Branchons nos Communautés Connecting Communities

VIA E-MAIL: ic.spectrumengineering-genieduspectre.ic@canada.ca

February 22, 2021

Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada Senior Director, Spectrum Planning and Engineering Engineering, Planning and Standards Branch 235 Queen Street, (6th Floor, East Tower) Ottawa ON K1A 0H5

Dear Sir:

Subject: Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, Radiocommunication Act, Notice No. SMSE-014-20 — Consultation on the Technical and Policy Framework for Licence-Exempt Use in the 6 GHz Band, Canada Gazette, Part I, Vol. 154, No. 49, December 5, 2020, at p. 3623

1. Canadian Association of Wireless Internet Service Providers (“CanWISP”) is pleased to submit the attached reply comments in response to the above Notice.

2. CanWISP thanks ISED for the opportunity to comment on the technical and policy framework for licence-exempt use of the 5925-7125 MHz frequency band.

3. If there are any questions concerning these comments, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Yours truly,

Jonathan Black Executive Director

Tel: 844-370-0404 x 100 [email protected]

BEFORE INNOVATION, SCIENCE, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CANADA

IN THE MATTER OF

CONSULTATION ON THE TECHNICAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR LICENCE-EXEMPT USE IN THE 6 GHZ BAND, NOVEMBER 2020

REPLY COMMENTS OF THE CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF WIRELESS INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS

22 FEBRUARY 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ...... 2 1.0 Extent of the Licence-Exempt 6 GHz Band ...... 6 2.0 Standard-Power Use of the Licence-Exempt 6 GHz Band ...... 10 3.0 Automated Frequency Co-ordination Mechanism ...... 11 Protection for Fixed Point-to-Point Operations ...... 12 Protection for Satellite Operations ...... 13 AFC Database Continuity and Competitive Availability ...... 15 4.0 Other Topics...... 16 Privacy of Information and Public Safety Infrastructure ...... 16 Use of Higher EIRP and Larger Band for Standard-Power Equipment ...... 16 5.0 Conclusion ...... 17

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY1 Licence-exempt use of the entire 5925-7125 MHz band will serve Canadians

ES1. CanWISP re-iterates its support for the proposed licence-exempt use of the 5925-7125 MHz frequency band. The proposed designation of the entire band as licence-exempt harmonizes the equipment ecosystem in Canada with the standards of the US market, and will ensure that Canadian consumers have access to the most innovative consumer devices and services available.

ES2. Numerous participants in this consultation join us in welcoming this proposal by ISED. Equipment manufacturers represented by the Joint Filers, fixed network operators (TekSavvy, Xplornet, CCSA, CNOC), Shaw, and PIAC all agree that ISED’s proposal is entirely in the interest of Canadian consumers. ISED’s proposal will stimulate competition, innovation, and investment in products, services, and network deployments in Canada.

ES3. With the exception of Shaw, Canada’s largest mobile network operators propose a variety of measures that would delay and curtail licence-exempt access to the 6 GHz band. These mobile operators have collectively foreclosed nearly all of the mid-band spectrum available in Canada, with the exception of the 260 MHz of existing licence-exempt spectrum2 and 150 MHz of lightly- licenced3 spectrum. If Canada is to redress the existing imbalance between licensed and licence- exempt spectrum in Canada, it is crucial to proceed with licence-exempt access to the entire 1,200 MHz of this band.

ES4. Mobile network operators – with the notable exception of Shaw, which makes extensive use of licence-exempt systems – propose reserving the upper portion of the 6 GHz band for a potential future auction. Such an approach will only create artificial and unnecessary spectrum scarcity, allowing the largest network operators to slow down and control the pace of innovation and competition in the provision of broadband services across Canada and, especially in underserved areas, impede the bridging of the digital divide. ISED should reject this proposal.

1 Capitalized terms have the meanings ascribed to them in the CanWISP Comments dated January 19, 2021 in this proceeding and in the balance of this proceeding. 2 For the purpose of this proceeding, the relevant licence-exempt bands are the 902-928 MHz, 2400-2483.5 MHz, and 5725-5875 MHz bands. 3 Lightly-licensed refers to all-come all-served licensing mechanisms, in particular the licensing mechanisms used for the Wireless Broadband Service (“WBS”) 3650-3700 MHz band and the high power and outdoor RLAN devices (“HPOD”) 5150-5250 MHz band. 2

ES5. ISED’s proposal to designate the entire 6 GHz band as licence-exempt is prudent, timely and pro-competitive. It provides Canadian consumers with access to a vast technology ecosystem, and provides Canadian operators with the means to invest, innovate, and bring new competitive services to households and businesses. Importantly, it will also promote the rollout of Wi-Fi 7.

