SOME URGE CAUTION ON SPECTRUM TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS

Task Force’s recommendations in Nov. for updating FCC’s spectrum management regime concluded access to spectrum was larger problem than was scarcity. It recommended that Commission increase access to spectrum for both licensed and unlicensed operators through more flexible user rights. Industries from broadcasters to unlicensed spectrum developers to satellite companies have been closely watching recommendations for clues as to how FCC would strike balance between allowing more flexible use of new technologies versus protecting incumbents.

Several carriers and groups expressed concern about using interference temperature before FCC had more data. Point of concept would be to place ceiling on noise environment in which receivers would be required to operate. To extent “temperature” in particular band isn’t reached, user that emits energy below that threshold could operate more flexibly. That temperature would put cap on potential radiofrequency (RF) energy that could be put into particular band. That concept “places complete faith in the Commission’s ability to set permissible levels of increased interference for all interference environments and declares that futuristic unlicensed devices will be able to gauge the interference temperature and only operate below the cap,” AT&T Wireless said: “There is no basis to conclude that this approach is practical, technically feasible in any meaningful time frame or enforceable.” Carrier said follow-up information Commission should gather before putting idea into force should include: (1) Noise floor variations among different environments and “how the noise floor is expected to evolve.” (2) Various interference sources, including out- of-band emissions, spurious emissions. (3) Impact of interference on system design, including cell size, power levels, handset capabilities.

Motorola said interference temperature offered potential benefits in “long term” to apply more of quantitative approach to interference management. But company stressed short-term technical challenges: “The interference temperature theory envisions the dynamic ability of unlicensed transmitters to detect communications traffic within licensed spectrum bands.” Motorola said task of controlling influence of transmitter’s emissions on remotely located receiver was very complex. It listed “technical hurdles” that had to be overcome before interference temperature could be used. Company said idea was “a long way from being ready for routine deployment in the real world as a reliable spectrum management tool.”

Motorola also: (1) Urged caution on report’s consideration of exploiting “time dimension” of spectrum management. Report recommended FCC increasingly take into account time dimension of spectrum management, instead of just geographic or frequency-based licensing. Example would be allowing more dynamic allocations of spectrum rights or allowing services such as public safety to lease excess capacity to nonrelated users during periods when band otherwise would be unused. “Considerable work remains to be done to fully understand how the time dimension can be exploited,” Motorola said. While such arrangements may help in some cases, they aren’t “adequate substitute for spectrum allocation and management.” (2) Warned that generic receiver standards would be inappropriate because such performance specifications were system dependent. It said industry- developed receiver specifications could help in particular cases to resolve spectrum incompatibilities.

Public Safety Needs Stressed

Several commenters took report to task for not going far enough in recommendations on public safety. Motorola said report implied no further allocations of dedicated spectrum for public safety were needed. “None of the alternatives to dedicating spectrum for public safety use that the task force suggests -- acquisition of public safety spectrum in public auctions, or access to commercial spectrum via easement or ‘priority access’ mechanisms -- are viable at the present time or at any time in the foreseeable future,” it said. Assn. of Public Safety Communications Officials International (APCO) cited 1996 Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee (PSWAC) report that said public safety users would continue to require additional spectrum. “Since September 11, 2001, those demands have only increased,” APCO said. While some new public safety allocations have been made since 1996, much of spectrum is unusable until DTV transition is completed, it said. Task force suggested leasing option should be available to public safety users during down times, with mechanism for taking back capacity immediately when needed. “While this approach may have some theoretical appeal, it would face major technical, legal and practical impediments,” APCO said. Group said that for many public safety agencies, radio use was virtually constant and data communications were putting new demands on capacity. “Thus, the potential for leasing public safety spectrum capacity is probably much less than the Task Force may perceive,” APCO said.

Another task force proposal was to reassess Orbit Act to consider permitting, but not requiring, FCC to use competitive bidding for spectrum for international satellite services. Satellite Industry Assn. (SIA) said it strongly opposed any effort to do away with act’s no-auction provisions. To provide more flexibility in licensing satellite spectrum, task force suggested FCC consider floating statutory proposal that would reexamine Sec. 647 of Orbit Act to weigh permitting, but not mandating, competitive bidding to resolve mutually exclusive applications. “The Task Force report neither discusses, nor even recognizes, the rationale behind the statutory prohibition,” SIA said: “It makes no effort to acknowledge the complexity or danger of auctions for international or global satellite systems, opting instead simply to note that auctions might be useful for increasing flexibility.” SIA said report didn’t spell out how auctions would advance flexibility or “why this goal is worth risking significant and unpredictable financial damage of a vital U.S. industry.” Group said task force’s recommendation was based on “purely theoretical assumption” that satellite industry was interested in obtaining licenses that provide for full, flexible spectrum use. “There is no indication that there is any such interest in full flexible use,” SIA said.

