federal communications commission washington, d.c. 20554 · equipment manufacturers association,...
TRANSCRIPT
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Use of the 5.850-5.925 GHz Band
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ET Docket No. 19-138
COMMENTS OF
TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION
Tom Stricker
Vice President
Product Regulatory Affairs
Toyota Motor North America, Inc.
325 7th Street NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20004
(202) 463-6824
March 9, 2020
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ……………..………………………….…….…1
II. THE ENTIRE 5.9 GHZ BAND SHOULD BE PRESERVED FOR
TRANSPORTATION SAFETY ……………………………………………….….…....3
A. The Proposal to Abandon Previous Sharing-Focused Approach
is Troubling ………………………………………………………………….……...3
B. There is Alignment Among Those Focused on Transportation Safety ……..……....4
C. Existing and Anticipated Applications Will Likely Be Lost if
Spectrum is Repurposed………………………………………………….………….7
D. Automation and Sensors do not Diminish the Need for Spectrum …….……………9
E. Other Portions of Spectrum are Insufficient for Transportation
Safety Purposes …………………………………………………………………….11
F. Other Regions of the World are Looking to Increase, not Reduce,
Spectrum Allocations ………………………………………………………………12
G. The Potential of the Technology Should Not be Discounted……………………….13
H. The Regulatory Certainty Proposed by the Commission is not
the Regulatory Certainty Sought by Manufacturers and
Infrastructure Providers……………………………………………………………...15
III. THE POTENTIAL FOR HARMFUL INTERFERENEC TO
TRANSPORTATION SAFETY MUST BE FULLY ASSESSED………………………17
IV. THE COMMISSION’S COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS IN INCOMPLETE…………….19
V. DECISIONS ABOUT COMMUNICATION PROTOCOLS SHOULD
BE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED………………………………………………………21
A. Only Proven Technologies Should be Permitted in the Band………………………..22
B. Interoperability Should be Preserved………………………………………………... 23
C. Technologies Should be Able to Evolve in the Future………………………………. 24
D. Spectral Efficiency Should be Contemplated ………………………………………..25
E. Cost is an Important Consideration…………………………………………………. 26
VI. THE COMMISSION SHOULD CONSIDER A NEW APPROACH……………………27
VII. CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………..28
1
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
The Commission has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) relating to the
use of the 5.9 GHz band.1 The NPRM proposes to repurpose 45 MHz away from incumbent
intelligent transportation systems (“ITS”) to unlicensed use. The NPRM further proposes to
repurpose 20 MHz of the remaining 30 MHz of spectrum away from Dedicated Short Range
Communication (“DSRC”) to Cellular Vehicle-to-Everything (“C-V2X”). Toyota Motor North
America, Inc., on behalf of Toyota Motor Corporation (collectively, “Toyota”), is pleased to offer
comments on this proposal. As the first company in the world to deploy vehicle-to-vehicle
(“V2V”) communication, incorporating DSRC technology into some of its vehicles in Japan
beginning in 2015, and as a company that remains committed to reducing crashes and improving
safety, Toyota is dedicated to ensuring that ITS can be deployed in the United States in a way that
maximizes transportation safety benefits for consumers.
In the Comments below, Toyota strongly urges the Commission to maintain the entire 75
MHz of spectrum in the 5.9 GHz band for ITS. The Commission’s unexpected and dramatic shift
from its long-standing focus on sharing the band between transportation safety and unlicensed uses
to a proposal to permanently repurpose more than half of the spectrum away from transportation
safety is disappointing and should be rejected. Toyota reminds the Commission that a wide and
diverse group of stakeholders with a strong and enduring commitment to transportation safety are
united in wanting all 75 MHz of spectrum preserved for ITS. Reducing the amount of spectrum
available for transportation means that important applications that have been developed or are
under development will likely not be offered in the United States and that the full potential of the
1 In the Matter of Use of the 5.850-5.925 GHz Band, ET Docket No. 19-138, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 34
FCC Rcd 12603, ¶12 (2019) (“NPRM”)
2
technology to advance transportation safety will not be realized. Toyota further addresses the
Commission’s faulty assertions that automated technology has diminished the need for ITS
spectrum and that smaller spectrum allocations in other parts of the world are sufficient to meet
the needs of transportation stakeholders. Unfortunately, with this NPRM, the Commission misses
a unique and long-overdue opportunity to provide automakers and infrastructure providers with
the regulatory certainty that will spur wide-scale deployment of this important technology.
Moreover, there are significant concerns about the potential for harmful interference to
transportation safety communications under the Commission’s proposal. If the Commission
decides to move forward with its proposal to repurpose spectrum to unlicensed uses, this potential
for harmful interference must be fully considered and appropriately addressed. At the same time,
by failing to adequately consider the benefits lost by repurposing spectrum away from
transportation safety, the cost-benefit analysis contained within the NPRM is incomplete and
should be revisited.
With respect to decisions about which communication protocol or protocols to permit to
operate in the band for transportation purposes, Toyota encourages the Commission to consider
several important factors. Specifically, the Commission should consider whether a technology is
proven, whether interoperability is preserved, whether technologies can evolve in the future,
whether spectral efficiency is maintained, and whether the cost of a technology may stunt
deployment.
Finally, Toyota proposes a new approach that the Commission could take to provide the
auto industry and infrastructure providers the regulatory certainty they are seeking to make the
most effective and efficient use of the 5.9 GHz band to advance transportation safety.
3
II. THE ENTIRE 5.9 GHZ BAND SHOULD BE PRESERVED FOR
TRANSPORTATION SAFETY
A. The Proposal to Abandon Previous Sharing-Focused Approach is Troubling
This NPRM marks an unexpected and sharp departure from efforts that have been underway
at the Commission since 2013 with respect to the 5.9 GHz band. Up until now, the Commission’s
efforts have rightfully been focused on determining whether spectrum within the 5.9 GHz band
could be shared between licensed incumbent transportation safety uses and unlicensed uses. Now,
the Commission is proposing to repurpose more than half of the spectrum away from transportation
safety altogether.