Standard-power equipment will facilitate rural connectivity

ES6. As ISED observes, “rural broadband service providers leverage licence-exempt spectrum to deliver broadband to residential and business customers in rural areas.”4. The proposed availability of the entire 6 GHz band for licence-exempt use not only gives Canadian consumers access to a dizzying array of devices and applications; it also gives rural broadband network operators a powerful tool to meet the demand for high-speed connectivity services, thereby helping to bridge the digital divide in Canada.

ES7. Equipment manufacturers, fixed network operators, and Shaw all agree that ISED’s proposal to enable standard-power equipment will support broadband deployments in rural Canada. Several (Hewlett Packard, Federated Wireless, and WiFi Alliance) join CanWISP in encouraging ISED to further expand the portion of the band in which standard power devices can operate.

ES8. Mobile network operators (except Shaw) and satellite operators propose that ISED prohibit, curtail, or delay the use of standard power devices in Canada. These operators raise arguments that have been presented, considered, and rejected by the FCC following a very comprehensive and robust regulatory process. Measures that limit access to standard-power devices have no technical justification, and will serve only to hinder the deployment of broadband services in rural Canada.

ES9. The use of an I/N threshold of -6 db adopted by the FCC adequately protects incumbent microwave operations. Moreover, the FCC rules provide an adequate mechanism to address interference with fixed systems should such a scenario arise. By requiring access point serial numbers to be registered with the AFC, ISED would have the ability to identify the source of

4 Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, Spectrum Management and Telecommunciations, Consultation on the Technical and Policy Framework for Licence-Exempt Use in the 6 GHz Band, SMSE-014-20, November 20 [“SMSE-014-20”], at para 6. 3

harmful interference were it to occur, and to deny spectrum access to a particular registered standard-power access point or type of device in such cases.

Harmonization of AFC requirements will support the Canadian market

ES10. ISED is correct to propose close alignment of Canadian AFC requirements with those of the U.S., as that will facilitate business viability for Canadian AFC system administrators by leveraging the ecosystem built for the broader U.S. market. Close alignment will hasten the availability of AFC systems and standard power equipment in Canada.

ES11. Equipment manufacturers, Vidéotron, and Shaw agree that harmonization with the FCC AFC model will provide Canadian businesses with a clear and timely path to the deployment of standard power AFC equipment.

ES12. Mobile network operators (except Shaw and Videotron) propose introducing a variety of requirements in the AFC framework that are not part of the corresponding framework established by the FCC in the U.S. Adoption of the additional requirements would introduce unnecessary complication for AFC operators who wish to offer service in Canada, delaying and curtailing the deployment of AFC systems and of standard power devices without any legitimate justification.

ES13. The FCC AFC framework adequately protects both fixed point-to-point and satellite operations. One minor deviation may be needed should ISED determine that there are areas in Canada where transmissions at more than 15° above the horizon risk adversely affecting satellite operations. To address this without constraining the ability of Canadian consumers and operators from benefitting from the full extent of the U.S. equipment ecosystem, ISED could require that AFC databases that function above a certain latitude have the ability to permit or prohibit particular devices or device classes.

ES14. CanWISP also supports proposals that would ensure alignment between the Canadian and US AFC frameworks to ensure AFC continuity. In particular, CanWISP supports the proposal that AFC operators be required to serve for a five-year term. CanWISP also agrees that AFC operators ceasing operations must provide a minimum of 30-days’ notice, and transfer their registration data to another AFC system operator. CanWISP also supports the proposal that an AFC operator that has not provided commercial service for a specified period of time be deemed inactive.

4

ES15. Finally, CanWISP shares the concerns expressed by TekSavvy and Xplornet regarding the adverse impact of insufficient competition in the provision of AFC database services on reasonable terms and conditions. Including price. On that basis we submit that, following one year of spectrum availability, ISED should examine whether AFC database availability or pricing hinders the deployment of broadband services in the 6 GHz band. If this is the case, ISED should establish a public database system that enables the use of the broadest possible range of commercially available equipment. This approach will ensure that database access will occur on reasonable terms and conditions, including price, thereby providing an economic incentive for network operators to offer innovative services to the public, especially in underserved areas, using the 6 GHz band. Similarly, should the cessation or significant reduction of AFC operations result in a non- competitive market for AFC database services at any time in the future, ISED should be prepared to act as the database provider of last resort in Canada.

