Skip Navigation

Federal Communications Commission

English Display Options

Commission Document

5 GHz U-NII (R&O)

Download Options

Released: April 1, 2014

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of
)
)

Revision of Part 15 of the Commission’s Rules to
)
ET Docket No. 13-49
Permit Unlicensed National Information
)
Infrastructure (U-NII) Devices in the 5 GHz Band
)
)

FIRST REPORT AND ORDER

Adopted: March 31, 2014

Released: April 1, 2014

By the Commission: Chairman Wheeler and Commissioners Clyburn, Rosenworcel, Pai and O’Rielly
issuing separate statements.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Heading
Paragraph #
I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 1
II. BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................... 3
A. Current Frequency Allocations ........................................................................................................ 3
B. Expanding Utility of Existing U-NII Bands .................................................................................... 9
C. Terminal Doppler Weather Radar Interference Issues................................................................... 11
III. DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................................... 15
A. Increasing the Utility of the U-NII-1 Band.................................................................................... 22
B. Security Features for All U-NII Bands .......................................................................................... 47
C. U-NII-2 Bands ............................................................................................................................... 61
D. U-NII-3 Band Features .................................................................................................................. 87
E. Adoption of Miscellaneous Rule Modifications .......................................................................... 124
F. Transition Periods ........................................................................................................................ 126
IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS.............................................................................................................. 135
V. ORDERING CLAUSES..................................................................................................................... 138
APPENDIX A - Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
APPENDIX B - Commenting Parties
APPENDIX C - Final Rules

I.

INTRODUCTION

1.
In 2013, the Commission issued the Notice of Proposed Rule Making that initiated this
proceeding, with the goal of supporting the growing needs of businesses and consumers for fixed and
mobile broadband communications using Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) devices
in the 5.15-5.35 GHz and 5.47-5.850 GHz bands.1 At the same time, it recognized the need to modify its

1 See, Revision of Part 15 of the Commission’s Rules to Permit Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (U-
NII) Devices in the 5 GHz Band, Notice of Proposed Rule Making
, ET Docket No. 13-49 , 28 FCC Rcd. 1749,
(2013) (NPRM); 47 C.F.R. Part 15 Subpart E—Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure Devices. This First
(continued….)

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

rules to better ensure that these devices do not cause harmful interference to authorized Federal and non-
Federal users in these bands. U-NII devices are unlicensed intentional radiators, which use wideband
digital modulation techniques to provide a wide array of high-data-rate mobile and fixed communications
used by individuals, businesses, and institutions, particularly for wireless local area networking –
including Wi-Fi – and broadband access.2
2.
In this First Report and Order (First R&O), we increase the utility of the 5 GHz band
where U-NII devices are currently permitted to operate, and modify certain U-NII rules and testing
procedures to ensure that U-NII devices do not cause harmful interference to authorized users of these
bands. Specifically:
 For U-NII devices in the 5.15-5.25 GHz band, we remove the indoor-only restriction and
increase the permitted power, thus increasing the utility of spectrum and accommodating the
next generation of Wi-Fi technology.
 We extend the upper edge of the 5.725-5.825 GHz band to 5.85 GHz and consolidate the Part
15 rules applicable to all digitally modulated devices operating across this 125 megahertz of
spectrum to ensure that all such devices comply with U-NII requirements intended to protect
authorized users from harmful interference.
 We require that all U-NII device software be secured to prevent its modification to ensure
that the devices will operate as authorized by the Commission, thus reducing the potential for
harmful interference to authorized users.
 To protect Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR) systems and other radar systems
operating in the 5.250-5.350 GHz and 5.470-5.725 GHz bands from harmful interference, we
modify certain technical rules and compliance measurement procedures for U-NII devices
operating in these bands.

II.

BACKGROUND

A.

Current Frequency Allocations

3.
Part 15 of the Commission’s rules permits the operation of radio frequency devices
without issuing individual licenses to operators of these devices. The Commission’s Part 15 rules are
designed to ensure that there is a low probability that these devices will cause harmful interference to
other users of the same or adjacent spectrum. Typically, unlicensed devices operate at very low power
over relatively short distances, and often employ various techniques, such as dynamic spectrum access or
listen-before-talk protocols, to reduce the interference risk to others as well as themselves. The primary
operating condition for unlicensed devices is that the operator must accept whatever interference is
received and must not cause harmful interference. Should harmful interference occur, the operator is
required to immediately correct the interference problem or to cease operation.3
4.
In 1997, the Commission made available 300 megahertz of spectrum for use by U-NII
devices, which are regulated under Part 15, Subpart E of the Commission’s rules. The Commission
established rules for the 5.15-5.25 GHz (U-NII-1 band), 5.25-5.35 GHz (U-NII-2A band), and 5.725-
(Continued from previous page)
Report & Order does not address the use of U-NII devices into the 5.35-5.47 GHz and 5.85-5.925 GHz bands,
pending additional technical analyses of those bands. See NPRM at paras. 75-112. These bands are the subject of
further study and will be addressed in a separate future order. See also Department of Commerce, “Evaluation of
the 5350-5470 MHz and 5850-5925 MHz Bands Pursuant to Section 6406(b) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and
Job Creation Act of 2012,” available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ntia_5_ghz_report_01-25-
2013.pdf. A copy of this report has been placed in the docket of this proceeding.
2 See 47 C.F.R. § 15.403(s).
3 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.5(b) and (c).
2

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

5.825 GHz (U-NII-3 band).4 In 2003, the Commission made an additional 255 megahertz of spectrum
available for U-NII devices at 5.47-5.725 GHz (U-NII-2C band).5 These actions aligned the frequency
bands used by U-NII devices in the United States with the frequency bands used by such devices in other
parts of the world, thus decreasing development and manufacturing costs by allowing for the same
products to be used in most parts of the world. The chart below summarizes the frequency bands for U-
NII device operation that were discussed in the NPRM. The chart also indicates that unlicensed devices
may currently be authorized under the digital modulation rules in Section 15.247 to operate in the U-NII-
3 band, as well as in the 25 megahertz between that band and the potential future U-NII-4 band.
5.
The U-NII-1 band is allocated on a primary basis to the Aeronautical Radionavigation
Service (ARNS) for both Federal and non-Federal operations and on a primary basis for Fixed Satellite
Service (FSS) (Earth-to–space) for non-Federal MSS feeder link operations.6
6.
The U-NII-2A band is allocated on a primary basis to the Earth Exploration Satellite
(active), Radiolocation, and Space Research (active) Services for Federal operation, and for non-Federal
operation on a secondary basis.7
7.
The U-NII-2C band is allocated on a primary basis to the Radiolocation Service for
Federal operation. The 5.47-5.65 GHz portion of that band is also allocated on a primary basis to the
Radiolocation Service for non-Federal operation, and on a primary basis to the Maritime Radionavigation
Service for both Federal and non-Federal operations. The 5.47-5.57 GHz band segment is allocated on a
primary basis to the Earth Exploration-Satellite (active) and Space Research (active) Services for Federal
operation and on the secondary basis for non-Federal operation. The 5.6-5.65 GHz subportion is also

4 See Amendment of the Commission’s Rules to Provide for Operation of Unlicensed NII Devices in the 5 GHz
Frequency Range, Report and Order, ET Docket No. 96-102, 12 FCC Rcd 1576 (1997). (U-NII Report and Order).
See 47 C.F.R. Part 15 Subpart E. In the NPRM, the Commission assigned sequential numbers to identify the 5 GHz
band segments, both the current U-NII bands and future potential U-NII bands, which are discussed below. The
Commission explained that while different organizations, both Federal and non-Federal, have used a variety of
different identifiers for these band segments, it used sequential numbering to make it easier for the reader to follow
the discussion in the NPRM. See NPRM, supra, at 1770-71, para. 4. To be consistent with the discussion in the
NPRM, we will use the same sequential numbering convention to refer to the U-NII bands in this First R&O.
5 See Revision of Parts 2 and 15 of the Commission’s Rules to Permit Unlicensed National Information
Infrastructure (U-NII) devices in the 5 GHz band, Report and Order, ET Docket No. 03-122, 18 FCC Rcd 24484
(2003). In this decision, the Commission also required that U-NII devices in the U-NII-2A and U-NII-2C bands
employ dynamic frequency selection (DFS) to protect Federal radar operations and transmit power control (TPC) to
protect the Earth exploration satellite service. See 47 C.F.R § 15.407(h).
6 See 47 C.F.R. § 2.106, Table of Frequency Allocations.
7 Id.
3

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

allocated on a primary basis to the Meteorological Aids Service for both Federal and non-Federal
operations. The band segment at 5.65-5.725 GHz is allocated on a secondary basis to the Amateur Radio
Service for non-Federal operation.8
8.
The U-NII-3 band is allocated on a primary basis to the Radiolocation Service for Federal
operation, and is allocated on a secondary basis to the Amateur Radio Service for non-Federal operation.9

B.

Expanding Utility of Existing U-NII Bands

9.
In the NPRM, the Commission noted that this an opportune time for the Commission to
re-examine the U-NII rules. A new Wi-Fi standard—IEEE 802.11ac—allows for wider bandwidth
transmissions by devices that operate across more than one U-NII band, thus increasing use of the band
for broadband services, permitting faster speeds, and easing Wi-Fi congestion.10 Currently, three sets of
Wi-Fi standards are used for the 5-GHz U-NII bands: 802.11a, 802.11n and 802.11ac. Each standard
specifies different channel bandwidths and data rates. For example, the 802.11a standard defines a 20-
megahertz channel bandwidth with maximum data rate up to 54 Mbit/s,11 and the 802.11n standard
specifies 20- and 40-megahertz channel bandwidths with maximum data rate from 54 Mbit/s to 600
Mbit/s.12 The new 802.11ac standard would allow for a significant increase in bandwidth and data rates
in the 5 GHz band—it specifies bandwidths of 20, 40, 80, and 160 megahertz with a link data rate of
approximately 1 Gbit/s.13
10.
The amount of contiguous spectrum available for U-NII devices may also increase in the
future as the Commission, in conjunction with NTIA and industry, continue technical analyses of the U-
NII-2B and U-NII-4 bands to determine whether U-NII devices may operate in those bands without
causing harmful interference to incumbent users of those bands. Due to the ongoing analyses, the
Commission is not addressing those bands in this First R&O.

C.

Terminal Doppler Weather Radar Interference Issues

11.
In early 2009, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reported harmful interference
to their Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR) that operates within the 5.6-5.65 GHz band. Early
field studies performed by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA’s)
Institute for Telecommunications Sciences (ITS) and FAA staff indicated the interference sources were
certain unlicensed U-NII devices that operated in the same frequency band as these Federal radar systems.
This interference was occurring despite the Commission’s rules that require U-NII devices operating in
this band to incorporate an interference mitigation technique called dynamic frequency selection (DFS).14

8 Id.
9 Id.
10 See www.Wi-Fi.org. How does Wi-Fi technology work? Wi-Fi is a short range technology that is often used in
conjunction with a customer’s DSL, Fiber, or cable modem service to connect end-user devices, such as PCs,
laptops and smart phones, located within the customer’s home or business to the Internet. In these cases, Wi-Fi
allows users to move Wi-Fi enabled devices around within their homes or businesses without installing additional
inside wiring, but the actual ”connection” to the service provider is via the customer’s DSL, Fiber, or cable modem
service. Wi-Fi is widely available in airports, city parks, restaurants, bookstores and other public places called
“hotspots,” allowing those who are away from their homes or businesses to access the Internet.
11 The 802.11a standard is an amendment to the original standard that was ratified in 1999. The amendment was
incorporated into the published IEEE 802.11-2007.
12 IEEE 802.11n is an amendment to the IEEE 802.11-2007 standard and was published in 2009.
13 The IEEE 802.11ac standard was published in December of 2013.
14 DFS is a mechanism that detects the presence of radar signals and dynamically guides a transmitter to switch to
another channel whenever a particular condition (indicating a conflict with an active radar operation) is met. Prior
to the start of any transmission, a U-NII device equipped with DFS capability must continually monitor the radio
(continued….)
4

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

12.
NTIA, FAA, the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau and Office of Engineering and Technology,
and industry participants analyzed the interference reports. Following these investigations, the
Commission took actions to mitigate the interference situation, including issuing enforcement advisories
to heighten users’ awareness of TDWR interference issues,15 and placing conditions on U-NII device
certifications to curtail the interference risk.16 The Commission also sent enforcement teams to work with
FAA staff in the field, and took enforcement actions against operators of U-NII devices that caused
harmful interference to TDWR installations, including issuing Letters of Inquiry and Notices of Apparent
Liability for Forfeitures.17 Most of these interference cases were determined to have been caused by
devices not certified for operation in the U-NII-2C band, which includes the 5.6-5.65 GHz band used by
the TDWRs; no cases have been attributed to certified equipment operating properly in accordance with
their grant of equipment authorization. Instead, these devices had been certified for operation in the U-
NII-3 band, either as U-NII devices under Section 15.407 of our rules, or as digitally modulated
intentional radiators under Section 15.247 of our rules, and had been illegally modified and operated at
high power levels in elevated locations.
13.
The Commission’s investigations found that most 5 GHz devices are manufactured to
enable operation across a wide range of frequencies, extending down into the 4 GHz bands and up to
almost 6 GHz. The devices are controlled by software that manages the specific parameters used in the
equipment. In most of those cases for which a specific cause was determined, the harmful interference
was the result of third parties or users modifying the software configurations to enable operation in
frequency bands other than those for which the device had been certified, but without meeting the
(Continued from previous page)
environment for radar’s presence. If the U-NII device determines that a radar signal is present, it must either select
another channel to avoid harmful interference with radar, or go into a “sleep mode” if no other channel is available.
15 See FCC Enforcement Advisory, TDWR and U-NII Devices, “Enforcement Bureau Takes Action to Prevent
Interference to FAA-Operated Terminal Doppler Weather Radars Critical to Flight Safety,” (TDWR Enforcement
Advisory) DA 12-459, September 27, 2012, Enforcement Advisory No. 2012-07, available at:
http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/weather-radar-interference-enforcement. Users of U-NII devices include wireless
Internet service providers (WISPs), which were the focus of the Enforcement Advisory for outdoor fixed
installations, as well as consumers for indoor wireless networking.
16 See Memorandum from Julius Knapp, Chief, FCC Office of Engineering and Technology and P. Michele Ellison,
Chief, FCC Enforcement Bureau to Manufacturers and Operators of Unlicensed 5 GHz Outdoor Network
Equipment, dated July 27, 2010. http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/weather-radar-interference-enforcement.
17 See VPNet, Inc., Order & Consent Decree, 28 FCC Rcd 15429 (Enf. Bur. 2013); Ayustar Corporation, Order &
Consent Decree, 28 FCC Rcd 15420 (Enf. Bur. 2013); Towerstream Corporation, Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 11604 (Enf. Bur. 2013); Argos Net, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 28 FCC Rcd 1126
(Enf. Bur. 2013); Directlink,LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 37 (Enf. Bur.
2013); Skybeam Acquisition Corporation, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 11337
(Enf. Bur. 2012); AT&T, Inc. Forfeiture Order, 27 FCC Rcd 10803 (Enf. Bur. 2012); VPNet, Inc., Notice of
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 2879 (Enf. Bur. 2012); Argos Net, Inc., Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 2786 (Enf. Bur. 2012); Insight Consulting Group of Kansas City,
LLC,
Notice of Apparent Liability of Forfeiture and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 10699 (Enf. Bur. 2011); Ayustar Corp.,
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 10693 (Enf. Bur. 2011); Rapidwave, LLC,
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 10678 (Enf. Bur. 2011); AT&T, Inc., Notice of
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 26 FCC Rcd 1894 (Enf. Bur. 2011); Utah Broadband, Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture, 26 FCC Rcd 1419 (Enf. Bur. 2011) (forfeiture paid). See also Ayustar Corp., Memorandum
Opinion and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 16,249 (Enf. Bur. 2010); Sling Broadband, LLC, Forfeiture Order, 26 FCC Rcd
13062 (Enf. Bur. 2011). (hereinafter TDWR Enforcement Cases) Nearly all of these cases involved Enforcement
Bureau findings that devices were operated outside of their certification, resulting in violations of the
Communications Act because the operators of the devices did not have a license to operate equipment that had been
modified and thus did not meet the technical requirements in Part 15 of our Rules. The Notice of Apparent Liability
issued to Towerstream was an action by the full Commission, and covered both operation of radio transmitters
without a license, and causing harmful interference to TDWRs.
5

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

technical requirements for operation in those frequency bands (such as the U-NII-2C band where
interference to the TDWR was occurring).
14.
Previously, in 2006, the Commission had issued measurement procedures to test devices
to ensure that they comply with the radar detection and the DFS requirements for the U-NII-2A and U-
NII-2C bands.18 Following the investigations, the Office of Engineering and Technology provided
applicants for certification a representative way for demonstrating that their U-NII devices would not
cause harmful interference to TDWR installations operating in the U-NII-2C band. Specifically, the
FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) has advised applicants that it will approve such
devices only upon assurance by the applicant that: (a) U-NII devices may not operate co-frequency with
TDWR operations at 5.6-5.65 GHz;19 (b) grantee will provide owners, operators and installers of these
devices with instructions that a master or client device within 35 km of a TDWR location must be
separated by at least 30 megahertz (center-to-center) from the TDWR operating frequency and procedures
for registering the devices in an industry-sponsored database;20 (c) the device does not include
configuration controls to change the frequency of operation to any frequency other than those specified in
the grant of certification; and (d) the device’s software configurations do not allow for ad hoc
networking, country code selection, or other mode of operation that would disable the DFS functionality
of the U-NII device.21 Subsequently, NTIA and the FAA recommended to the Commission that the 2006
compliance and measurement procedures for DFS be revised to include modified definitions, technical
requirements (e.g., detection bandwidth and pulse repetition interval values), radar test waveforms, test
procedures, and test report guidelines.22

III.

DISCUSSION

15.
U-NII devices already play an important role in meeting public demand for wireless
broadband service, particularly wireless local area networking and broadband access. This foundation,
coupled with increasing demand for wireless broadband applications and new Wi-Fi technology, signals a

18 These procedures were based on the work of the International Telecommunication Advisory Committee-
Radiocommunication (ITAC-R) Government/Industry Project Team (Project Team) /Industry Project Team (Project
Team) and recommendations from NTIA. See Letter from Fredrick R. Wentland, Associate Administrator, NTIA to
Julius Knapp, Deputy Chief, OET, filed in ET Docket No. 03-122 on March 30, 2006, and the enclosure
Compliance Measurement Procedures for Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure Devices Operating in the
5250-5350 MHz and 5470-5725 MHz bands Incorporating Dynamic Frequency Selection (Compliance
Measurement Procedures)
. See also Revision of Parts 2 and 15 of the Commission’s Rules to permit Unlicensed
National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) devices in the 5 GHz Band, Memorandum Opinion and Order, ET
Docket No.03-122, 21 FCC Rcd 7672, Appendix: Compliance Measurement Procedures for Unlicensed-National
Information Infrastructure Devices Operating in the 5250-5350 MHz and 5470-5725 MHz Bands Incorporating
Dynamic Frequency Selection. (hereinafter 2006 DFS Compliance Measurement Procedures). These procedures
describe only the measurement procedures used to demonstrate compliance with DFS requirements. U-NII devices
are also required to comply with other technical requirements which are not described in these procedures.
19 This restriction is placed on the certification grant as a condition of operation. See FCC, OET, “Interim Plans to
Approve UNII Devices Operating in the 5470-5725 MHz Band with Radar Detection and DFS Capabilities”, KDB
Publication No. 443999 DO1.
20 We note that the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA) maintains a voluntary database
accessible to the public, containing TDWR system locations. See http://www.wispa.org.
21 See, e.g., KDB 594280 available at: http://www.fcc.gov/labhelp.
22 The Federal Government had been considering the 5.15-5.25 GHz band as potential spectrum for relocation of
services displaced from the 1755-1850 MHz band. However, the NTIA ultimately chose to pursue options that did
not require relocation of Federal telemetry systems into this band. See Letter from Lawrence E. Strickling,
Administrator, NTIA to Julius Genachowski, Chairman, FCC, filed February 19, 2013, and the enclosure Appendix -
Proposal for New Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure Dynamic Frequency Selection Certification
Waveforms.
A copy of this document has been placed in the docket file for this proceeding.
6

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

bright future for unlicensed operations in the 5 GHz band. To meet continuing demand, in this First R&O
we are taking a number of actions to increase the utility of the 555 megahertz of the 5 GHz band already
available for U-NII operations, while protecting incumbent users from harmful interference.
16.
In this First R&O, we modify the Part 15 rules for the U-NII-1 band by removing the
indoor-only restriction and increasing the permitted power level.23 These changes provide more
flexibility for providing broadband service, whether indoors or outdoors, and take advantage of the new
802.11ac standard to achieve higher data rate transmissions across multiple U-NII segments of the 5 GHz
band.
17.
We also modify our rules to require manufacturers to secure the software in all U-NII
devices to prevent modifications that would allow the device to operate in a manner inconsistent with the
equipment certification. This change will reduce the likelihood of harmful interference not only to
TDWR systems, but to all authorized services in the 5 GHz bands.
18.
To protect TDWR and other radar systems in the U-NII-2A and U-NII-2C segments from
harmful interference, we also modify certain technical rules for U-NII devices authorized to operate in
these bands. We also direct the Office of Engineering and Technology to update its compliance
measurement procedures to improve testing for radar detection and to eliminate certain outdated
performance tests.
19.
We consolidate the provisions applicable to digitally modulated devices under Section
15.247 of the rules for this band with the U-NII rules in Section 15.407 so that all the digitally modulated
devices operating in the 5 GHz band will operate under the combined rules and be subject to the new
device security requirement. This change will eliminate a major cause of harmful interference to the
TDWR: when users illegally modify devices certified to operate under Section 15.247 to operate in the
5.47-5.725 GHz band without implementing DFS. This rule consolidation also will reduce complexity
and costs in authorizing technically similar devices under different rules.
20.
We adopt several miscellaneous rule modifications related to U-NII operations at 5 GHz,
and adopt transition periods for the new rules we adopt today.
21.
Finally, we direct OET to revise the 2006 DFS Compliance Measurement Procedures and
other compliance measurement guidelines for U-NII devices, consistent with the decisions made in this
First R&O. We further direct OET to publish the revised measurement procedures and guidelines online
in the Knowledge Database (KDB).24

A.

