The U.S. table of frequency allocations can differ from the international table because of variations in U.S. rules, FCC Office of Engineering and Technology officials explained during an FCBA lunch Thursday. Attendees heard from Nicholas Oro, deputy chief of the Policy and Rules Division, and Jamie Coleman, chief of the Spectrum Policy Branch. The U.S. doesn’t adopt all the allocations in the international table and may adopt additional allocations, Oro said. Most parts of the table match, he said. Oro noted as one example the supplemental coverage from space (SCS) framework that commissioners approved two weeks ago (see [2403150045). In each of the bands affected, across the 600-700 MHz frequency range, the U.S. table now shows a secondary mobile service allocation, he said. That allocation isn’t included in the international table. “This is kind of the case of the U.S. getting out ahead of the international community,” Oro said. Another example is 6 GHz, where the international table has an allocation for mobile communications but the U.S. table doesn't, he said. Changes to the U.S. table often come through NTIA or as a result of actions during a World Radiocommunication Conference, Oro said. In addition, changes are made as a result of commission orders, he said. All changes require that the FCC seek public comment. NTIA has its own rulebook, the “Manual of Regulations for Federal RF Spectrum Management” or “Redbook,” which applies to federal agencies. Making changes doesn’t require a rulemaking process, Oro said. Coleman said her team at OET is largely responsible for managing the frequency table, ensuring updates are made, checking footnotes and issuing Federal Register updates when needed. “It’s a lot of work,” she said. Her office also works with other parts of the commission “to make sure that we’re properly analyzing … revisions and their impact on other areas of the spectrum.”

Wi-Fi advocates and 6 GHz incumbents clashed on an FCC proposal that would expand parts of the 6 GHz band where new very-low power (VLP) devices can operate without coordination, beyond the initial 850 MHz commissioners approved last year (see 2310190054). The VLP rules took effect March 9. 6 GHz incumbents have lined up in opposition to further changes (see 2403270055).

The National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on Radio Frequencies (CORF) and the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council are concerned about an FCC proposal that expands parts of the 6 GHz band where new very-low power (VLP) devices can operate (see 2310190054). Comments were posted on Wednesday in docket 18-295. The FCC has “recognized the public interest need to protect important radio astronomy and remote sensing observations at 6 GHz” and shouldn’t “undercut the protections already enacted in this proceeding,” CORF said. The 6650-6675.2 MHz band is important “for observations of methanol that play a critical role in research into star formation, astrochemistry, and precision astrometry,” the committee said. Frequencies between 6425 and 7250 MHz are used for passive microwave measurements, with 6425-7075 for ocean remote sensing, CORF said: “Observations at these frequencies are an essential component for both weather prediction and observing climate change.” NPSTC counseled against further liberalizing the rules for the 6 GHz band. “Public safety, critical infrastructure, commercial wireless and broadcast entities rely on this spectrum to support licensed microwave links for their respective operations,” the group said. It's clear from decisions made so far that the commission “has no intention of reversing course in this proceeding,” NPSTC said. If that’s the case “it is imperative that 6 GHz licensees have a viable mechanism to report and expeditiously resolve any 6 GHz harmful interference to critical microwave links that occurs.” The Bluetooth Special Interest Group (SIG) said studies show that unlicensed wideband VLP devices can operate at 14 dBm with a power spectral density of 1 dBm/MHz “without causing harmful interference into incumbent services, and that narrowband VLP devices will provide even greater margin.” The SIG has made a push for Bluetooth devices to be allowed to use 6 GHz spectrum (see [Ref2310270027]). “Bluetooth is an essential unlicensed technology that requires additional spectrum to support the volume growth of existing product categories and to support the technological expansion of important Bluetooth products,” the SIG said. The Wireless Innovation Forum told the FCC it’s “eager” to “support the development of geofencing systems,” one of the FCC’s proposals for protecting 6 GHz incumbents. The group said it could develop “specifications for data systems including any needed enhancements” and work on “propagation models to accommodate possible VLP mobility” and addressing “mobility in spectrum availability determinations.”

The Information Technology Industry Council called on the FCC to expand parts of the 6 GHz band where new very-low power (VLP) devices can operate beyond the 850 MHz of the band in which commissioners voted last year to allow operations (see 2310190054). Comments are due Wednesday on a Further NPRM that the commissioners also approved last year. “The Commission’s decision to authorize VLP operations provides innovators with an important new capability to provide very high-speed connections for some of the most advanced applications, such as augmented and virtual reality, that will help businesses, enhance learning opportunities, advance healthcare opportunities, and bring new entertainment experiences,” the group said in a filing posted Tuesday in docket 18-295.

The Edison Electric Institute and other groups representing incumbent users of the 6 GHz band asked the FCC to delegate the Wireless Innovation Forum or another inter-industry body to develop “standardized implementations” for automated frequency coordination system propagation models. The groups said they appreciate “that the AFCs are collaborating to develop a single interference reporting process rather than each developing its own -- or not having a defined process at all.” But collaboration shouldn’t mean just AFCs, said a filing posted Tuesday in docket 21-352: “It should include representatives of the incumbents whose systems are entitled to interference protection under FCC rules.” Also signing the filing were the Enterprise Wireless Alliance, the International Association of Fire Chiefs and the Utilities Technology Council.

