GPR MANUFACTURERS PLAN TO CHALLENGE FCC'S UWB ORDER

Meanwhile, U.S. GPS Industry Council raised concerns Tues. that 6-12-month review period in order was inadequate for assessing whether standards could be made more flexible. “Six months or even one year is not sufficient time for UWB devices and communications networks to be fully deployed and ubiquitously available to enable a true measurement of their impact on existing services,” council said in statement. Council lauded overall conservative approach of standards set for UWB devices. Industry group said it was “disturbed, however, that the FCC is not allowing sufficient time to gain operational experience with UWB devices.” Council urged FCC to allow “sufficient time” for critical mass of UWB devices to be deployed to allow for “meaningful testing and measurements” of impact on existing services.

Concerning ground-penetrating radar, GPR manufacturers and service providers had raised concerns after FCC approved UWB order in Feb. that power limits could eliminate many GPR uses. Final order stipulated that GPR must operate below 960 MHz or in frequency band 3.1-10.6 MHz and only when in contact with or “within close proximity of” ground to detect buried objects. GPR is to be restricted to law enforcement, fire and rescue organizations, scientific researchers, commercial mining firms and construction companies. “The data show that ground-penetrating radars are even less interfering than communications devices and yet they are regulated much more stringently,” Lazarus said. Order also implemented coordination requirement for imaging devices, including GPRs, at request of NTIA. “All imaging systems are subject to coordination with NTIA through the FCC,” order said. “NTIA has indicated that coordination will be as expeditious as possible, requiring no longer than 15 business days, and may be expedited in emergency situations.”

Coordination process for UWB-based imaging devices, step not typically required under Part 15 rules, will provide for operation in “pre-approved geographic area “with perhaps certain restrictions on specific locations identified by the government,” order said. “This should provide maximum flexibility to safety services while still assuring that the risk for harmful interference is appropriately minimized.”

FCC spelled out that standards for UWB operation would apply to devices operating in shared or in nongovt. bands, including those used by govt. agencies (CD April 23 p4). This provision holds govt. users to same standards as commercial users in nongovt. or shared bands. One industry source said that provision is likely to be seen as problematic by govt. user if “it wants to operate systems for homeland security or fighting a war and would have to bow to Part 15 limits as imposed by the FCC under this particular rulemaking.” Source said: “I would find it hard to believe that DoD would say we will follow all those guidelines.” Another source, however, said that wording is constructed to apply to operations of UWB devices in non-govt. bands, not to particular class of operators.

“This is a rulemaking that has severely severely limited UWB use,” said Robert Fontana, pres. of UWB developer Multispectral Solutions Inc. (MSSI). “I don’t think many people understand that yet.” MSSI has customer base comprised of mostly military govt. customers and has said during UWB proceeding that it didn’t expect that it would be restricted by order in same way as companies developing newer commercial applications designed to operate in way that has potential impact on GPS and other systems. Provision that holds govt. users to same UWB standards as everyone else in non-govt. bands is surprising, Fontana said. Because order was released late Mon., he said that he and others were still sorting through details. “Literally, the NTIA is the one that we coordinate our efforts through and in many cases we coordinate through the government agencies themselves,” Fontana said.

Gallagher told us that process of reaching closure on UWB order was massive undertaking and “very emotional.” He said: “It was expected that there would be some differences in the text” and one is section that outlines how govt. users are covered under rule: “The report and order is just the birth of UWB -- it’s not the final word.” NTIA plans to continue to work with FCC on UWB issues, he said.

Gallagher said that if govt. agency purchased “off-the- shelf” UWB device that complies with Part 15, agency would be in compliance with order as long as device itself met Part 15 limits. In another scenario, if govt. entity were operating device exclusively in govt. bands, there would be no need to coordinate with FCC because device wouldn’t be operating in commercial spectrum in first place, he said. However, under 3rd scenario of noncommercial system developed for govt. use that operates above limits set out in order, he said: “We are required to coordinate with the FCC if it crosses into commercial bands.” Gallagher told us: “That coordination will be the mechanism for the authorization of government use outside of off-the-shelf systems. It’s what the 1934 [Communications Act] requires.” Systems developed specifically for govt. use, rather than for broader commercial applications, will occur in much smaller numbers than their commercial counterparts, he said. “It’s the exception, it’s the much-less-frequent occurrence.”

UWB developer XtremeSpectrum said its initial product was scheduled for market introduction in next few months and it would comply with order. “The first report and order from the FCC a win-win solution for the ultra-wideband industry and the incumbent spectrum licensees,” XtremeSpectrum CEO Martin Rofheart said.