[Federal Register: May 5, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 86)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 23677-23686]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr05my03-44]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 15
[ET Docket No. 03-65; FCC 03-54]
Interference Immunity Performance Specifications for Radio
Receivers
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of inquiry.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document requests comment from the public on the
possibility of incorporating receiver performance specifications into
the Commission's spectrum policy on a broader basis. Such
specifications could be in the form of incentives, guidelines or
regulatory requirements (or a combination of these) in particular
frequency bands, services or across bands and services. The Commission
believes that incorporation of receiver performance specifications
could serve to promote more efficient utilization of the spectrum and
create opportunities for new and additional use of radio communications
by the American public.
DATES: Written comments are due on or before July 21, 2003, and reply
comments are due on or before August 18, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for filing
instructions.
[[Page 23678]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hugh Van Tuyl, Office of Engineering
and Technology, (202) 418-7506, TTY (202) 418-2989, e-mail:
hvantuyl@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Inquiry, ET Docket No. 03-65, FCC 03-54, adopted March 13, 2003, and
released March 24, 2003. The full text of this document is available
for inspection and copying during regular 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, Qualex International, 445 12th
Street, SW., Room, CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. The full text may
also be downloaded at: http://www.fcc.gov. To request materials in
accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or
call the FCC Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0531
(voice), (202) 418-7365 (TTY).
Summary of the Notice of Inquiry
1. By this action, the Commission begins consideration of
incorporating receiver interference immunity performance specifications
into our spectrum policy on a broader basis. Such specifications could
be in the form of incentives, guidelines or regulatory requirements (or
a combination of these) in particular frequency bands, services or
across bands and services. We believe that incorporation of receiver
performance specifications could serve to promote more efficient
utilization of the spectrum and create opportunities for new and
additional use of radio communications by the American public. From a
technical standpoint, a radio receiver's susceptibility to interference
is largely dependent on the interference immunity of the device,
particularly with regard to its rejection of undesired radiofrequency
(RF) energy and signals. If the receivers used in connection with a
radio service are designed to provide a certain immunity or tolerance
of undesired RF energy and signals, more efficient and predictable use
of the spectrum resource can be achieved. Such receiver improvements
could also provide greater opportunities for access to the spectrum.
These opportunities will potentially lead to consumer benefits in the
form of innovation, competition and choice among services and devices.
2. Increasingly in recent years, the preemptive effect of minimally
performing receivers has been demonstrated, as licensees seek
protection for service predicated on the performance of receivers with
little tolerance for other signals. Had the RF environment in which
these services would be expected to operate in the future, or the
expected performance characteristics of those receivers, been defined
in some way, these services could have been developed with receivers
that could better tolerate the introduction of newer services on the
same or proximate frequencies. Accordingly, in this Inquiry we seek
information, comment, and research on issues concerning the current
receiver environment, i.e., the immunity performance and interference
tolerance of existing receivers, the possibilities for improving the
level of receiver immunity in the various radio services, and the
potential positive and negative impacts of receiver standards on
innovation and the marketplace. We also request comment on the possible
approaches by which desired levels of receiver immunity or tolerances
could be achieved, including incentives for improving performance,
voluntary industry standards, mandatory standards, or a combination of
these or other approaches. In this regard, it is not our intent at this
time to implement a new regulatory regime that would generally subject
all receivers to mandatory standards. Rather, we believe it is
preferable to rely primarily on market incentives and voluntary
industry programs that provide for flexibility in establishing and
managing guidelines for receiver immunity, rather than formal mandatory
standards incorporated into our rules. At the same time, we note that
in the past the Commission has mandated various transmitter standards
in order to control interference levels. As we recognize that receivers
can contribute as much as transmitters to the existence of perceived
interference, there may be benefits to the adoption of guidelines,
labeling rules, or even mandatory standards for certain classes of
receivers. This may be particularly relevant in situations where we
continue to find that command and control spectrum management
techniques are in the public interest [e.g., public safety] or in
situations in which it is not possible for all the relevant industry
and consumer parties to reach voluntary agreements.
3. We further request information and comment on the considerations
that should guide the Commission's approach to these matters in the
various licensed radio services. This proceeding builds upon recent
work of the Spectrum Policy Task Force (Task Force) to examine means
for improving the management of the radio spectrum to increase the
public benefits derived from use of the spectrum resource. In its
Report, the Task Force concluded that the increases in demand for radio
services in the limited amount of available spectrum and the rapid
advances in radio system technologies, including new digital
transmission systems, in recent years are necessitating that the
Commission change its traditional model for managing the radio
spectrum. The Task Force observed that greater opportunities for
spectrum access would be facilitated if the minimum performance
characteristics of the receiver were known and therefore recommended
that we make receiver performance a more prominent part of our spectrum
policy. In response to the Task Force report, a number of parties
expressed their support for receiver standards and guidelines developed
by industry standards groups. Several parties expressed support for
Commission mandated requirements for certain receivers. Other parties
oppose mandated receiver standards and guidelines.
4. The principal limiting factor in the allocation and assignment
of radio frequencies is interference to received signals. Radio
interference can occur when RF energy other than a desired signal is
present in a receiver. Such undesired energy can be present from the
emissions of one or a combination of other sources generating RF energy
or can be generated within the receiver itself. Interference occurs
when undesired RF energy is manifested in a radio communication system
as a performance degradation, misinterpretation, or loss of information
that could be extracted from a desired signal in the absence of the
unwanted energy. The adverse effects of undesired energy present in a
receiver can be minimized by improved design of the receiver.
5. The Commission's radio spectrum policies and rules, including
its efforts to promote spectrum efficiency, traditionally have relied
primarily on approaches that control the emissions and locations of
transmitters and the frequencies used by specific types of radio
operations. Under this model, the Commission has established
operational parameters in given portions of the spectrum in which the
pattern of radio signals, both geographically and technically, is well
understood and generally predictable by equipment manufacturers and
licensees.
