Last month, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approved the reallocation of the upper 30MHz in the 5.850 - 5.925GHz spectrum for use by Cellular Vehicle-to-Everything (C-V2X) technologies. The spectrum had previously been allocated to Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC) vehicles, and the new rules now split it into two parts, with the lower 45MHz now being for allocated unlicensed (WiFi) use.
The FCC's First Order not only allocated the spectrum but it also covered a variety of other areas stemming from this reallocation. These areas cover the proposed timeline of shifting DSRC operations to C-V2X, cutoff date for DSRC's use of the spectrum, how to navigate unlicensed and DSRC use during the time before the full order comes into effect and the nature of unlicensed use that has been permitted.
In addition to the first order, the Commission also released a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNRP) which seeks comments in key areas of C-V2X such as the service's new design rules that change safety specifications and allocations used by DSRC, Out-of-band-emission (OOBE) limits and the maximum power that devices (C-V2X and WiFi) can emit when they're in close spectrum proximity.
At this latter front, we got a chance to virtually sit down with Qualcomm's senior vice president of spectrum strategy and technology policy Mr. Dean Brenner and vice president and regulatory counsel Mr. John Kuzin last week to get an idea of where the company sits in relation to these issues. Qualcomm is slated to massively benefit from C-V2X being allocated this spectrum and the company will target the market through both onboard units (OBUs) and roadside units (RSUs) for C-V2X.
Related: Qualcomm Is Waiting On FCC Rules To Deploy C-V2X Vehicle Chips – SVP Technology Policy
Wccftech: Dean, I'd like you to share your views on the FCC ruling, what points you agree with and what changes you'd like in the future?
Dean: "So, you know we were very pleased with the FCC ruling. The FCC ruling is a giant recognition that C-V2X really is the automobile technology of the future. It was a landmark ruling to have the FCC assign the upper 30MHz to C-V2X, spectrum that had been assigned to DSRC, before this ruling, the FCC rules did not allow deployment of C-V2X in the United States in the 5.9GHz band and the FCC ruling changes that, and so it's a landmark in the history of C-V2X and it's a landmark FCC ruling. The FCC rarely dictates specific technology for a given piece of spectrum, and it's even more rare for them to have done that years ago and now to change suit and say that DSRC is...has not been deployed, and is not the technology of the future and instead the technology of the future for automobile safety is C-V2X.
"That's not me saying that, that's not Qualcomm saying that, that's not a 5GAA group saying that. That's the Federal Communications Commission, the United States communications regulator saying that. So that's a gigantic win for the C-V2X community and a landmark development. As I've said in the statement we released when the ruling came out, we remain concerned about the interference protection for C-V2X in the upper 30MHz with WiFi now allowed to operate indoors, at least initially indoors in the lower 45MHz and you know we would like to see an improvement in those interference protections. We think it's warranted based on the information, the studies, the tests we supplied to the FCC. So we look forward to working with the FCC, with other stakeholders as this process goes forward to try to hopefully improve those rules."
W: Delving a bit deeper into the topic of interference, what sufficient protections would Qualcomm like to be in place to prevent interference from WiFi ti C-V2X vehicles?
D: "Yeah so I'll start and John please chime in, you've done a lot of work on this. You know we made proposals to the FCC, we made numerous submissions through the 5GAA group. And so we had an indoor limit would have been significantly more protective of C-V2X even from WiFi operations indoors then what the FCC has allowed. We recognize that the FCC hasn't allowed yet WiFi to operate outdoors, that's a subject of a further rulemaking and we'll obviously participate in that and we'll obviously send some additional information to the FCC to hopefully improve the situation indoors. The most important piece of the puzzle here is not allowing a WiFi to operate in cars, cars that also have C-V2X. We know that that would be a major problem. So that will continue to be, if the FCC didn't resolve that, that part of this further proposed rulemaking, so that will continue to be a major focus of ours."
W: Talking specifically about outdoor point to point unlicensed operations. What is Qualcomm's stance on outdoor-point-to-point unlicensed operations with high EIRP signals, transmitter power for example in the UNII-4 band and their potential for interference to C-V2X?