Further Considerations

ES16. In order to protect both confidential information and protected frequency information, CanWISP proposes that ISED: (1) provide an API or download portal that is stripped of confidential information; and (2) provide operators of protected frequencies (e.g., public safety) with an exclusion zone, similar to that provided to radio observatories.

ES17. CanWISP encourages ISED to permit standard power operations using power levels higher than the proposed 36 dBm EIRP, and up to 6930 MHz.

ES18. A framework for licence-exempt use of the 6 GHz frequency band will:

• foster innovation and investment in new wireless technologies and services; • support greater choice and affordability of wireless services for consumers and businesses; and • facilitate deployment and timely availability of wireless broadband Internet across the country.

5

1.0 EXTENT OF THE LICENCE-EXEMPT 6 GHZ BAND 1. Canadian consumers and businesses will be well served by ISED’s proposal to create a technical and policy framework for licence-exempt use of the 5925-7125 MHz frequency band. This pro-competitive policy will support new products, services, and choices in the Canadian telecommunications market, helping to bridge the digital divide.

2. Numerous submissions support ISED’s proposal for licence-exempt use across the entire 6 GHz band (Hewlett Packard5, Joint Filers6, Intel7, Qualcomm8, Federated Wireless9, Sony10, WiFi Alliance11, Cogeco12, Shaw13, TekSavvy14, Xplornet15, CCSA16, CEA17, Dynamic Spectrum Alliance18, PIAC19, and Wireless Broadband Alliance20).

3. CanWISP wholeheartedly agrees with Shaw’s assessment:

“The Department’s proposals reflect the reality that a significant allocation of unlicensed spectrum is long overdue and that the 6 GHz band is the best opportunity to rectify this.”21

4. CanWISP wholeheartedly agrees with the assessment of the Joint Filers, that ISED should reject:

“… any form of partial approach to implementation, whether spectrally or geographically, as harmful to Canadian consumers, businesses, and the economy generally.”22

5 Comments of Hewlett Packard Enterprise, dated 19 January 2021 (“Hewlett Packard Comments”), at p.3. 6 Comments of Apple Canada, Inc., Broadcom, Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc., Facebook, Inc., Google LLC, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Intel Corporation, Microsoft Corporation, Qualcomm Incorporated, CommScope, Inc., dated 19 January 2021 (“Joint Filers Comments”), at pp. 4, 15. 7 Comments of Intel Corporation, dated 19 January 2021 (“Intel Comments”), at pp. 1 and 2. 8 Comments of Qualcomm Incorporated, dated 19 January 2021 (“Qualcomm Comments”), at p. 1. 9 Comments of Federated Wireless Inc., dated 19 January 2021 (“Federated Wireless Comments”), at p. 2. 10 Comments of Sony Electronics Inc., dated 19 January 2021 (“Sony Comments”), at p. 1. 11 Comments of WiFi Alliance, dated 18 January 2021 (“WiFi Alliance Comments”), at p. 3. 12 Comments of Cogeco Communications Inc., dated 19 January 2021 (“Cogeco Comments”), at para. 10. 13 Comments of Shaw Communications Inc., dated 19 January 2021 (“Shaw Comments”), at para. 2. 14 Comments of TekSavvy Solutions Inc., dated 19 January 2021 (“TekSavvy Comments”), at para. 2. 15 Comments of Xplornet Communications Inc., dated 19 January 2021 (“Xplornet Comments”), at para. 19. 16 Comments of Canadian Communication Systems Alliance, Inc., dated 19 January 2021, at para. 4. 17 Comments of the Canadian Electricity Association, dated 19 January 2021, at para. 3. 18 Comments of the Dynamic Spectrum Alliance, dated 19 January 2021, at pp. 1 and 2. 19 Comments of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (“PIAC”), dated 19 January 2021, at para. 2 20 Comments of the Wireless Broadband Alliance, dated 19 January 2021, at p. 3. 21 Shaw Comments, at para. 2. 22 Joint Filers Comments, at p. 4. 6

5. Bell, Rogers, and Telus demonstrate a lack of understanding of the urgent need for licence- exempt access to the entire 6 GHz band, as evidenced by such claims as:

“500 MHz from the lower half of the band will provide sufficient spectrum for licence- exempt use cases”23 “for those living in rural or underserved communities, the lack of broadband services has put them at a significant disadvantage that additional licence-exempt spectrum does nothing to solve. It is the lack of mid-band licensed spectrum that is the limiting factor in rural broadband access, not Wi-Fi congestion”24 “Even the surge in Wi-Fi traffic resulting from everyone working and learning from home due to COVID-19 has appeared to have been supported without serious challenges using existing 5 GHz spectrum … Adding 500 MHz of spectrum will be more than sufficient to meet future demand of mid-band licence-exempt for years to come.”25

6. CanWISP members who provide rural broadband service using the existing 260 MHz of licence-exempt spectrum band disagree vehemently with these claims. Wireless ISPs struggle to meet demand using the existing licence-exempt and lightly-licensed bands, and the availability of the 6 GHz band for standard-power use would have an immediate and profoundly positive impact on rural connectivity in Canada.