[[Page 23679]]
Manufacturers could design and market products for designated services
within these parameters and the predicted environment. In some
services, licensees could choose the transmitter and receiver products
that best meet their particular needs for the provision of radio
communication services. In other services, including broadcast radio
and television services, receiver products are designed and marketed
for a mass consumer market, with the licensees having limited control
or influence over their technical parameters and capabilities.
Therefore, to some extent our existing rules, such as the TV allotment
table, while limited to transmitting requirements, also assume certain
levels of receiver performance.
6. Generally, this model has served well to control interference
and to facilitate effective use of the spectrum in environments in
which the specific services and operating technology are stable and
very well defined. However, as recognized in the Task Force Report, the
dramatic increases in the overall demand for spectrum based services,
rapid technical advances in radio systems, in particular the
introduction of various advanced digital modulation technologies such
as code division multiple access (CDMA), and the need for increased
access to the limited supply of spectrum in recent years are straining
the effectiveness of the Commission's longstanding spectrum policies.
These changes are prompting the Commission to revisit its traditional
model and evolve its spectrum policy toward more flexible and market-
oriented approaches that will provide incentives for users to migrate
to more technologically innovative and economically efficient uses of
the spectrum.
7. We now need to provide opportunities for an ever increasing
array of new digital radio technologies and services and to allow
licensees the flexibility to implement and modify these new
technologies and services in accordance with market forces. We also
need to relieve equipment manufacturers and service providers from the
delays inherent in our regulatory processes, in particular, those
involving lengthy rule makings. To meet these needs, we have
implemented new licensing schemes under which bands of spectrum are
assigned to licensees on a geographic basis and those licensees are
allowed the flexibility to determine the nature of the services that
operate in that spectrum and the technologies used to provide those
services. The only operating restrictions applied to these operations
are those necessary to ensure that interference is not caused to
services operating in adjacent geographic areas or on adjacent
frequency bands. These restrictions typically take the form of limits
on signal strength at the edge of a licensee's service area and limits
on maximum transmitter power, antenna height and out-of-band emissions.
8. It often is not possible to perform a reliable, comprehensive
analysis to predict the strength of potential signal sources in a given
frequency band and geographic area because licensees have discretion to
select and modify transmitter locations, operating power, antenna
directivity and type of transmissions. In addition, we observe that new
digital technologies generally are inherently more robust, and
resistant to interference, than analog systems. Our spectrum policies
should account for this increased ability of digital signals to
tolerate the presence of other signals. Further, with the increasingly
intense use of the spectrum, there are now very few opportunities to
allocate unused spectrum for new services and correspondingly, few
bands in which there are not many users seeking to access the available
frequencies. Thus, as indicated in the Task Force Report, interference
management is now more difficult because of the greater density,
mobility, and variability of transmitters and our flexible use policy
that allows users the flexibility to determine how and where to operate
in their assigned spectrum.
9. As part of our effort to revise our spectrum management policies
to address the changes in RF operations and environments that have
occurred in recent years, we are now beginning to investigate
alternative approaches for managing interference. Consistent with the
recommendations of the Task Force, we believe it will be necessary to
shift our current paradigm for assessing interference from approaches
based primarily on transmitter operations towards new approaches that
focus on the actual RF environment and interaction between transmitters
and receivers, such as the interference temperature metric. Such new
approaches would better allow the Commission to anticipate and enable
future users of the spectrum while providing a greater degree of
certainty to incumbents regarding the RF environment they will continue
to operate in.
10. In many cases, the effects of RF interference can be mitigated
or eliminated through attention to receiver hardware design and signal
processing software. There are many attributes of receiver performance
that can be varied to increase a device's immunity to undesired
emissions, and standards could be established for minimum performance
requirements. Improving the general level of receiver performance with
respect to interference immunity would allow increased operation of
radio services on adjacent channels and frequency bands and thereby
promote spectrum sharing and radio system interoperability that would
permit more efficient use of the spectrum. In addition, more robust
receiver performance would help to facilitate more flexible use of the
spectrum. Such robust performance would allow receivers to tolerate
changes in operating systems, services and frequency loading that are
expected to occur under flexible use of the spectrum. At the same time,
however, we recognize that improvements in receiver performance almost
always increase production costs, and so there are trade-offs in costs
and performance that must be balanced. In addition, we need to address
how the benefits of upgraded receiver performance would be distributed
among users. For example, improved receiver immunity may permit
government operations over wider areas or at higher powers without
causing interference.
11. In this proceeding, we seek additional information on the broad
range of issues relating to the possible incorporation of receiver
performance incentives, guidelines or standards. As discussed below, we
invite interested parties to submit information, research, and comment
on subjects including: potential receiver performance parameters, the
manner in which receiver immunity performance capabilities should be
incorporated into our spectrum policies and rules, including the scope
of our authority to establish mandatory receiver standards by rule;
possibilities for use of receiver interference immunity performance
guidelines and standards in specific radio services; the impact of
receiver minimum immunity performance requirements on innovation and
the marketplace; the current receiver environment; and transition
issues such as the treatment of legacy receivers.
Receiver Performance Parameters
12. A radio receiver's immunity to interference is dependent on a
number of factors in its technical design and, in addition, the
characteristics of the signals it receives. These factors may be
closely related and in many cases interdependent, and a receiver's
performance in one factor may often affect its performance in others.