This dramatic shift in approach is premised on a conclusion by the Commission that resolving
questions about co-existence and the sharing of unlicensed operations with DSRC is “difficult”
and that it will take “time and effort” to complete Phases II and III of the existing testing plan.2
We fundamentally disagree with the Commission’s proposal to abandon the existing testing
plan. We appreciate that testing and validation of sharing solutions has taken longer than originally
hoped. However, we note that the Commission itself has not approached the testing with a sense
of urgency and inexplicably delayed release of the Phase I test results for more than a year after
the testing was completed. Regardless, we certainly do not believe that the answer to difficult
questions or the alternative to testing that requires considerable time or effort is to unjustly reduce
the amount of spectrum available to incumbent transportation uses. We also note that the
Commission’s proposal to abandon the testing plan unfairly strands the time, effort, and resources
that have already been invested by stakeholders – including automotive stakeholders - in the
development and implementation of potential sharing solutions, testing plans, and prototype
2 Id. at ¶12
4
devices. For that reason, we urge the Commission to remain committed to the testing plan and
continue to explore whether the 5.9 GHz band can be safely shared between transportation safety
communication and unlicensed uses.
B. There is Alignment Among Those Focused on Transportation Safety
Stakeholders who are genuinely committed to improving transportation safety and reducing
traffic crashes are united in believing that the entire 75 MHz of spectrum should be preserved for
ITS. Many of these stakeholders have weighed in directly with the Commission. These
stakeholders include AAA, Advocates for Highway Safety, Alabama Department of
Transportation, Alaska Department of Transportation, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers,
the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, the American Highway Users Alliance, the American
Trucking Associations, Aptiv, Arizona Department of Transportation, Arkansas Department of
Transportation, Association of Global Automakers, Autotalks, Bay Area California Metropolitan
Transportation Commission, California Department of Transportation, Center for Auto Safety,
Colorado Department of Transportation, Connecticut Department of Transportation, Consumer
Reports, Continental, Delaware Department of Transportation, Denso, District of Columbia
Department of Transportation, Florida Department of Transportation, General Motors, Georgia
Department of Transportation, Governors Highway Safety Association, Hawaii Department of
Transportation, Idaho Department of Transportation, IEEE 802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee,
IEEE 1609 DSRC Working Group, Illinois Department of Transportation, Indiana Department of
Transportation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety,
Intelligent Transportation Society of America, International Association of Fire Chiefs,
International Association of Fire Fighters, Iowa Department of Transportation, Kansas Department
5
of Transportation, Kentucky Department of Transportation, Louisiana Department of
Transportation, Macomb County Department of Roads (Michigan), Maine Department of
Transportation, Maricopa County DOT (Arizona), Maryland Department of Transportation,
Massachusetts Department of Transportation, Michigan Department of Transportation, Minnesota
Department of Transportation, Mississippi Department of Transportation, Missouri Department of
Transportation, Montana Department of Transportation, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Motor
Equipment Manufacturers Association, NAFA Fleet Management Association, National
Association of State EMS Officials, National Safety Council, National Sheriff’s Council, Nebraska
Department of Transportation, Nevada Department of Transportation, New Hampshire
Department of Transportation, New Jersey Department of Transportation, New Mexico
Department of Transportation, New York City DOT, New York State Department of
Transportation, North Carolina Department of Transportation, North Dakota Department of
Transportation, NXP Semiconductors, Ohio Department of Transportation, Oklahoma Department
of Transportation, OmniAir Consortium, Oregon Department of Transportation, Panasonic,
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, Puerto Rico
Department of Transportation and Public Works, Road Commission for Oakland County
(Michigan), Rhode Island Department of Transportation, Safe Kids Worldwide, Securing
America’s Future Energy, South Carolina Department of Transportation, South Dakota
Department of Transportation, Tampa-Hillsborough County Expressway Authority (Florida),
Tennessee Department of Transportation, Texas Department of Transportation, Toyota,
Transportation Research Board, Trucks and Engine Manufacturers Association, U.S. Department
of Transportation, U.S. Representative Colin Z. Allred, U.S. Representative Troy Balderson, U.S.
Representative Anthony Brown, U.S. Representative Julia Brownley, U.S. Representative Andre
6
Carson, U.S. Representative Steve Cohen, U.S. Representative Sharice Davids, U.S.
Representative Peter DeFazio (Chairman, House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee), U.S.
Representative Mark DeSaulnier, U.S. Representative Abby Finkenauer, U.S. Representative
Lizzie Fletcher, U.S. Representative Jesus G. “Chuy” Garcia, U.S. Representative Bob Gibbs, U.S.
Representative Jennifer Gonzalez Colon, U.S. Representative Sam Graves (Ranking Member,
House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee), U.S. Representative Jared Huffman, U.S.
Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, U.S. Representative Doug LaMalfa, U.S. Representative
Rick Larsen, U.S. Representative Daniel Lipinski, U.S. Representative Alan Lowenthal, U.S.
Representative Stephen Lynch, U.S. Representative Tom Malinowski, U.S. Representative Sean
Patrick Maloney, U.S. Representative Carol D. Miller, U.S. Representative Paul Mitchell, U.S.
Representative Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, U.S. Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton
(Chairwoman, House Highways & Transit Subcommittee), U.S. Representative Chris Pappas, U.S.
Representative Donald Payne, Jr., U.S. Representative Harley Rouda, U.S. Representative David
Rouzer, U.S. Representative Albio Sires, U.S. Representative Ross Spano, U.S. Representative
Greg Stanton, U.S. Representative Dana Titus, U.S. Representative Frederica Wilson, U.S.
Representative Don Young, Utah Department of Transportation, Vermont Agency of
Transportation, Volvo Group, Washington State Department of Transportation, West Virginia
Department of Transportation, Wisconsin Department of Transportation, and Wyoming
Department of Transportation.
Unfortunately, the proposal put forth by the Commission ignores the legitimate concerns of
this broad and diverse group of safety-focused stakeholders and instead seeks to satisfy the
demands of a vocal group of companies who will directly profit from the use of this spectrum for
unlicensed uses, including by providing Wi-Fi to paying customers and for data offloading.
