Proposed Rule2022-09938
Promoting Efficient Use of Spectrum Through Improved Receiver Interference Immunity Performance
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
May 13, 2022
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
This document invites comments from all stakeholders in connection with the development of an up-to-date record on the role of receivers in spectrum management and how the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) might best promote improvements in receiver interference immunity performance that would serve the public interest. The Commission seeks to build upon the progress, including technological advances, in recent years that has enabled better receiver interference immunity performance, and the Commission seeks comment on where those efforts and advances have been most successful. The Commission also seeks to learn lessons from recent Commission proceedings in which receiver performance concerns have been prominent, to better inform the Commission as it considers how to ensure valuable and innovative services are able to thrive across the frequency range.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 93 (Friday, May 13, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 93 (Friday, May 13, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29248-29271]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09938]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 15, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 30, 73, 74, 76, 78, 80, 87,
90, 95, 96, and 101
[ET Docket No. 22-137; FCC 22-29 FRS 85531]
Promoting Efficient Use of Spectrum Through Improved Receiver
Interference Immunity Performance
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document invites comments from all stakeholders in
connection with the development of an up-to-date record on the role of
receivers in spectrum management and how the Federal Communications
Commission (Commission or FCC) might best promote improvements in
receiver interference immunity performance that would serve the public
interest. The Commission seeks to build upon the progress, including
technological advances, in recent years that has enabled better
receiver interference immunity performance, and the Commission seeks
comment on where those efforts and advances have been most successful.
The Commission also seeks to learn lessons from recent Commission
proceedings in which receiver performance concerns have been prominent,
to better inform the Commission as it considers how to ensure valuable
and innovative services are able to thrive across the frequency range.
DATES: Comments are due on or before June 27, 2022, and reply comments
are due on or before July 27, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Murray of the Office of
Engineering and Technology, at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0e7e6f7b6220637b7c7c6f774e686d6d20696178"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="522233273e7c3f272020332b123431317c353d24">[email protected]</span></a> or (202) 418-0688,
or Michael Ha of the Office of Engineering and Technology, at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#573a3e343f36323b793f361731343479303821"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0b666268636a6e6725636a4b6d6868256c647d">[email protected]</span></a> or (202) 418-2099.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of a document in, ET
Docket No. 22-137, FCC 22-29, released April 21, 2022 (Notice of
Inquiry). The full text of the document is available for inspection and
copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room
CY-A257), 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also
be downloaded at: <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-launches-proceeding-promoting-receiver-performance-0">https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-launches-proceeding-promoting-receiver-performance-0</a>. People with Disabilities: To request
materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille,
large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6d0b0e0e585d592d0b0e0e430a021b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f4929797c1c4c0b4929797da939b82">[email protected]</span></a> or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at
(202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (tty).
Synopsis
In this document, the Commission takes a fresh look at the role of
receiver performance in its spectrum management responsibilities, with
the goal of facilitating new opportunities for use of its nation's
spectrum resources. Forward-facing spectrum management necessitates
that the Commission continuously promote more efficient spectrum use to
enable the introduction of valuable new wireless services that benefit
the American people. As spectrum use across the radio frequencies (RF)
becomes more intensive, and services are packed more closely together,
Commission spectrum management policies must consider potential
efficiencies across all aspects
[[Page 29249]]
of wireless systems, not just transmitters but receivers as well. While
the Commission has typically focused its rules on the transmitter side
of radio systems, as several recent Commission proceedings have
underscored, receivers and receiver interference immunity performance
play an increasingly critical role in enabling more efficient spectrum
use.
The Commission seeks through this document to develop an up-to-date
record on the role of receivers in spectrum management and how it might
best promote improvements in receiver interference immunity performance
that would serve the public interest. The Commission seeks to build
upon the progress, including technological advances, in recent years
that has enabled better receiver interference immunity performance, and
the Commission seeks comment on where those efforts and advances have
been most successful. The Commission also seeks to learn lessons from
recent Commission proceedings in which receiver performance concerns
have been prominent, to better inform the Commission as it considers
how to ensure valuable and innovative services are able to thrive
across the frequency range. To further assist the Commission's efforts,
it also seeks to consider anew the efforts, reports, studies, and
recommendations, including several of the Commission's Technological
Advisory Council (TAC) White Papers, that have been proffered in recent
years regarding the kinds of actions that the Commission should
consider.
In sum, the Commission begins the process of developing potential
pathways for improvements in receiver performance, where and as
appropriate, that will aid in making spectrum management more effective
and provide more benefits to the American public. As the Commission
discusses below, it recognizes that a variety of approaches may be
appropriate, whether through industry-led voluntary measures,
Commission policy and guidance, or rule requirements where other
approaches would be insufficient. In this important first step the
Commission seeks to compile a comprehensive record on the various
issues that the Commission should consider, inviting broad comment from
all stakeholders as the Commission considers these issues. The
Commission looks forward to reviewing the record that develops from
this Inquiry to inform us regarding possible next steps that the
Commission may take in the future to promote efficient spectrum
management in the public interest.
Background
In 2003, the Commission adopted a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) to begin
``consideration of incorporating receiver interference immunity
performance specifications into its spectrum policy on a broader
basis'' (68 FR 23677 (May 5, 2003)) (NOI on Receiver Performance
Specifications). The Commission noted that incorporating receiver
performance specifications could promote more efficient spectrum use
and create opportunities for new and additional use of radio
communications services by the American public. The Commission
indicated that consideration of receiver interference performance
specifications could be in the form of incentives, guidelines, or
regulatory requirements (or a combination of these) in particular
frequency bands, services or across bands and services.
The 2003 NOI sought information, comment, and research concerning
the immunity performance and interference tolerance of existing
receivers, the possibilities for improving the level of receiver
immunity in the various radio services, and potential impacts of
receiver standards on innovation and the marketplace. In particular,
the Commission sought comment on the following issues--receiver
performance parameters (e.g., selectivity, sensitivity, dynamic range,
automatic RF gain control, shielding, modulation method, and signal
processing); the current RF environment and receiver interference
immunity performance; various approaches that the Commission should
consider for incorporating receiver interference immunity performance
guidelines into spectrum policy (including voluntary industry
standards, guidelines promulgated by the Commission, and mandatory
standards); receiver performance in various radio services; the
potential impact of receiver performance specification on innovation
and the marketplace; and the treatment of existing receivers and the
transition pathways to improved receivers.
Several commenters responding to the 2003 NOI supported the
Commission's further exploring interference immunity performance
standards and agreed that improved receiver performance can help
improve spectrum efficiency and ensure greater access to spectrum for
all users; they differed, however, regarding the appropriate
approach(es) and how to implement them with respect to particular
bands. In 2007, the Commission terminated the proceeding ``without
prejudice to its substantive merits.'' The Commission stated that, with
the passage of time, the record had become outdated and that, to the
extent that receiver interference immunity performance specifications
are desirable, they could be addressed in proceedings that are
frequency band or service specific.
Commission Rules on Receiver Performance Requirements
As a general matter, the Commission's regulation of transmitters
has at least implicitly provided for an RF environment that affects
receiver performance insofar as the technical characteristics of
receivers are expected to process those transmissions to successfully
establish communications. The overall objective of that regulation has
been to provide, through limits on power levels, in-band and out-of-
band emission limits, operational requirements regarding antennas,
etc., an RF environment that facilitates those communications as much
as possible. In some limited circumstances, the Commission has more
directly addressed regulated receiver performance, both through
performance standards and performance incentives, only in limited
circumstances, such as in the examples that follow.
800 MHz Band Public Safety Re-banding. In the 800 MHz public safety
re-banding proceeding, minimum receiver performance was a major
consideration when establishing whether a licensee operating in the
band could claim entitlement to protection against ``unacceptable
interference.'' Specifically, the Commission established a bright-line
test for determining if a licensee is fully eligible to claim
protection against ``unacceptable interference'' based on, among other
factors, the characteristics of the receiver being employed by the
licensee seeking protection.
900 MHz Band. The Commission adopted for the 900 MHz band
interference criteria similar to those established for the 800 MHz
band. Like in the 800 MHz band, the Commission established a definition
of ``unacceptable interference'' to 900 MHz narrowband licensees from
900 MHz broadband licensees and established technical parameters
including a receiver intermodulation rejection ratio, adjacent channel
rejection ratio, and reference sensitivity.
Digital Television. Improved receiver performance was a major
consideration as the Commission prepared for the digital television
(DTV) transition. Prior to that transition, the Commission adopted a
series of decisions intended to help address issues regarding the
conversion of analog TV to digital TV, a transition that was finalized
in 2009. In planning for the DTV transition, the
[[Page 29250]]
Commission had anticipated the need for certain minimal receiver
specifications. Several interested parties had recognized that
voluntary transition might not be sufficient, and the Commission
agreed, mandating receiver specifications for TV broadcast receivers in
2002 that would go into effect after a specified phase-in period to
ensure a smooth transition.
Part 96 Citizens Broadband Radio Service. The Commission adopted
rules in the 3.55-3.7 GHz Band governing reception limits for Citizens
Broadband Radio Service users and incumbents that established
``acceptable levels'' of in-band and adjacent band interference for
operations. These limits apply to Priority Access Licensees, incumbent
Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) earth stations in the 3.6-3.7 GHz band,
and adjacent band FSS earth stations used for telemetry, tracking, and
control. The Commission also established received signal strength
limits for Citizens Broadband Service Devices (CBSDs) and required
Spectrum Access System administrators to manage transmissions to ensure
that aggregate signal strength remains below a fixed threshold between
geographically adjacent service areas held by different licensees.
Part 27 Broadband Radio Service/Educational Broadband Service. The
Commission established rules that specify the minimum signal level
below which Broadband Radio Service/Educational Broadband Service base
station receivers in the 2496-2690 MHz band do not receive interference
protection from co-channel base station transmitters not exceeding the
height benchmark.
Part 27 3.7 GHz Service. When authorizing the 3.7-3.98 GHz Band for
flexible use, the Commission adopted rules to protect incumbent FSS
earth stations from out of band emissions and blocking interference;
these rules that require that transmitters are separated from FSS earth
station receivers by 20 megahertz and meet both in-band and out-of-band
power-flux density (PFD) limits as measured at each incumbent FSS earth
station antenna and established specific protection criteria for earth
stations used for telemetry, tracking, and control. The Commission also
adopted rules that required passband filters to be installed on
incumbent FSS earth station antennas and established a transition
process to, in part, ensure that such filters are acquired and
installed at each antenna.
Part 80 Maritime Service. The Commission adopted several technical
requirements, such as sensitivity and/or stability requirements, for
certain receivers in the Maritime Services. It also has incorporated by
reference standards for Global Maritime Distress and Safety System
operations which include receiver operational and performance
requirements.
Part 87 Aviation Service. To maintain the accuracy of critical
location information for applications such as aircraft precision
landings, part 87 Aviation Service rules specify performance
requirements for differential global positioning system (GPS) receivers
(in the presence of undesired VHF-FM broadcast signals) relied upon for
aviation safety purposes.
Part 95 Personal Radio Services. To ensure that life-saving
Personal Locating Beacons and Maritime Survivor Locating Beacons
operate properly and do not further endanger those in distress and/or
rescue personnel, these devices must meet technical standards
incorporated by reference in the rules which include receiver
operational and performance standards.
Recent Proceedings
In several recent Commission proceedings, the receiver interference
immunity performance associated with incumbent services operating in
spectral proximity to new users or services has been a major
consideration. In these cases, the ability of incumbent service
receivers to reject signals outside their intended band has been
directly relevant to the timing and scope of the introduction of new
services.
For example, in both the Ligado and the 3.7 GHz Band proceedings,
the Commission adopted operating conditions and rules to enable the
introduction of new operations into frequency bands with various
incumbent users operating under different service allocations in the
same band, adjacent band, or other spectrally proximate frequency
bands. Although the factual circumstances of these two proceedings
differ, both illustrate the challenges that systems face to co-exist
and successfully operate when the spectral environment changes
especially when incumbent systems may have been designed based on
different assumptions about the RF environment in adjacent bands or
other nearby frequency bands. These proceedings demonstrate that having
accurate and timely information about receiver characteristics can be
helpful in the Commission's analysis of potential harmful interference
concerns and also highlight several other spectrum management issues
that can arise with respect to receiver interference immunity
performance, including receiver interference susceptibility, receiver
selectivity, the impact of technological advancements (including
filtering), and legacy devices.
Technological Advisory Council (TAC) White Papers and Workshops
In recent years, the Commission's Technological Advisory Council
(TAC) also has been engaged in examining various technical issues
concerning receiver performance in several of the White Papers that the
TAC has issued. In addition, the TAC has made several recommendations
for the Commission's consideration on potential ways to promote the
development and deployment of receivers that are more resilient to
interference and could enable more efficient use of the Nation's
spectrum resources.
White Paper on Spectrum Efficiency Metrics. In 2011, the
Commission's TAC issued a White Paper on ``spectrum efficiency
metrics,'' which it viewed as an important factor in the Commission's
spectrum management decisions. The TAC took an ``integrated systems
approach'' in its evaluation of spectrum efficiency metrics, and noted
that every component of a radio based communications system involved
with either the transmission and/or reception of a signal has to be
considered as part of efficiency. The TAC recognized a close
relationship between spectrum efficiency and receiver standards/
guidelines or performance.
White Papers on Interference Limits Policy and Harm Claim
Thresholds. In 2013, the TAC issued a White Paper on Interference
Limits Policy in which it explored potential policy--an ``interference
limits policy,'' including harm claim thresholds--that it believed
could promote more transparent consideration of receivers in spectrum
management and promote better receiver performance. The TAC believed
that the Commission could increase service density, reduce regulatory
risk, and encourage investment with adoption of rules that make clear
in which situations receivers and transmitters each will have the
responsibility for mitigating any harmful interference, and doing so
up-front rather than after lengthy post-dispute proceedings. This
approach would state explicitly when receivers may claim harmful
interference as a necessary complement to existing transmitter
regulation that could facilitate more intensive frequency use by
providing more clarity about the baseline regulatory and radio
interference context going forward. In 2014, the TAC followed with
issuing its White Paper on Harm Claim Thresholds, which provided
additional discussion on an interference limits
[[Page 29251]]
policy focusing on harm claim threshold approaches.
White Paper on Risk-informed Interference Assessment. In 2015, the
TAC issued its White Paper on Risk-informed Interference Assessment.
The TAC recommended that the Commission adopt risk-informed
interference assessment and statistical service rules more widely to
help improve its spectrum management decision-making. As risk-informed
interference assessment would consider likelihood/consequence
combinations for potential interference hazard scenarios involving
transmitters and receivers; this tool could serve to complement a more
static ``worst case'' analysis that considers the single scenario with
the most severe consequence regardless of its likelihood.
White Paper on Basic Principles for Assessing Compatibility of New
Spectrum Allocations. In 2015, the TAC released another White Paper on
Basic Principles for assessing compatibility of new spectrum
allocations. It believed that a set of basic principles could be
helpful for all involved parties to consider and could serve to
establish clearer expectations of incumbent services as well as new
services entering the spectrum. Several of the basic principles
directly related to expectations regarding both transmitters and
receivers. As contemplated, these principles sought to promote ``good
neighbor policies'' among spectrum users that more effectively enable
users to ``get along.''