7. Uniquely among Canada’s mobile network operators, Shaw makes extensive use of unlicensed spectrum through its Shaw Wi-Fi product. It is therefore not surprising that Shaw takes the same position as CanWISP, that:

“The failure to allocate sufficient spectrum for unlicensed use is contributing to congestion in the current unlicensed bands and creating a bottleneck in the broadband network.”26

8. Again, uniquely among Canada’s mobile network operators, Shaw recognizes the potential of licence-exempt spectrum to complement and enhance the functionality of licensed spectrum, forming an integral part of Canada’s connectivity landscape. Shaw describes licence-exempt spectrum as a critical input to our connectivity infrastructure:

“[O]pening this band for unlicensed use has benefits for licensed mobile services and will support next generations of mobile technology, including 5G. Wi-Fi works in tandem with, and as a necessary complement to, licensed mobile technologies. …

23 Comments of BCE Inc., dated 19 January 2021 (“Bell Comments”), at para. 7. 24 Comments of TELUS Communications Inc., dated 19 January 2021 (“Telus Comments”), at para. 31. 25 Comments of Rogers Canada Communications Inc., dated 19 January 2021 (“Rogers Comments”), at para. 109. 26 Shaw Comments, at para. 19. 7

Allowing these evolving technologies to work together through the release of more unlicensed spectrum will promote the affordability and accessibility of connectivity services, helping to bridge the digital divide in Canada.”27

9. The Joint Filers underline the essential part that licence-exempt spectrum plays in the 5G ecosystem:

“Licence-exempt RLAN technologies (e.g., Wi-Fi, 5G NR-U) must continue to meet the critical needs of licence-exempt use cases. In addition, RLANs are a critical component for enabling 5G services. Regulators must ensure that there is sufficient licence-exempt spectrum to complement 5G licenced networks. The concept of “balance” must encompass the whole of spectrum allocations and designations, and not single out one band. More licence-exempt spectrum is needed.”28

10. With the notable exception of Shaw, Canada’s larger mobile network operators participating in this proceeding (i.e., Bell29, Rogers30, Telus31, and Vidéotron32) propose that ISED should delay a decision on the use of the 6425-7125 MHz portion (“upper portion”) of the band until after the conclusion of the 2023 World Radio Congress (“WRC-23”). SaskTel proposes that ISED delay a decision on the use of the 7025-7125 MHz portion of the band33. These carriers suggest that the upper portion of the band may be associated with a mobile 5G standard, and so should be reserved and then potentially auctioned in Canada. Bell suggests that delaying a decision on the upper portion of the band:

“provides a unique opportunity to balance the requirement of licence-exempt and licensed spectrum and provide maximum economic and societal benefits to Canadians.”34

11. Delaying access to the entire band does not serve Canadian consumers; it further entrenches the imbalance between licensed and licence-exempt spectrum in Canada. Such an approach will only create artificial and unnecessary spectrum scarcity, allowing the largest network operators to slow down and control the pace of innovation and competition in the provision of broadband

27 Shaw Comments, at para. 7. 28 Joint Filers Comments, at p. 16. 29 Bell Comments, at para. 6. 30 Rogers Comments, at para. E3. 31 Telus Comments, at para. 15. 32 Comments of Québecor Média inc.,dated 19 January 2021 (“Vidéotron Comments”), at para. 13 33 Comments of Saskatchewan Telecommunications, dated 18 January 2021 (“SaskTel Comments”), at para. 18 34 Bell Comments, at paras. 7 and 20. 8

services across Canada and, especially in underserved areas, thereby impeding the bridging of the digital divide. ISED should reject this proposal.

12. The RABC recommends that ISED “adopt a prudent approach in making decisions for the band 5925-7125 MHz”35. The allocation of the entire 6 GHz band for licence-exempt use is the most prudent, timely and pro-competitive approach available to ISED. This approach will accelerate the provision of access to the devices and connectivity opportunities facilitated by this band, which is clearly in the best interests of Canadian consumers.