The factors determining receiver immunity
[[Page 23680]]
performance generally include selectivity, sensitivity, dynamic range,
automatic RF gain control, shielding, modulation method, and signal
processing. Receiver selectivity is the ability to isolate and acquire
the desired signal from all of the undesired signals that may be
present on other channels. Selectivity is a central factor in the
control of adjacent channel interference. Sensitivity is the measure of
a receiver's ability to receive signals of low strength. More
sensitivity means a receiver can pick up lower level signals. Dynamic
range is the range of the highest and lowest received signal strength
levels over which the receiver can satisfactorily operate. The upper
side of a receiver's dynamic range determines how strong a received
signal can be before failure due to overloading occurs. Automatic RF
gain control allows a receiver to adjust the level of a received signal
as it appears at the unit's signal processing and demodulation
sections. It can also be used to improve a unit's dynamic range and
provide protection against overload. Shielding can consist of metal
boxes, foil or other materials that isolate sections of a receiver from
undesired RF energy.
13. Signal processing provides increased ability to isolate a
desired signal from other RF energy, including another (undesired)
transmitted signal. The degree to which interference immunity can be
achieved through signal processing depends on the modulation method
used for the transmitted signal. For example, the CDMA digital
modulation system allows multiple signals to be transmitted and
received simultaneously on the same frequency in the same area without
intra-system interference. The analog FM modulation system provides for
a ``capture effect'' from processing gain that allows a receiver to
demodulate only the strongest signal present. Finally, in digital
systems, trade-offs can be made between signal strength and data rates.
In order to receive signals with higher data rates, it is generally
necessary to have higher levels of signal-to-interference ratio (S/I
ratio). Thus, in the presence of interfering signals the data rate
could be adjusted to provide satisfactory reception. The interference
immunity provided by signal processing and modulation systems is due to
radio system design and signal architecture, rather than specific
receiver attributes such as filtering. However, because proper use of
these system factors can provide improvements in interference immunity,
we are including them in the subjects to be investigated in this
proceeding for inclusion in our spectrum policies.
14. We request comment and information on the factors or
combination of factors and their interaction that we need to consider
in developing receiver interference immunity performance guidelines and
standards, as well as the costs and benefits of such guidelines and
standards. We specifically request comment on the factors affecting
interference immunity we have identified above and their relative
importance. We also invite parties to identify additional factors that
we should consider in establishing and applying receiver immunity
standards. We also seek comment and information in response to the
following questions:
--Are there any special hardware designs, software methodologies, or
new technologies available that would significantly enhance receiver
immunity performance?
--How are these performance factors related to frequency and operating
power, and influenced by the nature of the RF environment?
--To what extent, and in what way, are some factors affecting
interference immunity relatively more important than others across
receivers used with different services or across devices that receive
signals transmitted using different modulation methods?
--Are there factors that must be considered as a group and not
independently due to their cross-interactions or relationships with
other factors?
--Are some factors less important in providing interference immunity in
certain modulation systems or receiver designs?
--How should any such differences be treated in specifying receiver
immunity guidelines or standards?
--Can receiver interference immunity parameters be ranked in accordance
with their level of importance to performance? What procedures or
criteria should be used to determine how to trade off the level of
receiver performance with the practical issues of cost and
implementation?
--Should system characteristics such as signal processing gain and
modulation methods that facilitate immunity from interference in
receivers be considered germane to the process of establishing receiver
performance guidelines or standards?
--Do new and emerging advanced radio systems, including those employing
digital modulation, offer potential for significantly improving
receiver immunity to interfering signals? What are the inherent
performance limitations of these technologies?
15. The interference environment in which a receiver operates can
be highly variable and its characteristics may often be strongly
service related. That environment must first be identified and
characterized to allow, at least in principle, the development of
emission criteria that provide for quantitative comparisons of receiver
performance. We request comment on the following questions concerning
the interference environment in which receivers operate:
--What are the characteristics of the RF environment in which existing
receivers or groups of receivers operate?
--If studies were to be carried out, what would be an efficient way to
capture any relevant data or pertinent events given the dynamic
changing nature of the environment over time?
--Should different receiver specifications or approaches be taken based
on the environment in which the receiver is expected to operate (for
example, high-powered or lower-powered frequency bands).
16. Another approach to describing the interference environment
would be to develop a generic environment in which all receivers would
be expected to perform adequately. Once the environment was identified,
criteria directly related to receiver performance in that environment
could be established. One way to measure performance would be to look
at the signal to noise levels (S/N) of analog systems and the bit error
rate (BER) of digital systems. These metrics are quantifiable, but
specific levels or ranges would have to be developed. Another approach
to receiver performance quantification would be to use generally
agreeable criteria that have come about over years of development and
interaction with equipment and the marketplace. For example, the 55 dB
attenuation standard for adjacent channel protection by cable
compatible consumer electronics equipment in Section 15.118(c)(1) was
set based on manufacturers' experience with such equipment and their
knowledge of the tolerance of equipment suppliers for that level of
performance. We request responses to the following questions relating
to the establishment of a generic receiver environment and
possibilities for measuring receiver performance there under:
--If a generic environment were employed, how many conditions would
have to be considered to cover the variability of the natural
environments, (i.e., narrow band,
[[Page 23681]]
wide band, closest frequency separation for interferer and carrier,
etc.)?
--What measures of performance translate into good, acceptable, or poor
operational metrics?
--Could manufacturers agree on performance categories and could
quantifiable ranges be established for these categories? How many
categories would be needed and where should the threshold for
acceptable performance be set among those categories?
17. Digital technologies, in particular, provide flexibility for
controlling almost all aspects of transceiver performance. Many
receiver parameters can be software controlled, perhaps in response to
specific interference in the signal environment. One example is
frequency agile transceivers with automated transmitter power and
frequency control. The design of the systems that these transceivers
are used with provides for control of the frequency and signal strength
used for operation. Advanced antenna technology coupled with system
design techniques such as diversity, in terms of space, angle,
frequency and time could also be used to enhance reception. We seek
comments on whether and how system design elements that would enhance
radio receiver performance should be incorporated into our receiver
guidelines/standards program. In particular we seek comment on the
elements of system design that should be included in receiver
guidelines/standards and how we could limit the impact of receiver
guidelines/standards on system design flexibility.