Increasing the Utility of the U-NII-1 Band

22.
Background. The U-NII-1 band was one of the first 5 GHz band segments made
available for U-NII devices in 1997. The Commission adopted technical rules for U-NII devices in this
band to protect the nascent NGSO/MSS industry which had gained an international FSS allocation at 5
GHz in 1995. Specifically, the Commission adopted a peak transmitter output power limit of 50 mW
with up to 6 dBi antenna gain permitted, which equates to 200 mW EIRP,25 and a transmitter peak power
spectral density of 2.5 mW/MHz (4 dBm/MHz).26 The Commission believed that a 50 mW peak output

23 See Letter from Karl B. Nebbia, Associate Administrator, Office of Spectrum Management, to Julius P. Knapp,
Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology (July 22, 2013) at Enclosure 1.
24 See www.fcc.gov/labhelp.
25 See 47 C.F.R. §2.1. EIRP is defined as the product of the power supplied to the antenna and the antenna gain in a
given direction relative to an isotropic antenna.
26 See 47 C.F.R. §15.403. Power Spectral Density is defined as the total energy output per unit bandwidth from a
pulse or sequence of pulses for which the transmit power is at its peak or maximum level, divided by the total
duration of the pulses. This total time does not include the time between pulses during which the transmit power is
off or below its maximum level.
7

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

power with up to 6 dBi gain antenna would provide U-NII devices with sufficient flexibility in using the
band. The Commission also restricted U-NII devices to indoor operation, to provide additional protection
to co-channel NGSO/MSS operations. The Commission determined that the low power limits would
allow U-NII devices to provide a variety of short-range communications within a very local area, such as
in a room or in adjoining rooms, and, along with the restriction on outdoor operation, balanced the need to
provide sufficient power for U-NII devices with protection of co-channel NGSO/MSS operations.27
23.
We have examined our licensing databases, and we have found that there is currently no
use of the ARNS in the U-NII-1 band. We also note that the allocation for the FSS in the U-NII-1 band is
limited to feeder links for non-geostationary orbit (NGSO) satellite systems in the Mobile Satellite
Service (MSS), and Globalstar is the only MSS operator in the United States using this band. Its satellites
communicate with mobile end-user devices via spot beams using the Lower Big LEO band at 1.61-
1.618725 GHz for the uplink and using the Upper Big LEO band at 2.4835-2.5 GHz for the downlink.
The satellites are connected to the phone network and Internet through a terrestrial network of ground
stations called gateways. These gateways use the 5.096-5.25 GHz band for uplink communication and
the 6.875-7.055 GHz band for downlink communication.28
24.
In the NPRM, the Commission envisioned that harmonizing the power and use conditions
across the lower 200 megahertz of U-NII spectrum (U-NII-1 and U-NII-2A) would likely permit the
introduction of a wide-range of new broadband products capable of operating at higher data rates than is
now possible. We therefore sought comment on whether the rules for the U-NII-1 band should be
modified to eliminate the restriction on outdoor operation.29 We also sought comment on whether the
rules for the U-NII-1 band should be modified to harmonize with the rules for the U-NII-2A band in two
areas.30 Specifically, we sought comment on whether we should increase the power limits to those
applicable in the U-NII-2A band, i.e., 250 mW with a maximum EIRP of 30 dBm with 6 dBi antenna
gain.31 We also invited comment on whether the rules for the U-NII-1 band should be modified to
increase the power spectral density (PSD) limits to those applicable in the U-NII-2A band, i.e., 11
dBm/MHz.32 Alternatively, the Commission sought comment on whether the rules for the U-NII-1 band
should be harmonized with the rules for the U-NII-3 band to: (a) increase the power limits to 1 W with 6
dBi antenna gain; (b) increase the PSD limits to 17 dBm/MHz; and (c) maintain the current EIRP limit
on out-of-band emissions limit of -27 dBm/MHz.33
25.
Comments. Initially, Globalstar and the Mobile Satellite Users Alliance supported
maintaining the current prohibition on outdoor operation in the U-NII-1 band in order to protect the MSS
from the potential of harmful interference.34 All other parties that commented on the indoor-use
restriction (largely representing Wi-Fi manufacturers and internet service providers) favored eliminating

27 See U-NII Report and Order, supra at 1595-96, para. 44.
28 See Globalstar Licensee LLC Application for Modification of Non-geostationary Mobile Satellite Service Space
Station License, Order
, 26 FCC Rcd 3948 (Int’l Bur., 2011). Globalstar is currently licensed to operate 4 gateway
stations in the United States.
29 See NPRM, supra at 1782, para. 39.
30 The U-NII-2A band includes requirements for DFS to protect radar operations and TPC to protect EESS
operations, neither of which operates in the U-NII-1 band. Thus U-NII-1 devices would not need to include these
functions.
31 See NPRM supra at 1781 at para. 39.
32 Id.
33 See NPRM, supra at 1782, para. 40.
34 See Globalstar Comments at 4, MSUA Comments at 1.
8

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

the prohibition in order to facilitate the development of outdoor access points critical to the success of
Wi-Fi and broadband networks.35
26.
Many commenters generally favor harmonizing power limits across U-NII bands, at a
minimum to the power levels in the adjacent U-NII-2A band.36 Comcast notes that consistency between
adjacent bands would advance gigabit Wi-Fi by enabling operators to take advantage of the 160
megahertz channels contemplated by the next generation 802.11ac standard.37 Motorola Mobility
believes that by bringing uniformity to the technical rules, the Commission could promote innovative uses
of the U-NII-1 and U-NII-2A bands.38 Cisco believes that the Commission should harmonize the U-NII-1
power and PSD rules with those of the U-NII-2A band at a minimum, and should seriously explore
possible harmonization with the U-NII-3 rules.39 The National Cable Television Association (NCTA)
also notes that adopting higher power limits would allow operators to choose to use a contiguous 160
megahertz channel spanning the U-NII-1 and U-NII-2A bands.40 At the same time, NCTA also notes that
operators could use a new non-contiguous 160 megahertz channel comprising 80 megahertz of spectrum
at U-NII-1 and 80 megahertz of spectrum at U-NII-3. NCTA states that increasing the transmit power
limit in the U-NII-1 band is very important for unlicensed operations because higher power results in
improved range, coverage and throughput characteristics.
27.
Other commenters specifically support adoption of power limits that would harmonize
operations in the U-NII-1 band with those in the U-NII-3 band.41 WISPA urges the Commission to permit
outdoor operations in the U-NII-1 band under the U-NII-3 rules, including allowing for higher gain point-
to-point antennas.42 Fastback Networks supports using the U-NII-3 power limits for a category of devices
that it calls “professionally-installed fixed devices,” while maintaining the current U-NII-1 limits for
“transportable devices” which would consist of any equipment not meeting their proposed
“professionally-installed fixed device” definition.43
28.
While the majority of commenters supported harmonization with either the U-NII-2A or
the U-NII-3 band power levels, Globalstar initially stated that an increase in power limits in the U-NII-1
band up to the limits permitted in the U-NII-2A band would be manageable in terms of interference to its
feeder link operations only if the Commission maintains its prohibition on outdoor operations.44

35 See NCTA Comments at 15, Cablevision Comments at 6, Comcast Comments at 25, Cisco Comments at 54,
Ericsson Comments at 5, IEEE 802 LMSC Comments at 28, Motorola Mobility Comments at 5, Motorola Solutions
Comments at 4, Wi-Fi Alliance Comments at 25, Ruckus Wireless Comments at 4, Fastback Networks Comments at
5, Exalt Communications Comments at 4, ITIC Comments at 10, WISPA Comments at 9, Google and Microsoft
Comments at 5, Time Warner Cable Comments at 3.
36 See CEA Comments at 4, Engine Advocacy Comments at 1, ITIC Comments at 9, Cisco Comments at 54,
ComCast Comments at 3, Wi-Fi Alliance Comments at 24, Ericsson Comments at 5, Motorola Mobility Comments
at 2, IEEE 802 LMSC Comments at 4.
37 See Comcast Comments at 21
38 See Motorola Mobility Comments at 5.
39 See Cisco Comments at 54.
40 See NCTA Comments at 14.
41 See Cablevision Comments at 5, Fastback Networks Comments at 5, Motorola Solutions Comments at 4, NCTA
Reply Comments at 21, Time Warner Cable Comments at 3, WISPA Comments at 9, Ruckus Wireless Comments at
4.
42 See WISPA Comments at 9.
43 See Fastback Comments at 5.
44 See Globalstar Comments at 6. Globalstar stipulates that if the Commission raises the power limit to the UNII-2A
limit, it will have to account for the increased noise level in Globalstar’s feeder uplink spectrum if in the future a co-
primary aeronautical radionavigation operator seeks authority to provide service in the United States.
9

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

Globalstar claimed that removal of the outdoor prohibition would significantly increase radio noise
picked up by the satellite receiver used in Globalstar's NGSO feeder links. Globalstar stated that this
increase would be caused by an aggregate of the radio noise from all devices operating across the United
States because the satellite receiver employs a nationwide footprint. Globalstar asserted that this increase
in radio noise constitutes harmful interference because it would significantly reduce the capacity and
coverage of its two-way MSS offerings.
29.
Globalstar initially provided a technical analysis to support its contention that if the
Commission were to combine outdoor operations with increased U-NII-1 power limits, the number of
devices that could simultaneously operate at 5.15-5.25 GHz without causing harmful interference to
Globalstar would decrease from more than 200,000 devices to either 798 or 201 devices (depending on
whether the power limits were raised to U-NII-2A or U-NII-3 levels).45 Globalstar reached this
conclusion solely by examining interference to the space station receiver, without considering the overall
system impact (i.e. interference to the user’s MSS handset).
30.
In opposition, NCTA asserted that the Commission set rules in 1997 based on the
assumption that many different MSS companies would share the U-NII-1 band, whereas today Globalstar
is the only satellite operator that operates feeder link stations domestically in the 5096-5250 MHz band.46
In its reply comments, NCTA provided an analysis which concludes that the interference risk is much
lower than Globalstar has claimed.47 NCTA contended that Globalstar makes a variety of errors that
overstate interference risk, and that an analysis using an appropriate methodology and reasonable
assumptions demonstrates that there is very little risk to Globalstar’s systems from expanding Wi-Fi
access in the U-NII-1 band.48 Specifically, NCTA stated that the single-link analysis using only noise-
based thresholds provided by Globalstar examined only the feeder link from the gateway earth station to
the satellite, and does not account for the “bent-pipe” architecture of the Globalstar system.
31.
After the comment and reply comment periods had closed, Globalstar and NCTA
continued to file multiple ex parte presentations responding to the opposing party, advocating for the
propriety of their own analyses and assumptions, while criticizing those of the other.49 Late in 2013,
NCTA and Globalstar began engaging in joint technical discussions with a goal of reaching a mutually
agreeable resolution to the U-NII-1 issues.50 Globalstar states that during these discussions, it presented a
specific proposal to NCTA designed to permit large numbers of outdoor U-NII-1 devices, while providing
reasonable protection to Globalstar, its MSS network, and its customers. Its proposal focuses on two
approaches to limiting the harmful effects from the outdoor deployment of U-NII-1 access points:
antenna standards limiting access point antenna gain at 30 degrees, and a sequenced roll-out mechanism
for outdoor U-NII-1 devices based on Globalstar’s continuous measurement of the noise rise at its
satellites.51 Globalstar proposes that the antenna gain be capped at -11 dBi at 30 degrees and higher
(assuming U-NII-2A power limits, resulting in 13 dBm EIRP above 30 degrees) in order to lower the
noise rise at its satellites, and that the Commission provide a regulatory “backstop” to control unrestricted

45 See Globalstar Comments at 5.
46 See NCTA Reply Comments at 15.
47 See NCTA Reply Comments.
48 See NCTA ex parte (9/18/13) at 4.
49 See NCTA ex parte (9/18/13), NCTA ex parte (9/23/13), NCTA ex parte filings (10/22/13), NCTA ex parte
(10/28/13), NCTA ex parte (1/17/14), NCTA ex parte (1/22/14), NCTA ex parte (2/03/14), NCTA ex parte filings
(2/26/14). Globalstar ex parte filings (11/22/13), Globalstar supplemental comments ( 11/29/13), Globalstar
supplemental comments (12/13/13), Globalstar ex parte (1/28/14), Globalstar Investors ex parte filings (1/31/14),
Globalstar ex parte (2/7/14), Globalstar ex parte (2/14/14), Globalstar ex parte (2/20/14).
50 See Globalstar ex parte (2/23/14) at 3.
51 Id.
10

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

roll-out if Globalstar’s encounters a noise rise of 2 dB caused by uplink interference generated by outdoor
U-NII-1 devices at the satellite.52
32.
In response to Globalstar’s proposal, NCTA suggests that U-NII devices be permitted to
operate at 1 W power if they meet one of three possible conditions: (1) the device is an outdoor access
point whose radiated power does not exceed 125 mW (21 dBm) at elevation angles above 30 degrees; (2)
the device is used for a point-to-point link; or (3) the device operates indoors.53 It further proposes that
devices that do not meet one of these criteria should be limited to 250 mW conducted power.54
33.
In its subsequent filing, Globalstar states that it supports NCTA’s proposal for a
minimum standard for outdoor U-NII-1 antennas because antennas that radiate power vertically create the
greatest impact on Globalstar’s constellation, and Globalstar agrees with NCTA that its antenna proposal
would significantly limit the energy radiated toward its Big LEO satellites, and should provide Globalstar
with meaningful protection from harmful aggregate interference.55 Globalstar however disagrees with
NCTA’s proposal to permit outdoor deployments at 250 mW conducted power without limiting the
antenna. Globalstar also restates its belief that unlimited access points operating outdoors at 250 mW
without constraining the power in the vertical direction would have a detrimental impact and states that
the only reasonable exception would be to allow outdoor U-NII-1 access points deployed as of March 4,
2014, to operate at NCTA’s proposed 250 mW conducted power level.56 Globalstar also reiterates its
belief that the 2 dB backstop is necessary because limiting the energy transmitted in the vertical direction
does not guarantee that Globalstar’s customers will not be negatively impacted.57 In lieu of codifying a 2
dB noise rise threshold as harmful interference to the satellite constellation, Globalstar suggests that the
Commission detail a mitigation approach and account for Globalstar’s ability to measure the noise rise at
its satellites. To that end, Globalstar urges the Commission to require U-NII-1 operators to inform the
Commission if and where they plan to deploy a substantial number of outdoor U-NII-1 access points and
to describe their network management capabilities.58
34.
Decision. The majority of commenters support allowing outdoor operations in the U-
NII-1 band, and some level of harmonization across the U-NII bands. For the reasons set forth below, we
conclude that it is in the public interest to permit outdoor operation of U-NII devices in the U-NII-1 band,
and that we can do so while appropriately protecting MSS service from harmful interference.
Specifically, we revise our rules to permit transmitter power levels up to 1 W, as permitted in the U-NII-3
band, with safeguards described below to minimize the likelihood of harmful interference to Globalstar’s
MSS system.
35.
We observe that NCTA’s and Globalstar’s analyses are based on fundamentally different
assumptions about future factors such as the extent of deployments, the technical characteristics of the
equipment, and the extent of the communications traffic. While these assumptions are inherently
uncertain, we can minimize their significance with a technical resolution which restricts a device’s
emissions when operating above a certain elevation angle, coupled with a reporting requirement directed
at large-scale deployments, which will facilitate corrective measures should they become necessary.
36.
More specifically, since the noise floor increase seen by the satellite will be a function of
the aggregated energy from U-NII-1 emissions at elevation angles above 30 degrees, we can readily

52 See Globalstar ex parte (2/27/14) at 2-3.
53 See NCTA ex parte (3/4/14) at 2-3.
54 Id.
55 See Globalstar ex parte (03/06/14) at 2.
56 Id. at 4.
57 Id.
58 Id.
11

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

address the likelihood of interference to the satellite attributable to this potential increase. Applying
technological measures to operations above this elevation angle will sharply reduce the energy that will
be received by the satellite from each individual access point, resulting in reduced aggregate noise at the
satellite. As a result, it is far less likely that harmful interference will occur, even for proliferation of
access points greater than that presumed in either party’s earlier analysis, making moot to a large degree
the disagreements as to the number of access points that might be deployed.
37.
We conclude that generally allowing fixed access point outdoor operations at a conducted
power level of up to 1 W (30 dBm), and a PSD of 17 dBm/MHz with an allowance for a 6 dBi antenna
gain (i.e. a total 36 dBm EIRP), and limiting the maximum EIRP above 30 degrees elevation to 125 mW
(21 dBm) EIRP, provides reasonable protection from harmful interference to Globalstar’s system. Both
NCTA and Globalstar 59 agree that this protocol would provide interference protection to Globalstar,
while permitting access to the spectrum for U-NII users.60 We believe that expressing a limit in terms of
EIRP will provide U-NII manufacturers and operators with flexibility regarding how to design their
equipment, while still achieving the required levels of protection. Manufacturers will be able to
demonstrate compliance with the EIRP limit by reducing antenna gain in the upward direction, or by
limiting the transmitter power, or a combination of the two, as best suits their particular purpose.
38.
We decline to require a regulatory “backstop” as proposed by Globalstar. Consistent with
Commission precedent, we will not numerically define “harmful interference” here, beyond the current
definition in our rules.61 While we do not believe that Globalstar’s “backstop” is an appropriate
prophylactic – we have determined that the rules we adopt today should not result in harmful interference
to Globalstar’s MSS operations and we will continue to monitor developments in this band. Globalstar
has expressed strong concerns in this proceeding that proposed unchecked, widespread deployments of
outdoor access points may disrupt licensed services in the band. To provide a safeguard and require
accountability for such large deployments, we adopt the following filing requirement. Before deploying
an aggregate total of more than one thousand outdoor access points62 within the U-NII-1 band, companies
must submit a letter to the Commission acknowledging that, should harmful interference to licensed
services in this band occur, they will be required to take corrective action. Corrective actions may include
reducing power, turning off devices, changing frequency bands, and/or further reducing power in the
vertical direction. This reporting requirement provides us a means to identify readily the largest
deployments of U-NII access points, in the unlikely event the number of installations reaches a point
where aggregate noise does cause harmful interference to Globalstar and we must take action to avoid
such a result. We believe that the power limits above 30 degrees described above for individual devices,
combined with the filing requirement for deployments of large numbers of devices will provide us with
sufficient means for avoiding harmful interference and addressing it if it does occur.

