POWELL CALLS FOR RECEIVER STANDARDS AMONG SPECTRUM POLICY SHIFTS

Powell provided overview of new directions he would like to see in FCC’s 90-year-old spectrum policy at Silicon Flatirons Telecommunications Program in speech seen as preview of at least broad themes in upcoming Spectrum Policy Task Force report. Report is expected to be far more detailed, although Powell’s speech built on some of what group had examined to date. Among most significant shifts he outlined was emphasis on receiver standards because historical focus of FCC for wireless interference had been to regulate power levels and emissions from transmitters. He said he would recommend that FCC at its Dec. agenda meeting open inquiry that would build on task force’s work.

As for receivers, Powell said emerging technologies were becoming more tolerant of interference through sensory and adaptive techniques. “That is, receivers can ’sense’ what type of noise or interference or other signals are operating on a given channel and then ‘adapt’ so that they transmit on a clear channel that allows them to be heard,” Powell said. New FCC policies should encourage such innovative technologies that allow for spectral efficiency, he said. “Not all gaps in the Commission’s interference approach are quite as obvious as the lack of receiver standards,” he said. FCC’s “decades-old” rules generally have ignored receivers, he said. Interference is more often “product” of receivers because they are too “dumb” or sensitive to filter out unwanted noise, he said. Idea of receiver standards surfaced repeatedly in Spectrum Policy Task Force meetings that FCC held this summer and former FCC Office of Engineering & Technology Chief Dale Hatfield raised issue in one of those forums. Powell referred to Hatfield, who now teaches at U. of Colo., as his “first technological mentor.”

Among more abstract but important elements of speech was Powell’s emphasis on “time dimension” of spectrum as way of addressing scarcity issues. Review by task force underscored that there was significant amount of “white space” not being used by anyone, he said. Task force and FCC’s Enforcement Bureau measured use of spectrum in 5 major U.S. cities, he said. Tests showed areas of congestion as well as “holes” that could be used to increase capacity. “It suggests that while spectrum scarcity is a problem in some bands some of the time, the larger problem is spectrum access -- how to get to and use those many areas of the spectrum that are either underutilized or not used at all,” Powell said. Speech was to be followed immediately by panel discussion of industry and academic experts who would react to it. In past, FCC spectrum policy has allowed use of particular band over particular geographic area “often with an expectation of perpetual use,” he said. Agency now also should look at time as additional dimension, he said. What that means in practical terms is turning to technologies such as software defined radio, which can allow licensees to dynamically rent certain bands when they aren’t used by others. Secondary markets for wireless spectrum also can allow licensees to create opportunities for new services in particular swathes of time, Powell said.

Powell referred to idea of “interference temperature,” which he said would be part of consideration of “entirely new paradigm for interference protection.” He said more progressive approach than those used in past for interference would require “clear quantitative application of what is acceptable interference for both license holders and the devices that can cause interference. Transmitters would be required to ensure that the interference level -- or ‘interference temperature’ -- is not exceeded. Receivers would be required to tolerate an interference level.” Because of how significant a change that would mark from past FCC policy, he said he expected Commission to seek “a lot of input” from technical experts on those new interference concepts.

As expected, Powell also focused on need to give licensees flexibility in how they used their spectrum, theme that came up repeatedly in task force discussions. Licensees should have “maximum flexibility” to use or allow others to use spectrum “within technical constraints to provide any service demanded by the public,” he said. Increased flexibility for licensees shouldn’t come at expense of clearly defined rules, he said. While licensed services such as mobile wireless have flourished, he said FCC hadn’t maximized “the public interest benefits that could be created by these licensees,” he said. “If the agency were to define the interference temperature in the licensed service bands, it would establish a clear watermark beyond which interference would not be able to rise.” Powell echoed his larger regulatory theme of moving away from command-and- control regulatory model. For wireless arena, he said that meant examining “technological solutions that can -- in the long run -- replace or supplement pure regulatory solutions to interference.” Point of emphasis on receiver standards is that in past, debates over controversial new technologies such as ultra-wideband have focused on transmissions of new devices. Clearly defined levels of acceptable interference for receivers could help avert some of more contentious debates around new technologies, source said.

While there still will be areas where services will be constrained by spectrum capacity, Powell said, “scarcity need no longer be the lodestar by which we guide the spectrum ship of state.”

Powell emphasized success of unlicensed spectrum use to date and called for regulatory regime that could anticipate changes in new technology rather than constraining them. Public interest component should reflect both marketplace realities and existing spectrum applications, he said. “I would suggest that full and complete consumer choice of wireless devices and services is the very meaning of the public interest,” he said: “Certainly, government telling consumers what types of services and devices they should have or own is not my view of the public’s interest.” That consumer interest shouldn’t come at expense of public safety, national defense or critical infrastructure applications, he said. Powell convened Spectrum Policy Task Force earlier this year to examine changes in that policy area, with more than 200 comments received on issues ranging from interference protection to incumbent rights and responsibilities.

“Even with auctions and a shift to more market-oriented policies, it is painfully obvious that we are still operating a kilobyte spectrum regulation device in a gigabyte spectrum world,” Powell said. Besides recommending placing NOI that would build on task force’s report on agenda for Dec. meeting, Powell said in coming months he would: (1) Direct task force to release report publicly. Several sources have said it’s in final stages of being written and is close to release. (2) Initiate “dialog” with Congress on legislative steps that could help develop more effective spectrum policy approach. (3) Explore how “interference temperature,” increased spectrum access and more flexible rights could “enhance” public interest. (4) “Strive to make more spectrum available for licensed and unlicensed use.”