FCC Releases Proposed 6 GHz Order and Other Items Set for Jan. 29 Vote

Carr said at CES Thursday that action on the 6 GHz band will “increase the utility” of “a big unlicensed spectrum band.” The FCC will be “supercharging Wi-Fi,” with higher power levels and more outdoor use, he said (see 2601080056).

The 6 GHz draft order proposes a new category in the band for geofenced variable power (GVP) devices. “GVP devices promise to overcome technical and regulatory constraints” faced by low-power indoor (LPI) and very-low-power (VLP) devices, the draft says. They provide data rates that are “suitable for reality/virtual reality, short-range hotspots, automation processes, and indoor location and navigation because they operate at significantly higher power than VLP devices.”

GVP devices would be allowed to operate in the U-NII-5 (5.925-6.425 GHz) and U-NII-7 (6.525-6.875 GHz) portions of the band, with up to 11 dBm/MHz power spectral density and 24 dBm equivalent isotropically radiated power. Those are the levels that were sought by Apple and Meta and are higher than levels proposed in an earlier FCC FNPRM. “Commenters agree that permitting higher power levels will enable more versatile GVP devices to be developed and result in a wide variety of innovative products,” the draft says.

However, such devices would be “restricted from operating in exclusion zones on certain frequencies … in order to prevent harmful interference from occurring to microwave links that share the 6 GHz band,” the draft says. A proposal to launch the new class of devices proved controversial when the FCC sought comment in 2024, with opposition from AT&T, public safety groups, electric utilities, energy associations and others (see 2404290035).

The accompanying FNPRM explores two issues. It asks whether the FCC should permit LPI access points to operate on cruise ships, as proposed by Cisco (see 2506250030), and whether to allow increased power levels for LPI devices under the control of an automated frequency coordination system.

Foreign Ownership

The FCC will also vote on a draft order that codifies a number of agency practices regarding foreign ownership of broadcasters and common carriers. The order, which stems from an NPRM unanimously approved in April (docket 25-149), appears ministerial and noncontroversial -- the NPRM drew only four stakeholder comment filings. “In this Report and Order, the Commission codifies, as previously proposed, definitions and concepts underlying the foreign ownership rules and practices to clarify and streamline the review processes,” said a fact sheet included with the draft.

The draft order would codify rules on which entities should be identified as U.S. parent companies and clarify U.S. residency requirements and trustee identification rules. It would also allow private companies to use the FCC’s remedial filing process for public companies that have inadvertently fallen out of compliance with the foreign-ownership rules due to complex ownership structures that include equity funds.

The draft rejects an NAB proposal for less burdensome requirements for remedial foreign-ownership petitions. “On balance, we find that the benefits of adopting the proposal to codify the existing practice outweigh any unquantified additional filing burdens.” In addition, it clarifies foreign-ownership policies for noncommercial educational and low-power FM stations.

A second order addresses foreign control of wireless and other licensees and companies holding various FCC authorizations and approvals. All would have to attest whether they're owned or controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of, a foreign adversary. If they are, they would be required to disclose “additional information about such foreign adversary control.” Disclosure requirements would fall into three categories based on the level of potential risk. “We tailor these requirements to balance national security concerns against the burden on licensees, authorization holders, and other regulated entities subject to compliance,” the draft says.

TRS Changes

The draft NPRM on telecommunications relay services (TRS) seeks comment on whether automatic speech recognition and text-to-speech technologies are advanced enough to provide service comparable to IP relay with communications assistants, or whether the availability of a human communications assistant is essential for some customer segments. It also asks about the idea of requiring a human assistance option to be included in every IP relay offering as a way of maintaining servicing quality, or if the current IP relay environment, where consumers can choose between full automated and human-assisted forms of IP relay, is enough to protect service quality.

The NPRM covers a variety of TRS topics and says its overall goal is improving TRS service quality and efficiency while removing unneeded regulation. Given the TRS Fund’s different compensation rates for IP relay and IP captioned telephone service, the draft seeks input on how to address that, such as by changing the IP relay compensation plan or looking to technology-based solutions based on call reporting requirements. It also asks about requiring video relay service providers to include captioning functionality and streamlining TRS provider certification and user registration. In addition, the NPRM addresses rules changes that could make for better comparability between IP relay and real-time text.