Commission workshops. In 2012, as part of the Commission's efforts
to develop more effective spectrum management approaches that promote
greater spectrum efficiency, the Commission's Office of Engineering and
Technology, in conjunction with the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
and the Office of Strategic Planning, hosted a workshop on ``Spectrum
Efficiency and Receiver Performance.'' In the workshop, the Offices and
Bureaus pointed out that receiver performance has historically arisen
in the context of conflicts between legacy stakeholders and new
entrants, where deployments of new technologies and services threatens
to adversely impact an incumbent or place restrictions on the new
entrant. In 2014, the Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology
(OET), in conjunction with the International Bureau (IB), Public Safety
and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB), and Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau (WTB), hosted another workshop, this one on ``GPS Protection and
Receiver Performance.
Other Relevant Studies, Analyses, and Memoranda
NTIA Report on Receiver Standards. In 2003, the same year that the
Commission issued its NOI on Receiver Performance Specifications, the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
issued a report on ``Receiver Spectrum Standards'' as part of its
effort to explore promoting more interference-robust receivers. NTIA
suggested several reasons why interference and efficiency problems were
becoming more important. These included the dramatic increase in
spectrum use, the introduction of new services and systems without
standards needed for electromagnetic compatibility, design tradeoffs
that favored inexpensive radio equipment rather than good performance,
reduction in available guard bands, equipment manufacturers' lack of
knowledge of characteristics of equipment operating in the same or
adjacent bands, and increased receiver front-end bandwidth of
receivers.
CSMAC Report on Fostering Spectrum Sharing and Improving Spectrum
Efficiency. In 2010, the Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory
Committee (CSMAC) issued a report that among other things underscored
the importance of receivers as tools in achieving greater spectrum
efficiency. CSMAC recommended developing incentives for promoting
better receivers and transmitters, promoting awareness of interference
characteristics of receivers and transmitters, improving filter
performance, promoting certainty and appropriate consideration of
legacy devices, and taking technological advances into account
regarding legacy equipment.
Kwerel and Williams Paper on ``Forward Looking Interference
Regulation.'' In 2011, Evan Kwerel and John Williams published a paper
proposing that the Commission should provide better incentives to build
more interference-robust systems in future allocations by moving away
from a general interference protection model in spectrum management
that often provides incumbent users protection against any interference
resulting from subsequent rule changes. The paper asserted that the
adjacent band interference protection for incumbents should not be
static and recommended that incumbents be incentivized to ``self-
protect'' their wireless operations (including their receivers) against
interference from adjacent bands (e.g., assuming that the adjacent band
would be used for flexible use). The paper also noted certain market
failures (e.g., lack of clarity regarding rights, holdout problems,
transaction costs) that prevented efficient resolution of interference
problems between incumbent users and new licensees through negotiation.
Silicon Flatirons Reports--on Efficient Interference Management and
on Receivers. In 2012 and 2013, the Silicon Flatirons Center issued two
reports on spectrum management and receiver performance drawn from its
roundtable conferences comprised of government, industry, and policy
experts. The 2012 report on ``Efficient Interference Management:
Regulation, Receivers, and Right Enforcement'' noted that receiver
performance dramatically affects the coexistence of adjacent services,
and further noted that while transmitters are required to control out-
of-band and spurious emissions to minimize interference, receivers are
not generally required to minimize interference from such emissions.
The report identified several recurring problems that should be
addressed (e.g., incumbents not accounting for a changing RF
environment, ``poor knowledge transfer'' among all of the affected
parties regarding receiver interference problems that could enable
potential resolution), and stated that it would be helpful if
regulators could better anticipate the needs at band edges and provide
proper notice to affected parties on the need for better receivers and
that phase-in of any receiver regulation would be important. The second
Silicon Flatirons report, ``Receivers, Interference, and Regulatory
Options,'' also identified several problems that have made it difficult
to improve receiver performance, including: Externalities (since the
party who would bear the cost of improving receivers is not the party
who benefits); ``asymmetric information'' (between incumbent users and
adjacent band users seeking to mitigate interference but lacking
information needed to effectively reduce interference); general lack of
information for some of the parties affected; the need to understand
costs and benefits (which could help enable creation of an incentive
structure to improve receiver performance); and the need for more
clarity about the RF environment. That report recommended improving
transparency among operators and consumers creating more incentives to
build more robust receivers (e.g., through issuance of a policy
statement). Several on the panel also supported use of multi-
stakeholder groups to develop appropriate technical solutions. Finally,
the report
[[Page 29252]]
recommended appropriate notice to stakeholders of any proposed changes
and development of a transition plan.
PCAST Report on Spectrum Sharing. In 2012, the President's Council
of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) issued a report that
dedicated significant discussion to the important role of receivers and
receiver performance for spectrum management and promoting more
efficient use of spectrum. In particular, given that receiver
characteristics can be a significant factor in limiting operations in
adjacent spectrum bands, the report underscored the importance of
knowing receiver characteristics for spectrum management among
operations in adjacent bands. PCAST also made several observations and
recommendations regarding receivers. It believed that different types
of receivers may require different approaches to receiver management.
It also supported consideration of the harm claims threshold approach
for receiver interference limits.
GAO Report on Receiver Performance. In 2013, the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) issued its report, observed that while the
Commission and NTIA have historically focused on transmitters,
receivers also can play an important role in better spectrum
management. GAO identified challenges related to improving receiver
performance, including the lack of coordination across industries when
developing voluntary standards, the lack of incentives for
manufacturers or spectrum users to incur costs associated with using
more robust receivers, and the difficulty of accommodating a changing
spectrum environment. GAO also identified various options for
consideration, including developing voluntary industry standards,
creating a ``safe harbor'' in which compliance with industry standards
would be a pre-requisite to claim harmful interference; mandatory
standards, interference limits, and gathering additional information on
spectrum use and the characteristics of systems (which it thought on
the one hand could enable more informed decision-making while on the
other raise concerns about disclosure of proprietary or classified
information).
Presidential Memorandum on Wireless Innovation. In 2013, President
Obama issued a Presidential memorandum on ``Wireless Innovation,''
which included a section on receiver performance that encouraged the
Commission, in consultation with NTIA, where appropriate, the industry,
and other stakeholders, to develop to the fullest extent of its legal
authority a program of performance criteria, ratings, and other
measures, including standards, to encourage the design, manufacture,
and sale of radio receivers such that emission levels resulting from
reasonable use of adjacent spectrum will not endanger the functioning
of the receiver or seriously degrade, obstruct, or repeatedly interrupt
the operations of the receiver.
International developments. Finally, the Commission note that
international regulators and intergovernmental organizations also have
discussed the importance of ensuring that receivers are appropriately
designed in order to promote more efficient use of spectrum. For
example, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) ``Radio
Regulations'' include several provisions that concern ``technical
characteristics of stations'' associated with transmitter and receiver
equipment and performance with respect to each other and in the context
of promoting more efficient and effective use of spectrum, including
Radio Regulations (RR) Nos. 3.3, 3.9, 3.11, 3.12, and 3.13. In 2014,
the European Union (EU) issued Radio Equipment Directive 2014/53/EU,
which recognized the important role of transmitter and receiver radio
equipment in spectrum management. Among the Radio Equipment Directive
``Essential Requirements'' is that radio equipment should be
constructed so as to ensure ``an adequate level of electromagnetic
compatibility'' and in a manner that ``both effectively uses and
supports the efficient use of radio spectrum in order to avoid harmful
interference.'' Additionally, the United Kingdom Ofcom's 2021 spectrum
management strategy statement states that it is essential to encourage
spectrum users to be more resilient to interference, and that operators
should not generally expect Ofcom to take action on interference if it
is a result of the poor performance of receivers or wider systems.
Discussion
The Commission begins by discussing the critical role that receiver
performance plays with regard to spectrum management and enabling more
efficient use of spectrum. The Commission then inquires about a wide
range of approaches that the Commission might consider to promote more
efficient use of spectrum that will enable greater access to the
Nation's spectrum resources for new services that will benefit
Americans.
The Critical Role of Receiver Performance in Spectrum Management
The Commission issues this document with the goal of considering
various approaches that will enable us to reorient its spectrum
management lens--from focusing primarily on the transmitter side of
wireless networks to focusing on both the transmitter and receiver
sides of wireless systems. Both are vital to the innovative and
efficient use of spectrum. While the Commission has long relied on
rules establishing particular transmitter requirements to promote
spectrum efficiency and more intensive use, receiver performance also
can significantly affect the Commission's ability to introduce new
services in the same or nearby frequencies. In particular, receivers
without sufficient interference immunity performance can diminish
opportunities for innovative spectrum uses that drive economic growth,
competition, security, and innovation. They can put constraints on what
is possible in the evolving wireless world.
Considering additional ways to promote more efficient use of
spectrum by focusing on the role of both transmitters and receivers is
even more important today than it was when the Commission initiated its
earlier NOI on receiver performance in 2003. Continuous growth of and
high demand for spectrum-based services makes this examination of
receiver performance critical to more effective Commission spectrum
management going forward. Greenfield spectrum--open and cleared for
use--is hard to find in the current spectral environment. To make
spectrum available for new and expanded services, existing spectrum
users are packed into a more congested environment, as transmitters and
receivers increasingly are situated in closer spectral and geographic
proximity. In this congested environment, it is challenging to meet the
demands for spectrum availability by simply relying on spectrum
management tools used in the past. As the RF environment continues to
change, receiver performance necessarily assumes greater importance in
enabling more efficient spectrum use and effective spectrum management.
In this document, the Commission inquires about the role of
receivers as part of its broader exploration of policy tools that can
harness new technologies and promote expanded and efficient spectrum
use. The Commission seeks to develop a record on receiver performance
across the RF spectrum, and on how the Commission might consider
options that can promote more
[[Page 29253]]
efficient spectrum use, where and as appropriate, that can best serve
the public interest. The Commission invites broad comment on the
various approaches and questions posed in this document. The Commission
encourages commenters to focus on risk-based assessments and science-
driven policy. As discussed below, the Commission recognizes that a
variety of approaches may be appropriate, including industry-led
voluntary measures, clearer Commission policy and guidance, and, where
other approaches may be insufficient, requiring specified levels of
performance. Different approaches may be appropriate depending on the
particular circumstances, including the types of services involved, and
the Commission invites comment to help guide the Commission's
considerations. The Commission anticipates that commenters will discuss
a range of options for possible industry and government actions,
including those described below, as well as how best to implement any
new policies in a manner that establishes clearer interference-related
rights and responsibilities among spectrum users that can promote more
efficient spectrum use while also driving innovation and serving the
public interest.
Considerations for Promoting Receiver Interference Immunity Performance
As set forth below, the Commission inquires about a number of
different considerations as the Commission evaluates approaches for
promoting improved receiver interference immunity performance. The
Commission invites comment on each of these approaches while also
recognizing that some approaches may be more effective than others for
addressing receiver performance concerns in particular situations, and
that some mix of approaches may best serve the public interest.
Receiver Performance Parameters
Inquiring about receiver performance parameters, or how they, along
with transmitter parameters define the RF environment, is essential to
understanding what actions, if any, the Commission should consider
taking. In the 2003 NOI on Receiver Performance Specifications, the
Commission similarly sought comment on what receiver performance
parameters the Commission should consider. As the NOI on Receiver
Performance Specifications recognized, a radio receiver's immunity to
interference is dependent on a number of factors in its technical
design and, in addition, the characteristics of the signals it
receives; these factors may be closely related and interdependent, and
a receiver's performance in one factor may often affect its performance
in others. The NOI then identified several parameters--including
selectivity, sensitivity, dynamic range, automatic RF gain control,
shielding, modulation method, and signal processing--and requested
comment and information on these or any other factors and how they are
related that should be considered.
Subsequent efforts identified additional receiver parameters and
engaged in further discussion on how such parameters could or should be
considered by the Commission as it evaluates steps that it might take
to promote receiver performance. These include, for instance,
discussion in TAC White Papers, including the White Paper on
Interference Limits Policy, the White Paper on Harm Claim Thresholds,
and the White Paper on Risk-informed Interference Assessment, as well
as the PCAST Report. CSMAC also emphasized the importance of developing
more information on receiver filter performance, including working with
the filter technology community on improving filter performance.
Discussion. In this document, the Commission seeks information on
receiver performance parameters that the Commission should consider,
including those identified in the Commission's earlier NOI or others
that commenters consider relevant, as the Commission continues to
examine whether the Commission should consider ways to promote receiver
performance where appropriate. In particular, the Commission seeks to
update and refresh the information presented in any earlier Commission
proceeding or studies identified above, as well as any other relevant
information (studies, analyses, reports, etc.) or past experience that
could be useful as the Commission considers receiver parameters and
receiver performance matters.
As the Commission previously noted, interference immunity is
dependent on several factors in the receiver's technical design as well
as the characteristics of the signal it receives. In considering
approaches to advance receiver performance in ways that take receiver
performance parameters into greater consideration, what specific
parameters (e.g., selectivity, sensitivity, dynamic range, automatic RF
gain control, shielding, modulation method, signal processing) should
be considered? The Commission asks that commenters identify the various
parameters (including but not limited to those listed here) as well as
their typical ranges, that the Commission should consider.
The Commission invites comment on whether there are specific
receiver performance parameters that are more critical for allowing
introduction of new services in the adjacent or neighboring bands
without causing unacceptable interference. Are there any special
hardware designs, software methodologies, or new technologies available
that would significantly enhance receiver immunity performance? Are
there techniques that can be used to improve these receiver performance
parameters? How are various parameters interrelated? Are there factors
that could or should be considered as a group and not independently due
to their cross interactions or relationships with other factors? For
example, to what extent does a receiver's selectivity and sensitivity
affect its dynamic range? What are the various trade-offs that must be
considered when optimizing these parameters when designing a receiver?
Can receiver interference immunity parameters be ranked or rated in
accordance with their level of importance to performance? If the
Commission were to take action, what performance levels should be
associated with each parameter? Should requirements differ by service?
If so, how should they differ for various services? Should performance
levels be required to change over time (i.e., require increased
interference tolerance on a specified timescale or based on some
triggering event)? Commenters advocating such an approach should
provide details as to which parameters should change and over what
timeframe or what the triggering events should be. What procedures or
criteria should be used to determine how to trade off the level of
receiver performance with the practical issues of cost and
implementation?
The Commission seeks comment on any recent technical advancements
in receiver design that the Commission should consider. What is the
state of the art currently and what advances are anticipated? Are there
advancements that have made receivers more resilient or susceptible to
interference? If so, the Commission requests comments on changes in
design that improved or degraded interference immunity. What specific
receiver parameters were affected? Are there organizations or
industries that are particularly helpful in developing such technical
advancements? What current or planned research projects, either
industry or academia based, are focused on receiver
[[Page 29254]]
improvements? How can these organizations and projects help inform the
Commission as it seeks to identify receiver parameters which, if
changed, would lead to the greatest improvement in receiver
performance? Is there any ongoing research related to how receiver
design could affect or influence regulatory and policy issues and
various approaches that the Commission could consider during rulemaking
proceedings? Would it be appropriate or feasible for industry
stakeholders to maintain a library of specifications, best practices,
and trends of receiver interference immunity performance levels?
The Commission requests comment on how receiver performance factors
are related to frequency and operating power, and are these factors are
influenced by the nature of the RF environment (e.g., how does
anticipate in-band and out-of-band power affect receiver performance
and influence design choices)? To what extent, and in what way, are
certain factors that affect interference immunity relatively more
important than others across different types of receivers used in
different radio services or across devices that receive signals
transmitted using different methods of modulation?