7
C. Existing and Anticipated Applications Will Likely Be Lost if Spectrum is Repurposed
The Commission states its belief in the NPRM that “ITS users can be accommodated in a
significantly smaller spectrum space,”3 but does not offer any evidence or data to support this
contention. In fact, the Commission’s belief is at odds with the conclusion of those who are
deploying, or interested in deploying, the technology that at least 75 MHz of spectrum is needed
to support current and anticipated applications. Vehicle manufacturers and infrastructure providers
have been clear that a decision to reduce the amount of spectrum available for ITS means that at
least some applications are unlikely to be offered. 4 Important safety-related applications –
including vehicle sensor data sharing, merge assist, red light warnings, work zone warnings,
dangerous road condition warnings, emergency vehicle preemption, and emergency vehicle alerts
– are potentially at risk. In addition, applications that have the potential to improve traffic
efficiency, reduce emissions, and make travel more convenient – such as platooning, cooperative
adaptive cruise control, optimal speed advisories, and transit signal priority – are far less likely to
be deployed.
The CAR 2 CAR Communication Consortium (“CAR 2 CAR Consortium”) recently released
a comprehensive report that quantifies the spectrum needs for ITS in both Europe and the United
States that supports this contention.5 The report is included as Appendix A. As part of its analysis,
the CAR 2 CAR Consortium summarizes the spectrum needs of V2V, vehicle-to-infrastructure
(V2I), and vehicle-to--pedestrian (V2P) communication known today, which includes the BSM
3 Id. at ¶20 4 See e.g., Comments of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Association of Global Automakers, Intelligent
Transportation Society of America, and Denso International America, Inc., ET Docket No. 13-49, pp. 6-7, (July 7,
2016) 5 See Position Paper on Road Safety and Road Efficiency Spectrum Needs in the 5.9 GHz for C-ITS and
Cooperative Automated Driving, Car 2 Car Communication Consortium, available at https://www.car-2-
car.org/fileadmin/documents/General_Documents/C2CCC_TR_2050_Spectrum_Needs.pdf (February 28, 2020)
8
(Basic Safety Message), SPAT (signal phase and timing), MAP (road/lane topology and traffic
maneuver), IVI (in-vehicle information), other I2V (infrastructure-to-vehicle) messages, PSM
(Personal Safety Messages), PCM (Platooning Control Messages), CPM (Collective Perception
Messages), and MCM (Maneuver Control Messages). The analysis concludes that the minimum
basic spectrum needs for these known message types is 67 MHz for urban environments and 72
MHz for suburban and rural environments. Based on the CAR 2 CAR Consortium analysis, any
smaller allocation in any of these environments would necessarily mean that some of the known
message types could not be supported and that any future innovation with respect to new message
types would be precluded.
To further appreciate the impact of its proposal, the Commission should review the industry
consensus channel usage plan for DSRC standardized by SAE.6 The channel usage plan identifies
applications that have been developed or are under development that will be provided in each of
the seven channels. A drastic reduction in the amount of spectrum available to DSRC means that
at least some of the applications reflected on the DSRC channel usage plan will likely be lost to
the United States market. Reducing the applications that can be provided will – without doubt –
significantly limit the ability of the technology to realize its full potential.
In addition, it is important to note that the Commission’s proposal will impact existing pilots
and deployments. As the Commission knows, General Motors began deploying DSRC on its
Cadillac CTS models in 2017 and, in 2018, announced that it would build on-board units into a
high-volume Cadillac CTS by 2023 and expand the deployment to all Cadillac models thereafter.7
6 See Dedicated Short Range Communication (DSRC) Systems Engineering Process Guidance for SAE J2945/0
Documents and Common Design Concepts, SAE J2945_201712 (2017) 7 See Letter from Maryann L. Combs, Vice President of Global Vehicle Safety, General Motors, to Marlene H.
Dortch, Secretary Federal Communications Commission, ET Docket No. 13-49 (April 18, 2019)
9
According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, there are currently 123 planned or operational
connected vehicle deployment locations in the United States using the 5.9 GHz band, more than
18,000 vehicles that have been deployed with aftermarket ITS devices, and over 6,000
infrastructure ITS devices have been installed at the roadside in 25 states.8 It is our understanding
that all seven channels are being used to support these pilots and deployments. In some cases, we
understand that six out of seven channels are being used to support applications and services in
some of the larger-scale deployments, including those in Tampa and New York City. Clearly, any
decision to repurpose any of these channels away from transportation safety will have an
immediate and detrimental impact on these current deployments.
D. Automation and Sensors Do Not Diminish the Need for Spectrum
In the NPRM, the Commission once again claims that, because automated technologies have
surpassed some of the functions that were originally envisioned to be performed by DSRC, the
need for ITS is dramatically diminished.9 This claim is made without support and despite repeated
refutations to the contrary by automakers, automotive suppliers, the U.S. Department of
Transportation, and others transportation safety experts.
In 2017, the U.S. Department of Transportation released an NPRM to mandate DSRC in future
vehicles. In the NPRM, the U.S. Department of Transportation specifically considered the
relationship between V2V communication and vehicle-resident sensor-based crash avoidance
systems and flatly rejected the assertion that V2V technology should not be pursued because
onboard sensing systems exist in the marketplace. The U.S. Department of Transportation
8 See Preserving the 5.9 GHz Safety Band for Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation, available at
https://www.transportation.gov/research-and-technology/preserving-59ghz-safety-band-transportation-0 (2020) 9 NPRM at ¶4
10
concluded that V2V communication can provide warnings in several scenarios where vehicle-
based sensors and cameras cannot, such as vehicles approaching at intersections.10 The U.S.