Incorporation of Receiver Interference Immunity Performance Guidelines
and Standards Into Spectrum Policy
18. We seek information and comment on how best to incorporate
receiver interference immunity performance specification into our
paradigm for management of the radio spectrum. Initially, we envision
that there could be three principal approaches for implementing
measures for improving receiver performance: Voluntary industry
standards; guidelines promulgated by the Commission, either in
technical publications or as advisories in the rules; and mandatory
standards adopted into the rules. As a general matter, we would prefer
to rely primarily on voluntary programs that are supported and managed
by industry, in conjunction with user groups as appropriate, to
establish and maintain guidelines and standards for receiver immunity
performance, rather than formally incorporate them into our regulatory
programs. We believe that this approach provides the greatest
flexibility for those developing and producing products to modify and
update technical guidelines and standards in response to changes in
technology, consumer desires, and economic conditions. We also believe
that spectrum users have an incentive to reach voluntary agreements
that provide for additional spectrum use. For example, the PCS industry
has developed more rigorous standards than the Commission has imposed.
On the other hand, we recognize that under a voluntary approach, if
owners of non-conforming receivers experience interference, this might
produce an incumbency problem that may limit efficient use of the
spectrum. We seek comment on these issues.
19. At the same time, we will need to maintain a cooperative
relationship with those managing voluntary standards to ensure that
they provide the performance levels necessary to support more efficient
use of the radio spectrum. There may also be instances where for
various reasons it might be necessary or desirable for the Commission
to exercise a greater role in the development and management of
guidelines or standards. In such cases we would prefer an approach by
which the Commission would maintain the specified guidelines or
standards in either an FCC technical publication, such as the ``OET
Bulletin'' series or an advisory in the rules. Finally, there may be
some cases where it will be necessary to incorporate the specifications
of the standard into our rules. We request comment on the following
questions with regard to the manner in which to incorporate receiver
guidelines and standards into our rules:
--What approaches should the Commission use for implementing receiver
immunity performance into its spectrum policies? Commenting parties are
specifically invited to submit additional measures to augment the three
approaches suggested above or to suggest completely different plans.
--What benchmarks should the Commission use in determining the approach
it should use in implementing specific receiver interference immunity
performance guidelines or standards into its spectrum policies?
--With what organizations should the Commission work with to develop
receiver performance requirements?
--How should standards or guidelines be implemented for services in
which licensees have control over the receivers that are used, such as
the cellular and PCS services, and in which they do not have control
over the receivers, such as broadcast services?
--What are the cost implications of the various options for approaches
for incorporating receiver interference immunity into our spectrum
policies in terms of both cost of equipment and flexibility for users/
system designers?
--We also seek comment on how to enforce any receiver standards.
20. We also request comment on the criteria that should be used in
determining how to specify the form of immunity guidelines or
standards. Guidelines/standards can be in the form of performance
criteria that apply to the functional capabilities of a device or of
design specifications for the manufacture of portions of a device. In
general, we believe it is desirable to continue the Commission's
traditional preference to specify guidelines/standards as performance
criteria, and to make such guidelines/standards voluntary rather than
mandatory. This approach gives manufacturers freedom to design the
internal configurations of their products to compete on both price and
functionality. However, there may be instances where it would be more
appropriate to specify guidelines/standards for the design of some or
all of the features of a device that affect interference immunity. We
request comment on the forms in which we should specify receiver
interference immunity performance guidelines/standards and invite
commenting parties to submit suggestions for alternative forms of
specifying receiver interference immunity performance guidelines/
standards. We also request comment on the circumstances under which any
given form should be employed. Finally, we ask how should the public be
informed of the interference immunity performance of receivers and the
relevant guidelines for specific types of radio operation, i.e., how
would consumers know about receiver performance in order to make
informed decisions?
21. We also seek comment on the relationship between the
appropriateness of receiver standards and models used to manage the
spectrum. Limiting transmitter in-band power and spill-over into
adjacent bands and areas, together with the definition of assigned
frequency bands and areas, provide substantial definition to the
interference environment in which licensees must design their
[[Page 23682]]
systems. Given these rules, would the costs and benefits of improved
receiver interference performance be internal to licensees, and would
they thus make efficient decisions regarding receiver performance?
Would there be a need for receiver standards under a fully implemented
property rights model, where markets allocate exhaustively and
exclusively defined spectrum usage rights? How would such rules affect
licensees, such as broadcasters, who do not have a decisional role in
the performance of consumer receivers?
22. We believe that the Commission has the necessary statutory
authority to promulgate receiver immunity guidelines and standards
under Sections 4(i), 301, 302(a), 303(e), (f), and (r) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended. We request comment on this
assessment of our authority.
Use of Receiver Interference Immunity Performance Guidelines and
Standards in Specific Radio Services
23. The receiver interference environment and demands placed on
receiver performance are, to a large degree, dependent on the specific
service supported by the equipment and the services provided on
neighboring frequency bands. For example, mobile services that operate
on relatively narrow channels with no guard bands or separation between
communications channels need to use relatively high quality receivers
that are sensitive to low level signals, provide good selectivity, and
are resistant to overloading. Similarly, a service which involves
safety of life generally needs to use equipment that is more robust in
tolerating potentially interfering signals, to provide added assurances
of dependable, reliable operation in environments where such signals
are present. On the other hand, the signals of the terrestrial
broadcast services, such as AM radio, can be received with relatively
low cost receivers that may be less sensitive to low level signals,
less selective, and more susceptible to overloading. As a result of
such differences, we intend to explore operational environments and
characteristics of the different types of services as they affect
minimum receiver performance needs, as part of our investigation in
this proceeding. As observed by the Task Force, the types of operations
and services occupying neighboring frequency bands are a significant
factor in the environment in which a receiver operates, and so we seek
information on receiver performance issues of specific types of service
and operations relating to both the in-band and out-of-band
environments.