In identifying the various receiver parameters on which the
Commission or industry should focus, the Commission notes that there
must be standard techniques to evaluate receivers to ensure that they
meet any voluntary or required regulatory (including mandatory)
benchmarks. The Commission further notes that unlike transmitter
characteristics, many receiver parameters are inherently difficult to
measure. The Commission seeks information on how receiver performance
parameters can be measured, validated, and rated. Is there a subset of
receiver performance parameters that can be easily measured and that
also provide a reasonable characterization of receiver performance? Are
there any industry standards for these types of measurements, created
by standardization bodies such as the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI), Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers
(IEEE), 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), or European
Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) that could be helpful as
the Commission considers various approaches for promoting receiver
performance?
The RF Environment
Understanding the RF environment in which radio services operate,
both today and as anticipated in the future, provides important context
for the Commission's considerations regarding how best to understand
options that could promote better receiver interference immunity
performance as part of improved spectrum management. The Commission
seeks comment on the RF environment and how it should be factored into
consideration.
In the 2003 NOI, the Commission noted that ``existing receivers
are, for the most part, built to provide interference immunity as
determined necessary by their designer/manufacturer to provide
satisfactory service'' which has ``resulted a wide range of immunity
performance across products used within the same services and across
services.'' Accordingly, the Commission sought comment and information
on the interference immunity characteristics of receivers used in
various radio services and how receivers performed in those services;
as part of its inquiry, it requested information about how many units
were at that time in service and about the expected service life of the
receivers in various services. It also inquired about different
receiver specifications that should be considered depending on the
environment in which a receiver operates, or whether instead there
should be a ``generic'' environment in which all receivers should be
expected to perform adequately.
Several studies and recommendations have emphasized the importance
of the Commission and spectrum users to have knowledge of the
characteristics of both transmitters and receivers in order to promote
more efficient spectrum management. The TAC White Paper on Basic
Principles for Assessing Compatibility of New Spectrum Allocations, for
instance, included a principle that radio services would be ``expected
to disclose the relevant standards, guidelines, and operating
characteristics of their systems if they expect protection from harmful
interference. Another report identified the need for more clarity about
the RF environment, which could help inform operators about the type of
systems they need to deploy; it also pointed out that not knowing
system characteristics created a problem of ``asymmetric information''
insofar as the interference protection enjoyed by a receiving system in
one band affects the ability of an adjacent service provider to
operate, but that service provider usually does not have all the
information needed to make choices that will reduce interference). That
report also called for improving transparency for operators, including
the sharing of more information on the characteristics of their
neighbors' adjacent operations, establishing a device performance
registry, and otherwise incentivizing operators to divulge helpful
information.
The CSMAC and PCAST reports also discussed the importance of having
more information on receiver characteristics. CSMAC believed that new
services acquiring or accessing spectrum should be made aware of the
interference characteristics of receiving and transmitting equipment
operating on frequencies that will be shared or used in adjacent bands.
PCAST noted that, given that receiver characteristics can be a
significant factor in limiting operations in adjacent spectrum bands,
the report underscored the importance of knowing receiver
characteristics for spectrum management among operations in adjacent
bands. Further, GAO recognized that one option for helping improve
spectrum management and decision-making would be for the Commission to
gather more information on spectrum use and the characteristics of the
systems, including receivers, although GAO thought that this would
raise concerns about disclosure of proprietary or classified
information.
Finally, recent Commission proceedings have underscored the
importance of having better information on receiver characteristics as
the Commission exercises its spectrum management responsibilities. This
information could enable the Commission to provide greater access to
spectrum for new services, promote more efficient use of spectrum, and
find ways to better understand the nature and extent of potential
interference concerns that may arise with respect to the introduction
of new services. It also could enable consideration of pathways to
address legacy receivers that may raise particular concerns (e.g.,
identifying, modifying, repairing, replacing through transitions).
The Commission requests comment on the current RF environment in
which various services operate. What is the impact of that environment
on the ability for adjacent and nearby operations? Have interference
concerns been addressed effectively or ineffectively with regard to
adjacent band services (e.g., use of guard bands, technical rules,
etc.), or are there other relevant considerations regarding the current
RF environment that can inform its consideration in the proceeding?
As the Commission noted in the 2003 NOI, the receiver interference
environment and demands placed on receiver performance have often been
dependent on the specific type of
[[Page 29255]]
service provided on neighboring frequency bands. In that NOI, it sought
comment on various operational environments and characteristics of the
different types of services at that time (nearly 20 years ago)--
including satellite, public safety, mobile, fixed, and broadcast
services--as they affected minimum receiver performance needs. It also
noted that the types of operations and services occupying neighboring
frequency bands often are a significant factor in the environment in
which a receiver operates, and the Commission sought information on
receiver performance issues of specific types of service and operations
relating to both the in-band and out-of-band environments.
The Commission again seeks comment on the current RF environment
with respect to particular services--including various mobile services
(terrestrial, aeronautical, satellite, maritime), fixed services
(point-to-point microwave, point-to-multipoint, satellite), public
safety services, broadcast services (fixed and mobile), and other
services such as radionavigation, radiolocation, and sensing services
used for scientific applications. The Commission is particularly
interested in obtaining information on whether the RF environment and
receiver interference immunity performance may have changed because of
technological advancements, evolved spectrum management challenges, or
changing spectrum use requirements in seeking to promote more efficient
use of spectrum and greater access to spectrum for the introduction of
new services. In asking about particular services, the Commission also
invites comment on the extent to which considerations about receiver
immunity performance parameters should be grouped based on these
different service groupings, or whether instead some other analytical
approach should be considered. Should there be different approaches to
the Commission's consideration of receiver performance based on the
particular services associated with the receiver, how the receiver
might be integrated into other systems, and/or which services operate
in adjacent or nearby bands?
In seeking comment below, the Commission notes that significant
effort over the last few years has been devoted to providing more
broadband services to the American public. In making allocation
decisions and crafting service rules to accommodate this evolving
landscape, spectrum use has intensified and the Commission has
increasingly explored ways to provide for these valuable services by
creating adjacencies that, in the past, would never have been
contemplated. As an example, in the 3.7 GHz Report and Order (85 FR
22804 (April 23, 2020)), the Commission repurposed fixed satellite
downlink spectrum for terrestrial mobile broadband services resulting
in separation of relatively high power terrestrial services from
sensitive satellite earth stations by only a 20-megahertz guard band.
This decision necessitated a thorough examination of the new RF
environment and adoption of appropriate rules to ensure the satellite
services could coexist with the new terrestrial operations.
In satellite services, receivers must be very sensitive to
successfully receive the low level signals emanating from very distant
satellites. As such, these receivers can be adversely affected by
communications systems operating in adjacent or nearby bands. They may
also experience interference from low level ambient noise sources that
are below the minimum sensitivity level of typical receivers used in
other radio services where the desired signal is significantly
stronger. Whether satellite receivers could experience harmful
interference effects from systems operating outside of the satellite
bands depends on a variety of factors related to the types of
operations in neighboring bands (e.g., fixed versus mobile) and the
technical operating parameters of those services (e.g., power levels,
out-of-band emissions (OOBE) limits, etc.), as well as the actual
receiver interference immunity performance. The Commission invites
comment on RF environment considerations with respect to satellite
bands and adjacent or nearby band operations. What are the most
important parameters to consider for services in adjacent bands to
ensure compatibility with satellite services? The Commission seeks how
best to characterize the adjacent band RF environment in reasonable
performance metrics for satellite receivers. Is it anticipated that
satellite receivers could improve their interference immunity? Over
what time frame? How should the Commission characterize the RF
environment for satellite services and the various trade-offs that are
associated with providing full flexibility for services to operate in
adjacent or nearby bands often with relatively higher power? What
differences should be accounted for when considering fixed vs mobile
and/or geosynchronous versus non-geosynchronous satellite operations?
With today's demands for spectrum access to support new and innovative
technologies, it is becoming increasingly necessary for the Commission
to group unlike services adjacent to each other. To what extent, with
today's technologies, is it necessary for the Commission to group like
services adjacent to each other? As the Commission seeks to make more
spectrum available for introduction of new services, including
terrestrial services, what concerns and approaches should the
Commission consider with respect to promoting improved receiver
interference immunity to better accommodate the existing and
anticipated future RF environment created by adjacent or nearby band
operations?
Public safety operations often have stringent operational
requirements to assure users such as police, fire and emergency medical
service providers whose missions often involve safety of life, that
their RF-based systems will function reliably in all circumstances.
Given these requirements, what should the Commission take into account
when making allocation or service rule decisions for bands adjacent to
and nearby frequency bands used for public safety? How should these
requirements be considered given the receiver immunity characteristics
of today's public safety radios? How is such receiver immunity
anticipated to change in the future and how would that affect the
Commission's flexibility to make spectrum allocation and service rule
decisions in adjacent and nearby bands as the RF environment changes?
The Commission invites comment on how public safety services operate in
today's RF environment, including how receivers operate effectively
without experiencing harmful interference from adjacent or nearby band
services. Are there special considerations regarding the RF environment
in which public safety services operate that the Commission should take
into account as it considers approaches to promote receiver performance
for these services?
The Commission seeks similar information as it pertains to various
mobile services, fixed services, broadcast services, and other
services. Each service category presents different use cases with
different dependencies on the RF environment. Mobile services include
commercial mobile cellular networks that are characterized by a high
degree of station and user density as well as movement of end-user
devices in the vicinity of sectorized base stations with both fixed and
steerable high gain antennas, public land mobile radio systems with
comparatively lower density base stations and user devices but higher
elevation base station antennas, and myriad other services
[[Page 29256]]
with distinct configurations and parameters. Fixed services are often
characterized by highly directional (e.g., point-to-point microwave)
transmit and receive antennas, engineered to meet very high link
reliability requirements. Broadcast services are often characterized by
very tall antennas radiating high-powered signals to user terminals,
either mobile or in fixed locations over large distances. Transmitters
and receivers that serve location (position), navigation, timing, and
space-based sensing services also may have particular RF performance
characteristics. While receivers used in all of these services perform
similar functions (e.g., filtering, amplification, frequency
conversion, etc.), the varied RF environment and applications for each
service affect receiver design. How does the RF environment from
adjacent and nearby bands affect the ability of users in each of these
services to operate? What are the characteristics of current receivers
that enable this coexistence and what is anticipated for future
improvements? How does the current RF environment affect these services
and how would more intensive spectrum use in the future change this RF
environment? What steps can the Commission take to allocate services or
assign users within and amongst these services with less spectral
separation? What can users in these services do to adapt to the
changing RF environment? Are there aspects of any of these services
that may necessitate particular approaches to receiver performance, and
if so what steps can be taken to ensure that receivers in any such
service are sufficiently immune to interference from adjacent and
nearby operations as the RF environment continues to change? Finally,
the Commission asks if it should consider international implications
for services that may have large international components, such as
international flights or cargo shipping? Are there specific issues the
Commission needs to consider regarding receivers that need to operate
in a multitude of countries and territories? Commenters should address
any international regulations (e.g., for aviation safety) that should
be taken into account.
Finally, the Commission invites comment on any other services that
commenters believe have particular concerns not addressed above, and on
which particular considerations should be given by the Commission with
respect to RF environment.
Information on Transmitters and Receivers
The Commission inquires below about what information is currently
available regarding existing incumbent wireless systems--with respect
to transmitter characteristics, receiver characteristics, and an
``integrated systems analysis'' approach and receiver interference
immunity performance concerns. In addition, the Commission requests
comment below on the changing RF environment, including what kinds of
changes are anticipated that the Commission might better prepare for,
and how the Commission might establish its approaches that can
effectively help ensure that receiver interference immunity performance
concerns are addressed as the Commission takes future actions affecting
the current RF environment to enable greater access to spectrum for new
services and more efficient spectrum use.
Specific Information on Transmitter Characteristics
The Commission notes that, under the its long-standing approach to
providing for the introduction of new services, the Commission and
relevant stakeholders generally already have much significant
information already available to them about transmitter characteristics
based on the Commission's existing regulatory framework in which
transmitters in particular services are required to meet various
technical parameters (e.g., power limits, antenna height, OOBE, etc.).
This information is available for the transmitter operations whether
authorized pursuant to rules associated with the licenses or authorized
on an unlicensed basis (under part 15 rules). These rules often have
been the primary means by which the Commission protects adjacent and
nearby band operations, including incumbent receiver operations, from
harmful interference.
As the Commission discusses in this document, efficient spectrum
management seeks to optimize the ability of different types of services
to operate in different allocations under specified rules in a manner
that does not cause harmful interference to others' operations. As the
Commission considers approaches to promoting receiver interference
immunity performance, both transmitter and receiver characteristics are
important for its consideration. This information is useful on a range
of spectrum management issues, including adjacent band interference
concerns, interference limits policies such as harm claim thresholds,
quantitative risk-based assessment of interference, legacy devices, and
cost-benefits, among others.
Discussion. The Commission invites comment on transmitter
characteristics, as well whether more information would be useful as it
pertains to the inquiry into receiver immunity performance.
The Commission seeks comment on the availability of information on
transmitter characteristics in various frequency bands and the
different services allocated to those bands. The Commission notes, of
course, that its rules already provide limits for transmitters (e.g.,
maximum power, OOBE limits, etc.), but the Commission seeks information
on how typical operating values, both median and maximum levels, might
differ from those regulatory limits. In cases where transmitters may
typically operate below the regulatory limits, what factors influence
those operating parameters? The Commission seeks this information for
conducted and radiated power as well as for OOBE. How does the choice
of antenna affect operational levels?
The Commission also inquires about additional transmitter
characteristics that might be helpful to the Commission as it considers
spectrum management options to improve receiver performance. How can
the Commission implement an integrated systems approach that could
promote spectrum policy that balances the burdens on transmitters and
receivers and promotes improved receiver interference immunity
performance where appropriate? In this context, the Commission notes
that transmitters and receivers in different radio services (e.g.,
fixed, mobile, satellite, broadcast, radio astronomy, etc.) have
differing requirements. Should different metrics be used when
evaluating systems in different services? What factors should the
Commission take into account? In some instances, the Commission has
used tools such as requiring PFD or field strength limits at various
geographic boundaries or specific locations. Should the Commission use
these techniques more often to provide additional protection to
receivers? Likewise, are there requirements that can be placed on
receivers if PFD, field strength limits, or other limits are placed on
transmitters that would improve their immunity to harmful interference?
What is the right balance for requiring either or both transmitters and
receivers to comply with certain standards?
[[Page 29257]]
Specific Information on Receiver Characteristics
The Commission requests up-to-date information on what is currently
known about receiver characteristics with respect to different services
and operations across the radio spectrum bands. As noted in the TAC
White Paper on Interference Limits Policy and TAC White Paper on Risk-
informed Interference Assessment, relevant knowledge of both
transmitter and receiver characteristics would be crucial for
implementation of those approaches. Similarly, the White Paper on Basic
Principles for Assessing Compatibility of New Spectrum Allocations
recommended that services under Commission jurisdiction that seek
protection from harmful interference should be expected to disclose the
relevant standards, guidelines, and operating characteristics of their
systems. While the Commission notes that several commenting parties
supported gathering additional information on receiver characteristics,
others opposed this based on proprietary and other concerns.
