Office of Engineering & Technology Seeks Additional Information Regarding Client-to-Client Device Communications in the 6 GHz Band
| Published date | 22 January 2021 |
| Citation | 86 FR 6644 |
| Record Number | 2021-01404 |
| Section | Notices |
| Court | Federal Communications Commission |
6644
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 13 / Friday, January 22, 2021 / Notices
Comment Period Ends: 01/12/2021,
Contact: Elizabeth Bly 541–560–3465.
Revision to FR Notice Published 11/
27/2020; Retracted due to erroneous
filing.
Dated: January 15, 2021.
Cindy S. Barger,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office
of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2021–01365 Filed 1–21–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
[ET Docket No. 18–295; GN Docket No. 17–
183; DA 21–7; FRS 17404]
Office of Engineering & Technology
Seeks Additional Information
Regarding Client-to-Client Device
Communications in the 6 GHz Band
AGENCY
: Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION
: Notice.
SUMMARY
: In this document, the Office
of Engineering and Technology seeks
additional information to supplement
the record on whether the Commission
should permit direct communications
between unlicensed 6 GHz band client
devices.
DATES
: Comments are due on or before
February 22, 2021, and reply comments
are due on or before March 23, 2021.
ADDRESSES
: Federal Communications
Commission, 45 L Street NE,
Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
:
Nicholas Oros, Office of Engineering
and Technology, 202–418–0636,
Nicholas.Oros@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
: This is a
summary of the Commission’s
document, Public Notice, DA 21–7, ET
Docket No. 18–295, GN Docket No. 17–
183, released January 11, 2021. The full
text of this document is available for
public inspection and can be
downloaded at: https://www.fcc.gov/
document/oet-seeks-info-6-ghz-u-nii-
client-client-device-communications or
by using the search function for ET
Docket No. 18–295 on the Commission’s
ECFS web page at www.fcc.gov/ecfs.
Synopsis
1. In the 6 GHz Further Notice, the
Commission sought comment on
additional actions that it should take to
further expand unlicensed operations in
the 6 GHz band through revisions to the
existing rules for standard-power or
low-power indoor operations or by
authorizing a third type of operation,
very low power operations. Among the
comments filed, unlicensed proponents
requested that the Commission modify
its low-power indoor device rules to
permit client-to-client device
communications, which they assert
would enable additional types of
innovative unlicensed operations in the
band. The Fixed Wireless
Communications Coalition opposes any
such revisions and asserts that there is
no record support for permitting client-
to-client communications in this band.
2. In the 6 GHz Order, the
Commission prohibited unlicensed
client devices from acting as ‘‘mobile
hotspots’’ because ‘‘[p]ermitting a client
device operating under the control of an
access point to authorize the operation
of additional client devices could
potentially increase the distance
between these additional client devices
and the access point and increase the
potential for harmful interference to
fixed service receivers or electronic
news gathering operations.’’ To avoid
this situation, the Commission’s rules
prohibit 6 GHz U–NII client devices
from directly communicating with one
another. The Commission did not,
however, examine whether a more
limited approach to indoor client-to-
client communications within the ambit
of the 6 GHz Notice should be
permissible—e.g., when a client is not
acting as a mobile hotspot. Accordingly,
Apple, Broadcom et al. suggest that
client devices be permitted to directly
communicate with each other if they
can decode an enabling signal
transmitted by a low-power indoor
access point within the last four
seconds. They suggest that the
Commission could further constrain
client-to-client communications by
requiring that the enabling signal be
received at a signal strength of at least
¥99 dBm/MHz. According to Apple,
Broadcom et al., as a client device could
communicate at this signal level with a
low-power indoor access point in a
traditional access-point-to-client
topology under the existing rules, this
would ensure each individual client
participating in client-to-client
communications is safely inside the area
where a client device is authorized to
communicate with an access point
3. The Commission takes this
opportunity to invite interested parties
to supplement the record, for the
Commission’s consideration, on
whether and under what circumstances
client devices could be permitted to
directly communicate with each other
in a limited manner consistent with the
rationale underlying the Commission’s
decisions in the 6 GHz Order that were
targeted at protecting incumbent
licensed services. More specifically, the
Commission invites comment on
whether to permit 6 GHz U–NII client
devices to directly communicate when
they are under the control of or have
received an enabling signal from a low-
power indoor access point. As an initial
matter, commenters should explain how
they define an enabling signal, what
characteristics it must have, how it is
similar or different from signals, such as
beacons, that access points already use
to connect with client devices, and the
degree to which an enabling signal
would tether a client device not under
the direct control of an access point to
that access point. Commenters should
also provide information on the types of
applications that direct client-to-client
communications would enable that
cannot be accomplished by
communications through an access
point. In addition, commenters
advocating for rule changes should
address whether direct client-to-client
communications should be under the
current power limits or restricted to
lower power limits to reduce the
potential for harmful interference to
incumbent operations. In this
connection, the Commission notes that
client devices under the control of a
low-power indoor access point are
permitted to operate up to 24 dBm EIRP
over 320-megahertz channels (or ¥1
dBm/MHz).
