Wi-Fi Companies Dispute AT&T Arguments on Cost of 6 GHz Frequency Coordination
Wi-Fi equipment makers disputed arguments by AT&T that the FCC shouldn’t provide further flexibility for unlicensed 6 GHz devices without a requirement for automated frequency coordination. “There is no time urgency to act on the proposals to raise the LPI…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
[low power indoor] power limit or to authorize VLP [very low-power] operations because it is now apparent that the use cases supporting those proposals can be realized under AFC control,” AT&T said last month (see 2209120027). “AT&T’s assertion is simply incorrect,” said the equipment makers' filing posted Thursday in docket 18-295. “There are significant costs to develop, deploy, and operate an AFC-coordinated device,” the companies said: Costs include “geolocation capabilities, additional installation requirements, support for the AFC-to-device protocol interface, changes to radio resource management algorithms to incorporate AFC frequency and power inputs, updates to the user interface to reflect AFC operational aspects, and recurring costs associated with the AFC system. AFC coordination also introduces significant complexity for installation and ongoing operational management.” Cisco, Extreme Networks, Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Juniper Networks signed the letter.