In addition, some reports have emphasized the importance of clarity
about the RF environment and how the lack of information (often in the
form of asymmetric information) available to relevant stakeholders,
particularly with regard to receiving systems, can impede the ability
of parties seeking to introduce new services to make appropriate
choices to reduce potential interference, and have recommended
improving transparency for operators by requiring the sharing of more
information on technical characteristics that affect adjacent band
operations. GAO also identified a lack of sharing among different
industries when developing receiver specifications, and noted that one
option for the Commission would be to gather additional information on
the characteristics of the different systems, including receiver
characteristics. CSMAC also believed that new entrants accessing
spectrum should be made aware of the interference characteristics of
receiving and transmitting equipment, and noted that filter performance
of both receivers and transmitters were important considerations. Both
GAO and CSMAC suggested consideration of establishing a repository or
clearinghouse of information. Several reports, including GAO's, also
have noted that, were the Commission to consider requiring that more
information on receiver characteristics be made available, such a
requirement raises concerns about confidential, proprietary, or
classified information.
Discussion. The Commission invites comment on whether the
Commission should consider requiring that more information about
receiver characteristics be made available. Are there certain
circumstances in which having additional information available to the
Commission and relevant stakeholders would be helpful to introducing
new services in adjacent or nearby bands? Could this information help
serve the Commission's goal of providing for more efficient use of
spectrum so that there is greater access to spectrum for new services?
The Commission asks that commenters help the Commission as it considers
whether to require additional information on receiver characteristics.
If commenters support the availability of more information, the
Commission invites commenters to indicate the types of information on
receiver interference immunity performance would be most helpful in
serving its goals of promoting more efficient use of spectrum and how
best to manage the information.
The Commission requests that commenters discuss particular contexts
in which having more information on receiver characteristics would be
helpful, provided of course that any proprietary or classified concerns
can be effectively addressed. As discussed elsewhere in this document,
having sufficient relevant information regarding both transmitters and
receivers is seen as a critical ingredient to promoting more efficient
use of spectrum and providing a more effective pathway for addressing
issues related to legacy receivers. With regard to voluntary approaches
in which potential adjacent band use is under consideration,
information on receiver characteristics could be helpful to all
relevant stakeholders in order to address interference concerns.
The Commission seeks comment on whether there are services or bands
in which commenters believe that additional information on receiver
characteristics is not necessary, such as bands where necessary
incentives are already in place for promoting receiver performance? On
the other hand, what services or bands have insufficient available
information on receiver characteristics, especially where the
incentives are not sufficient with regard to promoting receiver
performance? The Commission asks that commenter provide their thoughts
about what factors the Commission might consider if it were to consider
requiring the availability of more information on receiver
characteristics.
Also, as noted, if the Commission were to consider requiring that
more information be provided regarding receiver characteristics, how
should the Commission address concerns around proprietary information,
or other concerns? As for propriety concerns, would, for instance, the
Commission's existing procedures for addressing parties' proprietary
concerns in proceedings be an appropriate model? The Commission invites
commenters to assist the Commission as it considers any potential
requirements regarding information on receiver characteristics and the
need to protect information that should not be publicly disclosed.
Integrated Systems Analysis
Understanding whole systems--both transmitters and receivers and
their interaction under current rules and requirements can be an
important consideration as the Commission seeks comment on the current
RF environment. Two TAC White Papers proposed that the Commission focus
more on an ``integrated systems'' approach as part of its spectrum
management activities. An integrated systems approach takes into
account every component of a radio based communication system involved
with either the transmission and/or reception of a signal. The White
Paper on Spectrum Efficiency Metrics discusses the potential role of an
``integrated systems'' approach in more effectively evaluating spectrum
efficiency metrics. The White Paper on Risk-informed Interference
Assessment recommends that the Commission should seek to include in its
assessment of harmful interference a quantitative risk analysis, one
which considers the various likelihood/consequence combinations for
multiple different potential interference hazard scenarios among
transmitters and receivers, which would complement the Commission's
evaluation of other assessments as it determines how best to serve the
public interest. Both of these approaches require that relevant
information on potentially affected radio systems be available--
including characteristics of both transmitters and receivers.
As the Commission has noted above, several reports have called for
more transparency with respect to relevant information on both
transmitters and receivers. Some also have called for developing a
repository of information on transmitters and receivers.
Discussion. The Commission invites comment on whether the
Commission should consider developing more of an integrated systems
approach to spectrum management. What kinds of
[[Page 29258]]
information regarding transmitters and receivers would be relevant and
helpful? Is there some way that more information on transmitters and
receivers should be made more transparent and more readily available
for the Commission or relevant stakeholders? To what extent would some
form of repository be appropriate and helpful? If so, how would
commenters suggest that any proprietary concerns be addressed.
Managing the Changing RF Environment
As the Commission has discussed, the RF environment continues to
change in face of the need for greater access to spectrum for new uses.
Given this, it is critical to address considerations affecting
potential adjacent and nearby band interference concerns in an
appropriate and timely fashion. It is important that as the Commission
anticipates these changes the relevant stakeholders (e.g., incumbents
adjacent or nearby to bands that may be reallocated) are notified so
that appropriate steps can be taken to address those stakeholders
potentially affected. If improved receiver interference immunity
performance would be appropriate, several also have recommended that
the Commission provide for an appropriate transition or phase-in
approach. GAO noted the lack of predictability about the changing
future spectrum environment made it more difficult to accommodate
repurposed uses of spectrum, and that it could take significant time
and effort to upgrade and replace receivers where necessary.
Discussion. The Commission seeks comment on how the Commission can
promote smoother and more effective transitions among potentially
affected users as the RF environment continues to change to accommodate
greater access to spectrum that serve the public interest. What steps
should be taken to provide for greater predictability or transparency
for potentially affected stakeholders, including those whose receivers
may potentially be affected? How much advance notice from the
Commission might be appropriate to provide to potentially affected
stakeholders as the RF environment continues to change? In what ways
should such advance notice be provided? What steps should the
Commission consider to identify and inform potentially affected
incumbent operators? To the extent that commenters believe that any
particular past experiences regarding particular steps that either were
taken, or could or should have been helpful if taken, the Commission
asks that commenters offer their thoughts and recommendations for the
Commission's consideration as it seeks to develop policies and take
actions that promote better transitions in the future.
Also, considering that the RF environment can be anticipated to
continue to change, the Commission seeks comment to whether and how the
Commission could best clarify expectations for the performance of all
radio equipment--both transmitters and receivers--in a changing RF
environment. The Commission also invites comment on the importance of
promoting more spectrally efficient devices that are designed to
anticipate or assume that potential new uses of spectrum might occur in
adjacent or nearby spectrum.
The Commission notes that it also raises some of these issues in a
separate section below on potential Commission policy and guidance. In
that section, the Commission requests comment on whether the Commission
should consider providing additional policy or guidance specifically as
to expectations that would apply to transmitters and receivers in
adjacent band operations, including regarding expectations relating to
receiver interference immunity performance.
Approaches for Promoting Improved Receiver Interference Immunity
Performance
As the Commission seeks comment on various approaches to consider
as it moves forward, it is important to provide an overall framework
for considering how the Commission might incorporate receiver
performance considerations into its spectrum management decision-
making. The Commission inquires about whether and how to factor
receiver interference immunity performance into spectrum policy in the
form of incentives, guidelines, or regulatory requirements. These could
include industry-led voluntary approaches, such as industry-developed
guidelines and standards. They also could include additional Commission
guidance, whether in terms of clarifying Commission policy, issuing a
policy statement, or considering ways to advance approaches such as an
interference limits policy, and/or a harm claim threshold approach
where that might be helpful. The Commission also notes that in
particular circumstances it might want to consider adopting specific
rule requirements if other approaches would not be sufficient.
The Commission invites interested parties to provide their up-to-
date views, observations, and recommendations on these different types
of approaches that it discuss below. The Commission envisions that
these approaches could include industry-led voluntary guidelines and
efforts, additional Commission policy or guidelines, and specific
mandatory requirements, and can be part of the solution in promoting
improved receiver performance where that may be appropriate. The
Commission seeks general comment here as to how these different
approaches can work together to help optimize the promotion of receiver
performance and other system design measures that would reduce
susceptibility to interference and best serve the public interest. The
Commission invites comments on how it might find an appropriate balance
or mix of these different approaches.
Industry-Led Voluntary Approaches
In this section, the Commission requests that commenters provide
up-to-date information on various industry-led voluntary approaches,
including standards and guidelines, that currently promote receiver
performance. The Commission requests comment on where voluntary
approaches are effective, where they could be more effective, and what
the Commission could consider in order to enhance the effectiveness of
voluntary approaches.
The Commission notes that in the 2003 NOI on Receiver Performance
Specifications the Commission expressed a general preference for
relying primarily on voluntary approaches and guidelines that are
supported and managed by industry, in conjunction with user groups as
appropriate, believing this approach is most flexible and responsive to
changes in technology, consumer desires, and economic conditions. The
Commission believes that spectrum users such as commercial spectrum
licensees often have the requisite incentives to reach voluntary
agreements that provide for additional spectrum use. At the same time,
however, it recognized that a purely voluntary approach may produce an
incumbency problem if owners of non-conforming receivers limit
efficient use of spectrum. The Commission inquired specifically about
various voluntary approaches at that time, and many commenters in that
proceeding generally supported a voluntary approach to improving
receivers (such as through development of industry standards and
guidelines). Since that time, many have continued to assert that
voluntary approaches are the most efficient and effective means of
promoting receiver performance and promote more efficient use of
spectrum.
[[Page 29259]]
The Commission continues to believe that the development and
implementation of various voluntary approaches, taken together
throughout the wireless sector, in many situations can provide the best
and most effective means of promoting interference immunity in the most
efficient and effective way. The Commission seeks detailed comment on
the various ways in which voluntary standards and guidelines have, and
will continue to, serve its goal of promoting improvements in receiver
performance that will enable greater access to spectrum. To what extent
are voluntary approaches sufficient to ensure that minimum receiver
interference immunity performance can be achieved in some or all bands?
As the Commission considers voluntary standards and guidelines, the
Commission also notes that several studies and commenters have pointed
out challenges that may be associated with the development of voluntary
approaches in certain situations, either because the necessary
incentives may not be present or the necessary information may not be
available. While describing several voluntary efforts have helped
improve receiver interference immunity performance, GAO also noted that
in many situations there were challenges that affect the development of
voluntary standards, including the lack of coordination across
industries when developing voluntary standards (e.g., while standards
may be developed by a single industry, these standards may not be
coordinated with representatives of others that could be affected, such
as adjacent band users). GAO also noted that there could be a lack of
incentives for manufacturers and spectrum users to incur costs
associated with using more robust receivers (noting that there may be
few incentives for users in one band to incur costs to improving
receivers for operations if the adjacent band users gain the benefits);
it concluded that, even though there can be sufficient incentives for
addressing receiver performance within the same service, such
incentives often do not exist for different services or adjacent band
services.
Several reports and commenters have suggested that voluntary
approaches could benefit from the use of multi-stakeholder groups in
helping develop appropriate voluntary standards. Several also noted,
however, that oftentimes not all of the relevant stakeholders (e.g.,
those potentially affected by the development of voluntary standards,
including those with interests associated with adjacent band use),
participated in the development of voluntary standards.
GAO also noted that a compendium of current industry standards or
guidance may not always be available, and could help facilitate
knowledge on any standards or guidelines. Finally, GAO pointed out
that, while voluntary standards and guidelines could help promote
receiver performance, the extent to which they are in fact used is
generally unknown.
Discussion. In this document, the Commission invites comment from
interested parties to provide up-to-date information on the various
voluntary approaches, including industry-led approaches, that currently
serve to promote better receiver performance and generally more
interference-resistant system designs. The Commission inquires about
their views on the role of voluntary standards and guidelines to
promote improved receiver performance by providing greater resilience
to harmful interference, promote more efficient use of spectrum, and
enable innovative new services to be introduced. The Commission also
inquires about the steps it might take to promote development and use
of voluntary standards and guidelines.
The Commission invites comment on whether voluntary standards and
guidelines that have previously existed or currently exist serve as an
effective means of promoting receiver performance. What are these
standards and guidelines, and how effective have they been in promoting
receiver performance? Which industries helped to establish them, and
which stakeholders were involved in their development? Are these
standards or guidelines publicly available? The Commission invites
broad comment on where these approaches work well and help promote
receiver performance in today's RF environment and could help promote
improvements in a changing RF environment. The Commission asks
commenters to comment on the extent to which the necessary incentives
are in place to develop effective voluntary approaches.
The Commission requests comment on whether there could be
improvements in the ways that voluntary approaches can be developed and
used. To what extent have such efforts included relevant stakeholders?
If additional stakeholders could help improve such voluntary efforts,
how might they be involved in future efforts.
The Commission also requests comment on situations or cases in
which current voluntary approaches may not be sufficient with respect
to promote improved receivers in certain situations and contexts (e.g.,
addressing adjacent band compatibility issues). The Commission asks
that commenters identify and discuss situations in which voluntary
approaches may not promote improvements in receiver performance where
that would help promote more efficient use of spectrum. Are there ways
to ensure that there are appropriate incentives for promoting effective
voluntary approaches?
The Commission invites comment as to the appropriate role for
multi-stakeholder groups in this process. Are there particular
situations in which commenters believe a multi-stakeholder group
involvement would be appropriate? If so, which stakeholders should be
involved, and how?
As discussed elsewhere in this document, the Commission is seeking
comment about both transmitter and receiver characteristics as it
considers approaches to improving receiver performance. The Commission
seeks comment on whether more transparent or available information on
transmitters and receivers could help promote more effective voluntary
approaches.
Finally, the Commission requests comment on whether and how it
could help promote effective voluntary approaches.
Commission Policy and Guidance
In this section, the Commission inquire about the kinds of policy
and guidance that could be helpful as the it considers whether and how
to incorporate receiver performance more directly into spectrum
management decisions. The Commission recognizes that such policy and
guidance could take many forms, and some mix of approaches may be
appropriate; the Commission invites commenters to help as it considers
these various approaches.
Many contend that the Commission's general spectrum management
policy on the role of receiver interference immunity performance should
be clarified. Some have suggested that the Commission's approach to
date on receiver performance is not been sufficiently conducive to
promoting more efficient spectrum use or promoting greater access to
the spectrum resources for new services and uses. For instance, in the
White Paper on Interference Limits Policy the TAC Working Group
suggested that expectations of receiver performance have almost always
been implicit and often based solely on the ability of the receiver to
perform its desired function in the existing spectral environment,
which has led to conflicts due to a change in the RF environment and/or
a
[[Page 29260]]
differing understanding of requisite receiver performance. Authors in
one paper recommended that, in order to provide better incentives to
build more interference-robust systems in future allocations and put
more spectrum to its highest and best use, the Commission should move
away from any general interference protection model in spectrum
management that, when considering permitting new services in adjacent
bands, often provides incumbent users (those licensed first) protection
against any interference resulting from subsequent rule changes. They
stated that adjacent band interference protection for incumbents should
not be static, and that incumbents should be incentivized to improve
their systems' interference resilience in the most cost-effective way,
including the use of receivers that are more interference-immune to
interference exposure from adjacent bands.
