The FCC recently adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that asks if it makes sense to give satellite providers access to unlicensed WiFi spectrum to support Direct-to-Device cellular service. The NPRM specifically looks at the use of 2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz. The NPRM specifically rejected the idea of using 900 MHz for satellite service.
The FCC seems all-in on the idea of satellite cellular service and has taken a number of steps recently that favor this budding industry. However, Commissioner Anna Gomez, the only Democratic commissioner, voiced concern about how using this spectrum might affect the many devices that rely on WiFi spectrum today.
It seems like a valid concern. WiFi has turned out to be the most important and valuable spectrum we have. The whole broadband world seems to run off WiFi modems in homes and businesses. We have outdoor WiFi hotspots to provide outdoor broadband access. WISPs largely rely on WiFi spectrum to deliver fixed wireless broadband to rural homes.
It’s easy to understand why the FCC would consider this. The agency is facing huge demand for spectrum from multiple industries. Cellular carriers want more spectrum to get ready for the upcoming introduction of 6G. Cellular carriers also need to feed the rapidly growing FWA home broadband industry. Satellite companies have an insatiable demand for spectrum since they envision eventually launching hundreds of thousands of broadband satellites. And now, the satellite cellular companies want to blanket the Earth with competing networks to deliver outdoor cellular service, and the Direct-to-Device (D2D) carriers have already requested approval to launch tens of thousands of satellites to provide outdoor cellular service. There are more requests for spectrum than what is available, so the FCC seems willing to raid the public WiFi bands to support a new industry.
This is not the first time that the FCC has allowed others to share WiFi spectrum. A number of years ago, the FCC allowed cellular carriers to use WiFi spectrum in busy markets. I recall a report from university students in Chicago who had documented that cellular usage of WiFi had killed outdoor WiFi on their campus. I don’t know if cellular companies are still dipping into WiFi now that they have been able to get more spectrum, but this was a failed effort that favored the carriers over the normal users of WiFi.
What seems to be different today is that the FCC is unabashedly pro-satellite. They seem to be giving satellite companies everything they ask for. It’s not unusual for regulators to make it easy for new technologies – the FCC took a hands-off approach to the creation of the Internet. But there seems to be a lot of risk in allowing satellite companies to broadcast WiFi from space. This idea is clearly favoring satellite carriers over WISPs.
I talked to several wireless engineers about the proposed use of WiFi spectrum, and they all voiced concerns. The satellites would blanket the countryside with new WiFi spectrum. The engineers told me that it is impossible for this to be completely neutral for a WISP. Every outdoor receiver will perceive the new use of the spectrum as interference. They said there was no way to tell how bad this might be without trying it, and that sounds like a scary experiment if it turns out that the impact is severe. It’s easy for the FCC to allow a new use of spectrum, but it’s unlikely that it would be undone quickly if there is a problem.
This is out of character for the historically slow and cautious approach that the FCC has always taken with spectrum ideas. And that’s even more the case when we’re talking about WiFi spectrum, which has proven its value many times over.
Maybe the government should just be honest and admit there is big money paying to drive us Wisp’s underground. It really does start to feel pointed finally. Our tax dollars going to fund network builds into areas that make zero financial sense where we have 100% satisfied subscribers for over a decade. I know the whole gigabit or bust concept is popular but it’s misguided. We’re delivering <20 ms 100 Mbps service to very out of the way places that would take miles of fiber per home. It just really smells of dirty money somewhere.
Starlink is a great service, not bashing on it. We have deployed them for people out side our coverage area. I don't think that Elon needs to be given everything he asks for. If that happens we'll eventually be tied to one large system that has the potential to break a lot of things. For high density areas, if we can take 10% of the subscribers it's profitable for us. Starlink I'm guessing would be similar. That is totally workable. Having Starlink use WiFi spectrum to service those 10% while wiping out the other services like ours is kinda hard to just accept.
These are incredibly important bands, and letting space based services walk all over it will noticably increase noise for all users. terrestrial wisps will suffer immensly, as well all sorts of standard users that now have noise produced that can cripple their wifi performance. This is a monumentally bad thing.
The number of traeger grills that will functionally stop working as soon as a neighbor gets a starlink phone on 2.4Ghz will be staggering…
Another interesting post! I’m assuming that the “device” would use its cellular transmitter to reach the satellite, not its low power WiFi transceiver. If so, it seems that the relatively high power transmitter in the device could cause widespread interference to low power WiFi devices in the area.
Since WISPs use directional antennas, it seems like interference from the satellite transmission would be minimal. But on-ground devices responding to the satelliete could certainly be in the WISP antenna pattern.
As I wrote many years ago (https://hallikainen.org/org/pub/6513196902.pdf ), I think markets can make good spectrum allocation decisions. If “wired” costs less than an RF link, run the wire (fiber) and let someone else use the RF spectrum.
FWA is an interesting situation. We are using it here at home. I see it as “fiber to the neighborhood” with an RF link for the last km or less. If the spectrum becomes overcrowded, Just put in more cell sites closer to the customers and reuse the spectrum. At some point, it may be more economical to just run the fiber all the way to the home instead of the cell site down the street.
“FWA is an interesting situation. We are using it here at home. I see it as “fiber to the neighborhood” with an RF link for the last km or less. If the spectrum becomes overcrowded, Just put in more cell sites closer to the customers and reuse the spectrum. At some point, it may be more economical to just run the fiber all the way to the home instead of the cell site down the street.”
Doug Dawson made a similar point recently on these economics and why they didn’t pencil for small “femtocells” designed to serve prems where the economics of for profit FTTP also didn’t work.
As someone who grew up on the west coast, not in the city, when I travel to the other side of the US and see what is called rural there, I can understand why there is confusion on this whole topic in general. Rural where I come from means I can shoot guns in almost any direction without fear of hitting anyone. The smallest plot of ground allowed is 100 acres, and when I take a 10 mile drive on the “main road” through our area after 11PM it is common to not ever see another set of headlights. The cellular companies aren’t even willing to put in overlapping coverage, so how is FTTH supposed to pencil? That is no joke, cell carriers can easily drop you traveling from one tower to another here. AT&T just quoted a business $98,000 to install them with fiber. They have it available one mile down the road closer to town.