On spectrum for unlicensed uses, Microsoft said task force indicated more should be allocated for primary use of unlicensed devices. “Unfortunately, with respect to where that spectrum should be located, the report is perhaps too timid,” company said. It noted report recommended that new unlicensed spectrum generally should be found above 50 GHz, while in bands below 5 GHz FCC should focus primarily on using exclusive licensing. “Because only lower bands permit longer range propagation, limiting primary unlicensed operation to the upper bands necessarily means fewer unlicensed broadband networks that are available for easy consumer access,” Microsoft said. That would curtail applications that had potential for greatest public benefits, it said. Company urged FCC to be “bolder” in approaching rules on primary allocations for unlicensed services. Spectrum set aside for primary use of unlicensed services should incorporate some interference protection for those services, Microsoft said. Nature of unlicensed devices is that they don’t receive interference protection from one another. “There is no reason why users of unlicensed devices in any band allocated primarily for the unlicensed services should not be entitled to reasonable protection from out-of- band interference, as well as from later-approved licensed services,” Microsoft said.

NAB and MSTV encouraged Commission to “commit itself to successful completion of digital transition” before considering additional policy changes affecting broadcast spectrum, and to address interference that could result from some spectrum sharing ideas outlined by task force. If FCC wants to conduct experiment with such ideas, it should use spectrum other than that assigned to TV, they said: “Injecting additional uses of already crowded broadcast spectrum will obstruct and burden the transition, draining its momentum.” NAB and MSTV said FCC priorities should include preserving of benefits of analog broadcasting and future benefits of digital broadcasting, relying on actual interference levels and committing to remedy existing interference problems caused by incorrect predictions.

Some wireless carriers showed strong resistance to idea of authorized “underlay” operations in licensed spectrum. CTIA reiterated concerns that “unbridled” additional service flexibility not involve incumbent licensees. “A grant of ‘retroactive’ flexibility to an incumbent licensee not subject to market incentives for an entirely different service than contemplated in the original allocation and licensing scheme, for example, may result in spectrum inefficiency, raise interference concerns and create inequities that will harm competition” CTIA said. Retroactive flexibility could create distortions for competitive bidding process, group said. It supported general idea of “threshold” to set maximum permissible interference levels, but said precise meaning of task force’s interference temperature wasn’t clear: “CTIA cannot support the concept without understanding how the theory would be rendered into practice.”

Cingular Wireless said some task force proposals “would seriously undermine the stability and vibrancy of the telecommunications marketplace.” Carrier urged FCC to reject proposal to address spectrum scarcity issues by creating easements or underlays in spectrum awarded under exclusive licenses. “Most of the ‘commercial’ spectrum below 5 GHz is extremely congested,” Cingular said. “Creating easements or underlays in this spectrum would merely create additional technical problems for incumbent licensees who are already struggling to satisfy demand.” Cingular said Secs. 301 and 307 of Communications Act specified spectrum usage be permitted only with license, except in limited cases. “The Commission cannot permit unlicensed use that in any way undermines or diminishes the rights of licensees using spectrum awarded pursuant to Section 301,” it said. Sprint raised similar concerns about interest of licensees, “particularly as to spectrum won at auction.” It urged FCC to not impose underlays or easements in licensed spectrum. “These proposals will jeopardize spectrum efficiency and compromise licensees’ rights,” Sprint said. While better understanding of noise floor would be helpful to protect incumbents’ rights, those data didn’t exist now and “difficult methodological questions must first be resolved,” Sprint said. It said FCC should turn to Technological Advisory Council to develop proposed testing methodology for Commission consideration and public comment.

Several commenters said some of technologies on which task force based proposed spectrum changes weren’t yet widely available. TIA said it supported ideas such as better use of so-called spectrum “white spaces.” But it said some technologies, such as software defined radios that were “completely agile” in moving between operating frequencies, bandwidths and modulation formats, were “not likely to be ready for commercial availability for some time.” Other factors, such as interference temperature, are “unproven and undefined,” TIA said. “Allocations based on anticipated advances in technology are dangerous, and should await the demonstrable existence of such technology at reasonable costs for widespread deployment.”