One report observed that certain assumptions that many spectrum
users make are not conducive to promoting more efficient use of
spectrum--including that operators of wireless systems tend to rely on
their neighbors being quiet, often do not account for changes in the RF
environment, and often do not realize that receivers are a part of the
problem (and instead assume that the neighboring transmitters are the
problem). That report also concluded that there is ``poor knowledge
transfer'' among all affected parties regarding the interference
problems related to receiver performance and potential resolution, and
suggested that regulators could provide more helpful notice to
operators regarding the need for better receivers. Another report
recommended improved transparency for operators (e.g., sharing more
information on the characteristics of their neighbors' adjacent
operations, establishing a device performance registry, incentivizing
operators to divulge the required information); they also stated that
more incentives should be provided for promoting more robust receivers,
possibly including issuance of a Commission Policy Statement (e.g., to
the effect that receivers would no longer be protected if they do not
include appropriate receiver selectivity).
GAO also noted in its report that current practices and policies
related to receiver performance may in effect constrain repurposing of
spectrum, and that the lack of predictability about future spectrum
management also could be a hindrance to a more effective spectrum
policy. CSMAC stated that spectrum managers should consider incentives,
rules, and policies to improve the capability of receiving devices to
reject adjacent channel interference. The Commission also notes that
the Presidential Memorandum on Wireless Innovation encouraged the
development of measures concerning receivers that would promote design
and deployment of receivers that are protected from harmful
interference from adjacent band operations in cases where there is
``reasonable use'' of adjacent band spectrum. Several have emphasized
that as the Commission considers developing new policies or guidance,
it also considers whether some transition or phase-in period would be
appropriate.
Below the Commission considers several possible approaches and
invite comment. These include (1) providing clearer Commission policy
guidance on the role of receivers and expectations about their
performance; (2) gathering relevant information on receiver
characteristics; (3) issuing a policy statement; and (4) promoting an
interference limit policy such as harm claim threshold approaches where
that might be appropriate. The Commission also inquires about whether
it should consider any of these approaches, a transition or phase-in of
some kind might be appropriate.
General Policy Guidance
The Commission first seeks comment on whether it should consider
establishing clearer guidance on Commission policies relating to
receivers and receiver performance in spectrum management going
forward. The Commission inquires whether such policy guidance could
serve to establish clearer expectations for all spectrum users as to
receiver performance, including in the future as the Commission seeks
to enable greater access to spectrum for new users and promote more
efficient use of spectrum by receivers. The Commission also inquires
whether and how a clearer policy could help incentivize a more forward-
looking approach to the role of improved receiver performance in a
changing RF environment.
The Commission offers possible approaches below and seeks comment.
The Commission also invites commenters to identify other approaches
regarding Commission policy that it should consider.
Establishing clearer expectations about the extent to which
incumbent receivers will receive interference protection as new
services are introduced. As noted above, some have suggested that in
order to promote greater access to spectrum and promote more efficient
use of spectrum, the Commission should establish clearer policies on
the extent to which incumbent receivers will be protected in the future
regardless of spectrum efficiency concerns. In particular, some state
that the Commission should be more transparent that incumbent receiver
operators should not simply assume that the introduction of
transmitters in adjacent or nearby bands is the entire focus for
addressing interference compatibility issues or that receiver
performance will not be considered in the Commission's spectrum
management decisions. The Commission invites comment on whether it
should establish a clearer or explicit policy regarding the extent to
which incumbent receivers will receive interference protection as the
RF environment continues to change and new services are introduced into
adjacent or nearby bands. The Commission also requests that, to the
extent commenters believe such policy clarification would be
beneficial, they suggest the types of clarifications that the
Commission should consider. To what extent would such a policy-based
expectation require clarification of incumbent users' spectrum rights
and responsibilities?
The Commission also invites comment on how such a policy
clarification might be implemented with regard to incumbent users. When
might such a policy make sense? How might such a policy be implemented
with respect to adjacent band operations, including when both services
have primary allocations? As to implementation of such an approach,
what kinds of factors and timeframes should be considered? For
instance, should the amount of time an adjacent band incumbent has been
operating be a factor in considering what action the Commission should
take? Should the expected life (e.g., average useful life) of receivers
in the affected band be considered to reduce the potential for stranded
investments?
Clarifying the importance of assigned frequency bands and
allocations with respect to receiver performance. Several have
suggested or recommended that one component of better spectrum
management would include Commission clarification of the respective
responsibilities associated with both transmitters and receivers in
spectrum allocations and assignments, and that this could include being
more explicit regarding whether receiver interference immunity
performance should be tied to the allocation or assignment under which
the receivers are authorized. In the 2003 NOI on Receiver Performance
Specifications, for instance, the Commission specifically
[[Page 29261]]
inquired about how receiver performance should be related to the
management of spectrum and uses in adjacent bands, including whether
the definition of assigned frequency bands and areas already provided
``substantial definition to the interference environment in which
licensees must design their systems.''
The Commission also notes that the TAC's White Paper on Basic
Principles for Assessing Compatibility of New Spectrum Allocations
proposed that the Commission consider establishing ``Basic Principles''
regarding both transmitters and receivers with respect to spectrum
allocations, and specifically proposed as one principle that
``[r]eceivers are responsible for mitigating interference outside their
assigned channels'' (while it also proposed that ``[t]ransmitters are
responsible for minimizing the amount of their transmitted energy that
appears outside their assigned frequencies and licensed areas'').
Further, the Commission notes that ITU Radio Regulations, for instance,
recognize the importance of expectations regarding receiver
performance, and provide that receivers should provide adequate
performance such that they do not suffer from interference from
transmitters operating at a reasonable distance. Also, as the
Commission has discussed above, recent proceedings have highlighted the
relationship of receiver performance vis-[agrave]-vis assigned
frequency bands and allocations, as well as expectations on receiver
performance regarding interference from adjacent or nearby operators.
Accordingly, the Commission inquires whether the Commission's
spectrum management policy should clarify that, as a general matter of
the spectrum regulatory policy, receiver manufacturers and operators
are expected to take into account their allocation and assignment, or
take into consideration designing and using receivers that include
interference immunity parameters that would ensure coexistence with
transmitters operating with reasonable spectral separation from the
band in which the receivers are authorized to operate. To the extent
that commenters believe that policy guidance is appropriate, the
Commission asks that they propose specifics about the guidance they
think appropriate, explain why, and, depending upon the guidance they
suggest, indicate the extent to which a transition period may be
appropriate.
Development of performance criteria or ratings. The Commission also
invites comment on whether it should consider developing particular
receiver performance criteria, or some form of ratings, that would
serve to encourage the design, manufacturer, and deployment of
receivers that promote receiver interference immunity and adequately
protect the receivers from interference from current and future uses of
adjacent band spectrum. If the Commission were to consider developing
performance criteria or ratings, how would these be developed? With
regard to performance criteria, what specific metric(s) should the
Commission consider? For instance, should the criteria be tied to a
certain level of performance at the edge of the allocation? The
Commission asks that commenters suggest specific criteria and explain
their rationale for such criteria. Similarly, the Commission invites
comment on whether some form of ratings should be considered. If so,
what would comprise the ratings, how many levels of ratings would be
appropriate, and how would the ratings be determined? Can ratings
effectively be designed that would aide operators and consumers in
using more interference immune receivers? Could particular receiver
performance criteria or ratings be developed that could be incorporated
into voluntary standards or Commission requirements? How might
performance criteria or ratings best be implemented?
Informing relevant stakeholders of any Commission forthcoming
policy guidance. If the Commission were to provide additional policy
guidance, the Commission recognizes that it would be important that
potentially affected stakeholders are apprised of the guidance. The
Commission asks for comment on how the means by which it and others
could most effectively identify and communicate such policy guidance.
Transitions. If the Commission were to consider providing
additional policy guidance, the Commission invites comment on the
considerations that would be associated with policy implementation.
Depending on the policy guidance, are there particular transition
concerns that the Commission should take as to receivers that may need
to be repaired, modified, or replaced? Would such considerations depend
on the particulars involved as to specific situations and bands? The
Commission asks that commenters help it take into account the various
factors that should be considered.
Other policy guidance. The Commission invites commenters to offer
other ideas or measures for Commission consideration regarding further
guidance. Commenters should explain their suggestions and provide
detailed discussion of why such policy guidance would be appropriate
and how the Commission might consider implementing such guidance.
Policy Statement
In this section the Commission invites comment on whether the
Commission should consider issuing a policy statement to establish a
clear and transparent Commission policy that can help bring receiver
interference immunity performance into fuller consideration in spectrum
management decisions, as some have suggested. The Commission first
inquires generally whether a policy statement would be constructive.
The Commission then inquires about possible models for a policy
statement.
Issuing a policy statement. Through the years, the Commission has
issued various policy statements to guide public considerations and to
advance spectrum management pursuits. For instance, in 1999 the
Commission issued a Policy Statement on ``Principles for Reallocation
of Spectrum to Encourage Development of Telecommunications Technologies
for the New Millennium,'' in which the Commission noted the
unparalleled growth of wireless services in the 1990s and ``set forth
guiding principles for the Commission's spectrum management
activities''--including ways to promote greater efficiency in spectrum
markets, make more spectrum available, and identify new bands for
spectrum reallocation--as the Commission engaged in spectrum management
in 2000 and beyond. In 2000, the Commission issued its Policy Statement
on ``Principles for Promoting the Efficient Use of Spectrum by
Encouraging the Development of Secondary Markets,'' in which it set
forth the Commission's vision and plans for facilitating secondary
markets for radio spectrum that will allow and encourage licensees to
make all or portions of their assigned frequencies or service areas
available to other entities and uses. Both Policy Statements helped lay
the foundation for the Commission's forthcoming rulemakings
implementing some of the enunciated policies in the early 2000s.
In recommending that the Commission create more incentives for
building more robust receivers, Silicon Flatirons suggested that
issuance of a policy statement could be useful. Also, as discussed
above, many commenters and reports have called for greater Commission
clarity on how receiver performance considerations should be factored
into the Commission's spectrum management in ways that would provide
clearer expectations and
[[Page 29262]]
greater predictability for all spectrum users in the future.
The Commission seeks comment on whether it should consider issuing
a policy statement to more directly and transparently incorporate
relevant and appropriate focus on receivers as part of a balanced
approach--i.e., considering the important role of both transmitters and
receivers--to promoting more efficient spectrum use in the Commission's
spectrum management decision-making. Would adoption of a policy
statement be helpful in promoting the Commission's efforts to
incorporate receiver interference immunity performance considerations
and promote more efficient spectrum use in the current and evolving RF
environment? What purposes could be served by issuance of a policy
statement? Would a policy statement, for instance, help establish
clearer expectations and greater predictability for spectrum users
going forward?
If the Commission were to consider issuing a policy statement, what
specific framework, features, factors, or statements should be
included? The Commission asks that commenters in favor of the issuance
of a policy statement set forth their recommendations, including
discussion of the various goals of the policy statement, any suggested
language, and the reasons for such language.
Possible models for a policy statement. The Commission invites
comment on possible models for crafting a policy statement. Commenters
should identify any such models, and any specific framework or language
in those models that they believe should be considered.
In particular, the Commission inquires whether the TAC's White
Paper on Basic Principles for Assessing Compatibility of New Spectrum
Allocations or some modification or variant of that framework, could
supply a possible and constructive framework for consideration in
developing a future Commission policy statement. As the TAC explained:
Basic principles of spectrum utilization are important for all
involved parties to consider, not just the regulatory authorities.
Realization of certain facts of communications technology will
temper the expectations of the incumbent services using spectrum
resources as well as the new services that are trying to gain entry
into the spectrum.
As contemplated, with the nine ``basic principles'' the TAC sought
to promote ``good neighbor policies'' among spectrum users (generally
found at spectral boundaries) that better enable adjacent and nearby
spectrum users to ``get along'' with each other. Several of these
principles directly related to expectations about both transmitters and
receivers. Given the many differences between the requirements of
various types of systems, the TAC did not expect the application of
these principles to result in a concrete set of regulations that fit
all radio services in the same way, but nonetheless believed that the
principles can be applied to all systems and result in an optimal
solution for each service. As discussed in the basic principles below,
several of the principles focused on establishing expectations and
responsibilities concerning receiver performance within the larger
context of spectrum management, including establishing that harmful
interference is affected by the characteristics of both a transmitting
service and a nearby receiving service, that receivers are responsible
for mitigating interference outside their assigned channels, and that
services under the FCC's jurisdiction are expected to disclose the
relevant standards, guidelines and characteristics of their systems if
they expect protection from harmful interference.
The basic principles identified by the TAC Working Group included
three functional groups--``Interference Realities'' (realities of
interference everyone must accept), ``Responsibilities of Services''
(responsibilities that services have to mitigate their interaction with
other services), and ``Regulatory Requirements and Actions''
(requirements for, and actions that should be taken by, regulatory
authorities with respect to spectrum allocations):
Interference Realities--
<bullet> Principle 1: Harmful interference is affected by the
characteristics of both a transmitting service and a nearby receiving
service in frequency, space or time.
<bullet> Principle 2: All services should plan for
non[hyphen]harmful interference from signals that are nearby in
frequency, space or time, both now and for any changes that occur in
the future.
<bullet> Principle 3: Even under ideal conditions, the
electromagnetic environment is unpredictable. Operators should expect
and plan for occasional service degradation or interruption. The
Commission should not base its rules on exceptional events.
Responsibilities of Services.
<bullet> Principle 4: Receivers are responsible for mitigating
interference outside their assigned channels;
<bullet> Principle 5: Systems are expected to use techniques at all
layers of the stack to mitigate degradation from interference; and
<bullet> Principle 6: Transmitters are responsible for minimizing
the amount of their transmitted energy that appears outside their
assigned frequencies and licensed areas.
Regulatory Requirements and Actions.
<bullet> Principle 7: Services under FCC jurisdiction are expected
to disclose the relevant standards, guidelines and operating
characteristics of their systems to the Commission if they expect
protection from harmful interference;
<bullet> Principle 8: The Commission may apply Interference Limits
to quantify rights of protection from harmful interference.
<bullet> Principle 9: A quantitative analysis of interactions
between services shall be required before the Commission can make
decisions regarding levels of protection.
The Commission notes that several commenters expressed interest in
having it explore these principles insofar as they pertained to
expectations and responsibilities associated with receivers and
receiver interference immunity performance, while others expressed
particular concern about particular principles and their application to
certain types of receivers. The Commission invites comment on the
principles in the White Paper as they concern a Commission policy
statement. Commenters should discuss their views and concerns on
particular principles, and whether revisions or clarifications on any
of the principles or on their applicability should be considered.
The Commission also asks whether there are other models that the
Commission could draw from as it considers a policy statement. For
instance, would ITU Radio Regulations (RR) or relevant ITU-R
publications (e.g., ITU-R recommendations) that pertain to receiver
performance (along with transmitter performance) provide a useful
framework or particular language for consideration? As discussed above,
several provisions in the Radio Regulations concern ``technical
characteristics of stations'' associated with both the transmitter and
receiver equipment and performance with respect to each other and in
promoting more efficient and effective use of spectrum. As regards
receivers in particular, the ITU provided regulations on several
aspects on the role of receiver design and performance that would that
serve to promote more efficient use of spectrum--including receiver
design (RR No. 3.3--taking into account technical measures to reduce
susceptibility to interference), bandwidth considerations (RR No. 3.9--
[[Page 29263]]
keeping bandwidths at lowest values that the service permits), spectrum
efficiency (RR No. 3.11--receivers should promote efficient use of
spectrum), technical characteristics (RR No. 3.12--receiver selectivity
that ensures efficient utilization of spectrum), and performance
characteristics (RR No. 3.13--sufficient levels of receiver
interference immunity performance so that receivers do not suffer from
interference from transmitters operating at ``a reasonable distance'').
