Communications Daily is a Warren News publication.

Commenters Mixed on Higher Power Levels in CBRS Band

The Wireless ISP Association told the FCC many of its members use CBRS spectrum for reaching subscribers, and it opposes higher power levels for priority access license holders as a threat to general authorized access use of the band. Comments…

Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article

Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!

were due last week on an August NPRM in docket 17-258 (see 2411070032). Increasing maximum power levels “would substantially increase mutual interference between GAA users and even between GAA and PAL users on different channels,” WISPA said. “WISPA members should not be required to replace existing, relatively new equipment and purchase and deploy expensive high-powered base stations such as those used by mobile carriers in order to maintain their service areas.” Lockheed Martin said the FCC must coordinate major changes with DOD. “The current power levels represent a material, established feature upon which CBRS is premised,” Lockheed said: “Despite the essential role of pre-coordinated and established power levels, the Commission appears to have proposed these changes independently, and it is unclear what inter-agency coordination has or will occur and whether, even, there is support for such action by federal stakeholders.” Researchers at the University of Notre Dame noted that the use of CBRS is accelerating, even in small markets such as South Bend, Indiana, where the university is based. The researchers called for more reporting of interference metrics as measured on the ground by users. “When spectrum is being shared among multiple different users deploying networks in different verticals, the more information that can be shared, the better the performance for all,” they said. The Notre Dame researchers opposed adding a third category of devices that transmit at higher power levels than currently authorized, saying it would “exacerbate the secondary coexistence problem.” But Ericsson said the FCC should at least examine use of higher power levels. “Higher power levels for both [devices] and user equipment improve the efficiency of coverage to serve rural and underserved areas and reduce the cost of deployment,” Ericsson said: “Power levels can constrain certain use cases, especially wide-area commercial and enterprise networks. Enterprises like mining, large-scale agriculture, and media and entertainment companies need to support large outdoor coverage areas, and higher power levels can have a dramatic impact on enabling efficient deployments.” Increasing transmit power levels “will improve coverage, especially in rural areas, increase network efficiency, and reduce equipment and network design and deployment costs” and “can be achieved without causing harmful interference to incumbents or other spectrum users,” Federated Wireless said. Federated noted transmit levels are much lower than in the adjacent 3.45 GHz and C-band. “This discrepancy creates a significant coverage imbalance between CBRS and these adjacent bands, which undermines CBRS’s competitive capability and restricts its potential for expanded service, particularly in rural and underserved areas.”