John: "Yeah so there's two things there. There are...there is in-band power limit as well as the out-of-band limits. And as you may know, the FCC in March..in April this year allowed outdoor point-to-point operations for wireless internet service providers on experimental basis pursuant to a STA Special Temporary Authorizations. And our position is that the...to the extent the FCC plans to allow those operations on a permanent basis, they should be subject to the terms of experimental operations so there was an OOBE emissions limit that is in the experimental licenses that is -27 dBM/MHz. And should be sufficiently protective of C-V2X.
"And there should also be an in-band power limit as well. So the wireless internet service providers are seeking relief to have higher OOB emissions, to have unlimited power and you know we don't see the need for that and we're a little concerned that unlimited power levels in the adjacent band could lead to interference to C-V2X."
W: In its first ruling, the FCC, citing NHTSA, DOT and Federal Safety Standards believes that the one year phase-out time allotted to DSRC users will not delay deployment of onboard units, since the timeline for their deployment is two years. Does Qualcomm concur with this assessment?
D: "Yeah so I don't think the issue is one year versus two years, I'm not sure where you get that. We have no idea what DSRC operations will actually move into the upper 30MHz. There are very few cars that actually use DSRC in the United States. We're aware of these RSU deployments that various state and local departments of transportation have done which are really more in the nature of testing they're not really for commercial deployments. So you know whether any of those would move, and if they did move, what is actually entailed in them I think you know all of that remains to be seen. From our point of view what is important is the FCC ruling established a way for C-V2X, both in RSUs and in cars, to get on the air very quickly, certainly in 2021. We're very excited about that and we're going to do everything we can to you know help enable that."
W: Dean, I'd like you to elaborate in detail what is Qualcomm's stance on deployment timeline, or shifting timeline for DSRC to C-V2X that the FCC has highlighted in its first ruling, and what, if any changes would Qualcomm like in the future or do you agree with these deployment timeline schedules the FCC has set in its first ruling.
D: "Well our focus is on C-V2X deployment because again we have no idea, what if any DSRC operations will move. It's very unclear. But in terms of C-V2X we're very heartened by the FCC ruling because as I said it provides a way for both C-V2X RSUs and C-V2X inside cars to get on the spectrum to get them into operation in the upper 30MHz very quickly and certainly within 2021.
"Now the ruling lays out a process, a streamlined process both for RSUs and for cars and also requires, directs the FCC staff to issue a follow on public notice because obviously all these details are very important. And we need to see how things play out. But in terms of what the FCC ruling says you know we're very happy in terms of online, streamlined process for C-V2X deployment."
W: Will C-V2X offloading less time-critical applications to cellular networks in times of congestion affect the technology's safety and performance?
D: "The fact that C-V2X has these two modes of operations, one the sideline mode where cars are talking to cars and cars are talking to infrastructure directly and C-V2X is about this other network-based mode. You know we don't, that's very integral to the design of C-V2X and the whole premise is that very time-sensitive, very latency-sensitive operations would be done in the direct mode in the PC5 mode. Whereas broadcast messages, or the things that are less time-sensitive would be done in the network mode or the so called VU mode. So if you're asking does that, does the fact that C-V2X has these two modes does that pose any issue for safety then the answer is no. That's been baked into the design of C-V2X all along, if anything it has a very positive effect because we're not using the 5.9 GHz spectrum for the communications that don't need to be done in a time-sensitive manner. So you're segregating communications [into] those that time-sensitive or done in the 5.9 band, in the direct mode. Those that are not time-sensitive are done in the network mode you know using U2U and that was a very sound design to C-V2X."
W: The new FCC rules remove the ITS Control Channel since they allocate its spectrum for unlicensed uses. Since Channel 178 (the Control Channel) is used for public safety messages and for coordinating other channels, will removing this affect C-V2X’s safety features?
D: "No, it has no impact on C-V2X safety features. So for one thing let's be clear there are no cars, so that assignment of channels is based on the way the DSRC standard was written. C-V2X's standard isn't written that way at all. You know we don't have a 10MHz channel that's solely used as a control channel. We don't have channels that are solely used for higher power versus lower power. Our design's very different. So the fact that the FCC in allocating the spectrum for C-V2X didn't superimpose DSRC standards on top of it makes perfect sense and you know is totally in keeping with allocating the spectrum for C-V2X. But nothing in the FCC ruling poses any kind of problem or obstacle or hindrance for the use of C-V2X to enhance safety."