59 See NCTA ex parte (3/04/14), Globalstar ex parte (3/6/14).
60 We note that Globalstar characterizes its current position as an acceptance of harmful interference, rather than a
determination of what constitutes harmful interference to its operation. See Globalstar ex parte (2/27/14) at 3.
61 See 47 C.F.R. § 2.1, Terms and Definitions. Our rules define harmful interference as interference which
endangers the functioning of a radionavigation service or of other safety services or seriously degrades, obstructs, or
repeatedly interrupts a Radiocommunication service operating in accordance with the Radio Regulations. 47 C.F.R.
§ 2.1(c) (setting forth terms and definitions generally applicable to FCC Rules, including the term “harmful
interference”).
62 We define access points in this context as point-to-multipoint devices. We believe that this numerical threshold
will identify the companies that will provide the vast majority of access points, and thus the greatest impact on the
noise floor. The types of networks deployed in this manner tend to have network administration and management
systems that permit a network operator to remotely control and adjust the parameters for the devices within the
deployments on the fly. Globalstar for instance agrees with this approach. See Globalstar ex parte (03/6/14) at 4.
Globalstar for instance agrees with this approach
12

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

39.
We understand that a considerable number of unlicensed devices (possibly as many as
200,000 units or more) have been deployed and operate in the U-NII-3 band. While these devices are
certified to operate in the U-NII-3 band, operators of this equipment expect that, working with the device
manufacturers, they could potentially reprogram these devices to operate at power limits we adopt today
in the U-NII-1 band, and thus quickly begin more flexible operation in the U-NII-1 band using this
existing equipment.63 These devices may have been certified under either the U-NII-3 rules or under
Section 15.247, which are both being modified in this First R&O.
40.
We will permit such devices to operate under the new U-NII-1 rules under two potential
scenarios, but in both cases, the equipment must comply with the software security requirements
described below that we adopt today to prevent unauthorized device modifications.64 First, at any time
manufacturers or equipment operators may file a request for a permissive change to their current
equipment authorizations demonstrating compliance with the rules we adopt today. If manufacturers of
the previously deployed equipment are able to demonstrate compliance with the EIRP requirement
described above, we will allow a permissive change with up to 1 W of conducted power.
41.
Second, if outdoor U-NII-3 band systems installed prior to the effective date of the rules
adopted today are not able to comply with the EIRP requirement, we encourage manufacturers or
equipment operators to file for a waiver of certain technical requirements for operation in the U-NII-1
band,65 no later than 30 days after of the effective date of the new rules.66 More specifically, if the waiver
is designed to enable such existing deployments to operate within the U-NII-1 band with up to 250 mW
of conducted power and a PSD of 11 dBm/MHz with a 6 dBi gain antenna,67 then we believe we can
make a quick and likely favorable good cause determination sufficient to grant the waiver request, barring
any unforeseen circumstances in a given case. We believe that providing the following about the waiver
petitioner’s existing deployments will be important to our ability to assess waiver requests: the number of
devices installed, general location of each deployment, ability to reprogram the devices, and ability to
adjust operating power from a central network management system. We can conclude now that waiver
requests meeting these parameters and made within a short period of time are likely to serve the public
interest because granting them is highly unlikely to create any risk of harmful interference, given the
small numbers involved and the limited departure from the new technical requirements for the U-NII-1
band. More specifically, given the limited current deployment of devices, we expect the number of
operators and manufacturers that will apply for approval during the first 30 days of the new rules will be
relatively low, compared to the millions of devices considered in both the NCTA and Globalstar
analyses.68 Indeed, Globalstar has acknowledged that it would be reasonable to approve waiver requests

63 See NCTA ex parte (3/04/14) at 3, Globalstar ex parte (3/6/14) at 3.
64 Under both of the permissive change procedures we describe, the U-NII-1 band may be added to equipment
currently authorized to operate in the U-NII-3 band, but the U-NII-3 component of such equipment does not need
approval beyond that in its current grant of equipment authorization.
65 47 C.F.R. § 1.3. See also WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153 (1969).
66 With the exception of those rules whose effective date is delayed pending compliance with the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the effective date of the rules we adopt today (and which we use as a benchmark
for stating the above-referenced waivers) is set at 30 days following publication of this Report and Order in the
Federal Register. Thus, the filing period for a waiver petitioner seeking the benefit of the broad type of approach
toward waivers described in this paragraph begins once the rules generally become effective (i.e., 30 days after
Federal Register publication of this Report and Order) and ends 30 days thereafter (i.e., 60 days after Federal
Register publication of the Report and Order).
67 All new outdoor devices installed as of the effective date of the rules that utilize the U-NII-1 band, including those
operating at 250 mW or below, will be required to observe the EIRP limits adopted herein.
68 We note that Globalstar had requested that only equipment deployed by March 4, 2014, be allowed to operate
under this exception. See Globalstar ex parte (3/06/14) at 3. We believe that using 30 days after the effective date
of the rules as a cutoff date for currently deployed equipment is more appropriate than March 4, 2014 because the
(continued….)
13

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

for previously installed devices.69 In addition, the comparatively small number of installed devices
strongly suggests a negligible risk of harmful interference from allowing this exception, and the expedient
approval of such waivers would benefit the public by promptly and efficiently expanding broadband use
in this band. Moreover, having such waiver petitioners provide information about the numbers of
installed devices that would be covered by the grant, as well as their general location, will help us monitor
the accuracy of our predictions in these regards and allow us to alter course or take effective corrective
action if necessary. Following the 30-day window, operators and manufacturers may continue to file
petitions for waiver, but we will decide such petitions without the assurances of good cause provided by
the above-described approach.70
42.
We delegate authority to the Office of Engineering and Technology to consider and act
on all waiver petitions that are received within 30 days after the rules adopted today generally become
effective (i.e., petitions filed no later than 60 days after publication of the Federal Register summary of
the order we adopt today), and which conform to the description set forth in the above paragraph. Given
the simplicity of the information required, we find that 30 days after the effective date of the rules will
give parties sufficient time to file a letter with OET concerning their existing equipment, and this deadline
will provide significant assurance that equipment deployed after the effective date will comply with the
rules we adopt today. All parties receiving a waiver must then demonstrate compliance with the technical
requirements through the equipment certification process by filing a permissive change request including
the approved waiver. There is no deadline for filing for such a permissive change.
43.
Notwithstanding the above, and consistent with WISPA’s request described above, we
will permit fixed point-to-point devices operating in the U-NII-1 band to employ transmitting antennas
with directional gain up to 23 dBi without any corresponding reduction in the transmitter maximum
output power or maximum power spectral density, and with no reduction of power in the vertical
direction. We will not require these devices to reduce the antenna gain in the vertical direction. Such
point-to-point operations are typically highly directional and aim their signals along the earth, and
therefore are less likely to contribute significant energy to that received by the satellite. They are also
relatively few in numbers as compared to the widespread distribution of access points examined by
Globalstar and NCTA.
44.
We will permit indoor access points operating in the U-NII-1 band at 1 W of conducted
power with a 6 dBi antenna gain and no reduction in vertical antenna gain coupled with a requirement for
a 1 dB reduction in conducted power for every 1 dB that the antenna gain exceeds 6 dBi. These types of
consumer-oriented devices should not contribute to interference concerns, as the building materials used
in indoor environments should sufficiently attenuate energy transmitted from indoor devices to prevent
any significant contribution to any noise rise seen by Globalstar’s satellite.
(Continued from previous page)
later date will allow operators to complete deployments that have already been planned. The total number of
devices deployed between March 4, 2014 and the 30-day deadline after the effective date of the rules will be small
compared with the number of devices deployed under the new rules, and thus will not contribute significantly to
noise levels received at Globalstar’s satellites.
69 See Globalstar ex parte dated March 6, 2014 at 3.
70 While the 30-day filing window is not dictated by precise calculations, it is a reasonable choice for making this
inherently imprecise line-drawing determination, as waivers granted within this time period, under the conditions
described above will not increase the risk of harmful interference. After that point, we do not make any
determinations here, but rather leave it to a waiver petitioner to make a case without any particular benefits of our
determinations made about good cause under the above-described circumstances. We also note that without a
waiver, any previously installed or new outdoor device that will be used in the U-NII-1 band, even previously
installed ones operating at or below 250 mW, will be required to observe the EIRP limits adopted herein.
14

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

45.
We permit any client device which operates under control of an access point71 in the U-
NII-1 band to operate at conducted power levels up to 250 mW and a PSD of 11 dBm/MHz with a 6 dBi
gain antenna without distinction to whether devices are located indoor or outdoor; power must be reduced
by 1 dB for every dB that the antenna gain exceeds 6 dBi. These devices will not cause interference to
Globalstar’s MSS because of their nature of operation. A client device operates with an access point in a
very asymmetric nature, in that very little data is transmitted in the uplink direction (i.e. transmitted from
the client device) as compared to data transmitted in the downlink direction (i.e. transmitted from the
access point). Client devices are typically mobile or portable,72 such as handsets or laptops and tablets.
These devices are not typically installed in permanent outdoor locations, and due to their mobile nature
the antenna gain in any particular direction cannot be guaranteed. Because client devices will most often
be used in indoor locations with very low antenna heights any emissions will be shielded to some extent
by buildings, foliage or other obstructions. While many such devices are able to operate in either a client
mode, hotspot mode or a peer-peer mode, we do not believe that such peer-peer modes will be used
frequently or deployed as part of an outdoor network; and thus, we will permit mobile or portable client
devices to operate in either mode without changing maximum power levels. Finally, many client devices
incorporate power control features that cause the device to use as little power necessary to provide
necessary communications. These factors compound each other and point to a very low impact from
client devices and we do not find a need to impose the antenna requirements described above for access
points.
46.
We reaffirm that Globalstar’s licensed mobile satellite service is protected against
harmful interference from unlicensed operations. We note that Globalstar has the capability to monitor
increases in noise levels at its satellites, and anticipate that Globalstar will report to us any significant
changes in the noise levels and provide specific details as to how it is affecting its operations. We also
encourage all interested parties to continue to communicate regularly among each other and with
Commission staff regarding developments in this band.

B.

Security Features for All U-NII Bands

47.
Because the current and future use of the 5 GHz U-NII bands is heavily reliant on the
successful implementation of our technical rules, the Commission proposed to require that manufacturers
implement security features in any digitally modulated device capable of operating in any of the U-NII
bands, so that third parties are not able to reprogram the device to operate outside the parameters for
which the device was certified.73 Specifically, we sought comment on whether we should require
manufacturers to make it difficult for third parties to reprogram the transmitter in certified devices, and
whether we should require that manufacturers ensure that modifying or reconfiguring firmware or
software will make a device inoperable in certain bands.74 We also sought comment on whether we
should require U-NII devices to transmit identifying information so that, in the event harmful interference
to authorized users occurs, the source of interference and its location can be identified.75
48.
Device Security. Commenters are generally in favor of requiring device manufacturers to
implement greater security for devices that operate throughout the 5 GHz band to prevent modification by

71 See 47 C.F.R. §15.202.
72 See 47 C.F.R. §2.1091 and §2.1093.
73 See NPRM, supra at 1785, para. 51.
74 Id.
75 Id. We note, for example, that our rules require unlicensed fixed TV band devices to transmit identifying
information that conforms to a standard established by a “recognizable industry standards setting organization” and
should be sufficient “to identify the device and its geographic coordinates.” See 47 C.F.R. § 15.711(d).
15

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

end users.76 Several manufacturers also indicate that they already implement security features in their
equipment to prevent modifications by unauthorized parties.77 The Wireless Internet Service Providers
Association (WISPA) comments that it does not object to the imposition of more stringent security
features to be installed in equipment as an alternative to adopting more severe restrictions that could
negatively affect broadband delivery to distant communities.78
49.
Several commenters propose that the Commission’s security objectives can be achieved
by requiring device manufacturers to answer several questions as part of their certification application.79
A few commenters believe the Commission should require more general rules rather than specifying any
particular technical parameters that U-NII devices must have to ensure device protection. For instance,
NCTA supports reasonable changes to the rules for equipment certification, but urges the Commission to
adopt rules that identify the capabilities the device must have rather than mandating specific technical
requirements for those devices. They believe that “[m]andating specific technical requirements can
increase the cost to manufacturers to design and build devices, which in turn increases the cost for cable
companies that rely on such devices to build out their cable Wi-Fi networks.”80 Likewise, Motorola
Solutions agrees that manufacturers should take steps to ensure that their equipment cannot be
programmed to operate in ways exceeding their certifications. However, they believe there is no need for
the Commission to mandate specific security mechanisms or complex interference mitigation techniques
beyond those already called for in the current and proposed rules.81
50.
IEEE 802 LMSC states the FCC should require an improved security showing because if
such a showing would have been in effect for master devices in the U-NII-3 band, it would have
prevented most harmful interference cases, based on the record of cases resolved to date.82 IEEE 802
LMSC asserts that the FCC should apply the security requirements only to devices that are classified as
“master” devices, which control the radio transmissions to and from their client devices.83
51.
Many commenters addressed the potential costs of implementing such security features,
and the record indicates general agreement that the benefits achieved by eliminating interference concerns

76 See Ericsson Comments at 6, IEEE 802 LMSC Comments at 16, Wi-Fi Alliance Comments at 15, Ruckus
Wireless Comments at 4, Cambium Comments at 2, Baron Services, Inc. Comments at 9-10, NAB Comments at 7..
77 See Ericsson Comments at 6, Motorola Solutions Comments at 5(Motorola Solutions states that it already includes
in its 5-GHz band devices features that prevent operators and users from programming them in ways that conflict
with their granted equipment authorizations, such as disabling dynamic frequency selection (“DFS”) on U-NII-2
devices).
78 See WISPA Comments at 15.
79 See IEEE 802 LMSC Comments at 15, Cisco Comments at 32-33, Wi-Fi Alliance Comments at 16. These
suggestions include, for example: 1) describe the procedure that ensures third parties cannot operate devices sold in
the United States on non-U.S. frequencies or in violation of any rule; 2) explain if any third parties have the ability
described above to change a device and operate it outside of U.S. requirements; 3) describe how the software
updates are distributed for all regulatory domains and what procedures ensure that a product sold in the United
States can only operate under U.S. rules; 4) if you assert that your product can only be operated per US rules,
explain how this is achieved; 5) What stops third parties from loading non-U.S. versions of software on to the
device?; 6) can third parties make factory level changes to reload non-U.S. domain codes, etc.; 7 ) how would your
code defeat or mitigate against unauthorized changes; and 8)what are your provisions for labeling and general
software description (block diagram). See IEEE 802 LMSC Comments at 15, Cisco Comments at 32-33, Wi-Fi
Alliance Comments at 16.
80 See NCTA Comments at 23.
81 See Motorola Solutions Comments at 5.
82 See IEEE 802 LMSC Comments at 16.
83 See IEEE 802 LMSC Comments at 14-15.
16

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

would outweigh the costs of implementation.84 For example, WISPA asserts that based on input it has
received from equipment manufacturers, security features can be incorporated into U-NII devices with
little technical difficulty. WISPA further believes that any incremental cost to "harden" devices will be
more than offset by increased sale and production of U-NII devices designed to operate under a baseline
set of technical requirements.85 Cambium considers that there may be some additional development costs
for manufacturers that do not presently implement software security, but it is unlikely that there will be
any additional manufacturing costs.86
52.
Several commenters argue that manufacturers should ensure that modifying or
reconfiguring firmware or software will render the device inoperable. Cisco believes that master devices
should include a mechanism that will disable operations in the U-NII-2A and U-NII-2C bands if software
or firmware is replaced, modified or reconfigured by anyone other than the manufacturer to provide an
additional level of protection to radar systems, and that such functionality should not be particularly
difficult or costly for manufacturers to implement.”87 NAB states that it supports the requirement,
proposed in the NPRM, that a device should become inoperable if a user tries to modify the software or
firmware.88 Fastback Networks agrees that such functionality should be required and codified in revised
U-NII band rules.89
53.
Other commenters oppose the implementation of such a requirement. Ericsson cautions
that such a solution would be excessively complex, requiring locking/encrypting binary images in those
devices. Instead, Ericsson supports methods that simply prevent reconfiguration of a device’s operating
parameters outside of allowable ranges.90 Similarly, Motorola Solutions argues, for manufacturers that
comply with the existing rules, the imposition of additional security features into the rules, such as
disabling a device from operation in certain bands if it is improperly programmed, would be redundant,
unnecessary, and costly.91 Shared Spectrum Company (SSC) believes that the additional cost and
complexity of tamper-proof solutions may impede further deployment of Wi-Fi and other unlicensed
services.92
54.
Decision. Because 5 GHz U-NII devices are able to operate across such a wide swath of
spectrum as described above, any device could potentially be reprogrammed to operate outside of its
certified frequency range. Accordingly, we are adopting the proposal in the NPRM that manufacturers
must take steps to prevent unauthorized software changes to their equipment in all of the U-NII bands.93
We leave the precise methods of ensuring the integrity of the software in a radio to the manufacturer, but
require the manufacturer to document those methods in its application for equipment authorization. We
decline to set specific security protocol or authentication requirements at this time because they could
hinder the development of the technology used to provide such security, and be unduly burdensome on
manufacturers.

84 See IEEE 802 LMSC Comments at 16, Cisco Comments at 33.
85 See WISPA Comments at 17.
86 See Cambium Comments at 2.
87 See Cisco Comments at 34.
88 See NAB Comments at 7-8.
89 See Fastback Networks Comments at 7.
90 See Ericsson Comments at 7.
91 See Motorola Solutions Comments at 6.
92 See Shared Spectrum Company (SSC) Comments at 5.
93 See NPRM, supra at 1785, para. 51.
17

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

55.
It is possible that we may have to specify more detailed security requirements at a later
date as software driven radio technology develops. We direct OET to provide guidance, through the
KDB, on what types of security measures work effectively, and what types do not, as well as on the level
of detail the FCC will typically need to evaluate the authorization request.
56.
We do not agree with IEEE 802 LMSC’s proposal that the security requirement should
apply only to the class of master devices that dictate radio emissions. In the NPRM, the Commission
observed that some radios are designed so that they can communicate directly with each other, rather than
through a control point, and thus they could function as either a “master” that initiates a network or as a
“client” device within the network.94 We also believe that it is important to ensure that client devices
cannot be unlawfully reprogrammed to perform the functions of an access point. Thus, we conclude that
all devices that operate under the U-NII rules must be subject to the device security requirements.
57.
We believe the enhanced security measures will be effective, and conclude that there is
no need for a reactive scheme such as disabling modified devices. We intend to enforce our security
protocol requirement carefully and vigorously. We agree with commenters that a requirement to disable
modified equipment would be redundant and should be unnecessary. Given the additional complexity and
costs such a requirement would add to equipment for questionable benefits, at this time we decline to
adopt rules that require manufacturers to render a device inoperable if the software is modified or
tampered with.95
58.
Transmitter ID. Some commenters stated that current standards do not provide for a
convenient way to transmit identifying information, that such information is inadequate to help in
resolving harmful interference, and that it is unnecessary if we adopt the increased security requirements
as proposed in the NPRM. For example, IEEE 802 LMSC states that it is not aware of any identifying
information within the Wi-Fi standards that would prove useful in identifying and pinpointing where a
particular device is located, and that they are unaware of any technical capability that would allow 802.11
devices to transmit reliable identifying information for the purpose of identifying the cause of interference
or its source. They further note that Service Set Identifiers (SSIDs) are usually broadcast by access points,
but they do not have to be broadcast, and often don’t provide identifying information.96 The Wi-Fi
Alliance contends that U-NII devices should not be required to transmit identifying information as
implementing stronger protections for security and other proposed changes should be more than sufficient
to prevent harmful interference to government systems.”97
59.
NAB, by contrast, asserts that U-NII devices should be required to transmit identifying
information so that each device can easily be identified in the event of harmful interference.98
60.
Decision. We decline to require U-NII devices to transmit identifying information.
While our experience in the field has indicated that a transmitter ID requirement would help to more
quickly identify and locate devices that cause harmful interference, we are not persuaded that the benefits
accrued from such a requirement would outweigh the costs to implement it at this time. One of our
primary goals throughout this proceeding is to prioritize eliminating the occurrence of harmful

94 See NPRM, supra at 1790-91, para. 69.
95 Ruckus Wireless suggests that U-NII devices that are not certified under the Commission’s rules as software
defined radios (“SDRs”) might lack safeguards required for SDRs, and that changing some of the permissive change
restrictions currently enforced on SDRs would encourage manufacturers to seek certification of their equipment as
SDRs. Ruckus Wireless Comments at 5. We find that, while in the NPRM the Commission proposed to modify
certain sections of the Part 15 rules, it did not propose to modify the permissive change rules, and that this matter is
beyond the scope of this proceeding.
96 SSIDs are 32 character text strings that identify the access point.
97 See Wi-Fi Alliance Comments at 16.
98 See NAB Comments at 7-8.
18

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

interference in the first instance. Our adoption of enhanced security requirements, discussed above,
directly addresses this priority, whereas a transmitter identification requirement does not. However, if
harmful interference continues to be a problem we will reevaluate the costs and benefits associated with a
transmitter ID requirement, recognizing that it may be necessary to implement more costly solutions to
eliminate the harmful interference if devices operating in the band continue to cause harmful interference.

C.

U-NII-2 Bands

61.
In addition to the security requirements applicable to all U-NII devices operating in the 5
GHz band described above, we revise the technical rules for operation in the U-NII-2A and U-NII-2C
bands to further mitigate potential harmful interference to TDWR and other radar systems that operate in
those bands. We also modify our rules and update our U-NII compliance measurement procedures to
improve testing for radar detection and eliminate certain outdated performance tests.
1.

Interference Mitigation Techniques.