4. As the 6 GHz Order explained, the
requirement that 6 GHz U–NII client
devices operate under the control of
either a standard-power or low-power
indoor access point is designed to
prevent client devices from causing
harmful interference by limiting their
operation either to outdoors in areas
where the AFC system has determined
that interference will not occur or to
indoor locations where other factors
such as building entry loss prevent
harmful interference. In particular,
operations under the control of a low-
power indoor access point is aimed at
restricting operation of the client
devices to indoor locations. It may be
possible for a client device to receive an
enabling signal from an access point
even when the enabling signal is too
weak to enable the client device to
conduct communications with the
access point. In such situations, the
weak received signal level makes it
more likely that the client device could
be outdoors. By requiring the enabling
signal have a specific signal strength,
this problem could be potentially
avoided. If the Commission were to
adopt rules permitting client-to-client
communications, should it require the
enabling signal from the low-power
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:27 Jan 21, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JAN1.SGM 22JAN1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
6645
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 13 / Friday, January 22, 2021 / Notices
indoor access point to be received by
the client device with a particular signal
level? Apple, Broadcom et al. suggested
¥99 dBm/MHz: Is this level
appropriate? If not, what signal level
would be appropriate for this purpose?
How can a specific signal level be
correlated with the current requirement
that the client device be under the
control of an access point? For example,
under such an approach, should the
enabling signal level be of such a
strength to effectively require that the
signal levels between the access point
and client device be sufficiently strong
to permit bi-directional communications
between the client devices and the
access point, thereby ensuring that both
client devices are sufficiently close to
the access point? How frequently should
a client device be required to receive an
enabling signal to continue transmitting
to another client device?
5. If permitted, should the client
devices be limited to receiving an
enabling signal from the same access
point or could client-to-client
communications be permitted so long as
each client device receives an enabling
signal from any authorized access point?
Apple, Broadcom et al.’s suggestion
would potentially permit two client
devices to communicate even if they
receive enabling signals from two
different access points. For example,
client devices in two different buildings
receiving enabling signals from different
low-power indoor access points could
attempt to communicate with each
other. Would permitting this to occur
increase the potential for the client
devices to cause harmful interference to
licensed services? How would a
requirement for both devices to receive
an enabling signal from the same access
point be implemented? Or should other
configurations be permitted? For
example, could a client device
controlled by a standard power access
point be permitted to communicate with
a client device controlled by a low-
power indoor access point? Could
client-to-client communications be
permitted between devices when both
clients are controlled by a standard
power access point? If so, are any
changes needed to the AFC systems?
Must the enabling signal be received on
the same channel for each device under
any of the scenarios contemplated?
Under any envisioned client-to-client
communication scenario, commenters
should provide detailed descriptions of
how such communications can be
enabled including how such
communications fit under the current
rules that limit client devices to
operating only under the control of a
standard power access point or a low-
power indoor access point or whether,
and which, rules would need to be
modified. Commenters should provide
detailed analysis of how any client-to-
client communication configurations
they prefer would protect incumbent
operations from harmful interference.
Finally, commenters should provide any
other information they believe relevant
to evaluating whether direct client-to-
client communications consistent with
the rationale of the Commission in the
6 GHz Order should be permitted,
including any alternative methods or
necessary rule changes not directly
noted above.
Federal Communications Commission.
Ronald T. Repasi,
Acting Chief, Office of Engineering and
Technology.
[FR Doc. 2021–01404 Filed 1–21–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
[OMB 3060–0686; FRS 17401]
Information Collection Being Reviewed
by the Federal Communications
Commission Under Delegated
Authority
AGENCY
: Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION
: Notice and request for
comments.
SUMMARY
: As part of its continuing effort
to reduce paperwork burdens, and as
required by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC or
Commission) invites the general public
and other Federal agencies to take this
opportunity to comment on the
following information collections.
Comments are requested concerning:
Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
Commission, including whether the
information shall have practical utility;
the accuracy of the Commission’s
burden estimate; ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information collected; ways to minimize
the burden of the collection of
information on the respondents,
including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology; and ways to
further reduce the information
collection burden on small business
concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor
a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) control
number. No person shall be subject to
any penalty for failing to comply with
a collection of information subject to the
PRA that does not display a valid OMB
control number.
DATES
: Written PRA comments should
be submitted on or before March 23,
2021. If you anticipate that you will be
submitting comments but find it
difficult to do so within the period of
time allowed by this notice, you should
advise the contact listed below as soon
as possible.
ADDRESSES
: Direct all PRA comments to
Cathy Williams, FCC, via email to PRA@
fcc.gov and to Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
: For
additional information about the
information collection, contact Cathy
Williams at (202) 418–2918.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
:
OMB Control No.: 3060–0686.
Title: International Section 214
Process and Tariff Requirements, 47
CFR Sections 63.10, 63.11, 63.13, 63.18,
63.19, 63.21, 63.22, 63.24, 63.25 and
1.1311.
Form No.: International Section 214—
New Authorization; International
Section 214 Authorization—Transfer of
Control/Assignment; International
Section 214—Special Temporary
Authority and International Section
214—Foreign Carrier Affiliation
Notification.
Type of Review: Extension of a
currently approved collection.
Respondents: Business or other for-
profit entities.
Number of Respondents: 268
respondents; 455 responses.
Estimated Time per Response: 1
hour–20 hours.
Frequency of Response: On occasion,
annual and quarterly reporting
requirements, third party disclosure
requirement, and recordkeeping
requirement.
Obligation to Respond: Required to
obtain or retain benefits. The statutory
authority for Part 1 of this information
collection is contained in 47 U.S.C 151,
154(i), 154(j), 155, 225, 303(r), 309, and
325(e). The statutory authority for Part
63 of this information collection is
contained in Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 10, 11,
201–205, 214, 218, 403, and 651 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, and 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i),
154(j), 160, 201–205, 214, 218, 403, and
571. The statutory authority for this
information collection is also contained
in the Cable Landing License Act,
Executive Order 10530 and the Coastal
Zone Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1456.
Total Annual Burden: 1,677 hours.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:27 Jan 21, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JAN1.SGM 22JAN1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