Would any of these ITU references provide helpful guidance for
consideration to be included in a Commission policy statement?
Similarly, would the European Union Radio Equipment Directive provide
useful guidance? That Directive also recognized the important role of
both transmitter and receiver equipment in spectrum management. The
Directive further indicated that ``Essential Requirements'' includes a
requirement that radio equipment (both transmitters and receivers)
should be constructed so as to ensure ``an adequate level of
electromagnetic compatibility'' and in a manner that ``both effectively
uses and supports the efficient use of radio spectrum in order to avoid
harmful interference.
Finally, the Commission invites comment on any other models or
other sources (e.g., proposals, reports, studies, etc.) that could
provide useful discussion for Commission consideration about a policy
statement and specific features or language that should be included.
Interference Limits Policy, Including Harm Claim Thresholds
In the White Paper on Interference Limits Policy issued in 2013,
the TAC discussed an interference limits policy as well as one
particular form of such a policy, harm claim thresholds. In 2014, the
TAC followed up this discussion with its White Paper on Harm Claim
Thresholds. The TAC Working Groups authoring these two White Papers
believed that an interference limits policy would promote more
transparent consideration of receivers in spectrum management and
promote better receiver performance policy in a more flexible manner if
the Commission adopted receiver performance mandates. As discussed
below, many commenters were in favor of the Commission further
exploring interference limits policy, and harm claim thresholds in
particular.
The Commission summarizes at a high level these approaches below--
but it direct commenters to review and address the details set forth in
the two White Papers themselves. The Commission invites comment on
whether and how an interference limits policy, and a harm claim
thresholds approach in particular, should be considered by the
Commission.
In these papers, the TAC working groups noted that, in order to
meet the growing demand for wireless service, the number of wireless
systems that operate in close proximity in frequency, space, and time
need to increase, and that while there are many benefits derived from
packing wireless systems among these dimensions (i.e., higher system
density), there is also an increased risk of service disruption due to
inter-service interference. The TAC stated that implementing an
interference limit policy would bring receivers into the spectrum
management picture, and do so with minimal regulatory intervention. As
explained in the White Paper on Interference Limits Policy:
Increased density requires more care in optimizing the whole
wireless system structure, particularly regarding the interactions
between transmitters and receivers on either side of band
boundaries. . . . [R]eceivers that cannot reject interfering signals
transmitted outside their assigned frequencies can preclude or
constrain new allocations in adjacent bands. A holistic system view
that facilitates trade-offs between receiver and transmitter
performance requirements is needed.
Receivers can be brought into the policy picture with minimal
regulatory intervention by introducing an ``interference limits''
policy; that is, the establishment of ceilings, called harm claim
thresholds, on in-band and out-of-band interfering signals that must
be exceeded before a radio system can claim that it is experiencing
harmful interference. Manufacturers and operators are left to
determine whether and how to build receivers that can tolerate such
interference, or even determine that they will choose to ignore
these limits. Harm claim thresholds thus allow the FCC to provide
guidance on the optimization of receiver performance without unduly
restricting technical and commercial choice.
The TAC contemplated rules that explicitly state when receivers may
and may not claim harmful interference. Such rules would be a necessary
complement to existing transmitter regulation that could facilitate the
transition to more intensive frequency use by providing more clarity to
service providers about the baseline regulatory and radio interference
context going forward. The TAC stated that harm claim thresholds could
be particularly useful in bands with many diverse and frequently
emerging new technologies. As envisioned, the approach would delegate
decisions about system design, including receiver performance, to
manufacturers and operators, giving operators the flexibility to decide
best how to deal with the RF environment (i.e., signal levels in
adjacent or nearby bands which may be viewed as interference) they need
to tolerate, whether by improving receiver selectivity, deploying more
base stations, using internal guard bands, or accepting occasional
service degradation given their choice of receiver design. Further,
under such an approach, the private sector would play a key role in
developing receiver specifications and standards that ensure adequate
performance given the harm claim thresholds of a particular allocation.
The TAC also recognized, however, that a harm claim threshold approach
may require special consideration in cases where receivers are not
controlled by a license holder or for life-safety systems like aviation
and public safety.
As the White Paper on Harm Claim Thresholds explained, the goal of
a harm claim threshold is to reduce the uncertainty among radio system
operators regarding the level of interference that one operator is
entitled to impose on another operator, and that a related goal has
been to find ways the Commission could encourage more efficient radio
service coexistence, including ways to encourage receiver performance
improvement without mandating receiver performance specifications. As
articulated in the White Paper on Interference Limits, a guiding
principle of this approach is that the number of interference disputes
that require Commission resolution could be reduced if the
responsibility to mitigate interference is more clearly assigned (i.e.,
if lines are more clearly drawn between the rights of transmitters and
receivers).
The TAC recommended that the Commission develop, where necessary,
the expertise and that multi-stakeholder groups form to investigate
interference limits policy at suitable high-value inter-service
boundaries and suggested potential ways about implementing an
interference limits policy. The TAC suggested introducing a harm claim
thresholds approach on a gradual basis and suggested a three-step
process for how the Commission might roll out rules and regulations on
an interference limits policy, including harm claim thresholds. First,
the Commission could identify frequency allocation boundaries where
harm claim thresholds would bring immediate value, such as adjacent
allocations where intensified use is anticipated. Second, the
Commission would initiate a consultation process involving stakeholders
in multiple services that span band boundaries.
[[Page 29264]]
Such multi-stakeholder groups could work collectively to develop
options at these spectrum boundaries (e.g., methods for determining
harm claim thresholds, enforcement and conflict adjudication
mechanisms) as well as develop guidelines (and perhaps standards) for
receiver performance parameters such as receiver sensitivity,
selectivity, intermodulation rejection, and dynamic range, that,
together with the transmitter power, signal modulation and deployment
assumptions applicable to a particular service, would ensure that
conformant receivers would operate satisfactorily within an RF
environment where signal levels are no greater than the harm claim
threshold. Third, the Commission would monitor the progress of the
multi-stakeholder process, representing the interests of future
licensees and other absent stakeholders while also ensuring that the
record developed provides a thorough basis for a rulemaking should that
be appropriate.
Many commenters on the White Paper on Interference Limits Policy
believed that the concepts deserved further consideration. Others,
while acknowledging the need to consider an interference limits
approach, opposed applying such an approach to particular services
(e.g., aviation safety, safety-of-life services, amateur radio, or
commercial mobile services) stating that a one-size-fits-all approach
would not be appropriate. Some commenters, noting the difficult
methodological and administrative implementation issues associated with
this approach, stated that the Commission should explore and promote
industry receiver performance measurements and some thought it
important to develop appropriate enforcement mechanisms for any limits
adopted. Many supported use of multi-stakeholder groups for formulating
possible interference limits provided that appropriate representatives
would participate. Some commenters supported the Commission using a
pilot project to explore the approach in an appropriate band.
In addition to the TAC, other entities recommended that the
Commission further explore an interference limits policy, including
harm claim threshold approaches. These included reports noting
panelists' consensus that a protection limits approach generally was
preferable to adoption of receiver standards, and a later report
largely supportive of developing an interference limits policy
approach, including harm claim thresholds approach along with using
multi-stakeholder groups to help develop appropriate technical
solutions. One paper has proposed a specific harm claims threshold
approach in which the threshold would be based on the interference
environment associated with flexible use in the adjacent bands. PCAST
also supported the harm claims threshold approach for receiver
interference limits, which it contrasted with use of ``heavy regulation
of spectrum and devices'' to solve receiver-driven interference issues.
It believed that such an approach would provide a framework for
defining harmful interference, could provide clarity on the
requirements that a new entrant must meet to co-exist with legacy
systems in adjacent bands, and would give device manufacturers freedom
to address those requirements as they see fit. GAO also noted one of
the Commission's clear options for promoting receiver performance was
further consideration of an interference limits approach.
Discussion. In this document, the Commission seeks to develop an
up-to-date record on whether the Commission should further explore
implementing an interference limits policy, and in particular, a harm
claim thresholds approach. The Commission ask that commenters review
the two TAC whitepapers, and offer their thoughts on the details
discussed there, the issues and concerns raised, and how the Commission
might proceed in consideration of interference limits policy and harm
claim thresholds. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on how
such an approach would fit into today's spectrum environment
characterized by much more intensive use compared to when these
recommendations were developed. How could this approach alleviate
spectrum issues the Commission is currently addressing as well as
anticipated trouble spots as the Commission continues to examine
opportunities for reallocating spectrum for higher valued uses? Should
the Commission consider adopting any rules to implement such a policy?
The Commission notes that the TAC recommended in the White Paper on
Interference Limits Policy that the Commission issue a Notice of
Inquiry seeking public comment on interference limits policy. First,
the Commission seeks comment on the use of an interference limits
policy at service boundaries in general, including the tradeoffs
between interference limits policy and three alternatives to an
interference limits policy that were noted in the White Paper on
Interference Limits Policy. To focus this inquiry quantitatively, the
Commission seeks comment on the use of an interference limits policy at
service boundaries where there are legacy receivers for one of the
radio services for which there are no published or industry-standard
minimum out-of-band blocking threshold(s). Commenters should identify
inter-service boundaries where there are some legacy receivers that are
unable, for example, to tolerate fundamental signal levels outside
their receive band that are more than 2%-10% displaced from the legacy
receiver band edge and less than -15 dBm at the receiver input port
(after antenna losses, prior to RF filter attenuation). Commenters that
support different metrics for examining inter-service boundaries are
encouraged to provide such metrics along with detailed explanations to
support their choices as well as the boundaries where they should
apply. The Commission is interested in knowing where legacy receivers
are deployed that are designed and compliant with widely accepted
industry receiver standards that include minimum out-of-band blocking
(i.e., overload) tolerance specifications (e.g., radio receivers such
as 3GPP base stations, user devices, aviation certified GPS receivers,
etc.). Similarly, the Commission seeks information on where receivers
are deployed that are not built to such standards, yet seek protection
from signals outside their band. And the Commission requests that
commenters identify the types of legacy receivers that are in the
category identified by the TAC where interference limit policies may
not be necessary at all. The Commission's goal is to build a
quantitative record based on commenters' experience and spectrum
viewpoints to inform the Commission where they believe high-value
interservice boundaries exist and where interference problems can be
foreseen that could benefit from proactively implementing a harm claim
threshold approach to specify licensees' responsibilities for
interference risk mitigation.
Second, the Commission seeks comment on institutional approaches
for implementing harm claim thresholds, including the use of multi-
stakeholder processes, rulemaking, and in particular, inter-industry
standards setting processes. The Commission seeks comment on specific
tasks or reports that a multi-stakeholder group should address that
would aid it if it were to further examine implementing a harm claim
threshold approach. For example, would a multi-stakeholder group be
able to evaluate any high value interservice boundaries identified by
commenters and provide consensus insight into which spectrum
allocations
[[Page 29265]]
should be addressed first or which would provide the largest benefits?
Additionally, could a multi-stakeholder group compile data and produce
a report or database regarding relevant technical specifications of
deployed receivers including, but not limited to relative and absolute
dynamic range, out-of-band blocking tolerance, and selectivity, where
public owners of such receivers, other potentially affected spectrum
users, and the Commission, do not have transparent insight? Such
information could inform policy decisions and actions to balance
transmitter emission power with receiver reception limits. What other
tasks could a multi-stakeholder group tackle to help this process?
Similarly, how can industry standards processes be leveraged to
provide for improved receiver performance to support a harm claim
threshold approach? In this regard, the Commission is not seeking to
build a record to mandate the ``design'' of receivers that could chill
technology evolution, but instead, the Commission is seeking ideas on
how the importance of good receiver design can more effectively be
represented in the lifecycle of receiver development and product
evolution processes. For example, for receivers that require protection
from fundamental signals in adjacent or nearby spectrum bands, the
minimum undesired out-of-band power at which those receivers can
operate without a degradation metric exceeding a low minimum, could be
specified in an industry standard. The Commission notes that this is
already done in some standards groups. Alternatively, specific receiver
requirements can be specified as a receiver mandate in the Commission's
rules or absent such specificity, left to industry to meet a harm claim
threshold signal strength or power flux over-the-air specification
(i.e., signal-in-space) which could be codified in its rules. The
Commission seeks comment on these alternatives and their tradeoffs.
Third, the Commission seeks comment on suitable parameters for harm
claim thresholds, engineering methods to determine their values, and
ongoing reporting, analysis, and enforcement challenges. For example,
should the Commission consider whether to adopt a standard ``reference
value of far out-of-band blocking power'' to evaluate inter-radio-
service interference scenarios. If so, what value would be appropriate?
Would a standard reference value such as -15 dBm at the input to a
receiver's front-end filter, be useful in the early identification of
suitable harm claim thresholds; i.e., identifying harm claim thresholds
that may be ``at,'' ``above,'' or ``below'' a standard reference value?
If this value is inappropriate, what value would be appropriate? Should
different values be specified for different radio services? If so, the
Commission requests that commenters justify their position and provide
detailed comment regarding recommended values and which radio services
are applicable. Are there instances in which the harm claim threshold
should be set based on assuming that the allocation in the adjacent
band would be flexible use? How can the Commission incentivize industry
segments where there are no consensus receiver standards, yet there is
a desire for ``protection'' from inter-band interference? Since the
responsibility for spectrum coexistence lies with both transmitters and
receivers, can these (or other) harm claim threshold parameters be used
to achieve the Commission's policy goals?
The Commission also seeks comment on whether a harm claim threshold
approach should incorporate two parameters that 3GPP has used to study
the balance of transmitter impairments with receiver impairments:
Adjacent Channel Leakage Ratio (ACLR) and Adjacent Channel Selectivity
(ACS). These parameters are used to analyze and determine the balance
between transmitter and receiver impairments within spectrum bands
shared between multiple mobile broadband service providers using a
basic formulation called Adjacent Channel Interference Ratio (ACIR).
While the Commission is unaware of anyone applying this concept
``between inter-service spectrum bands'' (i.e., between different radio
services) to assess whether out-of-band transmitter impairments or out-
of-band blocking receiver filter impairments dominate the interference
equation between spectrum bands, it seeks comment on whether these
concepts can be used in this context. For commenters that support such
an approach, the Commission requests specific information regarding how
these concepts could be applied and what values should be considered
for evaluation purposes for various radio services.
Are there specific engineering methods or analysis tools that lend
themselves to analyses necessary to support a harm claim threshold
approach? In particular, a harm claim threshold approach may require
specifying an ``over the air'' power flux or field strength threshold,
over which ``claims of harm'' could be made, and under which claims of
harm could not be made. Spatial and temporal variables associated with
transmitters and receivers, especially mobile radio, present a
statistical challenge to assess probabilistic bounds versus
deterministic bounds (e.g., a receiver dynamic range certification
requirement). Moreover, radio propagation is highly variable and radio
waves are ``polarized'' and ``directional'' creating more statistical
uncertainty. Further, technology advancements such as 5G Advanced
Antenna Systems (AAS) enable more effective ``directionality'' to
optimize wireless network coverage and performance, but technologies
such as AAS also pose a dimension of uncertainty (e.g., RF emissions
`below the horizon' versus `above the horizon'). How can these
probabilistic variables be accounted for in analyses to produce trusted
results agreed upon by interested parties? Can a standard methodology
and modeling tools be used to implement these processes?