24. Given the large number of communication services, it appears
more tractable to consider grouping the service related receivers
immunity performance parameters that would most directly impact the
development of receiver metrics. One grouping by service would include:
(1) Public safety services, (2) satellite services, (3) mobile
services, (4) fixed terrestrial services, and (5) broadcast services.
Another grouping by area of use could consider services functioning in
metropolitan and rural areas. Neither grouping is meant to be
exclusive, but simply to isolate major performance and environment
factors that could be considered for the development of receiver
interference immunity performance standards. We seek comment on the
types of groupings of services that would simplify the development of
robust receiver performance, recognizing that, whenever appropriate, we
have granted broad flexibility for licensees to offer different
services in the same frequency band in order to respond to ever-
changing marketplace needs. With the large number of communications
services that are currently in operation, a program to study and define
minimum receiver performance specifications across all radio services
will be a substantial undertaking. We request comment and suggestions
on how to plan for and manage such a program should we decide to
undertake it. In particular, we request comment and suggestions
regarding the services and/or receiver types with which to begin and
how we should organize the process for defining immunity specification.
We intend to closely involve industry and other interested parties that
have expertise and interest in these matters in the specification
process and request comment on how that involvement should be arranged.
In this same context, we request comment on the parties that should be
included in the work on developing standards for receivers use in the
various services and/or service groupings. The specification of minimum
receiver interference immunity performance guidelines/standards will
involve tradeoffs in costs and perhaps other factors. We therefore ask
for information on the cost implications of the various options for
minimum immunity specifications for receivers used with the various
radio services. We seek comment on issues relating to receiver immunity
performance and guidelines/standards in our suggested service groupings
as discussed below. We also seek comment on whether these groupings are
appropriate, or whether grouping by other factors such as frequency
band or operating bandwidth are more appropriate.
25. Public safety services--Public safety communications systems
are used by organizations such as police, fire and emergency medical
services whose mission often involves safety of life. These
organizations need and, indeed, demand that their communications
systems provide a very high degree of reliability. Thus, the operating
requirements of public safety communications systems would seem to
warrant or even necessitate the use of receiver immunity performance
guidelines/standards that are tighter than those for general
communication services. This could be affected perhaps by requiring
that the guidelines/standards for public safety receivers be set higher
than those for other equipment. We ask the following questions in this
regard:
--Should we adopt an approach that would subject public safety
communications systems to higher requirements for receiver interference
immunity performance than other classes of receivers?
--What parameters of public safety system performance should be subject
to minimum guidelines/standards for immunity to interference and how
should we establish such guidelines/standards?
--What values should be specified for the parameters of public safety
receiver interference performance?
--Are the reliability needs of public safety systems used for different
types of operation, such as dispatch, personal location/identification,
video/audio monitoring, telemetry, etc. different and if so, how should
these differences be treated in establishing minimum performance
guideline/standards?
--In cases where a general communication service can be used in a
safety of life or property mode (such as E911 and VHF marine), should
receivers used with such services be subject to guidelines/standards
for interference immunity similar to those for public safety of
receivers when operating in a safety mode?
26. As an illustration of a current approach on receiver standards
for public safety services, the Public Safety National Coordination
Committee (hereinafter the ``NCC'') has identified technical standards
for radio receivers operating on the interoperability channels in the
700 MHz public safety band. It has also proposed that these standards
be incorporated into the
[[Page 23683]]
equipment certification requirements of Part 90, Subpart R of our
rules, 47 CFR part 90, Subpart R. In developing these proposals, the
NCC considered recommending a metropolitan statistical area
interference environment and a less stringent rural service area
interference environment. However, it concluded that all of the
receivers operating on the interoperability channels of the newly
allocated 700 MHz public safety band should meet the metropolitan
environment standard partly because of their public safety nature, and
partly because of the inherent difficulty of enforcing a rule that
specifies that certain radios can be used only in certain geographic
areas. The NCC also decided not to specify receiver standards for
radios operating on the non-interoperability channels in the 700 MHz
public safety band since the technologies to be used in that portion of
the band are not fully known. It deferred to the marketplace on that
issue. We request comment on the possible use of similar approaches,
including the reliance on a national committee process for development
of receiver immunity standards for other public safety bands.
27. Satellite services--Satellite receivers must be very sensitive
to low level received signals and therefore can be adversely affected
by communications systems in adjacent bands. They can also experience
interference from low level ambient noise sources that are below the
minimum sensitivity level of receivers used in other types of radio
services. Satellite communications systems are currently used for
radionavigation, mobile communications, broadcast video and audio
services, and fixed services. Each of these types of service has its
own operating considerations and some are much more robust with respect
to interfering signals than others. For example, fixed satellite
systems that operate with geo-stationary orbit (GSO) satellites may use
high gain antennas that provide high levels of signal, thus mitigating
the relatively low level of the received signal. Fixed receivers used
with direct broadcast satellite services also use dish antennas that
provide considerable gain. However, mobile satellite receivers and
mobile satellite radionavigation receivers use antennas that provide
relatively low gain and thus must have very high levels of sensitivity
to provide service. In the fixed satellite services, the use of high
gain directional antennas provides a form of increased system
selectivity because potentially interfering sources not located in the
main beam of the antenna are attenuated. We seek information on a
number of issues concerning interference immunity guidelines/standards
for satellite services, as follows.
