FCC TO OPEN INQUIRY ON RECEIVER PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

One source stressed that the inquiry is structured to be “very general,” and while it includes TV receivers, “it’s not focused on them solely.” In Oct., FCC Chmn. Powell said in a speech at the U. of Colo.-Boulder that one of the most “obvious” gaps in the Commission’s approach to wireless interference was a lack of receiver standards. The task force report said “the potential benefits of minimum receiver tolerances -- whether through Commission mandates or incentives -- outweigh the risk that such actions could stifle innovation.” Among the legislative recommendations in that report was that the FCC request language amending the Communications Act “to clarify the scope of the Commission’s authority to establish rules or performance requirements for all receivers.” Receiver performance requirements would mark an important shift for the FCC, because its historical focus on wireless interference has been to regulate power levels and emissions from transmitters.

The notice involves “the possibility of incorporating receiver interference immunity performance specifications into its spectrum policy on a broader policy basis,” the agenda description says. It also covers FCC rules on DTV conversion, which several sources said was cited specifically because Sinclair Bcst. Group had a petition for reconsideration pending asking that the FCC require that DTV tuners provide “adequate” reception of over-the-air DTV signals as required by the All Channel Receiver Act. One industry source said the inclusion of DTV receivers was of little surprise because it was mentioned in the task force report, if somewhat obliquely. The report said: “Receiver performance requirements may be particularly appropriate when the marketplace does not adequately promote receiver performance (e.g., when the service provider does not control the manufacture of the receivers).” The source said: “That’s the definition of broadcasting. It seemed that the distinction in the task force report was aimed at considering standards for broadcast receivers as well as wireless.” The source said he still expected the inquiry to focus more on the wireless side of the issue, where the Commission has built a less-extensive record.

Aside from questions such as what statutory authority the FCC had on receiver performance standards, the item is expected to express a preference for using market-based mechanisms or incentives to carry them out, a source said. “There’s talk in general about finding incentive-based ways to make this work,” the source said. One idea that emerged in discussions leading up to the task force report was that emerging technologies were creating “smarter” receivers that were more tolerant of interference through sensory and adaptive techniques.

The notice generated a small flurry of filings at the FCC reiterating arguments for and against DTV receiver standards. In recent reply comments on the Spectrum Policy Task Force report, Sinclair repeated its arguments: “Absent performance standards for over-the-air DTV receivers, the future of over-the-air television is in jeopardy. Given the vital public interest benefits of over-the-air television, the Commission cannot risk the disenfranchisement of the millions of viewers who rely on over-the-air television because they cannot afford or simply do not wish to subscribe to cable or satellite.” In a Nov. petition for reconsideration, Sinclair urged the FCC “to clarify the meaning of adequate DTV reception by adopting requirements for a DTV receiver noise figure, dynamic range and sensitivity level, receiver selectivity level and multipath tolerance.”

Last week, the CEA told the FCC in a filing that when considering the task force’s policy recommendations, “which may relate more to some wireless services than broadcast services, consideration should be given the fact that consumers consistently have expressed a very high degree of satisfaction with today’s television sets.” It reiterated arguments that “digital reception today has nothing to do with receiver capabilities, and everything to do with the low power that some broadcasters are using for their digital signals.” CEA stressed that “consideration of television receiver standards would be a solution looking for a problem.”

The idea of receiver performance requirements received a mixed reception from wireless commenters providing the FCC with feedback on the task force report. Qualcomm said it disagreed with the task force recommendation that the agency establish minimum receiver performance standards: “While receiver performance standards might facilitate improved use of spectrum, they will increase the costs of equipment significantly.” Qualcomm said one benefit of the current lack of receiver performance standards was the flexibility that it afforded equipment-makers to design inexpensive but functional equipment. In separate comments, Motorola said generic receiver standards would be inappropriate because such performance specifications were system-dependent. But it said industry-crafted receiver specifications could help in particular cases to resolve certain spectrum incompatibilities.

One industry source said one dynamic that had emerged in discussions on the task force findings is that in some cases, new technology developers generally were more supportive of receiver performance requirements as a way of addressing incumbent concerns about potential interference from new applications in existing spectrum. But some incumbents raised concerns about how receiver requirements would address their embedded base of existing users. “Better receivers let you squeeze in more users but it’s an increased expense for each user,” the source said.

Proxim told the FCC that receiver standards or minimum performance requirements would “help reduce spectrum interference problems.” It said it backed the task force’s preference for standards that were voluntary rather than mandatory. Sprint, citing concerns it had raised in the ultra-wideband proceeding, said it had designed its CDMA network so its receivers could operate at a particular thermal noise floor level. “Sprint paid the federal government over $3 billion for the right to use its PCS frequencies, and there is nothing in the licenses, or for that matter, the Commission’s rules, specifying that Sprint must use a particular receiver sensitivity,” Sprint said. Agilent Technologies told the FCC it agreed with other commenters that receiver specifications shouldn’t be mandatory, which could make equipment cost prohibitive or stifle innovation in some cases. “However,” it said, “if a receiver does not conform to the basic specifications or cannot be shown to have equivalent or better performance in the presence of known classes of potentially interfering signals, then it may be unreasonable to expect that interference rights should be afforded.” Lucent said voluntary receiver performance specifications would be “beneficial.”