13. In their comments, Hewlett Packard provides a cogent discussion of the importance of enabling licence-exempt access to the full 1,200 MHz of the 6 GHz band. The Wi-Fi 6 standard defines 160 MHz channels, which can be used to deliver multi-gigabit connectivity. With only the lower portion of the band available, there will be only three 160 MHz channels available. As described by Hewlett Packard36, three channels are not sufficient to support a radio local area network (“RLAN”) deployment. Using the full 1,200 MHz, there will be seven 160 MHz channels available across the band. Seven channels are adequate for most RLAN deployments; with seven channels available, it will be feasible for operators to use 160 MHz channels. As Hewlett Packard further points out37, Wi-Fi 7 will define 320 MHz channels. The use of these super-wide channels will be feasible with the full 6 GHz band available. The Joint Filers provide the same assessment38.

14. ISED is correct to recognize that a framework for licence-exempt use of the 6 GHz frequency band will meet the objectives of the Telecommunications Act,39 the Spectrum Policy Framework for Canada (SPFC)40, and the Canada’s Digital Charter41, by achieving the following objectives:

• foster innovation and investment in new wireless technologies and services • support greater choice and affordability of wireless services for consumers and businesses

35 Comments of the Radio Advisory Board of Canada, dated 19 January 2021 (“RABC Comments”), at para. 18. 36 Hewlett Packard Comments, at pp. 4-6. 37 Id., at p. 7. 38 Joint Filers Comments, at p. 19. 39 S.C. 1993, c. 38 (“Telecommunications Act”). 40 Spectrum Policy Framework for Canada, Gazette Notice DGTP-001-07, June 2007 (“Spectrum Policy Framework for Canada”) 41 Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2020, Bill C-11 (43-2), First Reading November 17 2020 (“Canada’s Digital Charter”) 9

• facilitate deployment and timely availability of wireless broadband Internet across the country42

2.0 STANDARD-POWER USE OF THE LICENCE-EXEMPT 6 GHZ BAND 15. Many incumbent operators of both satellite and fixed point-to-point systems in the 6 GHz band express concern regarding interference with their operations.

16. Several satellite and fixed point-to-point system operators propose that no outdoor equipment should be permitted in this band43, or that delays be imposed on the use of standard- power devices44, to eliminate the possibility of interference to existing systems.

17. Fixed point-to-point system operators express concern that the interference to noise power ratio (I/N) threshold of -6 dB used by the FCC is not conservative enough45, requires more analysis46, or more generally that more time is required in order to ensure that these systems are adequately protected47.

18. The FCC record pertaining to the appropriate I/N threshold to protect point-to-point fixed microwave systems is extensive. Numerous respondents in the FCC proceeding, including incumbent operators of fixed wireless systems, supported the use of an I/N threshold of -6 dB.48

19. The FCC notes that the use of an I/N of -6 dB was chosen with the express purpose of implementing a conservative approach to protecting incumbent microwave operations:

“By specifying that AFC exclusion zone calculations will be based on this particular interference protection criterion, we are taking a conservative approach, as suggested by commenting parties, to ensure that the potential for harmful interference is minimized and important fixed microwave services in the 6 GHz band are protected.”49

20. No operator of fixed point-to-point microwave systems provides any evidence that the I/N threshold of -6 dB is insufficient to protect these operations. Rogers submits that:

42 SMSE-014-20, at para. 9. 43 Comments of Global VSAT Forum, dated 19 January 2021 (“GVF Comments”), at p. 3; Comments of Inmarsat Solutions (Canada) Inc., dated 19 January 2021 (“Inmarsat Comments”), at p. 2. 44 Bell Comments at para. 5; Rogers Comments at para. E3; Telus Comments, at para. 35. 45 SaskTel Comments, at para. 9. 46 Bell Comments at para. 58. 47 Rogers Comments at para. 163-164. 48 Report and Order, ET Docket No. 18-295 and GN Docket No. 17-183, FCC 20-51 (“FCC 20-51”), at para. 69. 49 Id., at para. 71. 10

“Monte Carlo simulations for evaluating potential interference to FS from licence- exempt include rare combinations of factors that can exceed the -6 dB I/N threshold. If combined with a deep fade, the FS receiver could suffer a reduction in SINR sufficient to cause bit errors and, if not adaptive, be disrupted. These combinations of factors and fading are highly improbable but possible, potentially impacting a legacy link designed for 99.9999% availability.”50

21. This highly improbable combination of events resulting in brief disruptions to certain legacy systems is of no practical relevance. We note that any legacy microwave links that are not adaptive are likely to be located in more remote areas, where there will be few licence-exempt systems, making the probability of such impacts negligible.