--How should satellite receiver interference immunity performance
guidelines/standards provide protection against interference to low
received signal levels?
--In the fixed satellite services, should antenna directionality be
considered integral to any receiver interference immunity performance
guidelines/standards?
--What parameters of satellite receiver performance should be subject
to minimum guidelines/standards for immunity to interference and how
should we establish such guidelines/standards?
--What values should be specified for the parameters of satellite
receiver interference immunity performance?
--To what extent are the reliability needs of the various types of
satellite services different and how should these differences be
treated in establishing minimum performance guideline/standards? In
addition are there any differences in specifications that are needed
due to differences between fixed and mobile satellite services, and are
different specifications needed for receivers used with low-Earth orbit
(LEO) satellite systems than for receivers needed for GSO systems?
28. Mobile services--Mobile radio services include a broad range of
systems operating on the land, the seas, and in the air. Specific
services range from the mobile systems of the Commercial Mobile Radio
Services, to business radios and ``push to talk'' operations, to
maritime safety and communications systems, and to aviation
communications systems for commercial and private air traffic. While
these systems vary in their sophistication and operating ranges, all
mobile receivers typically experience varying signal levels throughout
their service area. For example, where a mobile unit is close to its
base station, both the mobile and base station can operate with signal
levels high enough to support operation. At the other extreme, when a
mobile unit is operating near the edge of its operating range, both the
mobile unit and its base station will receive relatively weaker
signals. Mobile receivers also face operating complications such as
reflected signals, or ``multipath,'' and varying levels of undesired
and potentially interfering signals that vary depending on their
location and operating frequency. In addition to these operating
challenges, mobile handsets designers must place a large premium on
light weight and small size. Thus, mobile systems, and handset units in
particular, constitute one of the most demanding challenges in
minimizing interference.
29. We believe it is appropriate to examine mobile receiver
immunity performance in the light of our changing spectrum management
policies, and particularly to determine whether the operation of these
devices and spectrum efficiency could be enhanced by development of
minimum receiver performance specifications. We request comment on the
need for mobile radio immunity guidelines/standards and responses to
the following questions on this issue:
--What minimum interference immunity performance would be appropriate
for mobile service receivers and how those minimums compare to the
performance of existing mobile service receivers?
--Should mobile receivers be subjected to more stringent minimum
performance requirements than receivers for other communications
services, given the higher variation in operating environment
conditions experienced in the course of mobile operation? Would the
specifications established under such an approach have an impact on the
practical requirements of mobile equipment for small size and light
weight?
--To what extent are the reliability needs of the various types of
mobile radio services different and how should these differences be
treated in establishing minimum performance guidelines/standards?
30. Fixed terrestrial services--Fixed terrestrial services include
point-to-point and point-to-multipoint facilities. Point-to-point
operations usually use highly directional transmit and receive antennas
in order to minimize the potential for receiving interference and
causing interference to others. Such operations are typically used for
private or common carrier communications links, often as part of a bi-
directional system with a transmitter and receiver at each end of the
link. Point-to-multipoint operations sometimes use sectorized antennas
that transmit in a broadcast-like mode to receivers used at fixed
locations. The fixed receivers use highly directional antennas that are
pointed at the transmitting antenna. Point-to-multipoint operations are
generally used for one-way distribution of communications, including,
for
[[Page 23684]]
example, data and video programming, but two-way voice and data
operation are also being developed and used. Fixed services are
generally exposed to a constant fixed interference environment
characterized by the location of specific operations. We request
comment on the need for interference immunity guidelines/standards for
fixed terrestrial receivers in light of our changing approach to
spectrum management, particularly with regard to licensing of
frequencies on a geographic basis. We seek comment and information on
the following questions concerning minimum interference immunity
guidelines/standards for fixed terrestrial facilities:
--We recognize that in many cases, fixed terrestrial facilities,
particularly those used for point-to-point operations, are designed for
high reliability. Do existing design features for ensuring high
reliability include measures for immunity to interference?
--We also recognize that certain terrestrial point-to-point and point-
to-multipoint receivers are designed to accommodate a wide bandwidth
(e.g. Cable Television Relay Stations that deliver 80 video channels or
more.) The receivers of such systems, by design, have little
interference immunity. Should immunity guidelines/standards apply to
such receivers?
--Should fixed terrestrial receivers be subjected to less stringent
minimum interference immunity performance requirements than receivers
used with other types of services, given the lesser variation in
operating environment conditions generally experienced in the course of
fixed operation?
--If minimum interference immunity performance guidelines/standards
would be appropriate for fixed terrestrial service receivers, what
minimum parameter values should be specified and how would those
minimums compare to the performance of existing equipment used with
these services?
31. Broadcast services--The broadcast AM, FM, and television
services operate much like fixed point-to-multipoint services, in that
many consumer radios and television sets receive one-way communications
from one or more fixed transmitter sites. However, the technical
quality of service provided by different models of radio and television
receivers varies to some extent, depending on the design of the device.
These variations generally reflect manufacturers' perceptions of user
demand balanced against cost/pricing factors. For example, the research
conducted in response to the low power FM radio proceeding indicated
that lower cost FM receivers may provide more limited service
capabilities. Generally, allowing manufacturers to determine the
performance capabilities of broadcast receivers, including the
performance of their tuning/signal acquisition sections, historically
has yielded product models that provide satisfactory service for
consumers at attractive price levels.
32. Recognizing the factors, we request comment on the desirability
of developing minimum interference immunity performance specifications
for broadcast receivers. In considering minimum immunity specifications
for broadcast receivers, it is not our intent to reverse our
longstanding practice of allowing the market to determine the
performance of broadcast receivers, with the Commission stepping in
only where obvious deficiencies appear that could disrupt the general
reception of service. Rather, we believe that guidelines, applied on a
voluntary basis, could perhaps lead to the marketing of product models
with high interference immunity that consumers could purchase to meet
their performance needs. Such models might be particularly desirable
for consumers to receive quality services.