Policymakers shouldn’t forget the potential of very high frequency spectrum, the mmWave Coalition said last week in response to the National Science Foundation’s request for information (RFI) on the national spectrum research and development plan, which is part of the national spectrum strategy. The comments have yet to be posted by NSF. Most 5G and 6G discussions so far are focused on lower frequencies, the coalition said. “A key reason for this is that it is hard to justify a business case for sub-THZ mobile spectrum use at present as there are now basic technical questions, technological hurdles, and cost issues, yet these are fertile and active areas of research which may eventually lead to compelling opportunities for mobile use in this spectrum,” the group said. The coalition cited a growing need for wireless backhaul, “especially in rural, underserved areas often where fixed wireless access is vital for rural households, and often backhaul requirements cannot always be implemented in fiber technology, due to installation urgency requirements, local terrain features that delay or block installation, cost, or short term requirements that make fiber optic installation uneconomical.” The Dynamic Spectrum Alliance said the RFI is on target in the areas it suggests for research. “Efficiency, dynamic spectrum access and management, automated interference mitigation, and coexistence modeling are all areas in which the DSA and our members have keen interest and extensive experience,” the alliance said: “We also fully support efforts to study the economic-, market-, social-, and human-centric aspects of increasing spectrum access.” DSA called on the NSF to take into account innovative licensing frameworks that are already working, including the citizens broadband radio service band and 6 GHz. “Given the historical success of the variety of spectrum sharing techniques in different bands designed to protect different incumbents … there is no one size fits all solution to spectrum sharing,” DSA said. AT&T urged the administration to more clearly define the term dynamic spectrum sharing. The definition should include an “examination of full-power licensed use” and “development of a basis for predictable times and/or geographies in which dynamically shared spectrum can be used,” AT&T said. The carrier urged more work on interference mitigation techniques and not restricting research to “mere ‘on/off’ spectrum access controls.” The definition should seek “to define co-channel and adjacent channel interference environments to incorporate into network design and operation.”

The American Action Forum questioned how the U.S. really fared during last year’s World Radiocommunication Conference. “Delegations from across the world largely adopted China’s spectrum approach in the mid-band, allocating the upper part of the 6 GHz band for 5G services,” a report released Tuesday said. Jeffrey Westling, director-technology and innovation policy, is its author. While the U.S. has allocated the entire 6 GHz band for unlicensed use, actions at the last WRC may keep other countries from following the U.S.’s lead, it said. “Countries don’t have to allocate the band for 5G but can’t allocate spectrum in a manner that would cause harmful interference to 5G operations in neighboring jurisdictions,” the paper said: “Equipment manufacturers will have less incentive, and potential profit, in designing and manufacturing additional unlicensed equipment that operates in the upper portion of the band, as fewer countries will allow the use of that technology.” The U.S. struggled to persuade nations to adopt its approach “because it lacks a robust plan to commercialize spectrum in the mid-band for exclusive licenses, shared models, or even more unlicensed,” the paper argues: “Leading into the conference, the only mid-band spectrum teed up for commercialization was 3.1–3.45 GHz, and the DOD pushed back on efforts to allow commercialization of the band,” and without auction authority the U.S. “lacked stability in spectrum policy, perhaps concerning potential allies that desired a robust plan for mid-band.”

Senate Commerce Committee ranking member Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Communications Subcommittee ranking member John Thune, R-S.D., filed their long-circulating 2024 Spectrum Pipeline Act Monday with some changes from a draft version proposed in the fall (see 2311220063). The proposal drew sharply divided reactions from communications policy stakeholders. Some lobbyists suggested Cruz and Thune filed the measure Monday to get ahead of NTIA's planned release later this week of its implementation plan for the Biden administration's national spectrum strategy (see 2403050048).

Wi-Fi advocates strongly opposed a December request from Axon Enterprise for a waiver allowing it to market three investigation and surveillance devices to law enforcement agencies. These devices would operate at higher power levels than allowed under FCC rules in heavily used 5 GHz spectrum. The FCC Office of Engineering and Technology sought comment in February (see 2402060082). Oppositions were posted on Friday in docket 24-40. Axon didn’t comment Friday.

Seventeen cable companies and other Wi-Fi advocates, spectrum sharing advocates, and defense and aeronautics companies Monday released a letter sent to NTIA about implementation of the national spectrum strategy. It warned against “anti-competitive efforts, modeled after China’s goals, to clear the 3 GHz and 7 GHz bands for exclusive licensing to a small handful of legacy carriers.” NTIA is set to release the plan March 14 (see 2402090059). “The decisions made … will directly affect the nation’s ability to maintain and promote our global competitiveness, national security, and national security technology leadership with our allies,” the letter said: “We urge the NTIA to adopt an Implementation Plan that is aggressive in expanding the pie for a wide variety of public, commercial, and national security uses.” The plan should focus on “accelerating the development and adoption” of spectrum sharing technologies and coexistence frameworks, the letter said. It noted the success of sharing in the 6 GHz band and the citizens broadband radio service band. Signers included the American Library Association, Charter Communications, Comcast, Cox Communications, the Dynamic Spectrum Alliance, Federated Wireless, Deere & Company, Lockheed Martin, NCTA, the Open Technology Institute, Public Knowledge, Midcontinent Communications, the Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition, Spectrum for the Future, WifiForward and the Wireless ISP Association.