62.
To be certified for operation in the U-NII-2A and U-NII-2C bands, devices must include
a DFS radar detection function. In its field investigations, the Commission’s Enforcement Bureau found
that certain models of devices certified for use in these bands were designed in a way that users were able
to disable the DFS mechanism. With the DFS mechanism inactive, the device could transmit on an active
radar channel and cause harmful interference. In the NPRM we therefore proposed that manufacturers
prevent the DFS mechanism from being disabled in devices certified to operate in the U-NII-2A and U-
NII-2C bands.99 We also proposed that U-NII devices certified to operate in these bands must be operated
with the DFS function on.100 We also noted in the NPRM that the NTIA Third Technical Report and our
own discussions with NTIA, FAA and industry representatives have identified additional techniques that
could mitigate in-band and adjacent band interference to incumbents.101 These include increasing the
sensing frequency range (e.g., detection bandwidth) of U-NII devices operating in the U-NII-2A and U-
NII-2C bands; using a database registration process combined with geo-location technology to determine
whether there is any potential harmful interference to radar systems such as the TDWR; and limiting the
unwanted emission levels of the U-NII devices.
63.
DFS Functionality. No commenters opposed our proposal that DFS must be active for
any devices operating in the U-NII-2A and U-NII-2C bands. Motorola Solutions states that it already
includes features in its 5 GHz band devices that prevent operators and users from programming them in
ways that conflict with their granted equipment authorizations, such as disabling DFS on U-NII-2
devices.102 Baron Services believes that the Commission should require manufacturers to implement
security measures to prevent end users from modifying the operating parameters of U-NII devices, and
require that a U-NII device’s DFS functionality cannot be turned off.”103
64.
The technical rules for equipment authorized to operate in the U-NII-2A and U-NII-2C
bands already require the implementation of DFS. The requirement to preclude software changes that
would allow devices to operate outside of their authorized parameters includes the DFS functionality.
That is, the devices must be designed to prohibit software changes that would disable the DFS
functionality. We also modify our rules to explicitly prohibit operators from using equipment without

99 See NPRM, supra at 1785, para. 68.
100 Id.
101 See NPRM, supra at 1786, para. 53.
102 See Motorola Solutions Comments at 5. Baron Services believes that the Commission should require
manufacturers to implement security measures to prevent end users from modifying the operating parameters of U-
NII devices, and require that a U-NII device’s DFS functionality cannot be turned off. Baron Services comments at
9-10.
103 See Baron Services Comments at 9-10.
19

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

operational DFS in the U-NII-2 bands, and require the DFS function to be turned on when operating in
these bands.104 This explicit requirement will help our Enforcement Bureau eliminate harmful
interference should they encounter modified equipment in the field.
65.
DFS Sensing Bandwidth. The NPRM sought comment on whether to require that DFS
enabled U-NII devices sense for radar signals at or exceeding 100 percent of its occupied bandwidth in U-
NII-2A and U-NII-2C bands, or to continue to reference this as part of the2006 DFS Compliance
Measurement Procedures.105 We noted that expanding the sensing bandwidth would prevent the co-
channel operations between U-NII-2A, U-NII-2C band devices and radars that are to be protected, and
thus would reduce the potential for harmful interference.106
66.
Commenters are split on this issue. Those opposing an increase in the bandwidth over
which U-NII devices must detect radars contend that their field experience shows that sensing over 80
percent of the device bandwidth provides adequate protection to radars, and they further express concern
that sensing at 100 percent of the device bandwidth would lead to false-positive detections without any
corresponding benefit to the radars.107 Commenters supporting an increased sensing requirement both
with a complementary geolocation/database approach and as a stand-alone feature argue that this is useful
to keep U-NII unwanted emissions far enough away in frequency from the TDWR fundamental frequency
to prevent harmful interference.108 Ruckus Wireless supports increased sensing for outdoor devices, but
believes that no change is warranted for indoor, low-power equipment.109
67.
We modify our rules to require U-NII devices to sense for radar signals at 100 percent of
their emissions bandwidth in U-NII-2A and U-NII-2C bands. The current implementation of the sensing
bandwidth will ensure co-channel interference protection only when the radar signal falls within 80
percent of the U-NII device’s emissions bandwidth. Therefore, it is possible for the U-NII device to
transmit on the same frequency as the radar when the radar signal falls within the 20 percent of emissions
bandwidth that does not require sensing. When the radar signal falls within the region of emissions
bandwidth that does not require sensing, the U-NII device could continue to transmit. This could result in
transmissions from the U-NII devices that fall within the TDWR receiver bandwidth, which would
increase the potential for harmful interference. Expanding the sensing requirement to the entire emissions
bandwidth will prevent co-channel operations between U-NII-2A, U-NII-2C band devices and radars and
thus will reduce the potential for harmful interference. We find that requiring a U-NII device to sense for
radar signals within 100 percent of its bandwidth would provide an additional security layer to protect the
TDWR from any possible harmful interference. We direct OET to update the 2006 DFS Compliance
measurement procedures to ensure that DFS functionality is measured across a device’s entire emissions
bandwidth.
68.
Geolocation/Database. In the NPRM, the Commission noted that, because the TDWR
locations are known and somewhat limited in number, implementation of geo-location and database
registration might be very straightforward and easy to accomplish.110 With this interference avoidance

104 This rule addresses several sets of circumstances. Some older equipment certified to operate in the U-NII-2A
band may not have DFS functionality; some older equipment certified to operate in the U-NII-2A and U-NII-2C
bands may allow the operator to turn off the DFS function; and some equipment certified under Section 15.247
which does not require DFS functionality may have been modified to operate in the U-NII-2 band.
105 See NPRM, supra at 1790, para. 65.
106 Id.
107 See Ericsson Comments at 8, IEEE 802 LMSC Comments at 22, Cisco Comments at 40.
108 See Shared Spectrum Company Comments at 5-6, Baron Services Comments at 10-11. We discuss the
geolocation database proposal below.
109 See Ruckus Wireless Comments at 6.
110 See NPRM, supra at 1787, para. 55.
20

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

method, the location of an unlicensed device could be determined by a professional installer or by using
geo-location technology such as GPS incorporated within the device. Using either of these methods, a
user could determine from either an internal or external database whether the unlicensed device is located
far enough from the TDWR to avoid causing harmful interference; if not, the unlicensed device could
transmit on a frequency farther away from the TDWR’s center frequency. The Commission sought
comment on whether, given the limited number of TDWR locations, a geo-location/database approach
could be effectively implemented and maintained for numerous U-NII devices that would operate in the
5.6-5.65 GHz band, and how this approach would protect other incumbent operations.111
69.
Several commenters oppose use of a database and geo-location technology, typically
citing the large potential cost to implement the database as compared to the limited benefit they claim
would be realized, especially if the Commission adopts its proposed security requirements.112 The NAB,
Shared Spectrum, and Spectrum Bridge state that the Commission should adopt a geo-location database
solution in addition to enhanced sensing requirements.113 Google and Microsoft state that geo-location
database approaches might provide a useful alternative approach to DFS.114 Ruckus believes that a geo-
location/database approach could be effectively implemented for high power, outdoor U-NII devices and
that geo-location technologies such as GPS should be encouraged in the U-NII-2C band.115
70.
We decline to adopt a geo-location database requirement for several reasons. First, we
are taking several actions in this First R&O that would have prevented most of the harmful interference
cases that we have observed to date, and which will prevent future interference cases. Second, we are
making several changes to our Part 15 rules and compliance measurement procedures to improve the DFS
functionality, thus further reducing the harmful interference risk to TDWR and other radar systems, e.g.
increasing the sensing bandwidth, modifying the sensing threshold, and testing DFS functions against a
new radar waveform. These changes will be sufficient for U-NII devices to avoid radar systems operating
in these bands.116
71.
We agree with commenters that the incremental benefit provided by implementing a geo-
location/database approach as a supplement to DFS is not sufficient to justify the expense of doing so.
Implementation of a geo-location/database approach could be prohibitively expensive as a practical
matter and would be out of proportion to the incremental benefit accrued. A geo-location database
solution would require a major retrofit of existing U-NII equipment, and a significant modification in the
way U-NII devices operate and are certified. Permitting a geo-location/database approach as an
alternative to requiring DFS functionality would also present some practical concerns in overall
management of the interference environment, since two different types of devices would be operating
under different authorization procedures and operating rules.
72.
We note that although we are not adopting a database requirement, WISPA maintains a
database accessible to the public which contains TDWR system locations.117 Our actions in this First
R&O will not prevent the use of any voluntary databases such as the one implemented by WISPA.

111 Id.
112 See Ericson Comments at 7, IEEE 802 LMSC Comments at 20, and Wi-Fi Alliance at 22.
113 See NAB Comments at 6-7 and Shared Spectrum Comments at 5.
114 See Google and Microsoft Comments at 6.
115 See Ruckus Wireless Comments at 5.
116 A search of the Commission’s Universal Licensing System and NTIA’s Government Master File indicate that
there are approximately 350 frequency assignments for radar systems nationwide operating in these bands. In many
cases a single frequency assignment can represent multiple radar systems.
117 See http://www.wispa.org.
21

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

73.
Out-of-Band Emissions in the UNII-2 Bands. In the NPRM, the Commission noted that
emissions outside of the U-NII device’s occupied bandwidth may have the potential to cause harmful
interference to TDWRs.118 Aside from increasing frequency separation or distance separation, U-NII
devices may avoid causing harmful interference by lowering the emissions on the radar’s fundamental
frequency. This equates to lowering all emissions from U-NII devices at the frequencies outside of the
device’s operating bandwidth.119 The Commission sought comment on whether requiring lower unwanted
emission limits for U-NII devices operating in the U-NII-2A and UNII-2C bands was appropriate, and
whether it should modify the emission limits based on findings in NTIA’s report.120
74.
The Commission also sought comment on modifying its rules to adopt out-of-channel
limits for indoor versus outdoor U-NII devices, including how it should define the terms “indoor” and
“outdoor,” and how different operating requirements for indoor versus outdoor operations can be
accommodated through its equipment authorization and enforcement procedures.
75.
We decline to adopt these proposals that would require reductions in out-of-band
emissions below the levels currently allowed under Section 15.407. We have not seen evidence in the
harmful interference cases that we have investigated that problems are being caused by unwanted
emissions from properly certified and properly functioning equipment. Instead, the majority of cases
have been caused by devices that have been modified to operate in frequency bands in which they are not
certified to operate, or by devices in which DFS had been disabled. Consolidating the technical rules in
the U-NII-3 band, as discussed below, along with enhancing the software security requirements of all U-
NII devices, discussed above, would have prevented most of the harmful interference cases that we have
observed to date. Accordingly, we agree with commenters that a reduction in unwanted emissions from
properly certified and properly functioning equipment would be overly restrictive and would not provide
any long-term interference mitigation, that no harmful interference cases appear to be caused by adjacent
channel operations, and that benefits of applying reduced emission limits would be speculative, while the
costs imposed on manufacturers and users are real and would result in decreased equipment capabilities.
121
2.

Other U-NII-2 Rules and Measurement Procedures

76.
Sensing Threshold. The current rules require that the DFS mechanism continuously
monitor the device’s environment for the presence of radar, both prior to and during operation. We
require that U-NII devices certified under our rules use two detection thresholds to ascertain whether
radar signals were present. The required threshold levels are: (a) -62 dBm for lower power devices with a
maximum EIRP less than 200 mW (23 dBm), and (b) -64 dBm for higher power devices with a maximum
EIRP between 200 mW (23 dBm) and 1 W (30 dBm), averaged over 1 s.122 The lower power U-NII
devices are currently permitted to use the relaxed sensing threshold because the range at which these
devices can potentially cause harmful interference is reduced and thus they are capable of operating
closer to the radar without causing harmful interference. In order to ensure that the potential for harmful
interference does not increase with the use of the relaxed sensing threshold, we proposed in the NPRM to

118 See NPRM, supra at 1781, para. 57.
119 Commission rules typically specify unwanted emission levels outside of the frequency band in which the
unlicensed device is intended to operate, without requiring further attenuation on frequencies outside of the device’s
occupied bandwidth, but still within the specified frequency band.
120 The out-of-channel limit refers to the region of spectrum between the edge of the occupied bandwidth of the U-
NII device and the edge of the U-NII band of operation.
121 See Ericsson Comments at 7-8, IEEE 802 LMSC Comments at 21-22, Ruckus Wireless Comments at 6, Fastback
Networks Comments at 8.
122 See 47 CFR §15.407(h)(2). The DFS detection threshold is defined as the received power averaged over 1 s
referenced to a 0 dBi antenna.
22

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

apply a reduction in EIRP spectral density for devices that use the -62 dBm sensing threshold. We
proposed that devices must operate with both an EIRP of less than 200 mW (23 dBm), and an EIRP
spectral density of less than 10 dBm/MHz (10 mW/MHz), in order to use the relaxed sensing detection
threshold of -62 dBm. Devices that do not meet the proposed EIRP and EIRP spectral density
requirements would then use the -64 dBm sensing threshold. We noted that a reduction in the EIRP
spectral density limit would be consistent with recent actions taken by European Telecommunications
Standards Institute (ETSI).123 Specifically, ETSI chose to restrict a device’s use of the relaxed sensing
threshold by reducing both the EIRP and the EIRP spectral density to 23 dBm (200 mW) and 10
dBm/MHz (10 mW/MHz), respectively.124
77.
No commenters opposed our proposal to change the DFS sensing threshold. Several
commenters supported our proposal in order to further enhance interference protection for licensed
services and also to harmonize with the technical requirements in Europe.125
78.
We adopt our proposal to revise the DFS sensing rules by introducing a Power Spectral
Density (PSD) limit for devices that meet the requirements for this relaxed sensing threshold. We modify
our rules to require that devices operate with both an EIRP of less than 200 mW (23 dBm), and an EIRP
spectral density of less than 10 dBm/MHz (10 mW/MHz), in order to use the relaxed sensing detection
threshold of -62 dBm. Devices that do not meet the proposed EIRP and EIRP spectral density
requirements must use the -64 dBm sensing threshold. This change will further enhance protection for
radars from co-channel interference by reducing both the range and the in-band spectral density of the
U-NII devices that use the relaxed sensing threshold.
79.
Bin 1 Waveforms. U-NII devices that operate in the U-NII-2A and the U-NII-2C bands
are certified using a testing regime that considers how the U-NII equipment responds to sample
waveforms that simulate typical parameters that are used by radars that operate in these bands. The radar
parameters are divided up into several “bins,” each representing a different category of radar system. In
the NPRM, we proposed to use an updated set of “Bin-1” radar waveforms to be used in certifying U-NII
equipment. The new waveforms contained in the proposed measurement procedures are expected to
account for current and, to the extent possible, future TDWR characteristics. We proposed that
modifications in the Bin-1 radar simulating waveform used in our measurement procedures will reduce
the potential for co-channel interference to the TDWR and other radar systems.126
80.
Many commenters support adoption of the revised Bin 1 Waveforms set forth in
Appendix B of the NPRM.127 Baron, however, proposes additional DFS broadcast weather Radar
detection test waveforms.128 It proposes DFS certification tests designed to ensure that U-NII devices
operating in the 5.25-5.725 GHz (U-NII-2A and U-NII-2C) bands will not interfere with incumbent
broadcast weather radar systems operating in the 5.35-5.47 GHz and 5.6-5.65 GHz band. Baron indicated

123 See NPRM, supra at 1791-92, para. 72, citing ETSI EN 301 393 V1.6.1, Broadband Radio Access Networks; 5
GHz high performance RLAN; Harmonized EN covering the essential requirements of article 3.2 of the R&TTE
Directive (2011-11), Page 70. The Commission also noted that its proposed limits were those adopted by ETSI, and
that adopting a rule that is consistent with ETSI standards would allow it to foster American industry’s flexibility to
develop devices for international markets and promote economies of scale in production of equipment.
124 See NPRM, supra at 1791-92, para. 72.
125 See Cisco Comments at 49, Fastback Networks Comments at 9, Ericsson Comments at 8, and Wi-Fi Alliance
Comments at 19.
126 See NPRM, supra at 1792, para. 73
127 See Cisco Comments at 29, IEEE 802 LMSC Comments at 23, Wi-Fi Alliance Comments at 17, WISPA
Comments at 18.
128 See Baron Services Comments at 11.
23

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

that its proposed tests are modeled after the tests proposed in Appendix B of the NPRM.129 Baron states
that their additional tests proposed are intended to be in addition to, not in lieu of, the tests the
Commission ultimately adopts with respect to TDWR radars.130
81.
We believe that these changes will reduce the potential for co-channel interference to the
TDWR and other radar systems, and direct OET to modify the Bin-1 radar simulating waveform used in
the 2006 DFS Compliance Measurement Procedures. Based on the reported co-channel interference to
TDWR, and our investigations into complaints, we believe the modifications to the test waveforms in the
measurement procedures are required. The test waveforms proposed in the NPRM were created by NTIA
with input from a number of agencies and with the industry stakeholders after a long evaluation period.
The tests are a generalized procedure and are not intended to cover every radar device exactly. In fact, all
the test waveforms were created by “mixing” a number of radar types. Thus, they are not exact
representations, but a generalized view of pulse types to be detected. In practice, a U-NII device is
expected to detect any radar types and not just the parameters used for test purposes. The list of
parameters proposed by Barons Services is derived from Baron Services’ specific radars, and is not
necessarily applicable to all radars. Developing an exhaustive list to cover all potential radars is overly
burdensome, and we believe the better approach to ensure that all radars can be adequately detected is to
apply the generalized waveforms we are adopting. For these reasons, we believe that the test waveforms
are sufficiently broad to include most radar types including those operated by Baron Services. Baron
Services has not demonstrated that the waveforms they propose are so different as to have an impact on
the ability of DFS equipped devices to detect their broadcast weather radar, and thus we do not need to
include the specific parameters requested by Baron Services.
82.
Channel Spreading. Our current rules and measurement procedures require that the DFS
function provide a uniform spreading of loading over all available channels.131 The measurement
procedure further explains this provision by stating that “Uniform Channel Spreading” is the spreading of
U-NII devices operating over the DFS bands to avoid dense clusters of devices operating on the same
channel. Some manufacturers comply with this requirement by using random channel selection, but in
the NPRM we proposed that similar benefits could be obtained by manual selection of channels, and may
actually result in better spectrum usage at a given location. In particular, we noted that enhanced
spectrum use may be possible when devices use a very high bandwidth and the number of usable channels
is small. We also noted that the trend for U-NII devices is to operate with ever wider bandwidths such as
contained in the new 802.11ac standard. Operation over wider bandwidths causes U-NII energy to be
spread throughout the frequency band in which the device is operating, rather than concentrated in a
narrow bandwidth. This potentially makes the uniform channel-spreading requirement unnecessary. We
thus proposed to remove the “Uniform Channel Spreading” requirement from our rules and measurement
procedures. We also proposed to permit either random channel selection or manual selection of the initial
channel.132 All parties who commented on this issue support modifying the rules as proposed in the
NPRM, variously expressing support or the greater flexibility and efficiency they will provide.133
83.
We modify our rules to eliminate the last portion of Section 15.407(h)(2) that requires
that the DFS process provide a uniform spreading of the loading over all of the available channels, and we
direct OET to update the 2006 DFS Compliance Measurement Procedures to remove the channel

129 See Baron Services Reply Comments, Attachment at 1.
130 Id.
131 See 47 C.F.R. §15.407(h)(2).
132 See NPRM, supra at 1792, para. 74. The DFS Channel Availability Check would still have to be performed for
random or manual channel selection.
133 See Cisco Comments at 50; Ericsson Comments at 9; IEEE 802 Comments at 24; Wi-Fi Alliance comments at
20; Fastback Networks at 10; Motorola Solutions Comments at 8; Ruckus Wireless Comments at 7.
24

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

spreading requirement. The Uniform Channel Spreading requirement on DFS is outdated and does not
reflect the current state and trajectory of wireless technology. Implementation of this proposal will give
U-NII equipment manufacturers significant flexibility to design and develop radar avoidance methods,
while increasing effective use of the spectrum.
84.
Channel Loading. Our measurement procedures require that system testing be performed
with an MPEG test file that streams full motion video at 30 frames per second for channel loading.
Experience certifying U-NII devices has indicated that not all U-NII devices are designed for video
transmission or support the specific coding format, and that other methods of channel loading are used.
In the NPRM we sought comment on whether specifying video streaming as the preferred channel loading
method for compliance measurements is as appropriate today as it was when the measurement procedures
were created, or whether the channel loading requirement in our test procedures should be specified in a
more general manner so as only to specify that measurements be conducted with the device under test
operating in a loaded condition.134
85.
All parties that commented on channel loading are supportive of removing the MPEG test
file requirement.135 Considering the unanimous positive response in the comments, and given that, in the
wide variety of unlicensed devices designed for operation within the U-NII rules, there is a subset of
devices that are not designed for video use and therefore cannot be effectively tested with a video-based
process, we conclude that a more flexible approach is warranted, which permits channel-loading testing to
be performed using means appropriate to the data types that are used by the unlicensed device at issue.
86.
Accordingly, we direct OET to update the 2006 DFS Compliance Measurement
Procedures to indicate the general requirement that DFS functionality be tested using a method and level
of channel loading that is representative of the data types used by the U-NII device without specifying
that the system testing be performed with an MPEG test file that streams full motion video at 30 frames
per second for channel loading.

D.