22. Further, the rules developed by the FCC system provide an adequate mechanism to address interference with fixed systems should such a scenario arise. By requiring access point serial numbers to be registered with the AFC, ISED would have the ability to identify the source of harmful interference were it to occur, and to deny spectrum access to a particular registered standard-power access point or type of device in such cases51.

23. There is no technical reason why the availability of AFC-controlled standard power equipment should be delayed or curtailed in Canada.

24. As anticipated by ISED52, and supported by Xplornet53 and Shaw54, standard power access points will enhance the ability of rural broadband network operators to deliver high-speed connectivity to rural consumers.

3.0 AUTOMATED FREQUENCY CO-ORDINATION MECHANISM 25. We re-iterate our support for AFC database rules that are as flexible as possible and harmonized with the FCC rules. Where there is a conflict between these two principles, ISED should generally prioritize harmonization, except where modifications can be easily implemented (for example, in permitting the use of the 6425-6525 MHz portion of the band in Canada).

50 Rogers Comments, at para. 49. 51 FCC 20-51, at para. 83. 52 SMSE-014-20, at para. 51. 53 Xplornet Comments, at para. 15. 54 Shaw Comments, at para. 13. 11

26. Numerous equipment manufacturers (Apple55, Hewlett Packard56, Intel57, Federated Wireless58, WiFi Alliance59) and many operators (Vidéotron60, Shaw61, Xplornet62), supported the harmonization of AFC rules with the US. Harmonization will provide significant advantages for the Canadian market, including minimizing AFC development time and increasing speed-to- market.

Protection for Fixed Point-to-Point Operations

27. Bell, Rogers, and Telus propose a variety of AFC rules that deviate significantly from the FCC rules. These unconventional and non-standardized rules would delay and curtail the availability of standard-power equipment in Canada, impeding the roll-out of new and expanded broadband networks.

28. Bell proposes that ISED “enlist a multi-stakeholder group to consider the international best practices for an AFC and adapt them to the Canadian context”63, and that “the certification and approval process for third party AFC systems should be developed at a multi stakeholder group”64. These additional processes are entirely unnecessary and will serve only to delay the availability of AFC operations and standard power equipment in Canada. This consultation process is entirely adequate for ISED to determine the requirements for AFC operators.

29. Rogers proposes that incumbent service operators (“ISOs”) have direct audit and investigation rights of all AFC operators.65 This imposes an undue burden on AFC operators, and will discourage companies from deploying AFC database operations in Canada. ISED should, instead, adopt rules similar to the FCC rules to include a review and approval of security protocols as part of the authorization process.66

55 Comments of Apple Inc. dated 19 January 2021, at p. 10 56 Hewlett-Packard Comments, at p. 17 57 Intel Comments, at p. 8 58 Federated Wireless Comments, at p. 5 59 WiFi Alliance Comments, at p. 9 60 Vidéotron Comments, at para. 22 61 Shaw Comments, at para. 64 62 Xplornet Comments, at para. 30 63 Bell Comments, at para. 55. 64 Id., at para. 50. 65 Rogers Comments, at para. 168. 66 FCC 20-51, at para. 80. 12

30. Rogers further proposes that:

“[An] ISO should be able to piggy-back on ISED enforcement rights (e.g. court order) where ISO Data is compromised, i.e. ISO could seek court injunction against AFC vendor for certain actions related to ISO Data. ISO should also be a third-party beneficiary to the ISED-AFC vendor agreement and/or have a private right of action to enforce under the agreement for breach of ISO Data obligations.”67

31. Again, this imposes an undue burden on AFC operators, and will discourage companies from deploying AFC database operations in Canada. ISED should reject this unconventional and unnecessary measure that will only serve to delay and curtail Canadian consumers’ access to equipment and services that leverage this band.

32. Telus proposes that ISED mandate a standard AFC-AP communication protocol.68 While some degree of standardization may indeed arise from industry participants through a multi- stakeholder group, as envisaged by the FCC69, a requirement for standardization would be a significant departure from the FCC rules, and would serve only to delay and curtail the availability of AFC systems and standard power equipment in Canada.

33. The proposals that constitute significant variance from the FCC rules should be rejected by ISED. Timely access to this band, and to standard-power equipment, will permit broadband network operators across Canada to expand and enhance connectivity in rural communities, and to build new networks to serve communities that are currently underserved.

