FCC's Proposed 42 GHz NPRM Was Unexpected, Could Be Controversial
The 42 GHz NPRM, teed up for a vote at the FCC’s June 18 meeting (see 2305180069), was largely unexpected, though it had apparently been in the works since 2021 when staff for Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel started asking about putting the band to work, industry officials told us. The 500-MHz of spectrum is uniquely unoccupied, with no federal or nonfederal incumbents.
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.
The reaction has been varied, with some welcoming the inquiry to questions about how much interest there is in the frequencies. So far, no filings are in docket 23-158, established by the Wireless Bureau for the proceeding.
The draft proposes three models -- nationwide non-exclusive licensing, a site-based licensing approach “in which licensees would apply for each deployment site directly with the Commission,” and a technology-based sensing approach, under which licensees would rely on technology “to avoid harmful interference from one another without the use of a registration database.”
“I know nothing,” said New Street’s Blair Levin: “The reason why is that I don’t know anyone who cares.” A communications lawyer with wireless clients said the draft NPRM caught FCC watchers off guard.
A weakness of the draft is it doesn’t ask for comment on licensing the spectrum, emailed Free State Foundation Director-Policy Studies Seth Cooper. “At the very least, the notice makes it appear that the agency hasn't considered or doesn't want to consider exclusive licensing,” he said: “In order to ensure that spectrum resources are put to their highest and best usage, all models should be put on the table for evaluation and comparison.”
Carriers want “licensed, full power spectrum because that delivers the predictable bandwidth American consumers and businesses demand,” said Recon Analytics’ Roger Entner.
In a February 2022 filing in docket 14-177, Michael Calabrese, director of the Wireless Future Program at New America, said he discussed the band with Wireless Bureau staff. The FCC should “seek further comment on whether the 42 GHz band would be a valuable complement to the lower 37 GHz band for open, shared and coordinated [point-to-multipoint] deployments,” Calabrese said then. The FCC could look at a framework “akin to the widely-shared 70/80/90 GHz band -- which relies on a certified database coordinator to facilitate open access for point-to-point links by both federal and non-federal users,” the filing said.
The band could be “a shared and coordinated source of high-capacity spectrum for fixed wireless broadband to a wide variety of rural ISPs and other local users,” Calabrese told us. Currently, thousands of megahertz of millimeter-wave spectrum, auctioned as part of the “flawed” spectrum frontiers process, “are just sitting fallow in big mobile carrier warehouses while they push to foreclose other providers from access to mid-band spectrum,” he said.
The band “offers an opportunity to meet a growing need for fixed point-to-multipoint backhaul and capacity by local providers in rural, tribal and other less densely populated areas nationwide,” Calabrese said. The band could also provide “coverage and competition” for GB-fast service “to multi-dwelling units that can be reached on a line of sight basis by both new and existing ISPs,” he said.
“Millimeter-wave frequencies absolutely will increase in demand as 5G-advanced and 6G develop, and as technology improves,” said former FCC Commissioner Mike O’Rielly. “Doing the hard work on bands when they aren’t supercharged is actually incredibly valuable, but it’s still no substitute for solving the knotty, red-hot issues in mid-band,” he said.
Harold Feld, senior vice president at Public Knowledge, also welcomed a potential experiment with different sharing models. “As always, this kind of innovation gets lots of resistance from incumbents,” he said: “The general rule is that the major beneficiaries of innovative new spectrum access models don't exist yet, which makes it very difficult for the FCC to be innovative.”
The FCC’s approach is a little “backwards,” since the agency starts with sharing, said Joe Kane, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation director-broadband and spectrum policy: Imposed sharing “is most useful when immovable incumbents make it necessary. Given the lack of incumbents in this band, it isn't really necessary here.” Kane sees a risk that “erecting a complicated and costly regulatory regime would burn spectrum and financial resources to, in the end, just approximate the spectrum use of an exclusive licensee.”
But Kane also welcomed the FCC's willingness to look for new sharing mechanisms, including those based on more advanced sensing technologies. “Significant progress in that area would go a long way to making sharing regimes far more efficient,” he said.