Wireless issues top APCO's 2022 regulatory priorities, the group posted Thursday. Improving location accuracy for wireless calls to 911 leads the list, followed by protecting public safety use of the 6 GHz band and revising rules for 4.9 GHz, said Chief Counsel Jeff Cohen. Securing “major federal funding to implement Next Generation 9-1-1 nationwide” topped legislative priorities.

Judges appeared sympathetic to the FCC Tuesday during oral argument on whether the agency overstepped in reallocating the 5.9 GHz band, with the lawyer for ITS America and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials facing tough questions from a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The FCC’s 2020 5.9 GHz order allocated 45 MHz of the band for Wi-Fi and 30 MHz for cellular vehicle-to-everything technology.

The Wi-Fi Alliance asked an aide to FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel for quick action on a limited remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit of one part of the agency’s 6 GHz order (see 2112280047). The court instructed the FCC to address NAB concerns about interference in the 2.4 GHz band. The FCC should “respond to the 6 GHz Court Order by explaining that the underlying premise of the NAB’s assertion -- that contention-based protocols failed to protect licensed users in 2.4 GHz band -- simply lacks any merit because its claims are unsupported and the contention-based protocol requirement that it asserts failed to protect [electronic newsgathering] operations at 2.4 GHz does not exist,” said a filing posted Monday in docket 18-295. The alliance earlier spoke with staff from the Office of General Counsel and Office of Engineering and Technology.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit’s decision on 5.9 GHz may not be as straightforward as its ruling on 6 GHz, because the court will have to grapple with a novel issue -- whether the FCC ignored the Transportation Equity Act and the Department of Transportation’s role in encouraging intelligent transportation systems when it reallocated the band, experts said. The FCC’s 2020 5.9 GHz order allocated 45 MHz of the band for Wi-Fi and 30 MHz for cellular vehicle-to-everything technology.

The Wi-Fi Alliance asked the FCC to quickly act on a limited remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit of one part of the agency’s 6 GHz order (see 2112280047), in calls with FCC Office of General Counsel and Office of Engineering and Technology staff. The court instructed the FCC to address NAB concerns about interference in the 2.4 GHz band. Despite the court’s “strong affirmation of the 6 GHz Report and Order, the limited remand creates regulatory uncertainty in the market for unlicensed deployments in the 6 GHz spectrum,” said a filing posted Tuesday in docket 18-295: “That uncertainty may impede introduction of low-cost wireless connectivity solutions, frustrating the Commission’s intentions and harming American consumers.” The remand can be easily addressed by noting “that the use of a contention-based protocol is not required in the 2.4 GHz band, unlike the rules adopted in the 6 GHz” order, the group said.

Discussions about opening the 12 GHz band to 5G need to start focusing on technical issues such as the right interference criteria, the acceptable probability of interference and the means for determining how much of a terrestrial signal has been attenuated before it reaches a satellite receiver, Dish Network said in an FCC docket 20-443 filing Friday. It said differences are minimal between the interference thresholds being proposed by satellite and terrestrial 5G interests. It said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit's 6 GHz decision last month (2112280047) eviscerates two key arguments of 5G opponents -- that satellite and terrestrial spectrum sharing needs to be rejected unless there's zero interference, and that a "Monte Carlo"-style statistical analysis is inferior to a worst-case-scenario one. It said SpaceX hasn't supplied any evidence of its own to back its contention that 5G/non-geostationary orbit fixed satellite service sharing is impossible and studies it cites "were based on extremely conservative assumptions ... and a worst-case analysis." It said SpaceX also is mischaracterizing those studies. SpaceX didn't comment.

The FCC shouldn’t rethink whether to authorize automated frequency coordination system operations in the 6 GHz band, Wi-Fi advocates said in calls with aides to all four FCC commissioners, said a filing posted Friday in docket 21-352. Some 6 GHz incumbents “have attempted to use the [Office of Engineering and Technology] Public Notice process to relitigate issues already resolved by the 6 GHz Report and Order and advocate for additional requirements on AFC operations that do not appear in the Order and are beyond OET’s delegated authority in this process,” they said. Broadcom, CableLabs, Cisco, Meta Platforms, the Wi-Fi Alliance and Wireless Broadband Alliance were among those represented.

The biggest surprises in the 3.45 GHz auction were that Dish Network came in relatively big and T-Mobile small, according to the early analysis of the results, which were released Friday (see 2201140040). Verizon dropped out of the auction, after dominating the C-band sale, as expected (see 2111170037).

The International Association of Fire Chiefs supported concerns raised by APCO and others on companies and organizations seeking FCC certification to become automated frequency coordination (AFC) system operators in the 6 GHz band (see 2112220070). A representative of the group spoke with David Furth, deputy chief of the Public Safety Bureau, said a filing posted Wednesday in docket 21-352. “All fourteen AFC proposals failed to meet FCC’s rules and should be rejected until each proposal is supplemented with additional technical details,” the group said.

APCO said Tuesday it’s considering an appeal of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit decision last week upholding the FCC’s 6 GHz rules (see 2112280047). The court remanded to the FCC for further work a single, narrow issue, raised by broadcasters. “While federal review courts typically accord the FCC deference, we are of course disappointed because we remain concerned that new unlicensed devices will cause harmful interference to public safety communications,” the group tweeted: “We will consider our additional options in court and continue to actively work directly with the FCC to ensure that public safety operations are protected.”