33. Recently, the Commission selected in-band-on-channel (IBOC) as
the technological approach for terrestrial digital audio broadcasting
and permitted AM and FM radio broadcasters to commence digital
operations on an interim basis using the hybrid IBOC systems developed
by iBiquity Digital Corporation. It is expected that hybrid analog and
digital audio broadcasting will continue for at least a decade. In
light of this, we ask the following questions about AM and FM
receivers:
--What minimum interference immunity parameters should be established
for analog and analog/digital (hybrid) AM and FM receivers?
--What would be the additional costs to consumers of radio receivers
that would provide interference immunity based on such established
guidelines?
--What protection, if any, should be afforded the millions of analog
radio receivers now in use and available for sale?
--How should consumers be informed of differences in radio receiver
immunity performance? Would a recognizable label or symbol on a
receiver assist consumers in identifying equipment with improved
performance?
34. We request comment on the following questions relating to the
development and implementation of minimum interference immunity
guidelines for broadcast television receivers:
--What minimum interference immunity parameter values should be
specified for DTV broadcast receivers and how would those minimums
compare to the performance of existing equipment used in this service?
--What would be the additional costs to consumers of DTV receivers that
would provide interference immunity as specified in established
guidelines?
--How should consumers be informed of differences in broadcast receiver
interference immunity performance?
35. We also ask for comment on an approach that would provide a
fast-track for the development and implementation of voluntary receiver
performance standards for broadcast DTV receivers. Television broadcast
industry representatives, including the National Association of
Broadcasters (NAB), the Association for Maximum Service Television
(MSTV), and Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. (Sinclair), have requested
that we impose minimum performance thresholds on DTV receivers with
respect to receiver sensitivity (noise figure and carrier-to-noise
ratio), selectivity (co-channel and adjacent channel desired-to-
undesired signal ratios), dynamic range, and multipath tolerance
(adaptive equalizer performance). While we have denied these requests
in the context of mandatory performance standards, and are herein
dismissing a Petition for Reconsideration in this regard from Sinclair,
we do believe that it is important that we continue to encourage
manufacturers to provide adequate tuning capability for broadcast DTV
signals, to monitor the performance of DTV receivers as they are
introduced to the market, and to intervene if performance is found
lacking in specific areas. We also believe that DTV receiver
specifications may be useful in this effort as voluntary standards.
36. In this regard, we believe there could be benefit to an
approach that would encourage the development of minimum performance
guidelines for DTV receivers and enable manufacturers to market a
special category of receivers that meet such guidelines. Under the
approach we are suggesting, industry parties representing broadcasters,
consumer electronics manufacturers, consumers, and others as
appropriate, would identify the relevant DTV receiver performance
parameters,
[[Page 23685]]
develop appropriate minimum performance specifications for those
parameters, and publish them. Receivers that meet these specifications
could then be clearly marked with a recognizable label or symbol to
identify them as complying with industry accepted standards for quality
reception. Such identification would allow consumers to easily identify
high performance products and manufacturers/retailers to emphasize the
features of those products to encourage consumers to purchase them. As
part of this approach, the Commission could include reference to the
minimum performance standards in its rules and provide that only models
that comply with these voluntary standards could be marketed as
complying with the industry standards for performance quality or other
terminology as might be defined through our rule making process. We
request comment on this approach and suggestions for alternative
approaches that would provide for implementation of minimum performance
specifications for DTV receivers on a voluntary basis. We also request
comment on the timeframes that would be required for an industry group
to develop recommendations for improved receiver performance. We
recognize that digital broadcast tuners will soon become mandatory in
many television receivers and the corresponding need to move
expeditiously if these standards are to be available in a timely
fashion. We request comment on whether an industry group tasked with
developing receiver guidelines could be convened within a three month
period, and whether recommendations could be developed within six to
nine months after that. We will also continue to encourage the
inclusion of adequate reception quality in DTV receivers and to monitor
the performance of DTV receivers in this regard through efforts to be
conducted by our DTV Task Force, Media Bureau, and Office of
Engineering and Technology.
The Impact of Minimum Performance Specifications for Receiver Immunity
on Innovation and the Marketplace
37. Receiver interference immunity performance specifications have
the potential to impact receiver markets in various ways depending on
how they are implemented. At the mildest level of impact, any
performance specifications may create product differentiation that is
generally desirable for consumers/users. For example, voluntary
industry guidelines that imply, or define, that compliant products are
better or more desirable than those that are not compliant would create
product differentiation. At the same time, the cost of producing
compliant devices might be higher than the cost of producing non-
compliant devices, resulting in higher prices for compliant products.
Consumers/users would ultimately determine whether the compliant
products are successful, based on whether they would be willing to pay
any higher prices that might be charged for the enhanced performance of
those products. At the highest level of impact, mandatory standards
with which all products must comply could be expected to result in
better, presumably more desirable, products that again might cost more
to produce. However, mandatory standards could also stifle innovation
by restricting the introduction of products with otherwise desirable
new features that are inconsistent with the standards. The time and
expense associated with changing mandatory standards can also tend to
stifle innovation. The purchasers of products subject to mandatory
standards would decide whether the devices succeed or fail in the
market. For example, if prices were too high or other features were
adversely affected, consumers/users might shift to an alternative
communications service. We request comment on the impacts of receiver
immunity performance specifications on innovation and markets for
receiver equipment. Commenting parties are specifically asked to
respond to the following questions:
--What effects would interference immunity performance specifications,
in the form of either voluntary guidelines or mandatory standards, have
on innovation in equipment design, performance (especially with regard
to performance not addressed by specifications) and features?
