[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 8, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26777-26779]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10840]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
[ET Docket No. 13-101; DA 13-801]
Technological Advisory Council Recommendation for Improving
Receiver Performance
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FCC's Technological Advisory Council (TAC) has been tasked
to study the role of receivers in ensuring the efficient use of
spectrum and to provide recommendations on avoiding obstacles posed by
receiver performance to making spectrum available for new services.
Acting on this request, the TAC working group on Receivers and Spectrum
provided actionable recommendations to the Chairman at the TAC's
December 2012 meeting and has recently formalized these recommendations
in a white paper for the Commission. The FCC's Office of Engineering
and Technology (OET) invites comment on the TAC white paper and its
recommendations to help determine what next steps may be appropriate.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before June 21, 2013, and reply
comments must be filed on or before July 8, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by ET Docket No. 13-101,
by any of the following methods:
[ssquf] Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
[ssquf] Mail: Robert Pavlak, Office of Engineering and Technology,
Electromagnetic Compatibility Division, Room 6-A420, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
[ssquf] People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Pavlak, Office of Engineering
and Technology, (202) 418-0761, email Robert.Pavlak@fcc.gov, or Ronald
Repasi, (202) 418-0768, TTY (202) 418-2989.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Public
Notice, ET Docket No. 13-101, DA 13-801, released April 22, 2013. The
full text of this document is available for inspection and copying
during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-
A257), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of
this document also may be purchased from the Commission's copy
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room,
CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at:
www.fcc.gov.
Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this
document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
[ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
[ssquf] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file
an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or
rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary,
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
[ssquf] All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together
with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be
disposed of before entering the building.
[ssquf] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail
[[Page 26778]]
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol
Heights, MD 20743.
[ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
Summary of the Public Notice
1. Early in 2012, Chairman Julius Genachowski tasked the FCC's
Technological Advisory Council (TAC) to study the role of receivers in
ensuring the efficient use of spectrum and to provide recommendations
on avoiding obstacles posed by receiver performance to making spectrum
available for new services. Acting on this request, the TAC working
group on Receivers and Spectrum provided actionable recommendations to
the Chairman at the TAC's December 2012 meeting and has recently
formalized these recommendations in a white paper for the Commission to
consider, titled, Interference Limits Policy--The use of harm claim
thresholds to improve the interference tolerance of wireless systems;
at http://transition.fcc.gov/bureaus/oet/tac/tacdocs/WhitePaperTACInterferenceLimitsv1.0.pdf (TAC white paper). The FCC's
Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) invites comment on the TAC
white paper and its recommendations to help determine what next steps
may be appropriate.
2. In addition to the work of the TAC, the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) was tasked by Congress in the Middle Class
Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 to study spectrum efficiency
and receiver performance. The GAO report, Further Consideration of
Options to Improve Receiver Performance Needed, at http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/652284.pdf, was recently published and makes reference to
the TAC white paper. The report recommends the Commission consider
small-scale pilot tests and other methods to collect information on the
practical effects of various options for improving receiver
performance.
3. Also, in July 2012, the President's Council of Advisors on
Science and Technology (PCAST) published a report, titled, Realizing
the Full Potential of Government-Held Spectrum to Spur Economic Growth;
at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast_spectrum_report_final_july_20_2012.pdf. This report noted
the important role of receivers in spectrum policy and regulation, and
recommended receiver interference limits be defined to specify the
level of radio interference that receivers should be expected to
tolerate without being able to make claims of harmful interference. The
TAC white paper focuses on this definition of ``interference limits''
in making its policy proposals.
4. The TAC white paper sets forth an interference limits policy
approach, and suggests that steps should be taken to define the radio
environment in which receivers are expected to operate. According to
the paper, this approach would make it easier to determine which party
bears responsibility for mitigating harmful interference when it
occurs, by specifying signal power levels called ``harm claim
thresholds'' that a service would be expected to tolerate from other
services before a claim of harmful interference could be made. The TAC
white paper asserts this approach would avoid the need to mandate that
receivers be built, sold, or operated with specific performance
characteristics. In addition, it could incentivize incumbent spectrum
users to improve receivers to more efficiently use spectrum without
stifling innovation and receiver design.
5. OET seeks specific comment on the TAC white paper, which
recommends multiple actions the Commission could take to implement an
interference limits policy. We also seek comment on the overall
interference limits policy approach proposed in that white paper and
information on the practical effects of various options including the
method used today relative to receiver standards and specifications,
the use of multi-stakeholder organizations in the development of
interference thresholds, and the role of the FCC.
Interference Limits Policy Approach
6. Comments are requested on the viability of the overall
interference limits policy approach presented in the TAC white paper.
In particular, we invite parties to comment on the viability of the use
of an interference limits policy approach among services operating in
adjacent frequency bands. What are the costs and benefits associated
with this approach? Are there specific frequency bands or services that
would particularly benefit from this approach or where implementation
is straightforward and would be appropriate for a trial? We request
comment on any areas where additional technical analysis may be needed
to implement an interference limits policy approach, such as the impact
of various coding and modulation schemes on interference thresholds,
propagation models that should be used in determining the interference
thresholds, measurement methods for assessing compliance with the
limits in cases of interference, and methods for determining the
performance characteristics of currently deployed receivers and
systems. In addition, we invite parties to discuss the key
implementation issues of the proposed approach that would need to be
addressed as the Commission focuses on making additional spectrum
available for new mobile and fixed wireless broadband services. Would
proactive attention to establishing interference limits create more
certainty in the marketplace for spectrum (re)allocations?