The Commission also seeks comment on whether a standard reporting
or measurement scale can be developed to categorize levels of
interference or impairment. For example, most people are familiar with
the Fujita (tornadoes), Saffir-Simpson (hurricanes), and Richter
(earthquakes) scales, that stratify the consequences of undesired
environmental effects in a manner that is understandable by the public.
Can something similar be developed for spectrum and RF interference?
Currently, some parties point to a relative change in the noise floor
as a single indicator of harmful interference. However, given the
orders of magnitude of variation between transmitter and receiver
impairment conditions for different services and situations, a single-
value relative change metric may not be meaningful. Moreover, under a
harm claim threshold approach, there should be flexibility to determine
a range of relevant values and associated responsibilities or ability
to claim inference protection. Should the Commission establish a few
basic and standard reference categories of interference, to enable
quantitative/statistical risk assessment? As with the examples above,
the absolute values of the scale can be different between different
radio services. There is no ``one size fits all.'' However, the notion
here is that ``sizes'' (or ranges of power) are potentially describable
and more meaningful to the public. What categories and levels do
commenters believe would be both easy to describe and lend relevance to
this approach?
The Commission seeks comment on how a harm claim threshold could be
enforced given the spatial and temporal
[[Page 29266]]
variations of various radio systems. The Commission seeks comment on
how persistent and intermittent interference would or could be
detected, reported, and used to identify a ``claim'' of interference?
How would such a process distinguish external sources of interference
from self-interference sources such as ``cross coupling'' between the
transmit and receive paths within a radio transceiver, which could be
misinterpreted as interference from an external source? How would
sources of intermodulation interference be detectable and analyzed to
distinguish (a) intermodulation interference generated from within a
receiver, from (b) intermodulation products from the receiver's antenna
system, from (c) intermodulation interference from the local
environment (e.g., rusty bolts, corroded metal infrastructure nearby),
from [d] intermodulation interference generated from high power nearby
RF emissions (e.g., fundamental signals F<INF>1</INF> and F<INF>2</INF>
can create interference at F<INF>3</INF> = 2 * F<INF>2</INF>-
F<INF>1</INF>) when impressed on a nonlinear element can cause co-
channel interference within a receiver? The Commission seeks comment on
these and other relevant interference reporting processes and best-
practices that can be employed for specific radio services, regardless
of whether receiver performance minimum expectations are established by
industry standards or harm claim threshold methods. What other factors
need to be addressed to effectively enforce a harm claim threshold?
Commenters should be specific regarding what they and industry
stakeholders can proactively and specifically do, and what role the
Commission should undertake to enforce a harm claim threshold approach,
especially in maintaining a ``light touch'' regulatory approach.
Finally, the Commission inquires about whether a harm claim
thresholds approach should be expected to evolve as receiver
performance improves over time. Should receivers that may meet a
standard when they are deployed be upgraded or replaced in the future
to merit interference protection under the Commission's rules if new
receiver standards are developed that provide increased interference
immunity? The Commission notes that different systems have different
expected lifecycles. The Commission requests comment on whether it
should consider a specified time frame from the date a receiver was
deployed after which it should be expected to meet newer standards.
Similarly, the Commission invites comment on whether limits should be
reevaluated periodically and adjusted based on newer technology
standards and capabilities, or whether receiver protection should be
tied to certain required maintenance or replacement schedules.
Receiver Performance Mandates
As noted above, the Commission has not generally imposed
requirements on receiver performance and relies instead on establishing
technical and operational rules associated with transmitters. As to
receiver performance, the Commission has relied largely on market
forces rather than mandatory requirements to provide incentives for
manufacturers to produce equipment with good receivers, though better
performing receivers may come with increased cost. As discussed above,
there have been a number of occasions in which the Commission has
adopted rules that either promote receiver performance or require that
receivers meet certain minimal technical performance capabilities,
including situations involving repurposed spectrum where receiver
performance specifications were required for future operations (DTV
tuner requirements), developing acceptable levels of in-band and
adjacent band interference for services (800 and 900 MHz bands), and
safety-of-life services (maritime and location services). Some
commenters or studies have indicated that in certain types of
situations rules promoting receiver performance may be appropriate,
such as in the case where the licensee does not have sufficient control
over receiver performance.
Discussion. The Commission requests comment on whether and under
what circumstances it might be appropriate for it to consider adopting
rules promoting receiver performance or specifying minimal receiver
requirements. The Commission also invites comment on possible
regulatory approaches that promote receiver performance without
specifying technical requirements.
The Commission seeks comment on whether it should consider
expanding its receiver rules to encompass more radio services or to
apply rules generally across all radio services. To what extent to do
the Commission's limited existing requirements on receivers provide
guidance as it considers this issue? How successful were those efforts
at balancing the need for a rule requirement without imposing undue
costs that might be associated with such a regulatory approach? Should
a particular approach already adopted by the Commission for one
particular situation be appropriate for considering in an analogous
situation? Are there particular services or situations today that
suggest that the Commission should consider adopting a rule on receiver
performance to serve the public interest? Why would such an approach be
appropriate?
If a commenter suggests that the Commission should consider
adopting a rule requirement in particular situation(s), it seeks
comment on why and how the rules could be applied. How specific would
the requirements need to be? For example, the Commission could take a
light touch regulatory approach and simply require equipment to meet
certain industry standards or it could require receivers to meet
certain benchmarks or a combination of the two based on radio service
or type of equipment. Because some Commission licensees, such as mobile
phone providers approve and certify specific phone models for use on
their networks, should the Commission consider whether to adopt a
requirement that those licensees ensure that their customers' equipment
meets some minimal standards (e.g., 3GPP standards)? Would a rule
specifying such a requirement suffice? Or would specific minimum
benchmarks be needed?
The Commission seeks comment on whether there are certain cases
where a regulatory approach should be considered because the receivers
associated with a particular service are not sufficiently under the
control of the licensee or may not be designed to meet particular
industry specifications. The Commission notes, for instance, that in
many cases consumers have a wide variety of equipment choices (e.g.,
in-home access point equipment, devices for use with a licensed or
unlicensed services such as radar or satellite receivers), and the
purchase decision is entirely in the consumer's hands without any
licensee providing the role of gatekeeper on receiver performance.
Would regulatory requirements to ensure minimal performance be
appropriate in certain situations such as those? What are the costs and
benefits of such an approach? Commenters should provide detailed
justification for what type of requirements should apply to which
services or user classes, if the Commission were to consider amending
its rules to implement receiver requirements.
To what extent might it be appropriate for the Commission to
consider requiring certain disclosure to consumers, and owners/
operators of equipment and systems with embedded receivers or
transceivers, so that they make a more informed choice about the
equipment they purchase. The
[[Page 29267]]
Commission invites comment on whether it should require radio equipment
information disclosure, for example through a labeling requirement, or
key metrics regarding the receiver. Would such a requirement be useful
to consumers and owners/operators of integrated systems that employ
receivers? If so, what type of information would be most helpful to
inform consumers and operators to make an educated decision (e.g.,
selectivity, dynamic range, etc.)? Would such a requirement be
beneficial across the board for all equipment or only for equipment
designed for certain services or user bases? What would be the best way
to disclose this information (e.g., on packaging, in the manual, etc.)?
What burden and costs would a disclosure requirement place on
manufacturers? Would this increase product costs? If so, by how much?
Commenters should provide details regarding who would benefit most from
such disclosures and for what type of equipment for which rule parts or
portions thereof. The Commission also seeks comment on how, if it deems
such rules are warranted, they should be enforced? Should it be part of
the equipment certification process where the Commission already
imposes certain labelling requirements? Finally, the Commission asks if
such a disclosure requirement would incentivize manufacturers to build
better receivers? Are there any other factors or policy issues that the
Commission should consider as it pertains to the potential for
requiring receiver labeling information?
If the Commission were to pursue consideration of possible
mandatory requirements, it requests comment on possible technical
specifications or other requirements that would need to be considered.
For example, could the rules tie a filtering requirement to the
expected emissions in adjacent or nearby bands to ensure resiliency
from out-of-band emissions or blocking interference? What about
requirements regarding to spurious emissions or intermodulation
interference? How could such requirements be implemented? What factors
should go into determining such filter and other requirements? Is there
a frequency separation that should be considered, either absolute or as
a function of bandwidth that should be considered to adequately protect
receivers against blocking interference? Should there be a required
margin built in, to future proof receivers against future Commission
actions that might affect the nearby RF environment? If so, how much of
a margin is realistic? What issues need to be considered that affect
the attenuation roll-off performance of filters? How should such
requirements be contemplated for differing operational requirements
(e.g., requirement differences in fixed, mobile, satellite,
broadcasting, radiolocation services, etc.)?
In the event a regulatory requirement is considered, the Commission
seeks comment on what consideration should be given for services where
the expected equipment lifetime differs. For example, certain
industrial equipment is expected to work for 10 or 20 years or more
while consumer mobile devices are typically replaced every few years.
What other technical requirements would need to be specified? How
should different receivers be categorized? Can a rating scale be
developed to easily assess how much additional interference protection
one receiver may have over another? Should any categorization be tied
to characteristics of the desired transmitters? Or the undesired
transmitters in adjacent and nearby bands?
In addition, the Commission seeks comment on how rules specifying
particular receiver protection criteria may affect receiver
architecture, particularly concerning implementation complexity, size,
performance, form factors, number of external components, power
consumption, impacts on other systems, and cost.
The Commission seeks comment on what type of tests may be needed if
it were to consider specific requirements. Should such testing be part
of the equipment approval process? Which receiver parameters should be
examined? How should tests for these parameters be designed and
conducted? Commenters should provide information regarding specific
test details. Is there other information the Commission should
consider, if it were to implement rule requirements for all or certain
receivers?
Finally, the Commission requests comment on any other regulatory
approaches the Commission should consider that would promote improved
receiver interference immunity performance where that would be
appropriate. The Commission asks that commenters provide sufficient
explanation of their ideas and rationale for why they would be
appropriate for consideration of such a regulatory approach as the best
means of promoting its goal of promoting more efficient use of spectrum
through improved receiver performance.
Innovation and the Marketplace
As part of the Commission's overall spectrum management goals, the
Commission seeks to promote innovative new technologies and uses of
spectrum. The Commission requests that commenters address the various
considerations and approaches that have been discussed in this
document, and inform the Commission about how best to promote
innovation.
The Commission recognizes that receiver interference immunity
performance specifications have the potential to impact receiver
markets in various ways depending on how they are implemented. As
discussed above, the Commission is examining three general types of
approaches to promoting improved receiver performance--promoting
industry-led voluntary approaches, providing additional Commission
guidance, and possibly adopting mandatory requirements, or some
combination of each. The Commission inquire as to how innovation and
the marketplace would be affected by the approaches it is considering,
and how best to consider the weighing of each approach as well as a
balanced combination.
The Commission notes, for instance, that receivers with improved
interference immunity performance features may create product
differentiation that is generally desirable for consumers/users. As for
voluntary approaches, voluntary industry guidelines and standards that
promote development of receivers that are better or more desirable
would create product differentiation. At the same time, however, the
cost of producing such receiver devices might be higher than the cost
of producing less resilient receivers, resulting in higher prices. In
such a case, consumers/users would ultimately determine whether the
receivers with greater interference immunity are ultimately deployed
(compared to less resilient receivers), and would generally be based on
whether the users would be willing to pay any higher prices that might
be charged. The Commission seeks comment on how it might assess
voluntary approaches in the context of innovation and the marketplace,
and which approaches would be most or least effective when it comes to
facilitating innovation while promoting improved receiver performance.
The Commission next seeks comment on how the various approaches
discussed regarding potential Commission guidance would affect
innovation and the marketplace. The Commission asks that commenters
[[Page 29268]]
address particular types of potential its policy guidance discussed
herein--including general policy guidance, a policy statement, or an
interference limits policy such as harm claim thresholds--and how those
particular approaches affect innovation and the marketplace. Which
approaches would be most or least effective as to facilitating
innovation while promoting improved receiver performance? For instance,
would clarification of Commission policy as to the integral role that
receiver interference immunity performance plays in spectrum
management, and clearer guidance about receiver responsibilities
associated with developing and deploying receivers that protect against
adjacent and nearby spectrum uses, help promote innovations in improved
receiver design, and how should the Commission consider crafting such
guidance in order to promote innovation in the marketplace? The
Commission also notes that proponents of the development of an
interference limits policy or harm claim threshold approaches note many
benefits of such an approach, including that it could serve as a better
alternative to adopting particular mandatory requirements in the rules.
The Commission invites comment on how an interference limits policy or
harm claim thresholds approaches affect innovation and the marketplace.
The Commission also invites comment on the adoption of regulatory
requirements or rules (including standards) that require minimal levels
of receiver interference immunity performance as the means for
achieving its public interest goals. The Commission notes that
mandatory standards would be expected to ensure development and
deployment of receivers with a minimal level of interference immunity
performance that would help achieve particular Commission goals
regarding particular spectrum bands, including addressing issues
relating to enabling greater access to adjacent band spectrum for other
spectrum users. At the same time, the Commission notes that there may
be instances in which regulatory adoption of specification standards
could stifle innovation by restricting the introduction of products
with otherwise desirable new features that are inconsistent with the
standards, or might not be the most efficient at achieving the
Commission's goals for ensuring a minimal level of receiver
performance. The Commission asks for comment on how particular
mandatory approaches may affect innovation and the marketplace. If a
class of receivers are expected to be protected without a minimum
knowable level of self-protection (selectivity) designed-in the
receiver, how can protection be ensured?
With regard to each of the approaches discussed above, the
Commission requests comment on the impacts of receiver interference
immunity performance as to the following questions. What effects would
interference immunity performance specifications have on innovation in
equipment design, performance (especially as to performance not
addressed by specifications) and features? What effects would
particular approaches have on receiver markets in terms of cost of
production, price and availability of equipment, and user demand? What
aspects of specifications would have the greatest impacts on innovation
and markets and what steps could be taken to minimize or mitigate their
impacts? Since receiver filters to block OOB signals are generally a
small fraction of the cost and complexity of a receiver, and generally,
such components do not constrain the high-level innovative functions of
a receiver, commenters should be specific and describe the impact on
innovation, if any, of establishing basic minimum power reception
limits from signals outside of a receiver's allocated spectrum band.
Finally, to what extent should assessments of the impact on innovation
and markets be a factor in the Commission's consideration of the
various approaches for promoting improved receiver interference
immunity performance discussed in this document?
In addition, the Commission inquires as to how it might evaluate an
appropriate mix or balance among the various approaches that are
discussed in this document as regards innovation and the marketplace.
Commenters should offer their views on how the Commission might find
that appropriate mix or balance. The Commission also invites comment on
how these approaches might affect innovation in spectrum utilization.
For example, how might these measures affect the development and costs
and benefits of innovation associated with new wireless use cases?
Compared to the Commission's approach to receiver performance to date,
how might any of the approaches discussed above potentially serve to
promote innovation in spectrum use, including not only in receiver but
in transmitter design and performance as well?
Finally, the Commission invites comment on any other considerations
that it should take into account on how best to promote innovation as
it evaluates possible approaches to promoting improved receiver
performance as part of its spectrum management in the future.