Protection for Satellite Operations

34. Satellite operators and associations propose that AFC databases must provide a facility to co-ordinate with one another to account for aggregate emissions (Inmarsat70, SES71, CSSIF72, Global VSAT Forum73). The FCC record addressing this topic is extensive, and the rules chosen by the FCC to address these concerns were developed for the express purpose of implementing a conservative approach.74

67 Rogers Comments, at para. 170. 68 Telus Comments, at para. 55. 69 FCC 20-51, at paras. 174-180. 70 Inmarsat Comments, at p. 3. 71 Comments of SES Americom, Inc., etc, dated 19 January 2021, at p. 7. 72 Comments of the Canadian Satellite and Space Industry Forum, dated 19 January 2021, at p. 3, point 4. 73 GVF Comments, at p. 7. 74 FCC 20-51, at paras. 91-92. 13

35. No satellite operators have provided any evidence that the overall FCC’s approach of using an EIRP limit in the vertical plane is insufficient to protect satellite operations. Neither did these operators present any evidence that aggregate emissions levels must be known to protect these operations. The reports presented to ISED by SES are the same reports considered by the FCC. The FCC disagreed with the analysis of these reports, but nonetheless chose to impose an EIRP limit in the vertical plane of 21 dBm at an elevation angle of 30° as a precautionary measure.75 There is no technical justification for ISED to require the determination of aggregate emissions levels in order to prevent interference with satellite operations. Such a requirement would constitute a significant departure from the FCC AFC database requirements, and would hinder the deployment AFC operations in Canada.

36. Satellite operators propose that Canada should implement the 21 dB EIRP limit in the vertical plane at an elevation of 15° rather than 30°. Emissions above 15° elevation may be a concern above certain latitudes in Canada, however no submissions have provided guidance as to the geographic region where this more stringent limitation would be appropriate. Imposing an EIRP restriction at 15° rather than 30° elevation marks a significant departure from FCC standards, and will limit the equipment available in Canada. Since most of the Canadian population is concentrated in the southern portion of the country, such a restriction will unnecessarily impact the vast majority of Canadian consumers and businesses.

37. CanWISP is concerned that the implementation of different equipment rules in Canada will delay and hinder the availability of equipment in the Canadian market. Nonetheless, should ISED determine that there are areas in Canada where transmissions at more than 15° above the horizon risk impacting satellite operations, ISED should implement rules that protect these operations while ensuring that Canadian consumers and operators can benefit from the full extent of the U.S. equipment ecosystem. For example, ISED may require that AFC databases that function above a certain latitude have the ability to permit or prohibit particular devices or device classes.

38. The concerns of satellite operators stem from an overabundance of caution which, if heeded, would needlessly stifle innovation and consumer access to devices and services in Canada.

75 FCC 20-51, at paras. 92 and 121. 14

AFC Database Continuity and Competitive Availability

39. Several submissions propose that, to ensure continuity of database operators, ISED should use the FCC rules for AFC operators (Joint Filers76, Intel77, Qualcomm78, Sony79, and Federated Wireless80).

40. The FCC rules for AFC operations state that81:

• AFC operators are required to serve for a five-year term

• AFC operators ceasing operations must provide a minimum of 30-days’ notice

• AFC operators ceasing operations must transfer their registration data to another AFC system operator.

41. CanWISP agrees that these requirements are appropriate.

42. RED Technologies notes the existence of ‘zombie’ databases in the US, and recommends that ISED consider database to be non-operational if it has not provided services to any customers for a specified period of time82. CanWISP agrees with this recommendation.

43. Xplornet and TekSavvy both note the risk that no competitive, affordable AFC solutions will be available in Canada. TekSavvy points out the high monthly fees associated with CBRS database use in the US83; Xplornet points out that if there is only one AFC provider in the market, the prices will not be competitive84. CanWISP shares the concern regarding the adverse impact of insufficient competition in the provision of AFC database services on reasonable terms and conditions, including price. On that basis we submit that, following one year of spectrum availability, ISED should examine whether AFC database availability or pricing hinders the deployment of broadband services in the 6 GHz band. If this is the case, ISED should establish a public database system that enables the use of the broadest possible range of commercially available equipment. This approach will ensure that database access will occur on reasonable terms

76 Joint Filers Comments, at pp. 43 to 44. 77 Intel Comments, at p. 8. 78 Qualcomm Comments, at p. 7. 79 Sony Comments, at p. 3. 80 Federated Wireless Comments, at p. 5. 81 FCC 20-51, at paras. 53-55. 82 Comments of RED Technologies, dated 19 January 2021, at p. 2. 83 TekSavvy Comments, at para. 33 84 Xplornet Comments, at para. 5 15

and conditions, including price, thereby providing an economic incentive for network operators to offer innovative services to the public, especially in underserved areas, using the 6 GHz band. Similarly, should the cessation or significant reduction of AFC operations result in a non- competitive market for AFC database services at any time in the future, ISED should be prepared to act as the database provider of last resort in Canada.

