10900-B Stonelake Boulevard, Suite 126 ∙ Austin, Texas 78759 U.S.A. Phone: +1-512-498-9434 (WIFI) ∙ Fax: +1-512-498-9435 www.wi-fi.org

VIA ELECTRONIC FILING

February 5, 2021

Hon. , Acting Chairwoman Hon. Hon. Hon. Nathan Simington Federal Communications Commission 45 L Street, NE Washington, DC 20554

Re: Written Ex Parte Communication

ET Docket No. 18-295: Unlicensed Use of the 6 GHz Band; and

GN Docket No. 17-183: Expanding Flexible Use of Mid-Band Spectrum Between 3.7 GHz and 24 GHz

Dear Acting Chairwoman Rosenworcel and Commissioners Carr, Starks and Simington:

In allowing unlicensed use of the 6 GHz band, the Commission responded to America’s need for more Wi-Fi connectivity.1/ This need was significant pre-pandemic and has only increased with hundreds of millions of Americans relying on Wi-Fi for remote access to work, school, entertainment, telemedicine and so much more.2/ Post-pandemic, Wi-Fi will remain an integral component of the telecommunications infrastructure. Indeed, a recently announced study estimates that the Wi-Fi contribution to the US economy will exceed $995 billion in 2021 and is projected to rise to $1.58 trillion by 2025.3/

That is why it is remarkable that the Utilities Telecommunications Council and others want to stop all of this in its tracks. The arguments presented in its January 26, 2021 Letter are not only irrational but are premised on an erroneous interpretation of a Congressional statement.4/ In their

1/ See Unlicensed Use of the 6 GHz Band, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 35 FCC Rcd 3852 (2020) (“6 GHz Report and Order”). 2/ See AirTies Staff, The Catalyst Effect: Understanding the Impact of Lockdown on Residential Wi- Fi and Future Implications, Broadband World Forum (last visited Feb. 5, 2021), https://tmt.knect365.com/bbwf/airties-impact-of-lockdown-on-residential-wi-fi/ 3/ Wi-Fi® Global Economic Value to Reach $5 Trillion in 2025, Wi-Fi Alliance (Feb. 3, 2021), https://www.wi-fi.org/news-events/newsroom/wi-fi-global-economic-value-to-reach-5-trillion-in-2025. 4/ Letter from Utilities Technology Counsel, Edison Electric Institute, American Public Power Association, National Rural Electric Cooperative Associations, American Petroleum Institute, American Water Works Association, National Public Safety Telecommunications Council, International Association Letter, the signatories assert that the Commission must suspend certification of the 6 GHz unlicensed devices—devices currently authorized under the Commission’s rules—in order to meet a Congressional directive. The wording cited in the Letter, however, does not provide the directive the signatories imagine it does. In fact, the wording recognizes that “the FCC has authorized unlicensed use of the 6 gigahertz band.”5/ And while Congress may override regulatory agency decisions, it did not do so in this case.6/ Instead, unlicensed use of the 6 GHz band has bi-partisan and bi-cameral support.7/ Congressional support for unlicensed use of the 6 GHz band to expand connectivity benefits and economic value is not in question.

