FCC CHMN. POWELL CALLS FOR WIRELESS RECEIVER STANDARDS

Powell provided overview of new directions he would like to see in FCC’s spectrum policy at Silicon Flatirons Telecommunications Program in speech seen as preview of at least broad themes in upcoming Spectrum Policy Task Force report. Report is expected to be far more detailed, although Powell’s speech built on some of what group had examined to date. Among most significant shifts he outlined was emphasis on receiver standards because historical focus of FCC for wireless interference had been to regulate power levels and emissions from transmitters. He said he would recommend that FCC at its Dec. agenda meeting open inquiry that would build on task force’s work.

As for receivers, Powell said emerging technologies were becoming more tolerant of interference through sensory and adaptive techniques. “That is, receivers can ’sense’ what type of noise or interference or other signals are operating on a given channel and then ‘adapt’ so that they transmit on a clear channel that allows them to be heard,” he said. New FCC policies should encourage such innovative technologies that allow for spectral efficiency, he said. “Not all gaps in the Commission’s interference approach are quite as obvious as the lack of receiver standards,” he said. FCC’s “decades-old” rules generally have ignored receivers, Powell said. Interference is more often “product” of receivers because they are too “dumb” or sensitive to filter out unwanted noise, he said. Idea of receiver standards surfaced repeatedly in Spectrum Policy Task Force meetings that FCC held this summer.

Reacting to speech, CEA Pres. Gary Shapiro said Thurs. “marketplace has done very well without mandatory receiver standards.” Shapiro said he found remarks surprising, given Powell’s reputation as free-market advocate but hedged on detailed comments until he had opportunity to review full text of speech. He said he was reluctant to interpret Powell’s message, including whether his call for receiver standards applied to licensed or unlicensed spectrum or both. “People will accept a $5 or $6 clock radio in the knowledge that it’s not the best receiving device because it works and it’s very inexpensive,” Shapiro said. “If you start creating standards for something like that, prices could go up enormously, so there’s the trade- off there between performance and price, and everyone knows that.” Shapiro said CEA had found there were “a lot more products” operating in unlicensed spectrum area “than anybody ever thought” and it had reported those findings in FCC filing in last several months. “So we've been encouraging the FCC to expand the unlicensed spectrum area because it gives an opportunity for the creation of all sorts of new products we can’t even conceive of today.”

Shapiro said Powell was correct in saying that receiver “technology is always improving. The problem with performance standards is the cost and the fact that the technology changes. Consumers are pretty understanding of the trade-off between price and performance. At least in the unlicensed area, the concept of standards would be novel, because the marketplace handles it.” As for devices in licensed spectrum, Shapiro said FCC under law lacked authority to set performance standards. “If Chairman Powell is advocating that the law be changed, obviously that’s not something we would agree with.”

NAB Gen. Counsel Jack Goodman said it could be argued FCC to some degree already had set up TV receiver standards by ordering TVs in future to have digital tuners, which would improve receivers. He also said it was unclear whether Powell’s remarks were intended to apply to TV. Goodman said wireless and TV really were different environments: “I don’t think it was clear from that alone that that’s where he was going, but it’s certainly something to consider.” NAB has long advocated receiver standards because of its concerns about interference. FCC spokeswoman said Powell’s speech spoke for itself and was specific to wireless.

Among more abstract but important elements of Powell’s speech was emphasis on “time dimension” of spectrum as way of addressing scarcity issues. Review by task force underscored that there was significant amount of “white space” not being used by anyone, he said. Task force and FCC’s Enforcement Bureau measured use of spectrum in 5 major U.S. cities, he said. Tests showed areas of congestion as well as “holes” that could be used to increase capacity. “It suggests that while spectrum scarcity is a problem in some bands some of the time, the larger problem is spectrum access -- how to get to and use those many areas of the spectrum that are either underutilized or not used at all,” Powell said. In past, FCC spectrum policy has allowed use of particular band over particular geographic area “often with an expectation of perpetual use,” Powell said. Agency now also should look at time as additional dimension, he said. What that means in practical terms is turning to technologies such as software defined radio, which can allow licensees to dynamically rent certain bands when they aren’t used by others. Secondary markets for wireless spectrum also can allow licensees to create opportunities for new services in particular swathes of time, Powell said.

Powell referred to idea of “interference temperature,” which he said would be part of consideration of “entirely new paradigm for interference protection.” He said more progressive approach than those used in past for interference would require “clear quantitative application of what is acceptable interference for both license holders and the devices that can cause interference. Transmitters would be required to ensure that the interference level -- or ‘interference temperature’ -- is not exceeded. Receivers would be required to tolerate an interference level.” Because of how significant a change that would mark from past FCC policy, he said he expected Commission to seek “a lot of input” from technical experts on those new interference concepts.

As expected, Powell also focused on need to give licensees flexibility in how they used their spectrum, theme that came up repeatedly in task force discussions. Licensees should have “maximum flexibility” to use or allow others to use spectrum “within technical constraints to provide any service demanded by the public,” he said. Increased flexibility for licensees shouldn’t come at expense of clearly defined rules, he said. While licensed services such as mobile wireless have flourished, he said FCC hadn’t maximized “the public interest benefits that could be created by these licensees,” he said. “If the agency were to define the interference temperature in the licensed service bands, it would establish a clear watermark beyond which interference would not be able to rise.” Powell echoed his larger regulatory theme of moving away from command-and-control regulatory model. For wireless arena, he said that meant examining “technological solutions that can -- in the long run -- replace or supplement pure regulatory solutions to interference.” Point of emphasis on receiver standards is that in past, debates over controversial new technologies such as ultra-wideband have focused on transmissions of new devices. Clearly defined levels of acceptable interference for receivers could help avert some of more contentious debates around new technologies, source said.

While there still will be areas where services will be constrained by spectrum capacity, Powell said, “scarcity need no longer be the lodestar by which we guide the spectrum ship of state.” Powell emphasized success of unlicensed spectrum use to date and called for regulatory regime that could anticipate changes in new technology rather than constraining them. Public interest component should reflect both marketplace realities and existing spectrum applications, he said. “I would suggest that full and complete consumer choice of wireless devices and services is the very meaning of the public interest,” he said: “Certainly, government telling consumers what types of services and devices they should have or own is not my view of the public’s interest.” That consumer interest shouldn’t come at expense of public safety, national defense or critical infrastructure applications, he said.

Powell convened Spectrum Policy Task Force earlier this year to examine changes in that policy area, with more than 200 comments received on issues ranging from interference protection to incumbent rights and responsibilities. “Even with auctions and a shift to more market-oriented policies, it is painfully obvious that we are still operating a kilobyte spectrum regulation device in a gigabyte spectrum world,” Powell said. Besides recommending that Notice of Inquiry be placed on agenda for Dec. meeting that would build on task force’s report, Powell said in coming months he would: (1) Direct task force to release report publicly. Several sources have said it’s in final stages of being written and is close to release. (2) Initiate “dialog” with Congress on legislative steps that could help develop more effective spectrum policy approach. (3) Explore how “interference temperature,” increased spectrum access and more flexible rights could “enhance” public interest. (4) “Strive to make more spectrum available for licensed and unlicensed use.”

Speech was followed by panel discussion of industry and academic experts reacting to it.