U-NII-3 Band Features

87.
As mentioned above, our rules permit the certification of devices that operate in 5.725-
5.85 GHz band under two different rule sections. Section 15.247 was originally adopted in 1985 to
govern spread spectrum operations. The U-NII rules were adopted in 1997 and were designed to
accommodate new digital modulation technologies. In 2002, the Commission modified the original
spread spectrum rules to allow digitally modulated devices under Section 15.247, but were not fully
aligned with the U-NII rules. The differences in these rules have persisted and lead to the situation where
devices authorized under the frequencies permitted under Section 15.247 were modified to operate on
frequencies permitted only for U-NII devices without complying with the rules designed to prevent
interference to other radio services, resulting in harmful interference to TDWRs. The Commission
therefore proposed to consolidate the rules for the digitally modulated devices that operate in the 5.725-
5.85 GHz band in Section 15.407.136
88.
As we discuss in more detail below, we adopt the NRPM proposals for the U-NII-3 band
with one exception. We adopt the provisions from each respective rule section which will provide for the
most effective and efficient use of spectrum while protecting incumbents. First, we are extending the
upper edge of the U-NII-3 band from 5.825 GHz to 5.85 GHz to match the amount of spectrum available
for digitally-modulated devices under Section 15.247. We believe that this change will eliminate the
complexity and costs associated with multiple rule part certifications for these devices which are

134 See NPRM, supra at 1792-93, para. 74.
135 See IEEE 802 LMSC Comments at 24, Wi-Fi Alliance Comments at 20, Motorola Solutions Comments at 8,
Ruckus Wireless Comments at 7, and Fastback Networks Comments at 10.
136 See NPRM, supra at 1778, para. 28.
25

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

technically similar. Implementing this change will not increase the potential for harmful interference
because this 25 megahertz segment is already available for devices certified under Section 15.247.
89.
Second, we consolidate the Section 15.247 technical rules for digitally-modulated devices
in the 5.725-5.85 GHz band with the Section 15.407 U-NII rules, while maintaining many of the technical
rules that currently make equipment authorization under Section 15.247 more attractive for equipment
manufacturers.137 We remove the 5.725-5.85 GHz band for digital modulation devices from Section
15.247 to ensure that all digitally modulated equipment that are technically similar operate under a single
set of technical rules in this band.
90.
In consolidating the Section 15.247 and Section 15.407 rules for digitally modulated
devices in the 5.725-5.85 MHz band, we adjust the rules for technical parameters such as the frequency
band of operation, the power and power spectral density limits, emission bandwidth, antenna gain,
unwanted emission limits, and the peak to average ratio permitted in our rules. We adopt a modified
version of our proposed rule for antenna gain to retain the provisions for high-gain point-to-point
operations. The table below shows the old technical parameters associated with both Section 15.247 and
Section 15.407, along with the parameters that we are adopting.
Parameter
Old 15.247
Old 15.407
First R&O Decisions
Frequency Band
5.725-5.85 GHz
5.725-5.825 GHz
5.725-5.85 GHz
Conducted Power
1 Watt (30 dBm)
Lesser of 1 Watt (30
1 Watt (30 dBm)
dBm) or 17 dBm + 10
log B
Power Spectral
8 dBm/3 kHz
17 dBm/MHz
30 dBm/ 500 kHz
Density
(33 dBm/MHz)
Emission Bandwidth
Minimum 6-dB BW of 26 dB BW used for
Minimum 6-dB BW of
500 kHz
power calculation
500 kHz
Antenna Gain
6 dBi (1 dB reduction
6 dBi (1 dB reduction
6 dBi (1 dB reduction
in power for every 1
in power required for in power required for
dB that antenna gain
every 1 dB that
every 1 dB that
exceeds 6 dBi)
antenna gain exceeds antenna gain exceeds
No reduction required 6 dBi)
6 dBi)
for fixed point-to-
For fixed point-to-
No reduction
point systems
point systems, 1 dB
required for fixed
reduction in power
point-to-point
for every 1 dB that
systems
antenna gain exceeds
23 dBi
Unwanted Emissions
20 dB of attenuation
Below -17 dBm/MHz
Below -17 dBm/MHz
within 10 MHz of
within 10 MHz of
band edge, below -27 band edge, below -27
dBm/MHz beyond 10 dBm/MHz beyond 10
MHz of the band
MHz of the band
edge. 15.209 general edge. 15.209 general

137 See NPRM, supra at 1778-79, para. 28.
26

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

emission limits below emission limits below
1 GHz.
1 GHz.
Peak-to-Average
None
13 dB
None
Ratio
1.

Frequency Band

91.
Section 15.247 allows operation throughout the 5.725-5.85 GHz band, while Section
15.407 allows operation only in the 5.725-5.825 GHz band. The extra 25 megahertz of spectrum that is
allowed under Section 15.247 provides incentive for device manufacturers to certify devices under that
rule rather than under Section 15.407. In investigating TDWR harmful interference complaints, the
Commission found that the software for devices certified under Section 15.247 was sometimes modified
to operate in the U-NII-2 frequency bands without meeting all of the technical requirements for operation
in these bands, thus resulting in harmful interference to TDWRs.138
92.
In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to expand the frequency band of operation in
Section 15.407 to include the 5.825-5.85 GHz band. This would allow U-NII-3 devices to operate across
the full range of spectrum that can currently be accessed by digitally modulated devices under Section
15.247.139 This rule change would decrease unnecessary complexity in the equipment authorization
process. More importantly, this change combined with the software security changes we are adopting,
should help eliminate potential harmful interference from unlicensed devices to other spectrum users.
93.
Cable operators and associations support the Commission’s proposal to add the 5.825-
5.85 GHz segment of the U-NII-3 band to support devices that use higher data rates.140 Automotive and
transportation related groups are concerned that devices operating in the U-NII-3 band would place U-NII
unwanted emissions into frequency bands used by Dedicated Short Range Communication (DSRC)
Systems at levels that may cause harmful interference.141 Commenters also note the Amateur service
allocation in the U-NII-3 band.142 ARRL proposes that the Commission take actions to protect Amateur
operations by extending mitigation techniques such as DFS and transmitter power control (TPC)
throughout the 5.650-5.925 GHz segment, which would include the U-NII-3 band, to help minimize
instances of harmful interference between U-NII devices and amateur stations. HamWAN commented
that amateur users are denied access to their allocations at tower locations because of the commercial
success of U-NII devices. It proposes that we extend the amateur allocations downwards to overlap all of
the frequency bands used by U-NII devices to increase opportunities for amateur licensees.143
94.
We adopt our proposal to consolidate the provisions for operation in the 5.725-5.85 GHz
band into the U-NII rules under Section 15.407. We expect this rule change to decrease unnecessary
complexity in the equipment authorization process and eliminate the incentives for gaming the rules as
described above. More importantly, this change, combined with the above-discussed software security
changes we are adopting, should help eliminate potential harmful interference from unlicensed devices to
other spectrum users. We disagree with Alliance and Global that extending the upper edge of the U-NII-3
band will increase the harmful interference risk to DSRC services. Unlicensed devices are already

138 See TDWR Enforcement Cases.
139 See NPRM, supra at 1779, para. 29.
140 See NCTA Comments at 17, Time Warner Cable Comments at 9, Comcast Comments at 24.
141 See Society of Automotive Engineers Reply Comments at 2-3, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. and
the Association of Global Automakers (Alliance and Global) Comments at 30.
142 See ARRL Comments at 11-13, HamWAN Comments at 1.
143 See HamWAN Comments at 1.
27

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

allowed to operate within the 5.825-5.85 GHz band under Section 15.247 of our rules with higher
unwanted emission levels than we are adopting for the new combined rule part. We are simply
consolidating the existing rules into a single rule section, which will not increase the risk of harmful
interference to DSRC services.
95.
ARRL’s proposal to require DFS and TPC mitigation techniques for U-NII-3 devices is
not necessary, would be overly burdensome, and is not based on a demonstrated need. We also disagree
with HamWAN’s assertion that amateurs are denied access to the 5 GHz bands at tower locations. The
Amateur service is an allocated service entitled to interference protection within the 5 GHz spectrum,
whereas U-NII devices operate under our Part 15 rules. Any preference by tower owners to prioritize
unlicensed use on their towers is not a result of FCC spectrum allocations. We believe that the Amateurs
have adequate access to spectrum necessary in this band, and we decline to extend the Amateur Radio
allocation downwards to overlap the rest of the U-NII spectrum, as HamWAN proposes, as this request is
beyond the scope of this proceeding.
2.

Power

96.
Section 15.247 allows 1 Watt of total peak conducted power whereas Section 15.407
limits maximum conducted output power to the lesser of 1 Watt or 17 dBm + 10 log B (where B is
bandwidth in MHz).144 In addition to the 1 Watt power limit, there are different PSD limits in Sections
15.247 and 15.407 such that 1 Watt of total power is available only when the 6-dB bandwidth is 500
kilohertz or more under Section 15.247 and when the 26-dB bandwidth is 20 megahertz or more under
Section 15.407.145 Because we are trying to accommodate digitally modulated devices that are currently
permitted under both rules, we proposed in the NPRM to remove the bandwidth dependent term (i.e.,
remove 17 + 10 log B) from Section 15.407, so that the power limit would be 1 Watt.146 In the NPRM,
the Commission did not expect that removing the variable power limit in Section 15.407 would increase
the potential for harmful interference, because under current rules manufacturers are able to certify
equipment that uses up to 1 Watt of power under Section 15.247.
97.
We modify our rules to remove the bandwidth-dependent term from Section 15.407(a)(3)
of our rules as proposed. As we initially suggested and the majority of commenters agree, utilizing the 1-
Watt power limit will not increase the potential for harmful interference because unlicensed devices are
already allowed to operate without the bandwidth-dependent term under Section 15.247.147
3.

Power Spectral Density

98.
Section 15.247(e) requires a maximum PSD of 8 dBm/3 kHz (33 dBm/MHz), whereas
Section 15.407(a)(3) requires a maximum PSD of 17 dBm/MHz. The difference between these two PSD
limits is the bandwidth at which the device reaches the 1-Watt total power limit. Specifically, Section
15.247(e) allows a higher PSD when the device emission bandwidth is between 0.5 and 20 megahertz.
Whenever devices use an emission bandwidth above 20 megahertz, the 1 Watt power limit becomes the
limiting parameter, and the effective PSD at which the device operates is the same under both Sections
15.247 and 15.407. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to conform the PSD limit in Section 15.407
to the PSD limit in Section 15.247(e) (i.e., 8 dBm/3 kHz (33 dBm/MHz)), so that digitally-modulated
devices designed to meet this limit will continue to comply with the new PSD requirement in Section

144 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.247(b)(3) and 15.407(a)(3). See also KDB 644545 D01 – Guidance for IEEE 802.11ac and
Pre-ac Device Emission Testing and KDB 644545 D02 Alternative Guidance for IEEE 802.11ac and Pre-ac
Emissions Testing. These KDB documents are available at: www.fcc.gov/labhelp.
145 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.247(e) and 15.407(a)(3).
146 See NPRM, supra at 1779, para. 30.
147 See Cisco Comments at 43, Ericsson Comments at 5, IEEE 802 LMSC Comments at 17, Motorola Solutions
Comments at 3-4, Wi-Fi Alliance Comments at 12, and Ruckus Wireless Comments at 3.
28

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

15.407. We also noted that limiting the PSD to 8dBm/3kHz (33dBm/MHz) would result in a PSD that is
higher than the total power limit of 1 Watt (30dBm).148
99.
In addition, we recognized that requiring devices that employ wider bandwidths to utilize
a measurement bandwidth of 3 kHz may unnecessarily increase the time that it takes to complete
measurement tests. We sought comment on whether we should increase the measurement bandwidth to 1
megahertz to reduce the complexity in measurement tests.149 We noted that changing the measurement
bandwidth would promote consistency within the U-NII rules.150 We also invited comment on different
measurement bandwidths, such as 500 kHz.151
100.
Commenters agree that we should adopt the 8 dBm/3 kHz (33 dBm/MHz) PSD that we
proposed in the NPRM. They believe that the proposed PSD would provide the greatest amount of
internal consistency in the rules, and thus facilitate the creation of larger channel widths.152 In addition,
Ruckus encourages the Commission to increase the measurement bandwidth to 1 megahertz to promote
consistency between rules and efficiencies during the testing process.153 IEEE 802 LMSC supports
changing the measurement bandwidth to 1 MHz.154 Cisco states that if the Commission modifies Section
15.407(a)(3) to eliminate the bandwidth-dependent limitation on total power, the measurement bandwidth
of Section 15.407(a)(5) would require a similar modification.155
101.
We do not adopt the proposed PSD limit of 33dBm/MHz because the overall power
limit of 1 Watt (30 dBm) that we adopted in this order above would limit the PSD to a lower level.
Because 33 dBm/MHz PSD is higher than the 30-dBm (1-Watt) total power limit, we instead calculate a
PSD limit that can be practically measured and would not be higher than the conducted power limit of 30
dBm. We will adjust the 33 dBm/MHz proposed in the NPRM by simply converting the PSD into a
smaller bandwidth such that the power allowed in that bandwidth does not exceed 30 dBm. Stated
simply, we modify the proposed PSD limit by decreasing the power by 3 dB, and at the same time reduce
the bandwidth by half, making the PSD that we are adopting 30 dBm/500 kHz. Assuming that emission
levels are evenly distributed throughout the bandwidth, this is equivalent to the 8 dBm/3 kHz (33
dBm/MHz) that was proposed in the NPRM.
102.
Furthermore, we continue to believe that the 3-kilohertz measurement bandwidth is
unnecessary, as it creates an exceedingly long time for labs to complete the measurements for devices that
use 20 megahertz or even wider channels. With the introduction of 80- and 160-megahertz channels with
the IEEE 802.11 ac standard, the time to complete a single measure would increase significantly.
Because we are adopting a PSD limit in a 500-kHz bandwidth, we modify our measurement procedures to
correspondingly be performed using a 500 kHz reference bandwidth. Likewise, we modify Section
15.407(a)(5) to specify a 500-kHz reference bandwidth for the U-NII-3 band. This will allow
measurements of unlicensed devices being certified for operation in the U-NII-3 band to be performed in
a timely manner, resulting in efficiencies and cost savings for manufacturers, test facilities, and ultimately
to consumers.

148 See NPRM, supra at 1779, para.31. See also 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.247(b)(3) and 15.407(a)(3).
149 Id.
150 Id.
151 Id.
152 See Cisco Comments at 44, Ericsson Comments at 5, IEEE 802 LMSC Comments at 17-18, Wi-Fi Alliance
Comments at 12, and Ruckus Wireless Comments at 3-4.
153 See RuckusWireless Comments at 4.
154 See IEEE 802 LMSC Comments at 18.
155 See Cisco Comments at 45-46.
29

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

4.

Emission Bandwidth

103.
Section 15.247(a)(2) requires a minimum 6-dB bandwidth of 500 kilohertz. No
minimum or maximum bandwidth is required under Section 15.407, but the emission bandwidth is
defined and measured at the 26-dB-down points of the U-NII signal and is used to determine the total
power allowed under that rule.156 In the NPRM we proposed to modify Section 15.407 to eliminate the
26-dB bandwidth requirement, and to add the minimum 6-dB bandwidth requirement from Section
15.247.157
104.
We conclude that using a minimum 6-dB bandwidth of 500 kilohertz will continue to
provide sufficient flexibility to foster development, frequency sharing and frequency reuse in the band,
and we modify Section 15.407 to include that minimum-bandwidth requirement. No parties have
opposed our proposal to incorporate the 500-kHz minimum bandwidth into the Section 15.407 rules. As
commenters note, mandating a minimum bandwidth will help ensure that the band does not become
congested with narrow-bandwidth applications for which other spectrum could be available and would
promote use of the 5 GHz U-NII bands to meet the growing demand for high-speed Wi-Fi connectivity.158
5.

Antenna Gain

105.
Under the antenna gain requirements in Section 15.247, a 1 dB reduction in power
required for every 1 dB that the antenna gain exceeds 6 dBi, except for fixed point-to-point systems, for
which no power reduction is required.159 Under Section 15.407, a 1 dB reduction in power is also
required for every 1 dB that the antenna gain exceeds 6 dBi, but for fixed point-to-point systems, a 1 dB
reduction in power is required for every 1 dB that the antenna gain exceeds 23 dBi.160 The main
difference between the two rules is the maximum antenna gain that can be deployed for fixed point-to-
point systems without a reduction in transmitter power. In the NPRM, we invited comment generally on
reconciling the technical requirements for digitally modulated devices that are currently in Sections
15.247 and 15.407.161 Specifically, we proposed to apply the more stringent 23-dBi maximum antenna
gain that is currently required under Section 15.407, because using the more stringent antenna gain
requirement would ensure that there is no increase in the potential for harmful interference from
unlicensed devices operating under the new combined rule parts.162
106.
Several commenters oppose the proposal to limit the antenna gain for point-to-point
systems. Cambium believes that the addition of a limit in EIRP for fixed point-to-point applications will
hamper useful deployment of longer links in hard-to-reach rural areas. Cambium states that non-line-of-
sight links (NLOS) can be operated in the 5.7 GHz band using polarization diversity in cost-effective
deployments where a licensed band link would require one or more repeaters.163 Fastback Networks
opposes the proposed changes to the antenna gain requirements because the current requirements in place
today have permitted WISPs around the country to provide broadband services to under and unserved
rural and other remote areas.164

156 See 47 C.F.R. §15.403(i).
157 See NPRM, supra at 1780, para. 32.
158 See Cisco Comments at 45, IEEE 802 LMSC Comments at 18, Wi-Fi Alliance Comments at 12.
159 See 47 C.F.R. §15.247(c)(1)(ii).
160 See 47 C.F.R. §15.407(a)(3).
161 See NPRM, supra at 1776, para. 20.
162 See NPRM, supra at 1780, para. 33.
163 See Cambium Comments at 4.
164 See Fastback Networks Comments at 3.
30

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

107.
Exalt Communications Inc. (Exalt) and others believe that a higher-gain antenna has a
reduced off-axis interference pattern and has volumetrically the equivalent interference to neighboring
devices with respect to overall spectral density. More importantly, the higher-gain antenna promotes
spectral reuse, much in the way that is seen in licensed bands such as the 6-GHz and 11-GHz bands which
restrict antennas to a minimum for this exact purpose.165 Exalt also states it can be safely assumed that
users of the devices in these bands would not deploy an unnecessarily large antenna simply to overpower
other emitters, as the cost of these antennas, and the structural and leasing costs, are very prohibitive.166
108.
Similarly, WISPA and others state that in many cases a WISP would be unable to provide
broadband access to distant communities using a link operating under the more stringent requirements of
Section 15.407, but can do so under the more permissive rules set out in Section 15.247.167 WISPA
believes that nearly every WISP, especially those that serve remote and rural areas where other broadband
services would otherwise not be available, utilize point-to-point ISM band equipment with antenna gains
higher than 23 dBi, as permitted under Section 15.247.168
109.
The Fixed Wireless Communication Coalition (FWCC) states that Commercial providers
and professional users of licensed fixed service facilities—including wireless phone companies needing
backhaul, entities that maintain and support critical infrastructure, and companies handling time-sensitive
business data—sometimes must operate a link immediately, without waiting for Part 101 frequency
coordination and license application. FWCC further states a common practice in these cases is to install a
5.8-GHz unlicensed link temporarily, until the licensed link can lawfully be turned on. The needed EIRP
for these temporary links sometimes exceeds the 53 dBm permitted under Section 15.407.169 Moreover,
when the licensed link will use the 6-GHz band, it is often feasible to operate the temporary unlicensed
5.8-GHz link through the same antenna that is proposed for the 6 GHz licensed link. The Commission’s
antenna standards for 6 GHz, however, require gains of either 38 dBi or 32 dBi, well above the 23 dBi
permitted under the U-NII rules without a power reduction. FWCC claims that imposition of the U-NII
antenna rules on the 5725-5850 MHz band would eliminate the possibility of these extremely useful 5.8-
GHz links on a temporary basis, and put the operator to the trouble and expense of installing an antenna
that will serve for only a short time.170
110.
The Utilities Telecom Council (UTC) asserts that if as the FCC proposes, point-to-point
operations are required to reduce power 1 dB for every increase in antenna gain of 1 dB above 23 dBi, it
would restrict the power of point-to-point systems that utilities operate in the U-NII-3 band, thereby
reducing the range of communications between the links and effectively precluding utilities’ existing and
future operations in the band. UTC asserts that utilities make extensive use of the U-NII-3 band and have
made significant investments in equipment and infrastructure to support the safe, reliable and effective
delivery of essential electric, gas and water services to the public at large, and that they also need to be
able to upgrade those systems in the future. They state that the proposed rule would create gaps in
coverage between existing links, prevent utilities from upgrading their existing systems in the future, and
wipe out hundreds of utility 5.8-GHz systems across the United States. Therefore, UTC urges the
Commission not to preclude the certification of equipment under Section 15.247 of the Commission’s
Rules.171

165 See Exalt Comments a 1-2.
166 See Id. at 2, see also WISPA Comments at 13-14.
167 See WISPA Comments at 13-14, SpitwSpots Comments at 4, and First Step Internet, LLC (FSI) Comments at 4.
168 See WISPA Comments at 13.
169 See FWCC Reply Comments at 3.
170 Id.
171 See UTC Reply Comments at 1-2.
31

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

111.
Fastback Networks makes an alternate proposal for new antenna gain rules that would
allow for the increased antenna gain to be partially extended to professionally-installed fixed point-to-
multipoint systems where a professionally-installed common aggregation end fixed transmitter
communicates with a small number of professionally-installed remote end fixed receivers.172 Exalt
Communications submits that if the Commission reduces the antenna gain for fixed point-to-point
systems, then it should consider an alternate proposal for transmitter power reduction that is a different
ratio than 1-for-1, such as 1-for-6, and only apply this limit for antenna configurations that result in an
EIRP limit above a certain value.173
112.
We decline to adopt our initial proposal to revise Section 15.247 to require a limit in
antenna gain, and will continue to permit the use of unlicensed high gain point-to-point antennas as in the
U-NII-3 band. Proposals in the NPRM were not intended to reduce the capabilities of any of the
equipment previously certified under either rule. We are persuaded that revising those gain requirements
as we proposed would be inconsistent with that goal. Instead, we modify Section 15.407 to permit point-
to-point operation under the same gain requirements currently in Section 15.247. The current rules allow
service providers to deploy cost-effective wireless links in what would otherwise be considered high cost
areas, and allow for the quick setup and transitioning of unlicensed and licensed microwave links. There
were no harmful interference cases caused by compliant high-gain point-to-point systems; rather harmful
interference was caused by high-gain systems that were illegally modified. We believe that our enhanced
security requirements will ensure that these point-to-point systems operate in modes consistent with their
certification, and therefore there should be no increase in harmful interference by allowing them to
continue to operate as before.
113.
We find that Fastback’s proposal to increase the eligibility for higher antenna gain to
point-to-multipoint systems would be an expansion of usage in the U-NII-3 band, and therefore is beyond
our proposal to consolidate the Section 15.247 and the Section 15.407 rules in the U-NII-3 band. Thus
Fastback’s proposal is outside the scope of this proceeding. Exalt’s alternate proposal for antenna gain is
obviated by our decision to continue to allow unlimited antenna gain for point-to-point systems operating
in the U-NII-3 band.
6.

