TREAD LIGHTLY ON MANDATORY RECEIVER STANDARDS, FCC IS URGED

Others, including wireless carriers, broadcasters and others, similarly argued that inquiry should lead to neither mandatory standards for their industry nor creation of an “interference temperature.” Commission in March began inquiry that asked whether it should encourage or mandate receiver performance requirements. Such policy would mark important shift for agency that typically had focused on regulating power levels from transmitters. In its notice of inquiry, Commission embraced idea of encouraging 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. FCC said it believed it had statutory authority to promulgate standards and sought comment on that. Inquiry also stressed that Commission for now didn’t plan to implement regulations that would subject all receivers to mandatory standards, saying market incentive and voluntary industry efforts would be preferable.

NAB and Assn. for Maximum Service TV (MSTV), in joint comments, backed FCC’s call for industry groups to work together on voluntary DTV receiver performance specifications. Citing extent to which DTV transition was at a crucial stage, 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 Advanced TV Systems Committee (ATSC) move ahead on 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.”

CEA said it was actively taking part in 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 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 Commission lacks statutory authorization to adopt this type of standard generally, and mandating this type of standard in future inevitably would result in continued use of older technologies that impair spectrum efficiency.

In wireless area, Cingular and BellSouth went so far as to recommend that Commission suspend inquiry for now because it didn’t have enough concrete information on noise floor in different bands. But Microsoft said it favored FCC’s setting such receiver specifications, saying in comments this week: “If Commission licensees are to continue to enjoy protection from ‘harmful interference,’ then it is in the public interest for the Commission to define the extent of that protection just as explicitly as it defines geographic exclusivity or channel assignments.”

Mere fact that 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. Commission long ago recognized that substituting its technical judgment for that of the market was an imprudent exercise, it said. Carrier said it was troubled by 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 FCC to support voluntary receiver performance standards developed by industry, but warned that agency’s involvement in commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) receiver standards would slow technological development. In industries such as CMRS sector that already have standards initiatives, AT&T Wireless said FCC shouldn’t mandate receiver performance requirements or set its own standards. In sectors without that history of standards development, AT&T said FCC should encourage their creation. It urged Commission not to use receiver performance standards as a basis for setting a so-called interference temperature to allow introduction of underlay devices in licensed spectrum.

Motorola called on 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 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.

Motorola also said Commission 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 Commission’s preference for relying on market incentives and voluntary programs to address immunity of receivers against interference, rather than mandatory standards. If 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 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, specification for an interference temperature would be best way to increase spectrum access without constraining innovation, 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 penalty for using inferior receivers need only be that users may experience interference from which they will not be protected.

Wi-Fi Alliance cautioned FCC to maintain 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.”