Broadcasters, Public Safety Urge FCC Advisory Committee to Take Hard Look at Noise Floor
NAB and other groups urged the FCC to move aggressively to address the spectrum noise floor. Commenters responded to public notice asking questions raised by the Technological Advisory Council. An Office of Engineering and Technology released a public notice in June asking for comment on a TAC investigation of the “changes and trends to the radio spectrum noise floor” and whether there's a growing problem. Comments were due Thursday in docket 16-191.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
“Address noise interference aggressively and expeditiously, consistent with the Commission’s duty to manage the use of RF spectrum,” NAB recommended. “Failure to do so risks devaluing licensed spectrum and drowning licensed users in a sea of noise.” NAB said noise floor issues tie back to the agency’s core mission. “The FCC was created to address the interference chaos that threatened to destroy nascent radio services in the early 20th century,” NAB said. “An unsustainable interference environment prompted Congress to establish an agency (originally the Federal Radio Commission, now the FCC) responsible for maximizing the utility of the radio spectrum for the benefit of the public.”
The National Public Safety Telecommunications Council said spectrum noise is causing problems for public safety. “Over the past 20 years, the spectrum has become increasingly crowded,” NPSTC commented. “Historically, public safety communication system design has relied on a relatively low noise floor as sufficient sites to counteract a high noise floor are not affordable for many jurisdictions and may not even be possible in some areas because of environmental regulations and esthetic concerns.”
NPSTC said the investigation should focus on unintentional radiators, devices not intended to emit RF energy, such as energy efficient lighting and computers, and licensed intentional radiators, such as cellular transmitters. NPSTC said energy-efficient lighting products have many benefits but “experience shows they can also cause radio frequency interference, impacting nearby communications equipment, including that of public safety entities.”
A look at the noise floor is “both long overdue and yet more timely than ever before,” said the Society of Broadcast Engineers. The growing number of interference complaints shows there's a problem, SBE said. “Because the Commission’s resources are woefully inadequate to address RF noise through widespread enforcement of Part 15 and Part 18 rules governing RF emitters after the devices are deployed, the only reasonable means of dealing with them is to enact and enforce, ex ante, appropriate rules for RF emitters that are based on actual knowledge of the noise floor and trends over time.”