Department of Transportation specifically noted that communication-based systems do not have
the same line-of-sight limitations and have longer perception range than sensor-based technologies,
providing improved warning time.11 The U.S. Department of Transportation further concluded that,
for vehicles with on-board sensors, V2V communication offers a fundamentally different, but
complementary, source of information that can significantly enhance the reliability and accuracy
of the information available from the on-board sensors, including by validating a return from a
vehicle-based sensor and reducing the number of false warnings.12 In the end, the U.S. Department
of Transportation concluded that V2V technology would enhance the functionality of both types
of systems and, together, would provide even greater benefits than either system alone.13
The current U.S. Department of Transportation has reiterated this conclusion on multiple
occasions. In Preparing for the Future of Transportation: Automated Vehicles 3.0 (AV 3.0), the
U.S. Department of Transportation rejected the claim that autonomous vehicle technology
eliminates the need for V2V and V2I. Specifically, the U.S. Department of Transportation noted
that “[c]ommunication both between vehicles (V2V) and with the surrounding environment (V2X)
is an important complementary technology that is expected to enhance the benefits of automation
at all levels.”14 This conclusion was recently reiterated in the Preliminary Technical Analysis that
the U.S. Department of Transportation released in December. In that analysis, the U.S. Department
10 See Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; V2V Communications, 49 CFR Part 572, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, p. 3866 (2017) (“NHTSA NPRM”) 11 Id. at p. 3855 12 Id. 13 Id. at 3865 14 See Preparing for the Future of Transportation: Automated Vehicles 3.0, U.S. Department of Transportation,
available at https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/policy-initiatives/automated-
vehicles/320711/preparing-future-transportation-automated-vehicle-30.pdf, p.13 (2018)
11
of Transportation noted that “virtually every automotive manufacturer has acknowledged the
important role that V2X communications can play in enhancing safety, extending operational
design domain, and improving interactions with other vehicles and the infrastructure. For example,
V2X can allow [Automated Driving System] vehicles to easily and reliably communicate with
emergency response vehicles, with traffic signals, and with other infrastructure messaging (such
as location of work zones, temporary lane closures, and numerous other messages that can help an
ADS vehicle navigate along its intended path).”15 We strongly urge the Commission to defer to
the informed and expert opinion of the U.S. Department of Transportation, the federal agency
specifically charged with transportation safety, on this point.
In fact, the emergence of automation may very well increase the industry’s need for V2V
communication. V2V can enable sensor data sharing between vehicles. Coupled with novel sensor
fusion and artificial intelligence techniques, the sensor data from neighboring vehicles has the
potential to strengthen the overall robustness and social utility of autonomous vehicles. For
example, one car may “see” something that another car cannot “see” (e.g. a child running out in
the road, a patch of ice, etc.) and can share that information with the other vehicle using V2V
technology. This promising use case, which is already in standardization, will simply not be
possible under the proposal put forward by the Commission.
E. Other Portions of Spectrum are Insufficient for Transportation Safety Purposes
The Commission seeks comment on whether there are other portions of spectrum that can
support these sorts of safety-critical transportation communications. The simple answer is no.
15 See Preliminary Technical Assessment - Concerns with Draft FCC NPRM: Use of the 5.850-5.925 GHz Band [ET
Docket No. 19-138], U.S. Department of Transportation, available at
https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/research-and-technology/359811/preliminary-technical-
assessment-fcc-59-ghz-nprm-05dec2019-final.pdf, p. 4 (2019) (“Concerns with Draft FCC NPRM”)
12
Any speculation that commercial cellular spectrum can meet the reliability and latency
requirements for this type of communication is unlikely to prove itself out. First, cellular coverage
is far from ubiquitous. This means that cooperative collision avoidance systems and other
imminent safety alerts would not be available in regions or areas without cellular coverage,
including many rural parts of this country. Second, today’s cellular networks rarely support
broadcast services. As a result, the dissemination of a BSM (for example) to fifty neighboring
vehicles would require fifty times as much bandwidth in a cellular implementation compared to
direct V2X communication in 5.9 GHz. Even in a future cellular network with broadcast support,
each BSM may consume twice as much scarce bandwidth (uplink-then-downlink) as could occur
in direct V2X communication using 5.9 GHz. Third, use of commercial cellular services for
transportation safety would require constant and significant coordination among cellular service
providers, cellular device manufacturers, transportation agencies, and vehicle equipment
manufacturers that would make the deployment of the technology considerably more complex than
what is enabled in the 5.9 GHz band. Finally, there are significant customer costs associated with
access to any cellular network that are not present with direct V2X communication in the 5.9 GHz
band. These additional costs would potentially put the technology out of financial reach for many
consumers.
F. Other Regions of the World are Looking to Increase, Not Reduce, Spectrum
Allocations
The Commission notes that other parts of the world have allocated less spectrum for ITS and
uses this as partial justification for its decision to reduce the amount of spectrum available for these
systems in the United States. The Commission ignores the fact that countries and regions with
smaller allocations believe that their current allocations are insufficient.
13
For example, Europe has long maintained an allocation for ITS in the 5.9 GHz band that is
equivalent to the United States but just recently increased the allocation from 70 MHz to 80 MHz
and expanded the portion allocated for road safety from 30 MHz to 50 MHz.16 Similarly, China
has currently allocated 20 MHz for basic ITS technology but is already studying a significant
expansion of spectrum for more advanced services, such as platooning and cooperative automation.
There is widespread recognition in these countries and regions – by both stakeholders and
government – that more spectrum is needed for the technology. Importantly, this shared
acknowledgement from regulators has provided confidence to vehicle manufacturers and others to
move forward with mass deployment of ITS.
At the end of the day, the Commission’s goal should be to put the United States in a leadership
position in terms of its ability to realize the full potential of this transportation safety technology.
The Commission should strive to ensure that the United States has the most advanced and most
effective cooperative crash avoidance network in the world. Instead, by using spectrum allocations
in other parts of the world as a ceiling (and not a floor), the Commission is essentially guaranteeing
that the United States will be unable to achieve this sort of global leadership.
G. The Potential of the Technology Should Not be Discounted
The Commission continues to assert that V2X technology “has not lived up to its potential”
and that therefore most of the spectrum should be repurposed for Wi-Fi.17 This reasoning is
fundamentally flawed.