Unwanted Emissions

114.
Section 15.247(d) requires 20 dB of attenuation (30 dB if the alternate measurement
procedure detailed in Section 15.247(b)(3) is used) for unwanted emissions. In restricted bands,174
emissions must meet the Section 15.209 general emission limits.175 Section 15.407 requires unwanted
emissions to be below -17 dBm/MHz within 10 megahertz of the band edge, and below -27 dBm/MHz
beyond 10 megahertz of the band edge.176 Also, all emissions below 1 GHz must comply with the
Section 15.209 general emission limits. The unwanted emission limits in Section 15.407 are somewhat
more restrictive than those in Section 15.247. Because unwanted emission can be reduced without

172 See Fastback Networks Comments at 4.
173 See Exalt Comments at 3.
174 See 47 C.F.R. § 15.205(a). There are a number of restricted bands in which low power, non-licensed transmitters
are not allowed to operate because of potential harmful interference to sensitive radio communications such as
aircraft radionavigation, radio astronomy and search and rescue operations. Only spurious emissions from Part 15
devices are permitted in these restricted bands.
175 See 47 C.F.R. § 15.247(d). See also 47 C.F.R § 15.209.
176 See 47 C.F.R. § 15.407(b)(4). In KDB 789033 D01– UNII General Test Procedures v01r02 (available at:
http://www.fcc.gov/labhelp) , our Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) has advised applicants that they can
demonstrate compliance with the -27 dBm/MHz and -17 dBm/MHz out-of-band emission limits outside of the
restricted bands with spectrum measurements performed with the peak detection and “max hold” settings of the
spectrum analyzer.
32

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

affecting the utility of the device, and because using the more stringent unwanted emissions requirement
will ensure that there is no increase in the potential for harmful interference from unlicensed devices
operating under the new combined rule parts, we proposed in the NPRM that the more restrictive limits in
Section 15.407 be required for digitally modulated devices.177
115.
The majority of commenters support the Commission’s proposal to apply the more
restrictive unwanted emissions limits from Section 15.407 of our rules to the new consolidated rule
section.178 However, Exalt is opposed to our proposal because it believes it will likely result in a more
restrictive tuning range, and/or significantly higher manufacturing costs for more stringent filtering.179
Exalt recognizes the intention for reduced interference out-of-band, but indicate that there are no specific
references indicating that the Section 15.247 regulations have caused any issues in this regard.180
116.
Similarly, Cambium asserts that the existing out-of-band emission limits for devices
certified under Section 15.407 are substantially more stringent than for devices certified under Section
15.247. It believes that, if devices operating in the 5.7 GHz band are to meet the out-of-band emission
limits from Section 15.407, they must incorporate transmitter sections of considerably greater complexity
than those found in Section 15.247 devices, including the use of additional high performance RF filters.
The additional complexity would result in higher manufacturing costs, increasing the selling price of
unlicensed devices to the extent that many existing applications for lower-tier U-NII band devices may
well cease to be cost effective.181
117.
Cambium also states that they are not aware of a documented link between out-of-band
emissions for devices certified under Section 15.247 and interference to TDWRs operating at 5.6 GHz to
5.650 GHz, and they request that the Commission relax the emission rules for the U-NII 3 band to match
or approach the existing rules for Section 15.247. Cambium takes the view that incumbent systems in the
U-NII 2C band are more likely to be affected by the fundamental emission from unlicensed devices in the
same band than from unwanted out of band radiation from devices in the U-NII 3 band.182
118.
Alliance and Global further state that the Commission’s proposed unwanted emissions
limits for U-NII-3 devices would allow emissions that extend into the 5.85-GHz band at levels that would
likely cause harmful interference for DSRC devices.183
119.
We adopt our proposal to apply the more restrictive unwanted emissions limits in Section
15.407 for the combined new rule, rather than the more lenient unwanted emissions limit currently in
Section 15.247. This decision is consistent with our decision to apply the 15.407 out-of-band emission
levels in the U-NII-2 bands184 and having a single limit for devices that operate in any U-NII band will
provide clarity and simplicity, while providing appropriate protection to incumbent services. As noted
above, the record shows broad support for adopting the tighter unwanted-emissions limits of Section
15.407 limits. We recognize that high gain point –to-point systems certified under Section 15.247 may
have to be modified to comply with the lower out-of-band emissions limit from Section 15.407.

177 See NPRM, supra at1780, para. 34.
178 See NCTA Comments at 30, Comcast Comments at 23, Wi-Fi Alliance Comments at 13, Motorola Solutions
Comments at 3, IEEE 802 LMSC Comments at 26, Cisco Comments at 47, Ericsson Comments at 4, Globalstar
Comments at 3, Motorola Mobility Comments at 4, TIA Comments at 12, and Ruckus Wireless Comments at 3.
179 See Exalt Comments at 3.
180 See Exalt Comments at 3-4
181 See Cambium Comments at 3-4.
182 See Cambium Comments at 4.
183 See Alliance and Global Reply Comments at 30.
184 See supra para. 75
33

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

Manufacturers have the flexibility to determine how they should meet the lower out-of-band emissions
limit whether by reducing power, decreasing antenna gain, or utilizing tighter filters.
120.
We disagree with Alliance and Global that adopting the more stringent unwanted
emission limit from Section 15.407 will increase the harmful interference risk to DSRC services.
Unlicensed devices are already allowed to operate within the 5.825 -5.85 GHz band under Section 15.247
of our rules with higher unwanted emission levels than we are adopting for the new combined rule part.
We are simply consolidating the existing rules into a single section, which will decrease, not increase the
risk of harmful interference to DSRC services.
7.

Peak-to-Average Power Ratio

121.
Section 15.407 contains a requirement to maintain a peak-to-average power ratio of no
more than 13 dB across any 1 megahertz band, whereas Section 15.247 does not contain any peak-to-
average ratio requirement.185 In the NPRM we proposed to keep the peak-to-average ratio requirement
that is currently in Section 15.407 in order to ensure that there is no increase in the potential for harmful
interference from unlicensed devices operating under the new combined rule.186
122.
Exalt opposes any peak-to-average power ratio requirement, stating that the Section
15.247 rules are sufficient and would cause fewer issues with product/technology transition.187 William
Graff suggests eliminating the peak-to-average limit, which he believes is no longer necessary because
this is a test for which he has never seen failure, and which occupies a significant portion of a test
laboratory’s time.188 As an alternative to the current peak-to-average requirement, Mark Briggs suggests
removing the Peak Excursion requirement and replacing it with either a Peak-to-Average Power Ratio of
13 dBm (measured using the procedures outlined in the FCC guidance for licensed wide-band
transmitters) or a peak power density limit of 30 dBm/MHz.189 We agree with commenters that this
measurement is no longer necessary, and eliminate this requirement from the rules.
8.

Hybrid Devices

123.
In the NPRM we stated that we would continue to authorize under Section 15.247
frequency hopping spread spectrum devices in the 5725-5850 MHz band and hybrid devices, i.e., those
that can function as either spread spectrum or digitally modulated systems, because these devices have not
been observed to cause harmful interference to TDWRs and do not have the similarities to U-NII devices
that other digitally modulated systems have.190 We will continue to authorize under Section 15.247
frequency hopping spread spectrum devices and the frequency hopping spread spectrum portion of hybrid
devices in the 5725-5850 MHz band. The digitally modulated portion of hybrid devices will have to meet
the modified U-NII rules for this band.

E.

Adoption of Miscellaneous Rule Modifications
124.
The NPRM proposed several rule modifications to simplify and clarify Part 15 of the
rules. Our review revealed several sections of the rules that referenced procedures or provisions that are
no longer in use and therefore, are no longer necessary. No party opposes the miscellaneous rule
modifications that we proposed and thus we adopt them. In Section 15.403 (m) we replace “Peak Power

185 See 47 C.F.R. §15.407(a)(6).
186 See NPRM, supra at 1780, para. 35.
187 See Exalt Comments at 4.
188 See William Graff Comments and Reply Comments.
189 See Mark Briggs Comments.
190 See NPRM, supra at 1778, fn 38. The statement in the NPRM, that we would continue to authorize hybrid
devices under Section 15. 247, was only intended to apply to the frequency hopping spread spectrum portion of
hybrid devices as we clearly proposed to bring all digitally modulated devices under the U-NII rules.
34

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

Spectral Density” with “Maximum Power Spectral Density.” In addition, we delete “peak or” from
Section 15.403 (o) for clarity. We also delete section 15.247 (b)(4)(i) through (b)(4)(ii) to eliminate
repetitive language that is found in section 15.247 (c)(1)(i) through (c)(1)(iii)
125.
In Section 15.407 we delete the second sentence in paragraph (a)(4) because it contains
language that is no longer relevant. We also correct the wording in paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(5) by
replacing “peak” with “maximum.” We also correct the wording in paragraph (b)(8) by replacing “block
edges” with “band edges.” We also clarify rule Section 15.215(c) to allow the operation of a U-NII
device over multiple channels/bands. U-NII Band straddling in the 5-GHz region of U-NII spectrum is
allowed and applies to 802.11ac bonded 80-megahertz and 160-megahertz channels. We also modify
Section 15.407(h)(2) to clarify the language for DFS requirements once the emission bandwidth of a U-
NII device is straddled across multiple U-NII bands.

F.

Transition Periods

126.
In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to establish a 12-month timetable after the
effective date of any new or modified rules for manufacturers to produce U-NII devices that comply with
new or modified rules. We also proposed to establish a two-year timetable after the effective date of any
new or modified rules for requiring that any U-NII devices manufactured in or imported into the United
States for sale comply with the new or modified rules. Additionally, we proposed to not allow Class II
permissive changes after the two-year transition period for devices certified under the old rules.191
Finally, we proposed that U-NII devices that are already installed or in use should be grandfathered for
the life of the equipment.192
127.
Comments. Cisco supports the proposal to allow the option to certify equipment under
the new or modified rules during the proposed transition period as soon the test procedures are ready.193
Several commenters oppose a 12-month deadline for U-NII devices to be certified under the new rules
because they are concerned that the proposed transition plan does not allow an adequate amount of time
for manufacturers to complete design, fabrication, and certification processes. Cambium states that under
the proposed transition period, existing products must be withdrawn from sale within two years and this
period is significantly shorter than the typical lifespan of an infrastructure product. Cambium does not
believe that two years is a reasonable deadline to develop and bring to market a portfolio of new U-NII
band products, and requests that the Commission allow for a longer transition period.194 Similarly, MSI
believes the Commission should instead adopt a final transition period of five years, with at least two
years for manufacturers to begin producing U-NII devices that comply with the new rules.195 Exalt urges
the Commission to consider longer timetables for the transition period because a 12-month cycle is not
long enough to plan, schedule, budget and produce new products, along with gaining approvals.196
WISPA believes that both the 12-month and two-year deadlines should be extended by 12 months to
allow for compliance.
128.
Several commenters oppose the proposal to not allow Class II permissive changes after
the two-year transition period. Cisco and the Wi-Fi Alliance state that Class II permissive changes to
devices certified under the old rules should be permitted after the two-year transition period where those
changes are designed to provide appropriate DFS protection to the new Bin 1 Waveforms adopted by

191 See NPRM, supra at 1803. See also, 47 C.F.R §2.1043(b)(2). A Class II permissive change class includes
modifications which degrade the performance characteristics as reported to the Commission at initial certification.
192 See NPRM, supra at 1803, paras. 114-15.
193 See Cisco Comments at 52.
194 See Cambium Comments at 5.
195 See Motorola Solutions Comments at 12.
196 See Exalt Comments at 4-5, WISPA Comments at 18, and NCTA Comments at 24.
35

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

OET. Cisco states that given the importance of avoiding interference to TDWR, the Commission should
not impose on manufacturers a disincentive to upgrading existing equipment to protect the new Bin 1
Waveforms.197 Other parties suggest the Commission should permit permissive changes past the
proposed two-year compliance deadline because many existing devices are already capable of operating
in the new bands, or pursuant to the revised rules, after necessary firmware and software updates— even
if they were not originally certified for operation on the U-NII bands. For example, MSI notes that a
certification grant may be for 2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz 802.11 WLAN equipment, but the data submitted
with the original grant could be sufficient to demonstrate compliant operations on the U-NII-2 or UNII-3
bands under the new rules. MSI states that the Commission should facilitate these upgrades by allowing
the addition of new operating bands to existing equipment certifications through Class II permissive
changes.198
129.
Decision. We adopt our proposal to require that 12 months after the effective date of this
First R&O, applications for certification of 5 GHz devices must meet the new and modified rules adopted
herein. The manufacture, marketing, sale and importation into the United States of devices that do not
meet the new or modified rules adopted herein must cease two years after the effective date of this First
R&O.199 While we are sympathetic to the arguments of commenters that the more restrictive unwanted
emission limits for digital modulation devices may present design challenges for some manufacturers, we
find that it is in the public interest to implement the changes as soon as possible to eliminate the potential
of harmful interference to TDWRs.
130.
Grandfathered devices must continue to employ DFS as required in Section 15.407(h)(2).
Devices operating in the U-NII-2A or U-NII-2C bands that do not have DFS, or that have DFS turned off
are not compliant with the Part 15 Rules, and any operators who use such devices may be subject to a
forfeiture, as described earlier. As noted by the commenters, large numbers of 5 GHz U-NII devices are
already in the marketplace and pose no threat of harmful interference unless they are modified in violation
of the Commission’s rules. However, should these devices be subsequently modified and cause harmful
interference to TDWR or any other incumbent systems, the FCC Enforcement Bureau will continue its
aggressive approach to ensuring compliance with our rules.200
131.
We are modifying certain technical requirements in our rules for all U-NII devices to
reduce the possibility that these devices could continue to cause harmful interference to TDWR systems
and other incumbent services that operate in the 5 GHz band. We believe that the public interest is best
served by minimizing the potential for harmful interference as soon as practicable. We also believe that
the requirements that U-NII devices include security features and to incorporate and use appropriate
interference mitigation technology are readily achievable. We decline to require mitigation techniques
such as geo-location and database registration which may have proven more time-consuming to
implement. Thus, we believe the transition period that we are adopting is appropriate.
132.
Since 2010, the Commission has been certifying U-NII-2C devices under interim
procedures which require that the 5.6-5.65 GHz band be notched out, and that certain devices within 35
km of a TDWR location be separated by at least 30 MHz (center-to-center) from the TDWR operating
frequency.201 We will permit U-NII-2C, i.e., devices operating in the 5470-5725 MHz band, to be

197 See Cisco Comments at 53.
198 See Motorola Solutions Comments at 13.
199 Use of devices sold within this period will be grandfathered for the life of the equipment.
200 The Commission has previously noted that harmful interference to TDWR poses a clear hazard to air traffic
safety and requires aggressive enforcement. See Towerstream Corporation, Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 11604 (Enf. Bur. 2013).
201 See FCC, OET, “Interim Plans to Approve UNII Devices Operating in the 5470-5725 MHz Band with Radar
Detection and DFS Capabilities”, KDB Publication No. 443999 DO1, available at: http://www.fcc.gov/labhelp.
36

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

certified either under these interim procedures or the new rules adopted herein for 12 months after the
effective date of this First R&O. After 12 months, all U-NII-2C devices must meet the new rules in order
to be certified.
133.
We adopt our proposal to no longer allow Class II permissive changes for devices
certified under either the old rules, or the U-NII-2C interim procedures, after two years unless they meet
the new rules adopted here. Devices may continue to apply for Class II permissive changes that
demonstrate compliance with the old rules for only up to two years after the effective date of the new
rules. However, we are persuaded by commenters that it is in the public interest to continue to allow
indefinitely Class II permissive changes to devices certified under the old rules in some instances.202 We
agree with Cisco203 that the Commission should not impose on manufacturers a disincentive to upgrading
existing grandfathered equipment to protect the new Bin 1 Waveforms. We also agree with the
commenters that Class II permissive changes should be permitted after the two-year transition period
where those changes are designed to provide appropriate DFS protection or where existing devices are
already capable of operating pursuant to the revised rules, after necessary firmware and software
updates.204 We will therefore allow devices certified under the old rules, or U-NII-2C interim procedures,
prior to the 12-month effective date of the new rules, to demonstrate compliance with the new or modified
rules through Class II permissive changes.
134.
We will continue to allow digital modulation equipment and the digital modulation
portion of hybrid devices, i.e., those that can function as either spread spectrum or digitally modulated
systems, operating in the 5.725-5.850 GHz band to be certified to meet the Section 15.247 requirements
for 12 months after the effective date of the new rules. After 12 months, digital modulation devices and
the digital modulation portion of hybrid devices must meet the new Section 15.407 U-NII-3 rules in order
to be FCC certified. The frequency hopping spread spectrum portion of hybrid devices will continue to
be certified under the Section 15.247 spread spectrum rules. The manufacture, marketing, sale and
importation into the United States of digitally modulated and hybrid devices certified under Section
15.247 operating in the 5.725-5.850 GHz band must cease two years after the effective date of this First
R&O. Likewise they may apply for Class II permissive changes to demonstrate compliance with the old
rules for up to two years after the effective date of these new rules. After two years, these devices must
be certified to meet the new rules and Class II permissive changes may only be made if these devices
meet the new rules as well.

IV.

PROCEDURAL MATTERS

135.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. § 604, the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(FRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the changes adopted in this
document. The FRFA is set forth in Appendix A.
136.
Paperwork Reduction Analysis. This document contains modified information collection
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It will be
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Section 3507(d) of the
PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the new or
modified information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. This collection of
information will be covered under (OMB 3060-0057 Equipment Authorization).
137.
Congressional Review Act. The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order
in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the
Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

202 See Cisco Comments at 53, WI-FI Alliance at 31-32, and IEEE 802 LMSC at 25-26.
203 See Cisco Comments at 53.
204 See Cisco Comments at 53, WI-FI Alliance at 31-32, and IEEE 802 LMSC at 25-26.
37

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

V.

ORDERING CLAUSES

138.
IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 4(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(g), and
303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i), 301, 302a, 303(e),
303(f), 303(g), and 303(r), this First Report and Order is hereby ADOPTED and Part 15 of the
Commission’s Rules ARE AMENDED as set forth in Appendix C, [effective 30 days after date of
publication in the Federal Register]
except for Section 15.407(j) which contains information collection
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, that are not effective
until approved by the Office of Management and Budget. The Federal Communications Commission will
publish a document in the Federal Register announcing OMB approval and the effective date of this rule.
139.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Office of Engineering and Technology Is delegated
authority to grant waivers of the antenna requirements adopted herein consistent with the terms of this
Order.
140.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission’s Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this First Report and Order,
including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
141.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Office of Engineering and Technology shall
publish, consistent with the terms of this Report and Order, measurement procedures that will be used for
certifying equipment that will operate in the 5.15-5.35 GHz and 5.47-5.85 GHz bands.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
38

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

APPENDIX A

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

1.
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),1 an Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in ET Docket No. 13-
49.2 The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including comment
on the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.

A.

Need for, and Objectives of, the Report and Order.