4.0 OTHER TOPICS Privacy of Information and Public Safety Infrastructure

44. Rogers expresses concern that an AFC customer “should not be able to have access to personal information nor trace back source of data to Rogers”85. CanWISP proposes that ISED adopt Sony’s proposal that “ISED should provide an API to enable the automatic retrieval of data from the Spectrum Management System database”86.

45. CanWISP supports the proposal that ISED provide an API or download portal for the retrieval of data, and that the data made available in the API or portal be stripped of personal information, confidential information, and carrier-specific information. This API or portal would mitigate many privacy concerns.

46. The Department of National Defence87 and the Province of Ontario88 express concern that data from protected frequency records are at risk of public disclosure through an AFC database.

47. CanWISP proposes that ISED establish exclusion zones, similar to those established to protect radio astronomy observatories, to protect these operators’ confidential deployment information.

Use of Higher EIRP and Larger Band for Standard-Power Equipment

48. We re-iterate our support for the ability to use standard-power equipment with EIRP above the current proposal of 36 dBm. Higher EIRP would support the ability of fixed wireless operators to deliver broadband services in rural communities. Huawei89, Federated Wireless90, and

85 Rogers Comments, at para. 171. 86 Sony Comments, at p. 4. 87 Comments of the Department of National Defence Frequency Spectrum Management, dated 19 January 2021, at pp. 2-4. 88 Comments of Government Mobile Communications Branch of the Province of Ontario, dated 15 January 2021, at pp. 2 and 3. 89 Comments of Huawei Technologies Canada Co., Ltd., at p. 5. 90 Federated Wireless Comments, at p. 3. 16

Xplornet91 also supported this proposal. Improvements in beamforming antenna technology, permit highly directive and brief increases in EIRP, enabling more reliable base-remote communications while minimizing interference. The FCC is currently considering whether to allow the use of higher power levels where directive antennas are used92; if this approached is adopted by the FCC in the U.S, ISED should adopt the same harmonized approach to the extent feasible.

49. We agree with comments that call for the use of standard-power equipment in the portion of the band above 6875 MHz. This was proposed by Hewlett-Packard93, Federated Wireless94, and WiFi Alliance95.

50. We re-iterate our support for ISED’s proposal to include the 6425-6525 MHz portion of the band in the new licence-exempt framework, and permit standard power operations in this portion of the band. This was supported by numerous submissions. We note, in particular that the Joint Filers agree with CanWISP’s assessment that the modification of an AFC system to account for the availability of this portion of the band in Canada constitutes a minor customization96.

51. As Hewlett Packard describes, permitting standard-power operation in the entire 5925- 6930 MHz band will make 160 MHz channels practical in standard power networks, and enable the use of super-wide 320 MHz channels that will be defined in the Wi-Fi 797 standard.

5.0 CONCLUSION 52. The licence-exempt 6 GHz band presents a significant opportunity to Canadian consumers and businesses. ISED is right to embrace this opportunity to stimulate competition, investment, and innovation in the Canadian telecommunications industry.

53. ISED is correct to recognize that a framework for licence-exempt use of the 6 GHz frequency band will meet the objectives of the Telecommunications Act, the Spectrum Policy

91 Xplornet Comments, at paras. 4, 22 and 39. 92 FCC 20-51 at paras. 252-255 93 Hewlett-Packard Comments, at pp. 6-9. 94 Federated Wireless Comments, at pp. 3 and 4. 95 WiFi Alliance Comments, at pp. 3 and 4. 96 Joint Filers Comments, at p. 30. 97 Hewlett Packard Comments, at pp. 7 and 8. 17

Framework for Canada (SPFC), and the Canada’s Digital Charter, by achieving the following objectives:

• foster innovation and investment in new wireless technologies and services; • support greater choice and affordability of wireless services for consumers and businesses; and • facilitate deployment and timely availability of wireless broadband Internet across the country98. 54. CanWISP thanks ISED for the opportunity to provide these reply comments.

*** END OF DOCUMENT ***

98 SMSE-014-20, at para. 9. 18