--What effects would such specifications, again in the form of either
voluntary guidelines or mandatory standards, have on receiver markets
in terms of cost of production, price and availability of equipment,
and user demand?
--What aspects of specifications would have the greatest impacts on
innovation and markets and what steps could be taken to minimize or
mitigate their impacts.
--To what extent should assessments of the impact on innovation and
markets be a factor in the processes that define guidelines and
standards?
The Current Receiver Environment
38. The current population of radio receivers generally is subject
only to rules limiting the amount of unintentional emissions they may
radiate. Thus, existing receivers are, for the most part, built to
provide levels of interference immunity as determined necessary by
their designer/manufacturer to provide satisfactory service. This has,
of course, resulted in a wide range of immunity performance across
products used within the same services and across services. We seek to
develop information describing the interference immunity
characteristics of receivers used in the various radio services. We ask
for comment and information in response to these specific questions:
--How do existing receivers used with the various radio services
perform with regard to each of the immunity attributes discussed above?
--How many units with these capabilities are currently in service?
--What is the expected remaining service life of existing receivers?
Treatment of Existing Receivers
39. There are literally billions of receivers currently in use with
the various radio services. Depending on the extent to which new
receiver interference immunity performance guidelines/standards might
become central to particular spectrum policies, these existing
receivers could pose impacts to our new spectrum management policies
ranging from none to significant. There are a range of possible
approaches that could be adopted for treatment of existing receivers,
and the appropriate approach to apply would depend on a variety of
circumstances. For example, if we were to adopt the guidelines approach
for quality DTV receivers discussed and did not change pertinent
channel allotment or other technical criteria, existing DTV receivers
and new units of these same or similarly performing models would pose
no impact on our spectrum policies. On the other hand, if we were to
find it necessary to reclaim a portion of the spectrum used by a
service, as we have done in the case of the broadcast auxiliary service
at 1990-2110 MHz, and needed to support the same number of operations
in the remaining spectrum, it might be necessary to require or provide
incentives to users to switch to a new technology or more efficient
receiver design that complies with minimum interference guidelines/
standards and to cease using existing equipment.
40. Looking at this subject more generically, we observe that in
situations where we adopted spectrum policies that assumed receivers
performed in accordance with a given set of interference immunity
[[Page 23686]]
specifications, it is likely that many of the existing receivers could
continue to provide satisfactory service. That is, the interference
conditions that would necessitate the use of receivers meeting the
applicable guidelines/standards would not be present everywhere, and in
locations where potentially interfering signals were not present or
were present at levels within the capabilities of existing receivers,
those units could provide satisfactory service. Accordingly, one
approach would be to simply allow users to change to new receivers as
they encountered interference. Of course, where the service would be of
more critical importance, it might be necessary to require replacement
of receivers, and ``middle ground'' approaches that provided for a
transition to mandatory use of new receivers are possible also. We
request comment and suggestions on the matter of how to treat existing
receivers that do not comply with any new receiver minimum interference
immunity specifications that may be developed, and how the size of the
installed receiver base should affect the development of receiver
interference immunity performance guidelines/standards. We specifically
ask that interested parties address the criteria that we should use in
making determinations to take actions that would involve the
involuntary replacement of receivers, either on a rapid or transitional
basis, for example, in the case of public safety, other services
involving safety-of-life or property, or services involving security of
the public or national security. In the event such an action were
determined to be necessary, what would be an appropriate phase-in time
period?
41. This is an exempt notice and comment rule making proceeding. Ex
parte presentations are permitted, except during any Sunshine Agenda
period. See generally 47 CFR 1.1200(a), 1.1203, and 1.1204(b).
42. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing
of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). Comments
filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the
Internet at http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. Generally, only one
copy of an electronic submission must be filed. If multiple docket or
rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, however,
commenters must transmit one electronic copy of the comments to each
docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing
the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name,
Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking
number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-
mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should
send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the following words
in the body of the message, ``get form .'' A sample form and directions will be sent in
reply.
43. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and
four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking
number appears in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must
submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking
number. All filings must be sent to the Commission's Secretary, Marlene
H. Dortch, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission,
The Portals, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
44. Parties who choose to file by paper should also submit their
comments on diskette. These diskettes should be submitted to: Hugh L.
Van Tuyl, Office of Engineering and Technology, Federal Communications
Commission, The Portals, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Room 7-A162,
Washington, DC 20554. Such a submission should be on a 3.5 inch
diskette formatted in an IBM compatible format using Word for Windows
or compatible software. The diskette should be accompanied by a cover
letter and should be submitted in ``read only'' mode. The diskette
should be clearly labeled with the commenter's name, proceeding
(including the lead docket number, in this case ET Docket No. 03-65,
type of pleading (comment or reply comment), date of submission, and
the name of the electronic file on the diskette. The label should also
include the following phrase ``Disk Copy--Not an Original.'' Each
diskette should contain only one party's pleadings, preferably in a
single electronic file.
45. Comments and reply comments will be available for public
inspection during regular business hours in the Reference Information
Center (Room CY-A257) of the Federal Communications Commission, The
Portals, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. Copies of
comments and reply comments are available through the Commission's
duplicating contractor.
46. To request materials in accessible formats for people with
disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format),
send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental
Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0531 (voice), 202-418-7365 (TTY).''
Ordering Clauses
47. Pursuant to Sections 4(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r) and
307 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i),
301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r) and 307, this Notice of Inquiry is
hereby adopted.
48. Pursuant to Sec. 1.429(i) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR
1.429(i), the Petition for Reconsideration of the Second Report and
Order and Second Memorandum Opinion and Order in MM Docket No. 00-39
submitted by Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. is dismissed as repetitive
for the reasons indicated in the Notice of Inquiry.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 03-10951 Filed 5-2-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P