“Should such expanded terrestrial rights be conferred on the existing incumbent MVDDS licensees, or are there alternative approaches for expanding terrestrial use opportunities in this band, such as site-based, individually coordinated operations relative to existing MVDDS operations?” the items asks: “How should these operations be licensed, what technical data should be collected, and what type of technical limits and coordination requirements should be considered to allow necessary protections and coexistence with incumbent services in the band?”

The draft also asks about allowing two-way, point-to-point fixed links at a higher part 101 power limit, which “could expand backhaul to support advanced broadband capacity.” The item notes some commenters want the lower 12 GHz band used on an unlicensed basis under part 15 rules, and asks “whether, and, if so, how, to permit unlicensed use.” The draft cites potential use to “create additional capacity” for the IoT.

The draft 12 GHz order notes questions about two analyses performed by RKF, a systems engineering firm, which found the lower band can be used safely without interfering with satellite operations. SpaceX and OneWeb offered studies countering that conclusion (see 2207130031). “As a threshold matter, we find that a new ubiquitous 5G terrestrial mobile service cannot coexist with [direct broadcast satellite] operations in the band without a significant increase in the risk of harmful interference,” the draft contends.

“While the analyses submitted by SpaceX and OneWeb have very little accord with the RKF analyses, all of these analyses agree, on some level, on one point: [non-geostationary orbit fixed satellite service] user terminals will suffer harmful interference if they are operating in close proximity to 5G transmissions in the 12.2 GHz band,” the draft asserts: “The RKF analyses come to this conclusion tacitly because rather than providing a calculation of the separation distance that would be necessary to protect NGSO FSS terminals from harmful emissions from 5G transmitters, these RKF analyses simply assume that in most situations 5G and NGSO FSS services will not be used by consumers in the same locations.”

An NPRM sees more potential for early terrestrial use of the upper band, the subject of an October notice of inquiry (see 2210270046): “The 12.7 GHz band has several attributes that argue in favor of its repurposing for advanced services: it is already allocated for terrestrial mobile service on a primary basis domestically, it is only lightly used by the Fixed (FS) and Fixed Satellite (FSS) and Mobile Services (MS), and there is only a single Federal incumbent at one site.”

In response to the NOI “very few parties have argued that the current balance of incumbents in the 12.7 GHz band should be left unchanged and that the band should remain untouched,” the draft says: “There is substantial support for repurposing these frequencies for mobile broadband or other expanded use and a significant number argue that the band should be used for exclusive, fixed or mobile, flexible high-powered use. Commenters assert that the next-generation wireless technologies underpinning 5G, 5G Advanced, and 6G services will rely depend on extremely high data rates, and the reliability, low latency, and capacity that the 12.7 GHz band spectrum can provide.”

The 60 GHz draft adopts proposals in a July 2021 NPRM (see 2107130066) to permit mobile field disturbance sensors to operate throughout the band and clarify that radars are a type of FDS operation. It adopts rules for devices other than pulse radars based on an industry consensus agreement and rules for pulse radars, based on another agreement.

“Our decision is a significant step in the continuing expansion and evolution of our rules and will supercharge the development and deployment of new and innovative radar operations -- including valuable safety applications that detect unattended children in vehicles and which previously could only be permitted through a waiver of the rules,” the draft 60 GHz order says: The order “reflects the work that unlicensed radar and communication user interests have taken over the course of this proceeding to identify a path to promote operational compatibility, as well as the engagement of Federal government entities that are authorized to operate in the band.”

Combating Robocalls

Also on the agenda is an order, FNPRM and notice of inquiry that would expand commission rules on call blocking. The draft order would expand the 24-hour traceback requirement to include all voice service providers in the call path and "know-your-upstream-provider requirements" to all voice service providers. The order would also update information providers must file in the robocall mitigation database. "Taken together, these expanded requirements will help identify bad actors more quickly and make clear that voice service providers are responsible for the calls they originate, carry, or transmit," says the draft item.

Unwanted and illegal robocalls "continue to be the commission’s top source of consumer complaints," the item says. The draft FNPRM would "propose and seek comment on several options to further enhance consumer choice, increase consumer trust in caller ID, and hold voice service providers responsible." Among the item's proposals are requiring all providers to block calls based on a reasonable do-not-originate list, requiring terminating providers to offer analytics-based blocking "without charge to consumers," and setting a "base forfeiture" for failing to comply with the requirement that providers "take affirmative, effective measures to prevent new and renewing customers from originating illegal calls."

The draft FNPRM seeks comment on the "appropriate" session initiation protocol code to use for immediate notifications when calls are blocked and requiring terminating providers to "provide some version of caller name to call recipients free of charge" if they also display caller ID authentication status. The draft NOI would seek comment on how the FCC can leverage the use of honeypots and the status of call labeling.