Read on Twitter
Last week @AjitPaiFCC circulated a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to explore ways to better utelize the 12 GHz band. @publicknowledge statement applauding this action and urging unanimous vote. https://www.publicknowledge.org/press-release/fcc-chairman-pai-moves-to-leverage-12-ghz-band-to-close-digital-divide/
FAQ about the @fcc new #12GHz draft NPRM here: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fact-sheet-proposed-12-ghz-band-nprm
For those just tuning in, I will explain. No, that would take too long. I will sum up.
For those just tuning in, I will explain. No, that would take too long. I will sum up.
Basically, the 12GHz band has been used for satellite-to-Earth communications under the exciting name "The Ku Band" for over 20 years. About 15 years ago, the FCC issued licenses for 1-way terrestrial use #MVDDS. /3
Back in 2016, the primary MVDDS license holders (DISH and Dell) petitioned the FCC to use the 500 MHz in the 12GHz band for flexible use (mobile and multipoint). https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/60001692292.pdf
This percolated for awhile, then 5G and mid-band spectrum got really hot. Also, DISH became our last best hope for 4-firm competition in mobile wireless. #12GHz So a bunch of us in the public interest community decided to support the Petition. /5 https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10709680211338/12%20GHz%20Pub%20Interest%20Letter%20FINAL.pdf
In the meantime, a number of companies (like SpaceX and OneWebb) have been deploying constellations of low-flying satellites to provide broadband. Among other bands, they use Ku band spectrum bordering the 12.2-12.7 GHz. /6
Needless to say, the prospect of new neighbors potentially causing harmful interference never goes well with incumbents, and SpaceX et al. are no exceptions. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/122934156563/SpaceX%20MVDDS%20Ex%20Parte.pdf
/7
/7
Elon Musk even called up @AjitPaiFCC to try to stop the NPRM from looking at new uses in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band. https://www.fiercewireless.com/regulatory/elon-musk-dials-up-fcc-chairman-pai-to-discuss-12-ghz-band
This would be more impressive if it weren't the same for EVERY effort to expand spectrum use. Incumbents always say no. /8
This would be more impressive if it weren't the same for EVERY effort to expand spectrum use. Incumbents always say no. /8
Importantly, in addition to possible new uses by DISH and other MVDDS licensees, Public Interest groups and dynamic spectrum tech cos are pushing to look at dynamic spectrum sharing either unlicensed or lightly-licensed.
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10709680211338/12%20GHz%20Pub%20Interest%20Letter%20FINAL.pdf
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1061591176789/Federated%20Wireless%20-%2012%20GHz%20Ex%20Parte.pdf /9
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10709680211338/12%20GHz%20Pub%20Interest%20Letter%20FINAL.pdf
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1061591176789/Federated%20Wireless%20-%2012%20GHz%20Ex%20Parte.pdf /9
Based on the FAQ issued today by @AjitPaiFCC the proposed #12GHz NPRM takes a neutral look at all these possibilities, while stressing they will protect all incumbent services from harmful interference. /10
I will add that while the NPRM does not propose specific rules, it is important for this to be an NPRM and not an Notice of Inquiry (NOI). An NPRM will bring all stakeholders to the table and discourage anyone holding back "gotcha" studies at a later rule stage. /11
This is what happened with #CBAND, as y'all might recall. #CBAND may have started with an NOI on 3.7 GHz- 24 GHz, but once the @fcc selected a specific band it went to an NPRM asking lots o questions. /12
(Technically, that did have proposed rules. But with huge "fill in later" blanks because the FCC was trying to chose among 3 very different options.) /13
So to sum up this thread, FCC circulated NPRM on #12GHz=Good. Should be voted out quickly and unanimously so we can begin process. Discussion is carefully balanced, and burden remains on those proposing new uses to prove they won't cause harmful interference. /14
