The future of 6 GHz should be unlicensed, so long as we can get the details right

By Ian Adams and James Dunstan

Wi-Fi has shaped modern life. The ability to send huge amounts of data over short distances (say, throughout your house), without interfering with your neighbor’s system, is a technological marvel. It is practically beyond the stuff of Science Fiction, considering that the 1970s world of Battlestar Galactica envisioned data transfers requiring users to plunge their hands into liquid. Strangely, the regulatory basis upon which access to Wi-Fi occurs is still of that vintage.

The unlicensed spectrum that Wi-Fi operates over remains largely a matter of decisions made half a century ago. Sensibly, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is looking to assure the future of Wi-Fi’s next generation through the reallocation of the 6 GHz spectrum for unlicensed Wi-Fi use.

In late 2018, the FCC decided to take another look at the 6 GHz band, in particular, and issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) seeking to permit new unlicensed uses to share the band to support next-generation Wi-Fi, which in turn aids 5G deployment by offloading the final 200 feet or so of data transmission off the 5G network. The Commission’s reasoning for doing so was straightforward: next-gen Wi-Fi holds tremendous promise and technology now exists that can effectively insulate incumbent users of the spectrum from undue interference.

It’s hard to quibble with the FCC’s first finding. It is in the nation’s interest that there is sufficient spectrum for Wi-Fi applications to continue to flourish. The real benefit of leveraging the entire 6 GHz band is its spectral location adjacent to the 5 GHz band. Once made available, those in industry will be able to utilize equipment already in the hands of consumers to provide a rapid improvement to the service available to them.

However, protecting the important incumbent users of the band is vital. For instance, local television stations use the spectrum for mobile broadcast news transmissions, bringing viewers late breaking news from courthouses and accident scenes. Continuing to operate those systems in congested urban locations will prove challenging, but by no means insurmountable.

Fortunately, the FCC has experience in establishing reasonable technical parameters for new spectrum uses that encourage innovation while protecting established services to ensure the highest and best use of spectrum. In the case of the 6 GHz band, as it goes about freeing up this spectrum to make way for next-gen Wi-Fi, the FCC will commit to maintaining practically effective limits on broadcast power and spectral density to prevent interference.

The ongoing debate about the technical merits of such power limits as an avenue to avoiding interference should be viewed in this light, as a straight-forward matter of FCC expertise. Moreover, the operational necessity of avoiding interference is underscored by the fact that a step-back in system reliability would only jeopardize the reputation of next generation WiFi technologies. As for engineering obstacles, there is a good reason to believe that they will be overcome when confronted with dedicated engineering professionals. We’ve seen it before!

In the early 1990s, Software Defined Radios and Cognitive Radio technologies were accommodated by the FCC over objections about potential interference because of promising engineering developments and the technology’s “…potential to initiate a new era in radio frequency spectrum utilization.” The promise of the 6 GHz band is similarly grounded, similarly transformational and is immediately realizable.

Thus, in a vein of engineering-informed optimism, the FCC’s willingness to move forward in its effort to unleash the 6 GHz band for future Wi-Fi is deserving of support. While there is a devil in the details, no technological problem yet identified appears unsolvable, nor deserving of further delay. Next generation Wi-Fi cannot and should not wait.

Ian Adams is TechFreedom’s Vice President of Policy, his research focuses on automation and transportation issues. James Dunstan is TechFreedom’s General Counsel and is a veteran of the telecommunications bar.