W: Current ITS standards have a message priority hierarchy with communications involving the safety of life having priority access. Communications involving public safety have the next priority level that assumes that roadside units operated by state or local governmental entities are engaged in public safety priority communications. Does Qualcomm support to maintain this order for the upgraded standards as well?
D: "Yeah so I think there's some misunderstanding. So reserving a channel for safety that's again a relic of the way the DSRC standard was written. The C-V2X standard is not written that way. We don't reserve channels that way. We allocate in a much similar way a cellular system spectrum can be allocated dynamically based on capacity needs and demand you know that's the way C-V2X will work using the 20MHz in allocating the capacity between vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle to infrastructure communications, So there's a fact there isn't a "safety-channel" in C-V2X is not a meaningful distinction between C-V2X and DSRC.
"That's just a relic again of the fact that DSRC standard was written differently than C-V2X standard. That there's no diminution in the importance of safety in comparing C-V2X to DSRC. So the fact that there isn't a channel denominated as a safety channel does not mean C-V2X in any way shape or form is less focused on safety or places a lower priority on safety or anything like that. In fact it's just the opposite, the way that C-V2X will operate in the spectrum you know everything about it will be to enhance safety. There won't be any part of it that isn't used to enhance safety. I think it's just semantics in the way the different standards are written."
W: In addition to Qualcomm’s readiness to deploy C-V2X solutions now, what other factors are behind the company stressing immediate deployment? Any competitive motivations? Or are there any other factors in play?
D: "Well the headline here is the spectrum is now available. The FCC has made the spectrum available and before the FCC ruling the spectrum wasn't available and the FCC rules didn't allow deployment of C-V2X. So you know I would think that everyone in the auto industry would take a fresh look at the whole situation in the wake of the FCC ruling obviously again you know we're hoping to see improvement on the interference protections. That's...you know we've been very clear about that, but I would think that anyone who is comparing the two technologies and deciding what to deploy, you know now C-V2X is the technology of the future, for the upper 30MHz, not DSRC.
"So I would think that most stakeholders in the auto industry would take a step back and would you know really re-evaluate the situation in light of this major FCC ruling. And we're hopeful, we remain very very hopeful that if folks do that, if they would want to move ahead now that the spectrum is made available for C-V2X."
W: In its Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the FCC, the Commission asks for comment on OOBE limits for adjacent bands, which is the lower limit of the C-V2X band which touches the upper limit of the unlicensed band. So what limits does Qualcomm have in mind for adjacent bands, if any, for the new spectrum split since these limits weren't present in the previous allocation since DSRC was the only technology being used?
J: "So if you look in the FNPRM the FCC makes reference to a March 8th 5GAA filing. It was the 5GAA's comments on the December 2019 NPRM and they are...it's a full suite of technical proposals that includes the OOBE that C-V2X would operate under in the upper 30MHz of the channel."
W: Moving to my final question for C-V2X's deployment timeline. In explaining the merit of deploying the entire spectrum for ITS, the AAI argued before the FCC that “[W]ithin 5 years, a total of at least 5 million radios on vehicles and roadway infrastructure will have been deployed, including any previous V2X deployments,” but only if the entire 5.9 GHz band is preserved for ITS.353. Does Qualcomm have a similar guesstimate on how many radios it might be able to deploy?
D: "As many as possible [laughs]. I don't think we have publicly talked about you know a specific number so I don't think we have a number that we can share but obviously, we're excited about it and you know we are looking forward to selling as many as chips for radios going to cars absolutely as quickly as possible."
W: Moving to my final question for today's interview, does Qualcomm agree with 5GAA’s proposal to eliminate the output power requirement and increase the OBU (on board unit) EIRP limit to 33 dBm.
J: "The short answer is yes."
The post Qualcomm Outlines Connected Cars (C-V2X) Safety Features, Stresses On Interference Protection by Ramish Zafar appeared first on Wccftech.
Refference- https://wccftech.com
0 Comments