16 See Electronic Communications Committee Decision (08)01: The harmonized use of the 5875-5925 MHz
frequency band for Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) (2008); See also Minutes of the 52nd ECC Meeting,
Doc. ECC(20)055 (March 6, 2020) 17 NPRM at ¶1
14
While the full potential of this technology has not yet been realized, the potential has been
demonstrated and validated and is being actively pursued by eager stakeholders throughout the
country. A decision by the Commission to repurpose the spectrum at this critical time merely
guarantees that a technology that is well on its way to realizing its potential will never do so.
First, the Commission continues to ignore the important progress that has been made. As we’ve
explained to the Commission before, the technology has progressed significantly since the
Commission made its channelization decisions in 2006. From 2007-2009, the industry focused on
the development of the technology itself and the standards that would be needed to support the
technology. In 2010-2011, the industry conducted acceptance trials in a number of different
geographic locations, confirming that the technology would be one that people wanted. From
2011-2013, the industry and the United States government conducted large scale testing and pilot
programs, including in Ann Arbor, to verify the maturity of the standards, the interoperability of
the technology, and the safety benefits of mass deployment. In 2015, the industry released
deployment-ready standards. In 2016, deployments began taking place across the country and, in
2017, the first DSRC-enabled production vehicles hit the United States market.
Moreover, there is no doubt that deployment of the technology has been negatively impacted
by the regulatory uncertainty that the Commission has perpetuated over the last seven years about
continued access to the entire band for transportation safety purposes. The Commission has also
taken overt action to depress deployment. Companies have been actively discouraged by members
of the Commission from moving forward with aggressive deployment strategies and the
Commission has purposefully failed to act on pending license applications. Just recently, the
15
Commission went so far as to stop accepting license applications altogether.18 The undeniable
reality is that, over the last seven years, the Commission has simply not wanted this technology to
reach its full potential and has gone out of its way to ensure that it did not.
Finally, if the Commission is genuinely interested in advancing transportation safety and in
ensuring that ITS communication technology can live up to its potential, it would refrain from
repurposing spectrum away from this very goal. A decision by the Commission to repurpose most
of the spectrum away from transportation safety and to fragment the remaining spectrum between
non-interoperable communication technologies is likely to further depress deployments, all but
ensuring that the technology will never live up to its full potential and that the expansive range of
important safety benefits that the technology can offer will never be realized.
H. The Regulatory Certainty Proposed by the Commission is Not the Regulatory
Certainty Sought by Manufacturers and Infrastructure Providers
The Commission correctly notes that industry has been urging it to provide regulatory certainty.
However, the Commission’s proposal is far from the regulatory certainty that industry has been
seeking.
The lack of regulatory clarity that contributed to Toyota’s decision to pause its product plans
in the United States market was specifically around whether DSRC would continue to have
interference-free access to the entire 5.9 GHz band. As Toyota stated in its filing: “For any
company seeking to deploy this safety technology at a mass scale, the chance that DSRC operations
could be subject to harmful interference from unlicensed operations or other technologies should
they be permitted in the band, that channels used for DSRC could be reallocated after services
18 See Public Notice, Wireless Communications Bureau and Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Announce
Temporary Filing Freeze on the Acceptance and Processing of Part 90 Applications for Certain 5850-5925 MHz (5.9
GHz) Spectrum, DA 19-1298 (2019)
16
using those channels have entered the market, or that spectrally-inefficient band fragmentation
could impair the ability to expand DSRC services and applications over time creates a substantial
and arguably insurmountable risk.”19 The Commission’s proposal to grant unlicensed operation
exclusive use of the lower 45 MHz of the band without any consideration of the potential harmful
interference to transportation safety communication in the upper part of the band, to reallocate
channels away from DSRC after DSRC services using those channels have entered the market,
and to fragment the band and impair the ability to expand DSRC services over time does not in
any way address the risks and obstacles Toyota faced in moving forward with its product plans.
Indeed, by removing 60% of ITS capacity, failing to propose any U-NII-4 out-of-band-emission
limit for the truncated ITS band, and limiting the spectrum available for incumbent DSRC
operations to no more than 10 MHz, the Commission’s proposal is far worse than what was feared
one year ago.
Moreover, in the NPRM, the Commission seems to be opening the door to transitioning all ITS
uses out of the 5.9 GHz band. The Commission specifically asks whether “there are other spectrum
bands that might be better suited for supporting ITS applications….Commentators that support
maintaining some 5.9 GHz band spectrum for ITS applications should specify the specific
transportation and vehicular safety-related functions to be accommodated in the band and how
much bandwidth in this particular band is necessary to achieve those respective functional
capabilities.”20 By asking transportation safety stakeholders to defend the need for even the
remaining 30 MHz of spectrum, the Commission seems to be setting the stage for a future
proceeding to repurpose even more spectrum away from transportation safety. Any hint by the
19 See Letter from Hilary M. Cain, Director of Technology and Innovation Policy, Toyota, to Marlene H. Dortch, ET
Docket 13-49, GN Docket No. 18-357 (April 26, 2019) 20 NPRM at ¶61
17
Commission that the remaining 30 MHz is still up for grabs or that its allocation for transportation
safety communications may be eliminated in the future continues the regulatory uncertainty that
has plagued the deployment of this technology since the Commission first initiated its proceeding
in 2013.
III. THE POTENTIAL FOR HARMFUL INTERFERENCE TO TRANSPORTATIN
SAFETY MUST BE FULLY ASSESSED
In the NPRM, the Commission has failed to evaluate or even consider whether unlicensed
operations in the lower 45 MHz will result in harmful interference to transportation safety
communications in the upper 30 MHz. The potential for harmful interference must be fully
assessed and addressed before any decision is made by the Commission to permit unlicensed
operations in the lower part of the band. To fail to do so is a clear abdication of the Commission’s
responsibilities to protect incumbent technologies. Simply put, the perceived difficulty of testing
to assess whether harmful interference exists cannot be a legitimate justification to conclude such
interference does not exist. Doing so puts the public at risk.