In the Joint Explanatory Report to the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Congress directed the FCC to report on its progress in ensuring rigorous testing related to unlicensed use of the 6 GHz band.8/ But the signatories to the Letter fail to explain their leap of logic on how this reporting requirement translates into a mandate for the Commission to suspend ongoing 6 GHz device certifications. To the contrary, those certifications do exactly what Congress envisioned—test for compliance with the Commission’s rules. When the Commission authorizes any new service, the devices permitted for use in that service are routinely assessed for compliance with the newly adopted technical rules. That is precisely what is occurring today pursuant to the Commission’s directive.9/ Moreover, the Commission explicitly stated that it would “not requir[e] general of Fire Chiefs, American Gas Association, and APCO International, to Acting Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, Commissioner Brendan Carr, Commissioner Geoffrey Starks, and Commissioner Nathan Simington, ET Docket No. 18-295 and GN Docket No. 17-183 (Jan. 26, 2021) (“Letter”). 5/ Staff of H. Comm. on Appropriations, 117th Cong., Explanatory Statement Submitted by Mrs. Lowey Chairwoman of the House Committee On Appropriations Regarding H.R. 133 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Div. E, 32 (Dec. 21, 2020), https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20201221/BILLS-116RCP68-JES-DIVISION-E.pdf (“Joint Explanatory Statement”). 6/ Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. §§ 801-08 (2018) (Congressional Review Act). 7/ See e.g., Doris Matsui, Brett Guthrie, Jessica Rosenworcel and Michael O’Rielly, The Next Generation of Wireless Innovation, THE HILL (Sept. 12, 2018, 8:20 AM), https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/406142-the-next-generation-of-wireless-innovation; see also Letter from Rep. Anna Eshoo, Rep. Tony Cárdenas, and Rep. G.K. Butterfield to Chairman , FCC (Mar. 4, 2020), https://eshoo.house.gov/sites/eshoo.house.gov/files/Reps.%20Eshoo%2C%20Cardenas%2C%20Butterfiel d%20letter%20to%20FCC%20re%206%20Ghz%20-%203.4.2020.pdf; Press Release, Office of Senator John Thune, Thune Praises FCC Order to Expand Broadband Connectivity (Apr. 23, 2020), https://www.thune.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2020/4/thune-praises-fcc-order-to-expand-broadband- connectivity. 8/ Joint Explanatory Statement at 32. 9/ The Office of Engineering and Technology has issued guidance regarding the requirements for obtaining certification for U-NII 6 GHz devices. See Part 15 Subpart E U-NII 6 GHz General Guidance Bands 5, 6, 7, 8, Office of Engineering Technology, Laboratory Division (Dec. 16, 2020), https://apps.fcc.gov/kdb/GetAttachment.html?id=Vr6IwaTjmiQhQNco7Ee7DA%3D%3D&desc=987594 %20D01%20U-NII%206GHz%20General%20Requirements%20v01r01&tracking_number=277034. The January 26, 2021 Letter references the study submitted in the record by the Southern Company in this 2 device testing as a gating criterion for devices before they begin operating in the 6 GHz band.”10/ The Letter provides no justification for why 6 GHz devices should be singled out for different treatment—“real-world” testing—that is inconsistent with the Commission’s usual practice and would be contradictory to the 6 GHz Report and Order.11/

The Commission should therefore recognize the Letter for what it really is—an attempt to re- litigate the failed efforts to stay the Commission’s decision.12/ The Commission should reject this frivolous and procedurally impermissible request.

* * *

Pursuant to Section 1.1206 of the Commission’s rules, a copy of this letter has been submitted in the record of the above-referenced proceedings. If there are any questions regarding the foregoing, please contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Alex Roytblat

WI-FI ALLIANCE Alex Roytblat Senior Director of Regulatory Affairs [email protected]

proceeding that the Commission already rejected—further evidence that the January 26, 2021 Letter simply seeks to re-litigate issues that the Commission already decided. See Letter at 1-2. 10/ 6 GHz Report and Order ¶ 177 (while the Commission stated that the multi-stakeholder group it contemplated might be formed could develop and test devices, it did not state that testing, if it occurred, would be a pre-condition for device certification). The Letter’s complaint about the multi-stakeholder process is part of a continuing pattern by incumbent licensees to transform that group into something the Commission did not intend. As the 6 GHz Report and Order makes clear, the Commission specifically rejected the request that the multi-stakeholder group engage in device testing, but instead envisioned the group would consider implementation of automated frequency coordination, processes and procedures for resolving interference complaints, and best practices. 6 GHz Report and Order ¶¶ 174-180. 11/ While the Letter cites Section 2.945 of the rules to justify its request that the Commission test individual devices, that provision of the regulations does not require the treatment that the Letter would like. And, the January 26, 2021 Letter provides no justification—other than the continued baseless assertions that the analysis in the Report and Order was flawed—for the Commission to exercise the discretion contained in Section 2.945. 12/ See Unlicensed Use of the 6 GHz Band, Order Denying Petitions for Stay, 35 FCC Rcd 8739 (2020); AT&T Servs. v. FCC, No. 20-1190 Consolidated with 20-1216, 20-1272, 20-1274, 20-1281, 20- 1284, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 32412 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 1, 2020) (order denying emergency motions to stay).

3