Legacy Receivers and Transition Pathways
There are many billions of receivers currently in use in various
different radio services for a multitude of purposes. Depending on the
types of approaches that industry and the Commission might take into
promoting improvements in receiver performance, many of these existing
``legacy'' receivers may be impacted. Many receivers presumably already
operate efficiently and include robust interference immunity, whether
it is because they comply with voluntary industry guidelines,
manufacturer designs are efficient, regulatory requirements are in
place, or for other reasons. Many other receivers may currently not
include the latest technologies or designs that could make the
receivers more immune to interference, but also may be in the process
of being replaced fairly quickly over the next few years, as is the
case for consumer mobile devices over generally a five to ten year
period. Then there are receivers in many different services, that may
not be as immune to interference as they could be, particularly insofar
as the receivers (or some subset of them) used in a particular service
may be susceptible to interference from other operations in adjacent or
nearby bands, or could experience interference with the introduction of
new services in adjacent or nearby bands, in part because these
receivers (or some subset of them) have not been designed to be more
immune to interference.
As the Commission observed in its 2003 NOI on receiver performance,
in situations where the Commission adopted spectrum policies that
assumed receivers performed in accordance with a given set of
interference immunity specifications, it is likely that many of the
existing receivers could continue to provide satisfactory service.
Further, interference conditions that would necessitate the use of
receivers meeting the applicable guidelines/standards would not be
present everywhere, and they may operate in locations where potentially
interfering signals were not present or were present at levels within
the capabilities of existing receivers. Such receivers could provide
satisfactory service in many situations where industry or the
Commission adopted spectrum policies that promote
[[Page 29269]]
receiver performance. Accordingly, the NOI noted that one approach
would be to simply allow users to change to new receivers as they
encountered interference. The Commission also identified another
situation, such as where the service would be of more critical
importance, and suggested that it might be necessary to require
replacement of receivers, including the case in which a transition is
being mandated for the replacement of receivers. The Commission asked
about how to treat existing receivers that do not comply with any new
receiver immunity specifications that may be developed, and how the
size of the installed receiver base should affect development of
receiver guidelines/standards, what criteria should be used by the
Commission if it were to take action to require replacement of
receivers (either rapidly on a transitional basis) in particular
services, and what would be an appropriate phase-in period.
Regarding the potential replacement of legacy receivers, the GAO
report noted both the lack of predictability about the future spectrum
environment, and that it can take significant time and effort to
upgrade and replace receivers once deployed. Silicon Flatirons
suggested that it would be helpful if regulators could better
anticipate the needs at band edges and provide proper notice (e.g., 10
years) regarding the need for better receivers, and further noted that
in order to help manage costs development of a phase-in of receiver
regulation would be important. CSMAC discussed the need for future
spectrum planning to give due consideration to legacy equipment and not
to unnecessarily strand such equipment due to new services or devices
that cause interference. It believed that when developing future
spectrum sharing policies and considering technological advancements
that enable improvements in legacy equipment, spectrum managers should
also consider the replacement rate of existing transmitting and
receiving equipment. This would avoid the potential for unnecessary
stranded investment in this equipment, and balance the cost of this
investment with the public benefits of more spectrum access to both
Federal Government and other users.
The Commission further notes that the matter of how best to address
legacy receivers and transition to less susceptible receivers in order
to allow new operations in adjacent or nearby bands continues to be an
important consideration as it seeks to enable new uses of spectrum and
promote more efficient use of spectrum. The Commission anticipates that
issues concerning legacy receivers that are not as interference-
resilient as they could or should be may continue to arise, and
consideration to potential pathways for addressing legacy receivers and
any transitions to better performing receivers is important.
Discussion. What is the state of receiver performance across the
commercial sector, including public safety, aviation and maritime
safety, and Federal spectrum users? The Commission requests comment and
suggestions on the range of issues and considerations that it should
take into account as it considers the treatment of existing receivers
that may not comply with any new approaches or policies adopted in the
future (e.g., improved receiver minimum interference immunity
performance where that might be appropriate). The Commission notes that
the issues include those relating to how it or others might determine
the size of the installed base and identify existing or legacy
receivers that potentially may be subject to approaches that lead to
improved interference immunity performance. As discussed above, the
Commission recognizes that in many instances, receivers are replaced
fairly often, and that improved receiver performance in those cases
could be achieved in a relatively rapid fashion, while there may be
other situations in which other approaches (as discussed herein) may be
appropriate. The Commission invites comment on each of these types of
situations, including specific comment on whether and how to factor in
the anticipated useful life of existing receivers.
The Commission also requests comment on considerations that it
should take into account related to transitions (e.g., repair or
replacement) from use of legacy receivers to receivers that are more
interference-immune in situations where that is deemed appropriate. Are
there, for instance, particular approaches in previous or current
Commission proceedings that provide some guidance that the Commission
should consider? What are the complexities of introducing receiver
requirements or harm claim thresholds in bands with existing spectrum
allocations and service rules? What are realistic timelines for
products in existing bands to adapt to a harm claim threshold or other
regulatory actions to improve receiver performance? The Commission
invites broad comment on relevant issues pertaining to legacy receivers
and potential transition approaches, including timelines for
transitioning that may be appropriate, the impact on global
competitiveness, and consideration to regulatory actions that other
nations have taken. Are there approaches that the Commission should
consider that would enable smooth transitions? Should the Commission
consider approaches that could facilitate any transition deemed
appropriate that would minimize the costs that would be incurred? In
sum, the Commission asks that commenters help it identify and consider
the range of issues and concerns that should be taken into account with
regard to addressing legacy receivers and transitioning to systems with
improved receiver interference immunity performance that would serve
the public interest.
Costs and Benefits
There are both costs and benefits that are associated with the
implementation of the various approaches discussed in this document for
the Commission's consideration as it seeks to promote improved receiver
interference immunity performance in appropriate ways. The Commission
recognizes that there could be a range of tradeoffs to consider. The
Commission invites comment on ways to minimize the costs, optimize the
benefits, and otherwise balance the costs and benefits, as steps are
taken in the future to improve receiver interference immunity
performance as part of its overall spectrum management goals in those
situations in which doing so would serve the public interest.
The Commission notes that the TAC, in its White Paper on Risk-
informed Interference Assessment, recommended that it include in its
decision-making evaluation a quantitative risk-informed interference
assessment (e.g., comparing various likelihood/consequence combinations
for multiple different potential interference hazard scenarios among
the potentially affected operators) as it considers the interests of
incumbents, new entrants, and the public. Others have noted that better
understanding of the costs and benefits associated with improved
receiver interference immunity performance could be help ``inform how
to develop an incentive structure that would actually improve receiver
selectivity.'' CSMAC indicated that in considering costs, spectrum
managers should take into account changes and improvements in legacy
equipment that will occur in the marketplace, and try to minimize the
cost of stranded investments. Several other reports have focused on
considerations related to the costs associated with any new guidance or
policy promoting improved receiver performance, and discussions of the
[[Page 29270]]
need for an appropriate phase-in depending on the situation.
Discussion. The Commission invites comment on how it should
consider the associated costs and benefits of the various approaches
that are discussed in this document for promoting improved receiver
interference immunity performance--including voluntary approaches,
Commission guidance (e.g., policy clarification, policy statement,
interference limits policies), or regulatory approaches such as
adoption of mandatory requirements for specified services.
The Commission also invites comment on how it might consider a
phased-in approach when promoting improved receiver interference
immunity performance in particular bands. As the Commission considers
costs and benefits, what are the kinds of costs and the kinds of
benefits that should be considered? The Commission asks that commenters
discuss not only financial impacts but also considerations relating to
competition as well as public safety and national security concerns.
For example, would improvements in receiver interference immunity
performance (e.g., selectivity to reject unwanted emissions) enhance
the ability of receivers to reject jamming and spoofing attempts? How
might the Commission best consider the trade-offs concerning
potentially affected stakeholders?
Legal Authority
As the Commission considers possible approaches to explore further,
it seeks comment on its legal authority concerning the kinds of
approaches it may be considering. In the 2003 NOI on Receiver
Performance Specifications, the Commission stated its belief that it
had the ``necessary statutory authority to promulgate receiver immunity
guidelines and standards under sections 4(i), 301, 302(a), 303(e), (f),
and (r) of the Communications Act, as amended.'' Several commenting
parties generally agree, while others suggested that the Commission's
authority could be limited.
Discussion. The Commission continues to believe that it has the
necessary statutory authority to promulgate receiver immunity
guidelines and standards under sections 4(i), 301, 302(a), 303(e), (f),
and (r) of the Communications Act, as amended. The Commission requests
comment on the assessment of its authority. The Commission also invites
comment on other sources of authority as it considers the various
approaches concerning receiver performance as discussed in this
document. The Commission seeks comment in this document on whether the
extent and limits of its statutory authority and enforcement mechanisms
should affect its consideration of the possible approaches.
The Communications Act provides it with broad spectrum management
authority, including authority under Title III of the Act to manage the
use of radio spectrum and to prescribe the nature of wireless services
to be rendered. In particular, section 303(e) allows the Commission to
``regulate the kind of apparatus to be used with respect to its
external effects and the purity and sharpness of the emissions from
each station and from the apparatus,'' section 303(f) directs the
Commission to ``[m]ake such regulations not inconsistent with law as it
may deem necessary to prevent interference between stations and to
carry out the provisions of the chapter,'' and section 303(r) provides
the Commission with general rulemaking authority. In the past, the
Commission has drawn on its authority under section 303 to adopt
requirements designed to protect receiving devices from interference
from incoming signals by defining the conditions that constitute
interference, including the operating parameters of the equipment
causing and receiving the interference. For example, as discussed
above, in both the 800 MHz public safety service and 900 MHz Business
and Industrial/Land Transportation (B/ILT) service the Commission
adopted regulations that required licensees claiming protection from
unacceptable interference to use receivers capable of distinguishing
wanted signals from unwanted signals. More recently, the Commission
adopted rules for commercial use of the 3.5 GHz Band that included
protection limits afforded to receivers, although in that proceeding
the Commission found it was unnecessary to mandate receiver performance
specifications.
In addition to the Commission's clear authority to regulate
receivers by defining the conditions that constitute interference, the
Title III mandate to prevent interference ``between stations'' may also
authorize it to regulate the operations of a receiving station with
respect to its compliance with technical parameters designed to ensure
that it is capable of screening out certain levels of RF energy that
would otherwise interfere with its reception of desired signals. The
Commission invites commenters to provide an assessment of the extent of
its Title III authority over receivers. Can section 303(f) be
interpreted to authorize the regulation of either the transmission or
reception of the undesired signal in order to prevent interference?
Does section 303(f), together with sections 4(i), 301, 302(a), 303(e),
and (r), provide a sufficient basis for the Commission to establish
interference protection rights for licensees or other authorized users
of licensed devices, contingent on their devices meeting certain
threshold performance requirements? Do these or other statutory
provisions also provide authority for the Commission to adopt
requirements that specify interference-rejection capabilities for
wireless receivers or to impose direct controls on receiver devices
that lack sufficient capacity to reject incoming interfering signals?
Are such regulations reasonably ancillary to the Commission's broad
authority to ensure efficient use of radio spectrum? Prohibiting the
manufacture or use of devices that are particularly susceptible to
interference would prevent interference under the terms of section
303(f), insofar as that provision empowers the Commission to adopt
regulations to prevent interference ``between stations.'' If Congress
had intended to limit the Commission's authority to the regulation of
the transmission of the undesired signal, it could have made that
intent clear by stating in section 303(f) that the Commission has
authority to adopt regulations to prevent stations from ``causing
interference to other stations.'' By using the phrase ``between
stations,'' however, Congress arguably provided the Commission with the
flexibility to address interference problems at both the transmitting
and receiving ends. Do commenters agree? The Commission seeks comment
on the scope of the statutory definition of ``stations'' in the
context, including how to interpret the definition of ``radio
communication'' or ``radio transmission of energy,'' the former of
which includes ``all instrumentalities, facilities, apparatus, and
services (among other things, the receipt, forwarding, and delivery of
communications) incidental to such transmission.''
What is the Commission's authority to impose direct regulation on
device manufacturers--i.e., to prohibit the manufacture or marketing of
devices that fail to conform to minimum performance standards for
resisting interference? Section 302(a)(2) of the Communications Act
gives the Commission authority to ``establish[ ] minimum performance
standards for home electronic equipment and systems to reduce their
susceptibility to interference from radio frequency energy'' and
provides that ``[s]uch regulations shall be applicable to the
manufacture, import, sale, use, offer for
[[Page 29271]]
sale, or shipment of such devices and home electronic equipment and
systems, and to the use of such systems.'' While the Commission has
clear authority to adopt performance standards for receivers used as
home electronic equipment under section 302(a)(2), the Commission seeks
comment on the scope of the Commission's authority pursuant to the
provision. To what extent does the Commission's authority extend to
receivers used in commercial applications, such as on airplanes,
commercial delivery trucks, or tractors on industrial-scale farms? Can
consumer-facing devices used outside of the home, such as GPS devices
used as navigation aids, be regulated under the authority?
The Commission invites comment on any other sources of authority it
could rely on for the actions it considers here. Commenters should
explain in detail why they do or do not believe the Commission have
authority to act if it chooses to do so. Commenters should also address
whether the kinds of efforts or approaches that the Commission may
ultimately take (e.g., gathering more information on receiver
characteristics, developing and implementing harm claim threshold
approaches, requiring transitions) would affect the analysis of the
Commission's authority or of its ability to enforce its rules
effectively.
Other Possible Approaches and Issues
The Commission invites comment on other possible approaches for its
consideration. For instance, would convening Commission-led workshops
comprised of a variety of experts from industry and government be
helpful? Would any pilot project be appropriate, and if so, with what
particular frequency band(s) should be considered. Are there further
studies that could help inform the Commission on important
considerations with regard to improving receiver interference immunity
performance? Are there other studies, efforts, analyses that the
Commission should consider in the proceeding? If so, the Commission
asks that commenters identify them and explain why they should be
considered.
Digital Equity and Inclusion. Finally, the Commission, as part of
its continuing effort to advance digital equity for all, including
people of color, persons with disabilities, persons who live in rural
or Tribal areas, and others who are or have been historically
underserved, marginalized, or adversely affected by persistent poverty
or inequality, invites comment on any equity-related considerations and
benefits (if any) that may be associated with the various approaches
and issues discussed herein. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment
on how the various approaches that it may consider may promote or
inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, as
well the scope of the Commission's relevant legal authority.
Procedural Matters
Ex Parte Rules. The proceeding shall be treated as a ``permit-but-
disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte
rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any
written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation
within two business days after the presentation (unless a different
deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making
oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the
presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was
made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during
the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of
the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the
presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other filings in the
proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings
(specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data
or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with Rule Sec. 1.1206(b), 47 CFR 1.1206(b).
Participants in the proceeding should familiarize themselves with the
Commission's ex parte rules.
Comment Filing Procedures. Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419
of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may
file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on
the first page of the document. Comments may be filed using the
Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by paper. All
filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
[ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically by
accessing ECFS at <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs</a>.
[ssquf] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file
an original and one copy of each filing. Paper filings can be sent by
hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail.
[ssquf] Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings.
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19.
[ssquf] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive,
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
[ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail
must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
Availability of Documents. Comments, reply comments, and ex parte
submissions will be publicly available online via ECFS. These documents
will also be available for public inspection during regular business
hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, when FCC Headquarters
reopen to the public.
People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b9dfdada8c898df9dfdada97ded6cf"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="680e0b0b5d585c280e0b0b460f071e">[email protected]</span></a> or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
Ordering Clauses
Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to sections 4(i), 301,
302(a), 303(e), 303(f), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 302(a), 303(e), 303(f), and 303(r),
the Notice of Inquiry is adopted.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-09938 Filed 5-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on May 13, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.