As the Commission may be aware, preliminary technical analysis by the U.S. Department
of Transportation concludes that “interference will occur” under the Commission’s proposal.21 As
the U.S. Department of Transportation states, such interference raises the question of the reliability
of ITS communications in the configuration proposed by the Commission.22 In other words, the
presence of harmful interference will quite possibly make most or all of the 30 MHz of spectrum
unusable for safety critical crash avoidance applications. In the end, rather than compressing
transportation safety communications into only 30 MHz of spectrum, the Commission may be
21 See Preliminary Technical Assessment, Preliminary Testing: Out-of-Channel Interference (Out-of-Band
Emissions), U.S. Department of Transportation, available at
https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/research-and-technology/360181/oobe-energy-59-safety-
band-final-120619.pdf (2019) (“Preliminary Testing”) 22 Id.
18
functionally eliminating all spectrum in the 5.9 GHz band for transportation safety
communications.
To this end, if the Commission decides to repurpose spectrum in the lower part of the band
to unlicensed use over the objection of Toyota and other transportations safety stakeholders, the
Commission should certainly establish strict out-of-band emissions (OOBE) limits that will avoid
harmful interference to transportation safety communications remaining within the band. In order
to provide enough protection to transportation safety communications occurring throughout 5.895
– 5.925 GHz, the emissions at or above 5.895 GHz should not exceed an EIRP of -27 dBm/MHz.
As the Commission knows, this would be consistent with the emissions limits for the U-NII-I and
U-NII-2A bands. Adoption of the U-NII-I and U-NII-2A emissions limits, and not the U-NII-3
emissions limits, is justified because operations in the proposed U-NII-4 band will be immediately
adjacent to transportation safety communications in the 5.895-5.925 GHz band. This is contrast to
the existing U-NII-3 band which is separated from transportation safety communications by a 5
MHz guard band.
We note that, even at this proposed OOBE level, there is a potential for harmful
interference to transportation safety communications, particularly if an unlicensed device
operating below 5.895 GHz is transmitting from within – or immediately adjacent to – a vehicle.
This potential for harmful interference should be fully considered and addressed by the
Commission.
Alternatively, the Commission may wish to consider reserving spectrum to protect
transportation safety communications occurring in the 5.895-5.925 GHz band. A 10 MHz guard
band could be created at the upper end of the proposed U-NII-4 band between 5.885-5.895 GHz.
This configuration would preserve a total of 160 MHz of contiguous spectrum between the U-NII-
19
3 and proposed U-NII-4 bands (5.725 – 5.885 GHz) for unlicensed use. We recognize that such a
configuration may require unlicensed users to make some minor adjustments or modifications to
their devices but believe that such adjustments or modifications would be appropriate to ensure
that transportation safety communications are protected from harmful interference.
IV. THE COMMISSION’S COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS IN INCOMPLETE
The proposal by the Commission to repurpose spectrum away from transportation safety to
unlicensed use represents a clear value judgment. The NPRM represents a judgment by the
Commission that the value to society of additional spectrum for Wi-Fi for entertainment and
convenience purposes is greater than the value to society in improving transportation safety and
reducing traffic crashes. We disagree with this value judgment. As a company that is committed
to reducing traffic injuries and fatalities, we believe that the transportation safety benefits that can
be realized with this technology are of greater overall benefit to our society than the incremental
value of 45 MHz of additional spectrum for Wi-Fi.
Unfortunately, the benefits and costs section of the NPRM is extraordinarily one-sided,
focusing almost exclusively on the benefits of making additional spectrum available to unlicensed
use. While the Commission briefly explores the benefits associated with retaining 30 MHz for
transportation safety, it completely and inexplicably ignores the benefits that are lost by
repurposing 45 MHz away from transportation safety. We certainly share the perspective of the
U.S. Department of Transportation in its Preliminary Technical Analysis that the Commission
must appropriately conduct a rigorous analysis of the economic benefits of retaining the entire 75
20
MHz of spectrum for transportation safety or repurposing 45 MHz of spectrum to unlicensed use
and retaining only 30 MHz of spectrum to transportation safety.23
The benefits lost by a decision to repurpose spectrum away from transportation safety may
include such things as lives saved, medical costs eliminated, emergency service costs prevented,
insurance administration costs reduced, congestion costs mitigated, property damage and loss
eliminated, workplace losses avoided, greater productivity, improved mobility and transportation
efficiency, greater fuel savings, and faster responses to public safety and emergency response
situations. In fact, the NPRM put forward by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
in 2017 to mandate V2V technology in future vehicles speculated that the proposed rule – which
included only two BSM-based safety applications - would have provided between $53 and $71
billion in benefits from avoiding motor vehicle crashes.24 Since this benefit analysis was based on
only a small fraction of the applications expected to be offered across the full 75 MHz of spectrum
and did not include all benefits that could be realized by ITS communication, it is quite likely that
the benefits lost by repurposing the spectrum away from transportation safety outweigh the Wi-
Fi-related benefits claimed by the RAND study funded by Wi-Fi advocates.
In addition, the Commission should examine whether the benefits associated with
providing an additional 45 MHz of spectrum to unlicensed uses would be reduced in any way if
an additional 1200 MHz of spectrum is made available to unlicensed use in the 6 GHz band, as
under consideration by the Commission. While the RAND study cited by the Commission briefly
addresses the 6 GHz proceeding, it only does so in the context of whether the 6 GHz proceeding
23 Concerns with Draft FCC NPRM at p. 4 24 NHTSA NPRM at p. 3858
21
would have any impact on the demand for Wi-Fi.25 Since the basis of the Commission’s decision
to repurpose spectrum in the 5.9 GHz band is that “demand for spectrum to support unlicensed use
has… intensified,” the more important question for the Commission’s current analysis is whether
the 6 GHz proceeding will have any impact on the supply of Wi-Fi to meet the intensified need.26
Presumably, it will. An additional 1200 MHz of spectrum for Wi-Fi in the 6 GHz band will almost
certainly reduce the incremental value of 45 MHz of spectrum for Wi-Fi in the 5.9 GHz band.
Finally, the Commission should consider that a non-contiguous 160 MHz unlicensed
channel is already possible under IEEE standards and available using 80 MHz of spectrum in the
U-NII-I band and 80 MHz in the U-NII-3 band.27 While we understand that the use of two non-
contiguous 80 MHz channels may be somewhat more difficult or marginally more costly to Wi-Fi
providers, the Commission should explore whether this option is more appropriate than
repurposing limited spectrum away from transportation safety.