2.
The First Report and Order amends the regulations for Information Unlicensed National
Information Infrastructure (U-NII) devices which operate in the 5 GHz band.3 U-NII devices are
unlicensed intentional radiators which use wideband digital modulation techniques to provide a wide
array of high data rate mobile and fixed communications used by individuals, businesses, and
institutions.4 As discussed below, we are modifying certain technical requirements in our rules for all U-
NII devices to ensure that these devices do not cause harmful interference to Terminal Doppler Weather
Radar (TDWR) systems and other radar systems that operate in the 5 GHz band. We are also extending
the upper edge of the 5.725-5.825 GHz U-NII band from 5.825 GHz to 5.85 GHz and consolidating the
provisions formerly applicable to digitally modulated devices under Section 15.247 of the rules for this
band with the U-NII rules in Section 15.407. This change will eliminate a loophole in the former rules
that allowed devices to be certified under the Section 15.247 rules and then modified to operate as U-NII
devices without complying with all of the technical requirements of the U-NII rules - a practice that was
shown to be a major source of harmful interference to TDWRs. Finally, we are removing the indoor only
restriction and increasing the permitted power for U-NII devices in the 5.15-5.25 GHz band thus
increasing the amount of spectrum available for next generation Wi-Fi services by 100 megahertz.

B.

Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA.

3.
There were no public comments filed that specifically addressed the rules and policies
proposed in the IRFA.

C.

Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.

4.
Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, the Commission is required to respond
to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, and to
provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments. The
Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.

1 See 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. § 60-612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1966 (SBREFA), Public Law No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996), and the
Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, Public Law No. 111-240, 124 Stat. 2504 (2010).
2 See Revision of Part 15 of the Commission’s Rules to Permit Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (U-
NII) Devices in the 5 GHz Band
in ET Docket No. 13-40, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking , 28 FCC Rcd. 1769
(2013) (NPRM).
3 See 47 C.F.R. Part 15 Subpart E – Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure Devices.
4 See 47 C.F.R. § 15.403(s).
39

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

D.

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rules Will Apply.

5.
The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of
the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.5 The RFA defines the
term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and
“small business concern” under Section 3 of the Small Business Act.6 Under the Small Business Act, a
“small business concern” is one that: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its
field of operations; and (3) meets may additional criteria established by the Small Business
Administration (SBA).7

E.

Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental Jurisdictions.

6.
Our action may, over time, affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present.
We therefore describe here, at the outset, three comprehensive, statutory small entity size standards that
encompass entities that could be directly affected by the proposals under consideration.8 As of 2009,
small businesses represented 99.9% of the 27.5 million businesses in the United States, according to the
SBA.9 Additionally, a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.”10 Nationwide, as of 2007, there were
approximately 1,621,315 small organizations.11 Finally, the term “small governmental jurisdiction” is
defined generally as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or
special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.”12 Census Bureau data for 2007 indicate
that there were 89,527 governmental jurisdictions in the United States.13 We estimate that, of this total, as
many as 88,761 entities may qualify as “small governmental jurisdictions.”14 Thus, we estimate that most
governmental jurisdictions are small.

5 See 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).
6 Id. § 601(3).
7 Id. § 632.
8 See 5 U.S.C. § 601(3)–(6).
9 See SBA, Office of Advocacy, “Frequently Asked Questions,” available at
http://web.sba.gov/faqs/faqindex.cfm?areaID=24 (last visited Aug. 31, 2012).
10 5 U.S.C. § 601(4).
11 INDEPENDENT SECTOR, THE NEW NONPROFIT ALMANAC & DESK REFERENCE (2010).
12 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).
13 U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED STATES: 2011, Table 427 (2007).
14 The 2007 U.S Census data for small governmental organizations are not presented based on the size of the
population in each such organization. There were 89,476 local governmental organizations in 2007. If we assume
that county, municipal, township, and school district organizations are more likely than larger governmental
organizations to have populations of 50,000 or less, the total of these organizations is 52,095. If we make the same
population assumption about special districts, specifically that they are likely to have a population of 50,000 or less,
and also assume that special districts are different from county, municipal, township, and school districts, in 2007
there were 37,381 such special districts. Therefore, there are a total of 89,476 local government organizations. As a
basis of estimating how many of these 89,476 local government organizations were small, in 2011, we note that
there were a total of 715 cities and towns (incorporated places and minor civil divisions) with populations over
50,000. CITY AND TOWNS TOTALS: VINTAGE 2011 – U.S. Census Bureau, available at
http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2011/index.html. If we subtract the 715 cities and towns that meet
or exceed the 50,000 population threshold, we conclude that approximately 88,761 are small. U.S. CENSUS
BUREAU, STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED STATES 2011, Tables 427, 426 (Data cited therein are
from 2007).
40

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

7.
The adopted rules pertain to manufacturers of unlicensed communications devices. The
appropriate small business size standard is that which the SBA has established for radio and television
broadcasting and wireless communications equipment manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines this
category as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio
and television broadcast and wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these
establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment,
pagers, cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and television studio and
broadcasting equipment.”15 The SBA has developed a small business size standard for firms in this
category, which is: all such firms having 750 or fewer employees.16 According to Census Bureau data
for 2007, there were a total of 939 establishments in this category that operated for part or all of the entire
year. Of this total, 784 had less than 500 employees and 155 had more than 100 employees.17 Thus,
under this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.

F.

Description of Projected Reporting, Record keeping and Other Compliance Requirements.

8.
The Report and Order contains a non-substantial modification to the information
collection requirements. The rules adopted in this First Report and Order will apply to small businesses
that choose to use, manufacture, design, import, or sell Part 15 U-NII devices. There is no requirement,
however, for any entity to use, market, or produce these types of products. Small businesses are already
subject to the existing rules with regard to reporting, record keeping and other compliance requirements
related to U-NII devices. The rules adopted in this First Report and Order do not add substantial
additional compliance burden on small businesses.

G.

Steps taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities and Significant

Alternatives Considered.

9.
The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered
in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1)
the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account
the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather
than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small
entities.18
10.
In this First Report and Order, we modify our rules for Unlicensed National Information
Infrastructure (U-NII) devices which operate in the 5 GHz band.19 U-NII devices are unlicensed
intentional radiators which use wideband digital modulation techniques to provide a wide array of high
data rate mobile and fixed communications used by individuals, businesses, and institutions.20 As
discussed below, we are modifying certain technical requirements in our rules for all U-NII devices to
ensure that these devices do not cause harmful interference to Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR)
systems and other radar systems that operate in the 5 GHz band. We are also extending the upper edge of
the 5.725-5.825 GHz U-NII band from 5.825 GHz to 5.85 GHz and consolidating the provisions formerly

15 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, “334220 Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless
Communications Equipment Manufacturing”; http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND334220.HTM#N334220.
16 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334220.
17 http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-geo_id=&-_skip=300&;-
ds_name=EC0731SG2&-_lang=en.
18 5 U.S.C. § 603(c).
19 See 47 C.F.R. Part 15 Subpart E – Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure Devices.
20 See 47 C.F.R. § 15.403(s).
41

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

applicable to digitally modulated devices under Section 15.247 of the rules for this band with the U-NII
rules in Section 15.407. This change will eliminate a loophole in the former rules that allowed devices to
be certified under the Section 15.247 rules and then modified to operate as U-NII devices without
complying with all of the technical requirements of the U-NII rules - a practice that was shown to be a
major source of harmful interference to TDWRs. Finally, we are removing the indoor only restriction and
increasing the permitted power for U-NII devices in the 5.15-5.25 GHz band thus increasing the amount
of spectrum available for next generation Wi-Fi services by 100 megahertz.

Report to Congress

11.
The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including this FRFA, in a
report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.21 In addition, the Commission
will send a copy of the Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
SBA. A copy of the Report and Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the
Federal Register.22

21 See 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).
22 See 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).
42

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

APPENDIX B

Commenting Parties

Parties filing comments:
1.
ACEA (European Automobile Manufacturers Association)
2.
Advanced Designs Corporation
3.
American Association of State Highway & Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
4.
American Honda Motor Co., Inc.(Honda)
5.
American Motorcyclist Association
6.
ARRL, the national association for Amateur Radio
7.
Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI)
8.
Baron Services, Inc.
9.
Bart Kus, (HamWAN)
10.
BNetzA Germany
11.
Broadcom
12.
Cablevision Systems Corporation (Cablevision)
13.
California Department of Transportation
14.
Cambium Networks Ltd.
15.
Cisco Systems, Inc. (Cisco)
16.
Comcast Corporation (Comcast)
17.
Consumer Electronics Association (CEA)
18.
David Sparks
19.
Delphi Automotive (Delphi)
20.
Department of Commerce
21.
Engine Advocacy
22.
Enterprise Electronics Corp.
23.
Ericsson
24.
European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA)
25.
European Space Agency (ESA)
26.
Exalt Communications Inc.
27.
Fastback Networks
28.
First Step Internet, LLC (FSI)
29.
Ford Motor Company (Ford)
30.
General Motors Company (GM)
31.
Globalstar, Inc. (Globalstar)
32.
Google Inc. and Microsoft Corporation
33.
Greg Larson, Department of Transportation, CA (CALTRANS)
34.
Hans Klein Comments by ITSPAC - Intelligent Transportation Systems Program Advisory
35.
Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc.
36.
IEEE 802 LMSC
37.
Information Technology Industry Council (ITIC)
38.
Intelligent Transportation Society of America (ITS America)
39.
Jackson Buddingh
40.
Jay Joseph / Honda
41.
Joe Cabrara, Safe America Foundation
43

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

42.
Kurtis Morrison (on behalf of Don Hunt). Department of Transportation, State of Colorado.
43.
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
44.
Motorola Mobility LLC
45.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. (MSI)
46.
National Association of Broadcasters (NAB)
47.
National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA)
48.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
49.
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
50.
Nickolaus E. Leggett
51.
QUALCOMM Incorporated (Qualcomm)
52.
Ruckus Wireless, Inc.
53.
Søren Hess
54.
SAE International
55.
Savari, Inc. (Savari)
56.
SES S.A. and Intelsat S.A.
57.
Shared Spectrum Company
58.
Spectrum Bridge
59.
SPITwSPOTS, Inc.
60.
Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA)
61.
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. and the Association of Global Automakers,
Inc.
62.
The National Association for Amateur Radio (ARRL)
63.
Thomas Zorn, Volkswagen
64.
Time Warner Cable Inc.
65.
Toyota Motor North America, Inc.
66.
Utah Department of Transportation
67.
Wi-Fi Alliance
68.
William Graff
69.
Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA)
Parties filing reply comments:
1.
American Association of State Highway & transportation officials (AASHTO)
2.
American Cable Association (ACA)
3.
Arizona Department of Transportation
4.
Baron Services
5.
Cablevision Systems Corporation
6.
Cisco Systems (Cisco)
7.
Comcast Corporation
8.
Dr. Eli Yablonovitch
9.
Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition (FWCC)
10.
GlobalStar Inc. (Globalstar)
11.
IEEE 802 LMSC
12.
Intelligent Transportation Society of America (ITS America)
13.
James E. Whedbee / Amateur
14.
Mark Briggs
44

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

15.
Mobile Satellite Users Association (MSUA)
16.
National Association of Broadcasters (NAB)
17.
National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA)
18.
National Public Safety Telecommunication Council (NPSTC)
19.
PCIA - The Wireless Infrastructure Association and the HetNet Forum
20.
Public Interest Organizations (The Open Technology Institute at the New America
Foundation and Public Knowledge)
21.
SAE International (Society of Automotive Engineers)
22.
Satellite Industry Association (SIA)
23.
SES S.A. & Intelsat S.A.
24.
Shared Spectrum Company
25.
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. and the Association of Global Automakers
(Alliance&Global)
26.
The National Association for Amateur Radio (ARRL)
27.
Toyota Motor North America (Toyota)
28.
Utilities Telecom Council (UTC)
29.
Wi-Fi Alliance
30.
Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA)
31.
Wisconsin Department of Transportation
Parties filing Ex-Parte Statements:
1.
ADS-B Technologies, LLC
2.
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and Association of Global Automakers (Alliance &
Global)
3.
Bright House Networks
4.
Broadcom Corporation
5.
Cisco Systems (Cisco)
6.
Coastal Communications Consultants, Inc
7.
Comcast Corporation (Comcast)
8.
CTIA – The Wireless Association
9.
Custom Cellular Concepts Corporation
10.
Dynamic Spectrum Alliance
11.
Eagle Eye Fishing Corp. et al.
12.
Fastback Networks
13.
Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition, Inc.
14.
General Motors Company
15.
Geochemical and Environmental Research Group, Texas AT&M University
16.
GeoSonics Inc.
17.
Globalstar, Inc. (Globalstar)
18.
Globalstar Investors
19.
Google Inc. (Google)
20.
Intelligent Transportation Society of America (ITS America)
21.
Microsoft Corporation
22.
Mobile Future
23.
National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA)
45

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

24.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
25.
New America Foundation
26.
OmniAir Consortium
27.
Openity, LLC
28.
Public Interest Organizations
29.
Public Interest Spectrum Coalition
30.
Public Knowledge
31.
Satellite Phone Solutions LLC
32.
SES S.A. and Intelsat S.A.
33.
Snodgrass, Inc.
34.
Telecommunications Industry Association
35.
The Hospital Council of Northwest Ohio
36.
United States Department of Transportation
37.
Wi-Fi Alliance
38.
Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA)
46

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

APPENDIX C

Final Rules

For the reasons set forth in the preamble the Federal Communications Commission amends Parts 2 and 15
of the Code of Federal Regulations to read as follows:

PART 2 – FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL
RULES AND REGULATIONS

1. The authority citation for Part 2 continues to read as follows:

Authority:

47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 2.1033 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(13) to read as follows:
§ 2.1033 Application for certification.
*****
(b) *****
(13) Applications for certification of U-NII devices in the 5.15-5.35 GHz and the 5.47-
5.85 GHz bands must include a high level operational description of the security procedures that control
the radio frequency operating parameters and ensure that unauthorized modifications cannot be made.

PART 15 – RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES

3. The authority citation for Part 15 continues to read as follows:

Authority:

47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 336, 544a, and 549.
4. Section 15.37 is amended by adding new paragraph (h) to read as follows:
§ 15.37 Transition provisions for compliance with the rules.
*****
(h) Effective (12-months after the effective date) devices using digital modulation techniques in
the 5725-5850 MHz bands will no longer be certified under the provisions of Section 15.247. The
technical requirements for obtaining certification after this date for digitally modulated devices and the
digitally modulated portion of hybrid devices are found in Subpart E of this Part. The provisions for the
frequency hopping spread spectrum portion of hybrid devices will remain in Section 15.247. Effective (2
years after the effective date) systems using digital modulation techniques in the 5725-5850 MHz band
certified under the provisions of Section 15.247 may no longer be imported or marketed within the United
States.
5. Section 15.215 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 15.215 Additional provisions to the general radiated emission limitations.
*****
(c) Intentional radiators operating under the alternative provisions to the general emission limits,
as contained in §§ 15.217 through 15.257 and in Subpart E of this part, must be designed to ensure that
47

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

the 20 dB bandwidth of the emission, or whatever bandwidth may otherwise be specified in the specific
rule section under which the equipment operates, is contained within the frequency band designated in the
rule section under which the equipment is operated. In the case of intentional radiators operating under
the provisions of Subpart E, the emission bandwidth may span across multiple contiguous frequency
bands identified in that Subpart. The requirement to contain the designated bandwidth of the emission
within the specified frequency band includes the effects from frequency sweeping, frequency hopping and
other modulation techniques that may be employed as well as the frequency stability of the transmitter
over expected variations in temperature and supply voltage. If a frequency stability is not specified in the
regulations, it is recommended that the fundamental emission be kept within at least the central 80% of
the permitted band in order to minimize the possibility of out-of-band operation.
6. Section 15.247 is amended by removing paragraphs (b)(4)(i), (ii) and (iii), and by revising paragraph
(f) to read as follows:
§ 15.247 Operation within the bands 902-928 MHz, 2400-2483.5 MHz, and 5725-5850 MHz.
*****
(b) ***
(4) ***
(i) [Remove]
(ii) [Remove]
(iii) [Remove]
*****
*****
(f) For the purposes of this section, hybrid systems are those that employ a combination of both
frequency hopping and digital modulation techniques. The frequency hopping operation of the hybrid
system, with the direct sequence or digital modulation operation turned off, shall have an average time of
occupancy on any frequency not to exceed 0.4 seconds within a time period in seconds equal to the
number of hopping frequencies employed multiplied by 0.4. The power spectral density conducted from
the intentional radiator to the antenna due to the digital modulation operation of the hybrid system, with
the frequency hopping operation turned off, shall not be greater than 8 dBm in any 3 kHz band during any
time interval of continuous transmission.
NOTE TO PARAGRAPH ( f ): The transition provisions found in section 15.37(h) will apply to hybrid
devices beginning (12-months after the effective date).
*****
7. Section 15.401 is amended to read as follows:
§ 15.401 Scope.
48

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

This subpart sets out the regulations for unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) devices
operating in the 5.15-5.35 GHz, 5.47-5.725 GHz and 5.725-5.85 GHz bands.
8. Section 15.403 is amended by revising the definition in paragraphs (m), (o) and (s) to read as follows:
§ 15.403 Definitions.
*****
(m) Maximum Power Spectral Density. The maximum power spectral density is the maximum
power spectral density, within the specified measurement bandwidth, within the U-NII device operating
band.
*****
(o) Power Spectral Density. The power spectral density is the total energy output per unit
bandwidth from a pulse or sequence of pulses for which the transmit power is at its maximum level,
divided by the total duration of the pulses. This total time does not include the time between pulses
during which the transmit power is off or below its maximum level.
*****
(s) U-NII devices. Intentional radiators operating in the frequency bands 5.15-5.35 GHz and 5.470-
5.850 GHz that use wideband digital modulation techniques and provide a wide array of high data rate
mobile and fixed communications for individuals, businesses, and institutions.
9. Section 15.407 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5), (b)(1) through (b)(4), (b)(8),
(e), and (h)(2), and by removing paragraphs (a)(6), and by adding new paragraphs (i) and (j) to read
as follows:
§ 15.407 General technical requirements.
(a) Power limits:
(1) For the band 5.15-5.25 GHz.
(i) For an outdoor access point operating in the band 5.15 – 5.25 GHz, the maximum conducted
output power over the frequency band of operation shall not exceed 1 W provided the maximum antenna
gain does not exceed 6 dBi. In addition, the maximum power spectral density shall not exceed 17 dBm in
any 1 megahertz band. If transmitting antennas of directional gain greater than 6 dBi are used, both the
maximum conducted output power and the maximum power spectral density shall be reduced by the
amount in dB that the directional gain of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi. The maximum e.i.r.p. at any
elevation angle above 30 degrees as measured from the horizon must not exceed 125 mW (21 dBm).
(ii) For an indoor access point operating in the band 5.15 – 5.25 GHz, the maximum conducted
output power over the frequency band of operation shall not exceed 1 W provided the maximum antenna
gain does not exceed 6 dBi. In addition, the maximum power spectral density shall not exceed 17 dBm in
any 1 megahertz band. If transmitting antennas of directional gain greater than 6 dBi are used, both the
maximum conducted output power and the maximum power spectral density shall be reduced by the
amount in dB that the directional gain of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi.
49

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

(iii) For fixed point-to-point access points operating in the band 5.15 – 5.25 GHz, the maximum
conducted output power over the frequency band of operation shall not exceed 1 W. Fixed point-to-point
U-NII devices may employ antennas with directional gain up to 23 dBi without any corresponding
reduction in the maximum conducted output power or maximum power spectral density. For fixed point-
to-point transmitters that employ a directional antenna gain greater than 23 dBi, a 1 dB reduction in
maximum conducted output power and maximum power spectral density is required for each 1 dB of
antenna gain in excess of 23 dBi. Fixed, point-to-point operations exclude the use of point-to-multipoint
systems, omnidirectional applications, and multiple collocated transmitters transmitting the same
information. The operator of the U-NII device, or if the equipment is professionally installed, the installer,
is responsible for ensuring that systems employing high gain directional antennas are used exclusively for
fixed, point-to-point operations.
(iv) For mobile and portable client devices in the 5.15 – 5.25 GHz band, the maximum conducted
output power over the frequency band of operation shall not exceed 250 mW provided the maximum
antenna gain does not exceed 6 dBi. In addition, the maximum power spectral density shall not exceed 11
dBm in any 1 megahertz band. If transmitting antennas of directional gain greater than 6 dBi are used,
both the maximum conducted output power and the maximum power spectral density shall be reduced by
the amount in dB that the directional gain of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi.
(2) For the 5.25-5.35 GHz and 5.47-5.725 GHz bands, the maximum conducted output power over
the frequency bands of operation shall not exceed the lesser of 250 mW or 11 dBm 10 log B, where B is
the 26 dB emission bandwidth in megahertz. In addition, the maximum power spectral density shall not
exceed 11 dBm in any 1 megahertz band. If transmitting antennas of directional gain greater than 6 dBi
are used, both the maximum conducted output power and the maximum power spectral density shall be
reduced by the amount in dB that the directional gain of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi.
(3) For the band 5.725-5.85 GHz, the maximum conducted output power over the frequency band
of operation shall not exceed 1 W. In addition, the maximum power spectral density shall not exceed 30
dBm in any 500 kHz band. If transmitting antennas of directional gain greater than 6 dBi are used, both
the maximum conducted output power and the maximum power spectral density shall be reduced by the
amount in dB that the directional gain of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi. However, fixed point-to-point U-NII
devices operating in this band may employ transmitting antennas with directional gain greater than 6 dBi
without any corresponding reduction in transmitter conducted power. Fixed, point-to-point operations
exclude the use of point-to-multipoint systems, omnidirectional applications, and multiple collocated
transmitters transmitting the same information. The operator of the U-NII device, or if the equipment is
professionally installed, the installer, is responsible for ensuring that systems employing high gain
directional antennas are used exclusively for fixed, point-to-point operations.
NOTE TO PARAGRAPH ( a )(3): The Commission strongly recommends that parties employing U-NII
devices to provide critical communications services should determine if there are any nearby Government
radar systems that could affect their operation.
(4) The maximum conducted output power must be measured over any interval of continuous
transmission using instrumentation calibrated in terms of an rms-equivalent voltage.
(5) The maximum power spectral density is measured as a conducted emission by direct connection
of a calibrated test instrument to the equipment under test. If the device cannot be connected directly,
alternative techniques acceptable to the Commission may be used. Measurements in the 5.725-5.85 GHz
band are made for a reference bandwidth of 500 kHz or the 26 dB emission bandwidth of the device,
whichever is less. Measurements in the 5.15 – 5.25 GHz, 5.25 – 5.35 GHz, and the 5.47-5.725 GHz bands
are made for a reference bandwidth of 1 MHz or the 26 dB emission bandwidth of the device, whichever
50