7. The TAC white paper makes note that an interference limits
policy approach may not be appropriate in all cases. Are there other
policy approaches that should be considered? Moreover, the GAO report
identifies the lack of incentives for manufacturers or spectrum users
to incur costs associated with using more robust receivers, and the
difficulty of accommodating a changing spectrum environment, such as
when spectrum is repurposed for a new use. Are the incentives in the
TAC white paper recommendations for improving receiver robustness to
interference sufficient? Are there other incentives not mentioned in
the TAC white paper recommendations that should be considered? Should
the Commission consider circumstances unique to each service, such as
the diversity of devices available, the cost of replacement devices,
typical replacement times, or sophistication of users that may impact
the practicality, necessity, or sufficiency of such an approach? How
should the technological evolution of components and receiver design
influence the timeframe and evolution of interference limits? In light
of these issues, are there other alternatives, or other options within
an interference limits policy approach, that should be considered for
further analysis and/or small-scale pilot tests? What are the cost and
benefit tradeoffs of these alternatives?
Receiver Standards
8. Industry standards for receiver performance exist for certain
federal and non-federal wireless services and technologies. There are
also wireless services for which there are no industry guidelines or
standards for receiver performance. Where industry standards
[[Page 26779]]
exist for receivers, what is the relationship between these standards
and the method for determining appropriate harm claim thresholds for
receivers? How do actual receivers perform in relation to existing
performance standards? How are receivers evaluated in meeting those
industry standards? Where there are industry standards, how are such
standards enforced? To the extent standards are voluntary, how do users
of receivers know whether equipment meets or exceeds such standards?
Where there are no industry standards for receiver performance, how
should acceptable thresholds of receiver performance be developed and
validated? What are the technical and performance issues among diverse
wireless services that need to be understood and analyzed between
different stakeholder groups, especially the developers of wireless
transmitters, receivers and components? What are the cost and
performance trends of key receiver components that determine practical
thresholds of system performance?
9. The TAC recommends that the FCC implement a Web accessible
repository (e.g., through the FCC spectrum dashboard) of existing
receiver standards, and a voluntary repository of receiver
specifications for existing receivers. This, the TAC contends, would
facilitate technical information sharing among diverse stakeholder
groups of wireless system developers who need to know and understand
the specifications of systems other than their own. How effective would
this method of information sharing be for product developers? What are
the source documents that would be appropriate for such a repository?
Are there additional and/or more effective methods, perhaps industry-
led, to share receiver technical standards and specifications between
stakeholder groups that traditionally do not work together in the same
industry groups (e.g., standards organizations)? Given the increasing
number of devices developed for international use, would an industry-
led approach be more effective than a US-specific repository?
Multi-Stakeholder Organizations
10. The TAC recommends that the Commission encourage the formation
of one or more multi-stakeholder groups to investigate interference
limits policy at suitable high-value inter-service boundaries. We seek
comment on such a multi-stakeholder process and solicit interest from
candidate participants. What frequency bands would be most appropriate
for considering the formation of a multi-stakeholder organization to
develop technical parameters and methods for implementing an
interference limits policy? Are there more effective methods of
organizing a diverse group of stakeholders for developing such
technical parameters?
11. What is the best way to initiate the formation of a multi-
stakeholder group? We invite comment and recommendations on applicable
governance, issue resolution, and enforcement methods, including but
not limited to how stakeholders can coordinate across industry
segments, such as those where voluntary standards are needed and/or
developed. Also, recognizing that service boundaries and spectrum
sharing often involve both non-federal and federal spectrum users, we
seek comment on the costs and benefits of a comprehensive approach
between the FCC and NTIA to incorporate receiver performance into
spectrum management practices. How should the FCC and NTIA coordinate
with government agencies and other stakeholders to address situations
where large numbers of users are impacted by changes to adjacent
spectrum licenses? Should the FCC and NTIA perform band assessments to
determine where possible future repurposing in a band might impact
adjacent bands and develop plans and processes to ensure proper
protections?
Role of the FCC
12. We seek general comment on whether and how the Commission
should implement a policy that incentivizes improved interference
tolerance of wireless systems. Specifically, should the FCC adopt a
policy of employing interference limits in certain cases of neighboring
bands and services? Should the FCC adopt specific rules for
establishing interference limits that are recommended by one or more
multi-stakeholder groups? Should the FCC develop a compliance model
similar to the one used in the context of CALEA, in which there is
industry-led establishment of standards and solutions and the
Commission would get involved only via special petition? We envision
that the FCC could be a facilitator in a non-directive role with
convening stakeholders. Also, the GAO recommends consideration of
small-scale pilot tests of options for improving receiver performance.
What should be the scope of an appropriate pilot test? What role should
the FCC play in encouraging and initiating industry action? Are there
existing FCC proceedings where incentives to improve the interference
tolerance of wireless systems should be applied?
Federal Communications Commission.
Julius P. Knapp,
Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology.
[FR Doc. 2013-10840 Filed 5-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P