V. DECISIONS ABOUT COMMUNICATION PROTOCOLS SHOULD BE CAREFULLY
CONSIDERED
In the NPRM, the Commission proposes repurposing at least 20 MHz away from DSRC to C-
V2X. However, the NPRM does not specify whether the C-V2X technology that it is proposing to
be used is LTE V2X or 5G NRV2X. We note that these are two distinct technologies and cannot
be used at the same time in the same channel. As a critical foundational matter, the Commission
should clarify whether it is proposing to repurpose 20 MHz to LTE V2X or to 5G NR V2X.
25 See The Potential Economic Value of Unlicensed Spectrum in the 5.9 GHz Frequency Band: Insights for Future
Spectrum Allocation Policy; Diana Gehlhaus Carew, Nicholas Martin, Marjory S. Blumenthal, Philip Armour, Jesse
Lastunen, p. 38 26 NPRM at ¶ 14 27 See IEEE Std. 802.11-2016, IEEE Standard for Information technology – Telecommunications and information
exchange between systems: Local and metropolitan area networks – Specific requirements, Part 11: Wireless LAN
Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications, IEEE Standards Association, at Clause
21 (2016)
22
In determining which transportation safety technology or technologies to support in the 5.9
GHz band, the Commission should carefully consider the following five factors: (1) whether a
technology is proven; (2) whether a technology is interoperable with any other transportation
safety technologies permitted in the band; (3) whether a technology can evolve over time; (4)
whether the use of the band is spectrally efficient; and (5) whether a technology is more cost
effective than alternative technologies.
A. Only Proven Technologies Should be Permitted in the Band
The Commission should be reluctant to repurpose spectrum to any technology that is not yet
proven. At this moment, DSRC remains the only transportation safety communication protocol
that has been proven and validated for transportation safety communication.
While we appreciate the extensive work that is being done to develop LTE V2X and 5G NR
V2X, the reality is that the technology is still very much under development. As the U.S.
Department of Transportation notes in its Preliminary Technical Analysis, the NPRM “relies
significantly on a technology still in development.”28 The U.S. Department of Transportation
cautions that “a shift of this nature needs to be based upon independent and objective analysis that
includes not only the spectral performance of the technology, but also the safety performance given
that it will be applied to safety-of-life applications.”29 We wholeheartedly agree with the U.S.
Department of Transportation. Before LTE V2X could be used for crash-imminent safety purposes,
it would need to be validated with the same rigor and at the same scale as DSRC has already been
validated.
28 Concerns with Draft FCC NPRM, at p. 2 29 Id.
23
While testing and demonstration of LTE V2X is still ongoing, standards are still being refined,
and technical performance requirements are still being specified, some preliminary analysis
conducted by Toyota indicates that LTE V2X performs worse than DSRC as vehicle density
increases. These preliminary results, which are attached as Appendix B, show persistent packet
loss and performance degradation for LTE V2X when the distances between vehicles is relatively
short.
With respect to 5G NR V2X, the standards have not yet been finalized by 3GPP. By all
accounts, the development of the technology is at best several years behind the development of
LTE V2X. As with LTE V2X, before being permitted to operate in the band, the technology should
be tested and validated at scale and in vehicle dense situations to confirm that it can effectively
support safety critical communication.
B. Interoperability Should be Preserved
As the Commission notes in the NPRM, in its 2004 Report & Order allocating the 5.9 GHz
band for ITS, the Commission established a requirement to conform to a single communication
standard.30 In establishing this requirement, the Commission recognized that interoperability is an
essential element in realizing the societal and individual benefits of the crash avoidance
applications enabled by V2V and V2I communication.31 We believe this was rightfully decided,
and strongly urge the Commission not to abandon that premise. In fact, we assert that
interoperability is one of the most important factors for the Commission to consider in determining
30 See In the Matter of Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Dedicated Short-Range Communication
Services in the 5.850-5.925 GHz Band (5.9 GHz Band); Amendment of Parts 2 and 90 of the Commission’s Rules to
Allocate the 5.850-5.925 GHz Band to the Mobile Service for Dedicated Short Range Communications of Intelligent
Transportation Services; WT Docket No. 01-90, ET Docket No. 98-95, Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 2458, at p.
11 (2004). 31 Id.
24
which transportation safety technology or technologies should be permitted to operate in the 5.9
GHz band.
By its very definition, a cooperative safety technology – in which devices communicate
directly with each other - needs to be cooperative. The societal and individual benefits of the
technology will undoubtedly diminish if the Commission enables a fragmented market of non-
interoperable communication technologies.
As the Commission knows, neither LTE V2X nor 5G NR V2X are interoperable with DSRC.
Allowing LTE V2X or 5G NR V2X to operate in the upper 20 MHz channel and preserving one
10 MHz channel for DSRC establishes the very sort of fragmented, non-interoperable market that
the Commission should seek to avoid.
C. Technologies Should be Able to Evolve in the Future
In the NPRM, the Commission claims to be interested in providing for continued improvement
of transportation safety into the future. 32 We share this interest. When considering which
technology or technologies should be permitted to operate in the band, the Commission should
focus on whether a technology can evolve.
The Commission has already been informed that work is currently underway in IEEE to
produce a Next Generation (NGV) V2X standard that will be backwards compatible with DSRC.
The IEEE NGV V2X standard provides a clear same-channel evolution path for DSRC.
At this point in time, it is not clear whether future C-V2X technologies will be designed to be
backwards compatible to 5G NR V2X. However, because these future C-V2X technologies have
32 NPRM at ¶10
25
not yet been developed, it is at least conceivable that backwards compatibility to 5G NR V2X
could be built in to them. To that end, if the Commission decides to permit 5G NR V2X to operate
in the band, we urge the Commission to require that future C-V2X technologies be backwards
compatible with 5G NR V2X.
