Enforcement Regime, Including Receiver Rules, Seen Needed for 5G Future
Increased spectrum congestion eventually will necessitate more enforcement work for 5G, including possibly addressing receiver performance characteristics, said some panelists at a Hudson Institute-hosted panel Friday. A first step must be technical rules for what constitutes unauthorized harmful interference and defining the line at which such harm justifies enforcement action, NTIA Administrator Larry Strickling said. As services increasingly bump against one another, regulators at some point must confront whether receivers play a role in spillover, he said.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Strickling said more unlicensed access in the 5.3 GHz band for Wi-Fi and other uses isn't in the cards. He said NTIA analysis of whether unlicensed devices operating in the 5350-5475 MHz band would harm federal radars' performance indicated "there is no feasible path forward" to federal/non-federal sharing in the 5.3 GHz band. That's probably no surprise since "stakeholders on all sides have known for some time that we had high hurdles to overcome," he said.
When asked about the feasibility of the opening up greenfield spectrum above 95 GHz, Wireless Bureau Chief Jon Wilkins said the FCC has "spectrum frontiers part 2" teed up, looking at higher-frequency bands. He said given the bipartisan support for spectrum frontiers, any future such efforts would continue even given the administration change. NTIA Associate Administrator-Office of Spectrum Management Paige Atkins said any such effort would require the same approach as lower bands, with discussions and collaboration revolving around sharing, though the propagation characteristics could make sharing easier.
As 5G gets deployed, one thing regulators have to resolve is whether they will settle on a particular model -- like the current system of licensed and unlicensed spectrum and a hybrid universe created by the 3.5 GHz rules -- or "a little this, a little that experimentation," said Tech Knowledge Director Fred Campbell. He said the FCC needs to address the split in its spectrum allocation service rules, with users of licensed spectrum having stricter regulation and requirements than users of unlicensed -- a dichotomy he called "nonsensical."
Panelists went back and forth about how market-based incentives could -- or won't -- work to incentivize federal users toward greater sharing with non-federal users. Strickling said market-based approaches like giving agencies an ownership stake in their spectrum could lead to perverse results like hoarding. But Campbell said, at least conceptually, a regime where all spectrum is privately held and the federal government buys or leases what it needs could also work. He acknowledged it would be difficult to transition to that.
Strickling said the best incentive is to make resources available to agencies to study their spectrum needs and to cover the costs of relocation. He backed increased funding for the Spectrum Relocation Fund and said the Defense Department and Federal Aviation Administration are applying for funds for assessing the consolidation of radar capabilities that could free up 1300-1350 MHz, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is submitting a proposal on 1675-1680 MHz. The latter is spectrum that Ligado wants access to for its commercial LTE plans (see 1511050044).
The AWS-3 auction made clear the need for a process that can evaluate a pipeline of spectrum and a permanent process for prioritizing bands for sharing, which is why the NTIA Spectrum Compendium was developed, Strickling said, saying NTIA is now expanding the range of bands in it. He said perception of federal agency intransigence toward spectrum sharing doesn't match up with reality. "People have this idea federal agencies dig in and are unwilling to cooperate," when they respect nonfederal needs but only want to make sure their own federal agency missions aren't compromised by the sharing process, he said.