FCC URGED TO TREAD LIGHTLY ON MANDATORY RECEIVER STANDARDS

The Commission in March began an inquiry that asked whether it should encourage or mandate receiver performance requirements (CD March 14 p1). Such a policy could mark an important shift for an agency that typically had focused on regulating power levels from transmitters. In its notice of inquiry, the Commission embraced the idea of encouraging the development of minimum performance guidelines for DTV receivers and asked whether receiver parameters should be strengthened for public safety or mobile wireless systems. It also asked whether there were hardware designs or software methods that would bolster receiver immunity to interference. The FCC said it believed it had statutory authority to promulgate standards and sought comment on that. The inquiry also stressed that the agency didn’t plan at this time to implement regulations that would subject all receivers to mandatory standards, saying market incentive and voluntary industry efforts would be preferable.

NAB and the Assn. for Maximum Service TV (MSTV), in joint comments, backed the FCC’s call for industry groups to work together on voluntary DTV receiver performance specifications. Citing the extent to which the DTV transition was at a crucial stage, the groups said: “The Commission’s positive involvement in encouraging voluntary guidelines for DTV receiver performance could trigger a bandwagon effect that will accelerate consumer acceptance of and investment in DTV technology and hasten the completion of the digital transition.” They cited an agreement earlier this summer by broadcasters and set manufacturers to let the Advanced TV Systems Committee (ATSC) move ahead on the development of voluntary guidelines for digital standards to be built into TV receivers. DTV receiver performance standards are needed to “improve and eliminate problems associated with existing over-the-air DTV reception in an environment already challenged by multiple users and interference trade-offs,” NAB and MSTV said. But they said voluntary receiver standards “should not be used as a justification to permit potentially interfering unlicensed devices in broadcast spectrum.”

The CEA said it was actively taking part in the ATSC work and on its own was starting a “discovery group” on immunity performance of home consumer electronic devices, including broadcast radio and TV receivers, “to assess whether there is a need and interest to develop new immunity standards or guidelines.” CEA cautioned, however, that performance standards shouldn’t be confused with operating standards or those concerned with immunity against interference. It said it developed operational standards that were published by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and supported consideration of an IBOC (in- band, on-channel) digital radio standard. But CEA opposes mandating performance standards because the Commission lacks statutory authorization to adopt this type of standard generally, and mandating this type of standard in the future inevitably would result in the continued use of older technologies that impair spectrum efficiency.

The mere fact that the Commission is contemplating imposing receiver performance standards is a step backwards from its commitment to transition to more market-oriented spectrum policies, AT&T Wireless said. The Commission long ago recognized that substituting its technical judgment for that of the market was an imprudent exercise. The carrier said it was troubled by the FCC suggestion it would need a cooperative relationship with standards bodies to ensure they provided performance levels needed to support more efficient spectrum use. It is unclear how the Commission can, on the one hand, rely on market-based solutions while also injecting itself into the standards development process.” It urged the FCC to support voluntary receiver performance standards developed by industry, but warned that the agency’s involvement in commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) receiver standards would slow technological development. In industries such as the CMRS sector that already have standards initiatives, AT&T Wireless said the FCC shouldn’t mandate receiver performance requirements or set its own standards. In sectors without that history of standards development, AT&T said the FCC should encourage their creation. It urged the Commission not to use receiver performance standards as a basis for setting a so-called interference temperature to allow the introduction of underlay devices in licensed spectrum.

Cingular and BellSouth stressed that the Commission’s Spectrum Policy Task Force had proposed receiver performance standards as a transition measure to pave the way for an “interference temperature policy. That idea, as raised by the task force, would set a cap on the noise environment in which receivers would be required to operate. To the extent that ceiling wasn’t reached in a band, a user below that threshold would gain additional operating flexibility, including the possibility of implementing underlay technologies that could share spectrum with licensed services. BellSouth and Cingular said the Commission, the task force and the Technological Advisory Council all had indicated that better data were needed on the noise floor before receiver standards and an interference temperature policy could be adopted. They urged the FCC to suspend the receiver inquiry until it had ascertained whether the interference temperature concept had validity and until it wrapped up noise floor studies. The real-world studies necessary to obtain this information have not yet commenced, the filing said. An inquiry on receiver standards is premature and demonstrates that the Commission is in the midst of a rush to judgment regarding the interference temperature concept. The companies urged the FCC to conclude that new receiver performance standards for commercial wireless services weren’t necessary. If the FCC decided to move ahead with such requirements, their benefits should be balanced against their considerable costs, Cingular and BellSouth said.

CTIA warned against using receiver regulations on competitive licensed services as a way of shoehorning diverse users into a single band. It said it wouldn’t be appropriate to impose additional requirements on CMRS receivers to pave the way for new underlay uses such as ultra-wideband systems in licensed bands. CTIA said it agreed with the notice’s statement that a “one-size-fits-all” approach wouldn’t work for receiver performance requirements. In some cases where market forces don’t always drive more efficiency, such as in public safety and broadcast bands, such requirements may be appropriate, CTIA said, but it cautioned against using them in bands such as CMRS where it said market forces drove increased spectrum efficiency.

Motorola called on the FCC not to view receiver performance specifications as an opening to provide “underlay” users with access to licensed spectrum. “Such an approach would create a more uncertain interference environment at the expense of users of licensed services and therefore undermine the impact of improved receiver performance,” it said. Such underlay access would introduce new sources of interference into spectrum used by licensed operators, which Motorola said would be “antithetical” to the goal of avoiding interference. “Because unlicensed underlay users may operate without consultation with incumbents, the operating environment for licensees would become significantly less predictable than it is today, increasing the potential for unanticipated incidences of interference,” it said. The equipment maker also said the agency shouldn’t rely on receiver standards “to the exclusion of other system performance factors.” Instead, it said the FCC should continue looking for ways to mitigate interference from “an overall system perspective, including the characteristics of the systems receiving and causing interference.” Motorola said it agreed with the Commission’s preference for relying on market incentives and voluntary programs to address the immunity of receivers against interference, rather than mandatory standards. If the Commission adopts standards for certain scenarios, Motorola said they should be based on voluntary industry standards and be flexible enough for manufacturers to design equipment to meet minimum performance requirements.

Microsoft urged the FCC to: (1) Define interference immunity specification more specifically and more comprehensively “across the radio spectrum.” It said that “greater use of such specifications will not only improve spectrum efficiency for existing users, it will also make a major contribution toward increased spectrum access by defining the extent of the exclusivity that licensees do and do not enjoy and thereby clearing the way for greater use of licensed and unlicensed underlay services.” (2) Outline desired levels of interference immunity “at the highest level of generality that is feasible in any given band.” In cases in which new service rules are adopted after this inquiry, the specification for an interference temperature would be the best way to increase spectrum access without constraining innovation, the company said. In cases where that approach would create problems, it might be better to regulate specific receiver parameters directly, it said. (3) Allow interference immunity specifications to be self-enforcing because the penalty for using inferior receivers need only be that users may experience interference from which they will not be protected.

The Wi-Fi Alliance cautioned the FCC to maintain a distinction between receiver specification tailored to provide immunity from interference and those that involved performance, “which should remain the domain of the radio manufacturer.” It said issues involving design trade-offs between receiver performance, circuit complexity, physical size, power requirements and cost “are and should remain the domain of the radio manufacturer.”