FCC proposes additional 5Ghz spectrum for 802.11a

By Elizabeth Biddlecombe, for TOTAL TELECOM

16 May 2003

Public comment sought on the proposal to allow further sharing of the spectrum with the Defense Department as requested by the WiFi Alliance.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has published for public comment a proposal to double the amount of spectrum available for wireless data services in the 5-Ghz band.

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking suggests that an additional 255 Mhz of contiguous spectrum be made available, bringing to 555 Mhz the total bandwidth allowed for unlicensed users of 802.11a technology. 802.11a has a theoretical maximum of up to 54 Mbps at a range of up to 75 to 100 feet. It is not interoperable with 802.11b so manufacturers offer dual products that support both a and b standards.

In a press release the U.S. regulator said the move was a bid to "foster the development of a wide range of new and innovative unlicensed devices and lead to further wireless broadband access and investment."

It was acting in response to a petition from the WiFi Alliance, which wanted additional spectrum for the burgeoning number of WiFi networks being established and to ensure a degree of harmonization with spectrum allocations abroad. The new frequencies (5.470 Ghz - 5.725 Ghz) will overlap with those allocated in Europe for the HiperLAN standard. There is already some overlap in the 5.15 to 5.35 Ghz range.

The FCC has moved fast in issuing this ruling following the 31 January agreement with the Commerce Department's NTIA (National Telecommunications and Information Administration) on the coordination of spectrum issues for federal and commercial users.

While FCC spokespeople say the intention is to expedite the matter, it must go through several phases before being officially mandated in a "Reported Order". No timetable has been given for this final stage.

Nigel Ballard, director of wireless at Oregon-based communications systems implementer Matrix Networks, welcomed the FCC news. "In the short term it will have no effect but in the longer term it means that more players in the market will have increased comfort level [with regards to interference]. [Also] we'll have the ability to launch media-rich services. We'll get more products to sell," he said.

However, Steve Stroh, editor of industry newsletter Focus on Broadband Wireless Internet Access, noted that there is a price for getting access to the spectrum. As it is currently reserved for the Department of Defense, operators will have to kow-tow to the department's requirement that equipment cease transmission whenever it senses radar communications taking place. "[Devices] won't work as well," he said.

Thomas Hazlett, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute of Policy Research, noted that it is yet another example of the FCC continuing to prescribe what is done with spectrum rather than letting market forces determine usage as is done in Australia, New Zealand, Guatemala and El Salvador. "I would like the FCC to turn its attention to bandwidth that is underutilised and have an agnostic approach that has no service or business requirements", he said.

Hazlett, a former FCC chief economist, was a panellist at a conference held earlier this week by the NTIA and FCC in Washington. He considers that the unlicensed nature of the WiFi family of technologies is a mixed blessing: the very fact that it is open to all will increase the risk of interference.

This point of view is disputed by Stroh, for one. "There will be isolated interference issues but there won't be the melt down that everybody is predicting because we keep coming up with better technologies," he told TOTAL TELECOM.

Panellists at the conference were undecided about the risk posed to licensed mobile operators by those in the unlicensed realm, especially with the advent of voice over WiFi.

"Most of the panel thought it was a waste to use [WiFi] capacity for voice but there were others who thought you could definitely do it as an adjunct to cellular," said Nancy Victory, Assistant Secretary of Commerce, and a panel moderator.

"What I took away from it was that aside from a... consensus... on the need for [regulatory] certainty and the need for the government to get out of the way, the panellists saw a lot of different visions for the future".

She said she thought unlicensed spectrum provided opportunities for both entrepreneurs and mobile operators and that mobile operators had "no reason to panic".