As the Commission is aware, 5G NR V2X is not being designed to be backwards compatible
to LTE V2X. Since 5G NR V2X is also not capable of same-channel coexistence with LTE V2X,
a decision to permit LTE V2X in a channel locks in LTE V2X as the only C-V2X technology that
can be used in that channel – now and into the future. Without additional spectrum being made
available, there simply is no evolution path for LTE V2X. To put it simply, LTE V2X is the only
technology under consideration today by the Commission that cannot evolve within a single
channel.
D. Spectral Efficiency Should be Contemplated
Toyota and other stakeholders have consistently expressed concerns to the Commission about
spectral efficiency in the 5.9 GHz band. At a time when the Commission is appropriately focused
on promoting spectral efficiency, it makes little sense to duplicate identical or nearly-identical
transportation safety services on distinct channels.
The concerns about spectral efficiency are vastly greater under the Commission’s proposal to
reduce the amount of spectrum available to transportation safety by more than 60 percent. With
only one 20 MHz channel and one 10 MHz channel, it would be contrary to the Commission’s
worthy goal of achieving the efficient use of spectrum to allow for services to be duplicated using
different protocols in separate channels.
26
To that end, if the Commission decides to maintain DSRC in the 10 MHz channel and to
repurpose 20 MHz to an LTE V2X channel or an 5G NR V2X channel, we urge the Commission
to designate only one of these channels (and, hence, only one communication protocol) for the
transmission of the BSM. Under this plan, the other channel (and other communication protocol)
would be used to support applications that are not reliant on the BSM. Although far from ideal,
this approach would maximize the safety services that could be supported within such a limited
amount of spectrum for transportation safety.
That being said, we note that the decision to repurpose any of the transportation safety spectrum
to C-V2X is not the most efficient use of the spectrum. As the Commission knows, because of
persistent packet loss and attendant duplicate packet transmission, C-V2X requires the use of a 20
MHz channel to transmit communications that DSRC can support in a 10 MHz channel. This
means that DSRC can theoretically support twice as many applications than C-V2X in the same
amount of spectrum.
E. Cost is an Important Consideration
If the Commission is interested in the rapid deployment of transportation safety applications
in the 5.9 GHz band, the Commission should consider the comparative cost to consumers,
automakers, and infrastructure providers of various technology options. If the spectrum is divided
between DSRC and LTE V2X or between DSRC and 5G NR V2X, infrastructure providers and
automakers who wish to participate fully in a cooperative transportation safety system would be
forced to invest in both technologies. This means deploying vehicle and infrastructure that
incorporates both DSRC and LTE V2X or both DSRC and 5G NR V2X at potentially double the
cost. This contrasts with a single technology solution that would offer the same level of societal
and individual benefits at potentially half the cost.
27
In addition, the Commission should carefully consider whether any of the technologies being
proposed for transportation safety communications have additional costs for consumers and
infrastructure providers. This could include costs associated with intellectual property licensing or
required subscriptions or data service plans that may end up making the technology cost-
prohibitive and out of reach for many consumers.
VI. THE COMMISSION SHOULD CONSIDER A NEW APPROACH
It is clear that consumers will be best-served, and transportation safety will be most
improved, through an interoperable transportation safety network. It is also clear that considerable
disagreement remains among stakeholders about which communication protocol is preferable.
Because we are fully committed to promoting transportation safety and dedicated to realizing the
full potential of a cooperative transportation system, we believe the time has come for stakeholders
to coalesce around the broader goal of interoperability and commit to resolving this seemingly
intractable debate about which technology is preferable.
Since the U.S. Department of Transportation is the federal agency that is charged with
advancing transportation safety and is therefore best-positioned to make a decision about which
technology is most likely to improve transportation safety, we propose that the U.S. Department
of Transportation be charged with identifying to the Commission within a specified period
(perhaps 12-18 months) a single communication protocol that automakers and infrastructure
providers will utilize going forward. At that point in time, the Commission would incorporate the
identified protocol into its rules. If the U.S. Department of Transportation identifies either DSRC
or 5G NR V2X, the Commission should draft its rules to also permit into the band any future
technology that is interoperable and backwards compatible in the same channel with the identified
protocol. (Such a requirement would not be necessary if the U.S. Department of Transportation
28
identifies LTE V2X since future C-V2X technologies will not be backwards compatible to LTE
V2X.)
It is our strong belief that this approach should be allowed to proceed with respect to the
entire 75 MHz band of spectrum currently allocated to ITS. To ensure rapid deployment of the
technology identified by the U.S. Department of Transportation and incorporated into the
Commission’s rules, the Commission should consider adopting buildout requirements. The
buildout requirements and incentives proposed by the Association of Global Automakers in its Ex
Parte filing from May of 2019 could serve as a starting point.33
Even if - over the objection of Toyota and other stakeholders - the Commission proceeds
with its decision to repurpose 45 MHz away from transportation safety, the need to identify a single
communication protocol remains. In fact, because of the significant challenges associated with
maximizing the transportation safety applications that can be provided in the dramatically reduced
amount of spectrum proposed by the Commission, the need to settle on a single communication
protocol is arguably even greater.
If the Commission proceeds with the approach proposed in the NPRM, we expect that
deployment of transportation safety technologies will generally be stunted. For that reason, a
buildout requirement would be inappropriate.
VII. CONCLUSION
The NPRM represents a dramatic and disappointing shift in approach to the 5.9 GHz band
by the Commission. A decision to repurpose more than 60% of the spectrum away from
33 See Letter from Scott Delacourt, Counsel to Global Automakers, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, ET. Docket No. 13-49, GN Docket No. 18-357 (May 21, 2019)
29
transportation safety and to unlicensed use will have a devastating impact on the ability of the ITS
technology to reach its greatest potential and to fully deliver on its promise to reduce traffic crashes.
Toyota is frustrated that the safety benefits of this technology continue to be minimized, discounted,
and disregarded by those who seek access to the 5.9 GHz band for unlicensed uses. In order to
avoid the seemingly inevitable loss of some applications to the United States market and the
needless impact on existing deployments, we strongly urge the Commission to maintain all 75
MHz of spectrum for transportation safety.