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

is less. A narrower resolution bandwidth can be used, provided that the measured power is integrated over
the full reference bandwidth.
(6) [Remove]
(b) Undesirable emission limits. Except as shown in paragraph (b)(7) of this section, the maximum
emissions outside of the frequency bands of operation shall be attenuated in accordance with the
following limits:
*****
(1) For transmitters operating in the 5.15-5.25 GHz band: all emissions outside of the 5.15-5.35 GHz
band shall not exceed an e.i.r.p. of -27 dBm/MHz.
(2) For transmitters operating in the 5.25-5.35 GHz band: all emissions outside of the 5.15-5.35 GHz
band shall not exceed an e.i.r.p. of -27 dBm/MHz.
(3) For transmitters operating in the 5.47-5.725 GHz band: all emissions outside of the 5.47-5.725
GHz band shall not exceed an e.i.r.p. of −27 dBm/MHz.
(4) For transmitters operating in the 5.725-5.85 GHz band: all emissions within the frequency range
from the band edge to 10 MHz above or below the band edge shall not exceed an e.i.r.p. of -17
dBm/MHz; for frequencies 10 MHz or greater above or below the band edge, emissions shall not exceed
an e.i.r.p. of -27 dBm/MHz.
*****
(8) When measuring the emission limits, the nominal carrier frequency shall be adjusted as close to
the upper and lower frequency band edges as the design of the equipment permits.
*****
(e) Within the 5.725-5.85 GHz band, the minimum 6 dB bandwidth of U-NII devices shall be at
least 500 kHz.
*****
(h)***
*****
(2) Radar Detection Function of Dynamic Frequency Selection (DFS). U-NII devices operating with
any part of its 26 dB emission bandwidth in the 5.25-5.35 GHz and 5.47-5.725 GHz bands shall employ a
DFS radar detection mechanism to detect the presence of radar systems and to avoid co-channel operation
with radar systems. Operators shall only use equipment with a DFS mechanism that is turned on when
operating in these bands. The device must sense for radar signals at 100 percent of its emission
bandwidth. The minimum DFS detection threshold for devices with a maximum e.i.r.p. of 200 mW to 1
W is −64 dBm. For devices that operate with less than 200 mW e.i.r.p. and a Power Spectral Density of
less than 10 dBm in a 1 MHz band, the minimum detection threshold is −62 dBm. The detection threshold
is the received power averaged over 1 microsecond referenced to a 0 dBi antenna. For the initial channel
51

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

setting, the manufacturers shall be permitted to provide for either random channel selection or manual
channel selection.
*****
(i) Device Security: All U-NII devices must contain security features to protect against modification
of software by unauthorized parties.
(1) Manufacturers must implement security features in any digitally modulated devices capable of
operating in any of the U-NII bands, so that third parties are not able to reprogram the device to operate
outside the parameters for which the device was certified. The software must prevent the user from
operating the transmitter with operating frequencies, output power, modulation types or other radio
frequency parameters outside those that were approved for the device. Manufacturers may use means
including, but not limited to the use of a private network that allows only authenticated users to download
software, electronic signatures in software or coding in hardware that is decoded by software to verify
that new software can be legally loaded into a device to meet these requirements and must describe the
methods in their application for equipment authorization.
(2) Manufacturers must take steps to ensure that DFS functionality cannot be disabled by the
operator of the U-NII device.
(j) Operator Filing Requirement: Before deploying an aggregate total of more than one thousand
outdoor access points within the 5.15-5.25 GHz band, parties must submit a letter to the Commission
acknowledging that, should harmful interference to licensed services in this band occur, they will be
required to take corrective action. Corrective actions may include reducing power, turning off devices,
changing frequency bands, and/or further reducing power radiated in the vertical direction. This material
shall be submitted to Laboratory Division, Office of Engineering and Technology, Federal
Communications Commission, 7435 Oakland Mills Road, Columbia, MD, 21046 Attn: U-NII
Coordination, or via website at https://www.fcc.gov/labhelp with the SUBJECT LINE: “U-NII-1 Filing”.
52

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

STATEMENT OF

CHAIRMAN TOM WHEELER

Re:
Revision of Part 15 of the Commission’s Rules to Permit Unlicensed National Information
Infrastructure (U-NII) Devices in the 5 GHz Band

Today’s item to greatly increase the utility of 100 megahertz in the 5 GHz band is a big deal. Our
action today will create new opportunities for entrepreneurs and innovators, and much-needed relief to the
growing problem of congestion on Wi-Fi networks.
At the same time, it moves us another step closer to ending the analog-era debate of licensed vs.
unlicensed spectrum.
In 2014, licensed and unlicensed spectrum are more complimentary than competitive. They are
less oil & vinegar and more peanut butter & jelly. Today, virtually every smartphone has two unlicensed
technologies, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth, with a third – near field communications – beginning to be added for
mobile transactions. And wireless carriers are using Wi-Fi to offload more than 45% of smartphone traffic
to fixed networks.
But Wi-Fi has become a victim of its own popularity, and now faces congestion issues of its own.
That’s why the Commission is hard at work providing spectrum for both licensed and unlicensed
use. Both are critically important to our mobile ecosystem.
In this order, the Commission is taking 100 MHz of unlicensed spectrum at 5 GHz that was
barely usable – and not usable at all outdoors – and transforming it into spectrum that is fully usable for
Wi-Fi.
To put this 100 MHz number into perspective, that’s more usable spectrum than the 2.4 GHz
band that gave birth to Wi-Fi in the first place.
This is a big win for consumers who will be able to enjoy faster connections and less congestion,
as more spectrum will be available to handle Wi-Fi traffic. It will make it easier to get online wirelessly in
public places like airports and convention centers, as well as in your living room.
This is also a big win for American innovators. The changes we are making will provide fertile
ground for the growth of “Gigabit Wi-Fi” – the latest generation of ultra-high-speed, high-capacity Wi-Fi
that can provide data speeds in excess of 1 Gigabit per second.
We are not stopping here when it comes to unlicensed spectrum. We are committed to making
more spectrum available for unlicensed use in our incentive auction proceeding and our 3.5 GHz
proceeding, and will continue to carefully study technical analyses that could further expand access to
spectrum in up to 195 additional megahertz of spectrum in two other portions of the 5 GHz band.
Thank you also to OET for your hard and creative work on this item.
53

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

STATEMENT OF

COMMISSIONER MIGNON L. CLYBURN

Re:
Revision of Part 15 of the Commission’s Rules to Permit Unlicensed National Information
Infrastructure (U-NII) Devices in the 5 GHz Band

Today’s proceeding is just the latest example of smart government policy designed to promote
industry innovation in unlicensed services in order to yield the greatest public benefit. The technical
ingenuity, which ultimately has resulted in the explosive demand for Wi-Fi services, is several decades
old and it is most fitting that, on this last day of Women’s History Month, we are adopting an order to
spur greater use of services that a woman helped to create. Many are familiar with how actress Hedy
Lamarr invented frequency hopping technology in the 1940s. It is more than industry lore; she actually
held a patent on the idea.
The federal government and commercial players eventually realized the benefits of Ms. Lamarr’s
idea, and beginning in the 1980’s in response to petitions from federal agencies and industry, the
Commission started promoting greater use of frequency hopping and spread spectrum in unlicensed
services in the 2.4 and 5 GHz bands. Those policies together with the evolution of the 802.11 family of
technical standards and Wi-Fi only tablets has resulted in the great consumer demand for Wi-Fi devices
we see today.
Once criticized by licensed wireless providers; unlicensed spectrum is now being heavily used to
off load data traffic. The economists who have studied the area have different estimates, but there is a
consensus that Wi-Fi off load saves wireless companies tens of billions of dollars in network costs each
year. Demand for unlicensed services, has spiked so much that the 2.4 GHz band is now congested
particularly in major cities. We have to be ambitious in finding more ways to provide licensed and
unlicensed spectrum for commercial services.
I commend the staff for working so efficiently to bring us an Order that makes 100 megahertz of
spectrum, in the U-NII-1 band, available for both outdoor and indoor use of unlicensed services. This
was not an easy process. A couple of months ago, advocates for the Wi-Fi and satellite industries seemed
locked into their litigation positions. But thanks to the careful and creative work of Julie Knapp, Aole
Wilkins, Karen Rackley, and other OET experts, we were able to narrow their differences and arrive at
technical rules that both sides approve. Today’s Order also has important device certification and security
rules to prevent the interference that some U-NII devices were causing to federal operations a few years
ago. I look forward to the staff’s efforts to free up an additional 195 megahertz in the U-NII-2 and 4
bands. Thank you.

54

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

STATEMENT OF

COMMISSIONER JESSICA ROSENWORCEL

Re:
Revision of Part 15 of the Commission’s Rules to Permit Unlicensed National Information
Infrastructure (U-NII) Devices in the 5 GHz Band

This proceeding sits at the intersection of two paradigm-shifting social and business trends. Call
it a collision of cool.
The first trend is well known in these parts—the move to mobility. The statistics speak for
themselves. In the next four years, mobile traffic is expected to increase by 11 times. By that time there
will be more mobile devices than people on earth. But it is more than sheer volume that is at issue. It is
the fact that wireless functionality will be built into everything around us and everything we do as we
approach the coming Internet of Things.
The second trend is better known in technology and innovation corridors around the country—
from Austin to Boston, from Seattle to Silicon Valley. It is the move toward sandboxes. Software
developers often code sandboxes into their programs. This code allows others access to a portion of the
program without harming the host platform. It provides a space to experiment within the program,
minimizing risk before introducing ideas at a broader scale.
Up until now, sandbox culture has mostly resided within software applications. But I think it has
application to a lot of what comes before us at this agency—and I’ve spoken before about how I think it is
a useful framework for our technology transitions trials.
In fact, the sweetest spot for the sandbox could come from combining its experimental
possibilities with the power of unlicensed spectrum. The innovative potential is big. By making more of
our airwaves subject to access by rule rather than license, we reduce barriers to entry for innovators. We
open up spaces for creative use and experimentation in the wireless network from the software layer to
the equipment layer.
That is why what we do here is important. Today, we increase opportunities for unlicensed in the
5 GHz band. Critically, we take the flexible rules that have already made the 5.725-5.825 GHz band an
unlicensed success story and we expand them to the 5.150-5.250 GHz band. While that sounds technical,
this change will have real impact. Because we are doubling the unlicensed bandwidth in the 5 GHz band
overnight.
So what does that mean? For starters, if you like Wi-Fi, that is a lot more. Cheers for that. But
the power of unlicensed goes beyond onramps to the Internet and offloading for licensed services. It is
the power of setting aside more of our airwaves for experiment and innovation without license. It is
bound to yield new and exciting developments. It is also bound to be an economic boon. After all, the
economic impact of unlicensed spectrum has been estimated at $140 billion annually. By any measure,
that is a lot.
So we should not stop here with the 5 GHz band. After all, good spectrum policy will always
require a mix of licensed and unlicensed services. Treating them as competing is a relic from the past,
because going forward they are complementary—and more and more devices and services are bound to
incorporate the use of both.
That means we need to continue to seize unlicensed spectrum opportunities across other spectrum
bands. In the near term, that means we should develop the possibilities of using unlicensed bandwidth in
55

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

the 3.5 GHz band. We also should find lawful ways to provide unlicensed services in the 600 MHz
spectrum band now used by broadcasters.
But above all, we need to create more opportunities for combining the great power of mobility
with the cool possibilities of sandbox experimentation—and I think unlicensed spectrum is the sweet spot
where it starts.

56

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

STATEMENT OF

COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI

Re:
Revision of Part 15 of the Commission’s Rules to Permit Unlicensed National Information
Infrastructure (U-NII) Devices in the 5 GHz Band

I love Wi-Fi. And so does the American public. Consumer demand for high-speed, wireless
broadband is expected to increase nine-fold over the next four years, with 64 percent of mobile data
traffic handled by Wi-Fi and small cell networks. That means our Wi-Fi routers will have to handle about
4.8 exabytes of data every month in 2018. I know what you’re thinking—4.8 exabytes, carry the one—
isn’t that equivalent to 702 Libraries of Congress every month? And, yes, you’d be right. But you might
not realize it’s the same amount of data as 11.78 billion episodes of Magnum, P.I. Like Tom Selleck’s
mustache, that’s impressive!
No doubt foreseeing a resurgence in the popularity of ’80s television, Congress in 2012 told the
Commission to consider additional unlicensed use in the 5 GHz band.1 The band is tailor-made for the
next generation of Wi-Fi. Its propagation characteristics minimize interference in the band. Its wide,
contiguous blocks allow for extremely fast connections, with throughput reaching 1 gigabit per second, as
I first saw when I visited Qualcomm’s headquarters in San Diego in 2012. Because the 802.11ac
technical standard is already set, liberalizing our 5 GHz rules can have an immediate impact on the speed
and price of consumer devices. And taking this step will allow consumers to make greater use of the
hundreds of thousands of Wi-Fi hotspots that the cable industry is deploying throughout the United
States.
So I’m pleased to approve today’s order, which allows greater unlicensed use of the 5 GHz band.
And I’m especially pleased that we are moving forward with revisions to our rules now—on the easier
issues presented in the 5 GHz proceeding—rather than waiting until the thornier questions can be
resolved. This is precisely the path I outlined for the Commission last summer: raise the power limits for
U-NII-1 devices, remove the indoor-only restriction, and harmonize some of our rules for the U-NII
bands.2 I’m glad that my colleagues agreed that it was the right way forward.
But we cannot rest on our laurels. If we’re to keep pace with consumer expectations, we need
more 5 GHz Wi-Fi spectrum, not just better use of existing 5 GHz Wi-Fi spectrum. We must redouble
our efforts on making an additional 195 MHz of spectrum available for unlicensed use. Achieving this
goal will not be without its challenges; for all the talk of spectrum sharing, the federal government has
dragged out the process for evaluating new unlicensed use in the 5 GHz band. But I am confident that
common sense will eventually prevail and that consumers at some point will enjoy the greater bandwidth,
reduced congestion, and cheaper devices that increased use of the 5 GHz band can bring.
Finally, I would like to thank the Office of Engineering and Technology, especially Julius Knapp,
Bruce Romano, Aole Wilkins, Geraldine Matise, Mark Settle, Karen Rackley, and Navid Golshahi.
Thank you for your work on this item and for the work you do each day on behalf of the American
people.

1 See Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-96, § 6406, 126 Stat. 156, 231 (2012).
2 Remarks of FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, “Looking Back and Looking Ahead: The FCC and the Path to the Digital
Economy,” at 3 (July 25, 2013), available at http://go.usa.gov/WRj4.
57

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

STATEMENT OF

COMMISSIONER MICHAEL O’RIELLY

Re:
Revision of Part 15 of the Commission’s Rules to Permit Unlicensed National Information
Infrastructure (U-NII) Devices in the 5 GHz Band

Today’s item magnifies the importance of unlicensed spectrum in our modern communications
landscape. In my time working for Senator John Sununu, I had the privilege of working with Senator
Maria Cantwell and her great staff to advance a number of unlicensed measures, including opening up the
television white spaces. The beauty of unlicensed spectrum, I learned, is that no one can predict with
certainty what it will ultimately be used for, but it is a very safe bet that some uses will far exceed
expectations or even become game changers.
If you want to meet the true innovators and entrepreneurs in spectrum policy, talk to the men and
women in the unlicensed community. They can literally turn trash into treasure. Take, for example, the
former so-called “garbage bands” at 900 MHz, 2.4 GHz, and 5.8 GHz. Once thought unusable, the FCC
opened these bands up to unlicensed use in the 1980s and today they are some of the most valuable bands
in the world, hosting popular wireless services, the most notable being Wi-Fi and Bluetooth, but also
include baby monitors, cordless phones, garage door openers. Wireless broadband providers use these
bands to expand broadband services to harder to reach parts of America, and some cable operators are
devoting substantial funds to deploy Wi-Fi networks to provide consumers with fast, reliable broadband
service.
To put these contributions into perspective, consider the following. By some estimates,
unlicensed spectrum generates as much as $220 billion in value annually to the economy.1 And, in 2013,
approximately .5 exabytes, or 57 percent, of mobile data was offloaded onto Wi-Fi networks each month.
By 2018, this monthly offload is expected to reach 4.8 exabytes and make up 64 percent of all mobile
data traffic.2
As Americans demand more mobile data at faster speeds, the Commission will have to find
additional unlicensed spectrum to accommodate the growth in Wi-Fi. The 5 GHz band’s propagation
characteristics and new 802.11ac standard make it ideal for this purpose. That is why the Middle Class
Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, which I joined others in some late nights working on, directed
the Commission to advance unlicensed use in 5 GHz and that is why I am pleased to join my colleagues
in approving this order.
The action we take today will permit outdoor use in the U-NII-1 band and harmonize power
levels with those in the U-NII-3 band. This harmonization will allow consumers to benefit from the new
Wi-Fi standard that will increase data speeds. Along with the enhanced use of the U-NII-1 band, the item
provides safeguards that will facilitate corrective action should large deployments result in harmful
interference to licensed services.

1 New study released by WifiForward finds unlicensed spectrum generated $222 billion in value to the U.S. economy
in 2013 and contributed $6.7 billion to U.S. GDP
, WIFIFORWARD, http://www.wififorward.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/01/Value-of-Unlicensed-Spectrum-to-the-US-Economy-overview.pdf (last visited Mar. 26,
2014).
2 See Cisco Visual Networking Index: Global Mobile Data Traffic Forecast Update; Letter from Paul J. Sinderbrand,
Counsel to Cisco Systems, Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, ET Docket
No. 13-49 (Mar. 7, 2014).
58

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-30

The order also takes additional steps to ensure that harmful interference does not occur to
incumbent 5 GHz licensees. First, manufacturers are required to implement security measures to prevent
unauthorized software changes to their equipment. We cannot allow rogue use of devices and everyone
should be on notice that it will not be tolerated. Second, we modify certain technical requirements for
devices operating in the U-NII-2 bands to provide additional protections to FAA weather and other radar
systems.
It is important to remember that more work remains in other parts of the band to further increase
unlicensed use, and I hope to see a separate order on this point soon. This will have to be done in
cooperation with the primary federal and non-federal users, including the intelligent transportation
systems program (ITS) at the Department of Transportation. I hope that we can count on them to work
expeditiously with us to resolve any remaining hurdles.
Finally, I would like to express my appreciation to the staff in the Office of Engineering and
Technology (OET). We ask a lot of OET in many different contexts. Here, OET acted as negotiator,
mediator and referee, carefully analyzing, accepting, and dismissing, as appropriate, select arguments
relating to the U-NII-1 band. For a number of months, there was a very contentious debate between
parties presenting studies with conflicting technical parameters and assumptions. The dedicated staff was
able to steer the parties to an acceptable outcome, as well as address other issues pertaining to the 5 GHz
band, and I thank them for their work.
59

Note: We are currently transitioning our documents into web compatible formats for easier reading. We have done our best to supply this content to you in a presentable form, but there may be some formatting issues while we improve the technology. The original version of the document is available as a PDF, Word Document, or as plain text.

close
FCC

You are leaving the FCC website

You are about to leave the FCC website and visit a third-party, non-governmental website that the FCC does not maintain or control. The FCC does not endorse any product or service, and is not responsible for, nor can it guarantee the validity or timeliness of the content on the page you are about to visit. Additionally, the privacy policies of this third-party page may differ from those of the FCC.