Simington Wants FCC to Do More on Receivers

her boss believes the time has come for the FCC to do more. “Given the current controversies that we’ve seen recently with the C band, and with the Ligado matter, it’s pretty clear that spectrum, particularly valuable mid-band spectrum, is extremely encumbered and congested,” Boone said. “My boss thinks it’s crucial for policymakers to look for new solutions to the problem,” she said. Until now all efforts to manage interference in commercial spectrum have focused on regulation of transmitters “and through decisions to create large, and often wasteful guardbands … or just by adjudicating interference claims on a case-by-case basis through what has proven to be a rather clunky process said,” Boone said: “As a result, large amounts of valuable spectrum lie fallow, spectrum reallocations are unnecessarily contentious and spectrum users lack certainty for investment.” Looking at the issue is “trying to understand the problem,” Boone said. “What do we mean exactly when we’re talking about receiver performance characteristics, and sort of make this a little a more tangible … for lawyers like me that might not be as tech savvy,” she said. “The NOI is just one step in a many years-long marathon,” said Wilkinson Barker’s Kara Graves. The FCC received about 90 comments last summer, she said. Most commenters “generally agreed that receiver performance affects the spectrum environment, but they were divided on whether or not the FCC should actually take any of the actions that it has sort of outlined,” she said. “Many commenters, I think not surprisingly, did express particular views about specific services, so highlighting how well their service performs or how well the receivers in their service use case perform,” Graves said. Most agreed “the issue is complicated and that a one-size-fits-all solution may not be the most appropriate path forward,” she said.