Disagreements Continue on Further Liberalizing 6 GHz Rules

“We agree with the commenters that explain that flexible, higher power levels will greatly improve the reliability and overall performance of portable unlicensed devices,” said Apple, Broadcom, Google, Intel, Meta Platforms and Qualcomm. GVP devices would operate at power levels of up to 21 dBm equivalent isotropic radiated power and 8 dBm/MHz power spectral density. The proposed new device class would “calculate exclusion zones around incumbent receivers using a conservative methodology, producing a belt-and-suspenders approach that further diminishes the risk of harmful interference,” the tech companies said.

CTA supported the GVP proposal by the tech players, viewing it as a “complement to VLP rather than a substitute to or subset of VLP.” The low power level “is the primary interference mitigation mechanism” for VLP devices, while GVP would permit higher power paired with a geofencing requirement, CTA said.

Expanding VLP authorization to other bands “will benefit consumers and promote innovation,” public interest groups said in a joint filing. “We do not believe that the power level proposed in the FNPRM will create sufficient incentives for equipment makers -- nor sufficient enhanced benefits for consumers -- to spur the needed investment or justify the extra costs,” they said. To bolster power levels, they urged the FCC to consider the proposal for a GVP device class. The filing was signed by the Open Technology Institute at New America, Public Knowledge, the American Library Association, the Schools Health Libraries Broadband Coalition, the Benton Institute for Broadband and Society and Access Humboldt.

The Information Technology Industry Council also supported the GVP proposal. The approach “provides interference protection while allowing for higher power operations outside designated exclusion zones,” ITI said: “It aligns with the Commission's ongoing efforts and technological advancements, offering a solution to the growing mobile ‘spectrum crunch.’"

The Wi-Fi Alliance said initial comments show broad support for allowing VLP in other parts of the 6 GHz band. “Although some commenters urge caution, the technical evidence in the record, as well as experience with VLP operations in other jurisdictions, show that the Commission need not delay adopting its proposal,” the alliance said. The alliance also saw broad support for the commission’s proposal to permit direct client-to-client communications: “Opponents of this proposal primarily seek to relitigate the Commission’s decisions allowing unlicensed operations in the 6 GHz band.”

But 6 GHz incumbents asked the FCC to move cautiously, if at all, on further liberalizing the 6 GHz rules.

“The Commission’s rules for VLP devices have only recently been implemented, and the actual impact of these devices on incumbent systems, including those utilized for public safety communications, remains to be fully understood,” APCO said: “The harms resulting from interference in this heavily encumbered band and the deployment of unlicensed devices is potentially irreversible.”

The Utilities Technology Council and the Edison Electric Institute said the FCC should see how recently approved VLP operations work before making additional changes. “Utility microwave systems must be protected from harmful interference to ensure the safe, reliable, and secure delivery of essential electric, gas, and water services to the public at large,” they said: Any interference “can have catastrophic consequences and interference also threatens the safety of personnel in the field as well as the reliability, safety, and security of operations.”

The FCC should follow “a conservative, measured approach to authorizing” new 6 GHz capabilities, said AT&T. “The Commission should not permit geofenced VLP devices -- and certainly not under rules less protective than existing geofencing systems -- without gaining greater insight into the deployment of VLP” and standard power devices “under new authority,” the carrier said.