Deborah D. McAdams /
06.10.2013 04:16 PM
FCC Seeks More Info on Receiver Performance Policy
Comment period extended
WASHINGTON —Receiver performance may have spiraled a $3 billion venture into bankruptcy, but it’s getting nary a peep out of the public. The Federal Communications Commission has thus far received one comment in a seven-week period on a white paper suggesting the use of harm-claim thresholds as a measure of receiver performance. The deadline for the initial round of comments has now been extended from June 21 to July 22, with replies due August 7.

“It is the commission's policy… that extensions of time are not routinely granted. In [this] case, however, we find that extending the comment and reply comment periods for remarks on the TAC white paper, its recommendations, and questions posed in the public notice more broadly on receiver performance, will serve the public interest by allowing commenters additional time to review the technical contents and unique policy proposals outlined in the white paper.”

The paper was issued by the FCC’s Technical Advisory Committee in February. It focuses on defining interference limits as an alternative to receiver performance standards, which are opposed by the Consumer Electronics Association. The CEA says performance standards will escalate the cost of devices. The CEA, along with the National Association of Broadcasters and the GPS Innovation Alliance requested the extension. The three lobbies said the white paper has significant implications across their industries.

“Many of their members are involved in the specification and/or purchase of reception equipment; others are involved in its design and/or manufacture,” they wrote in the joint request. “All are vitally interested in, and their businesses depend upon, the clear reception of desired signals.”

The methodology described in the white paper involves establishing signal power levels referred to as “harm-claim thresholds” that one service would be expected to tolerate from another before filing a claim of harmful interference.

The commission’s Office of Engineering and Technology asks if the methodology is a valid approach, if it’s viable for all types of services across the radio frequency spectrum, and what considerations to make for various coding and modulation schemes.

The sole comment filed on the docket, No. 13-101, is from James E. Whedbee, a ham and commercial radio operator in Gladstone, Mo.

“Redefining what constitutes harmful interference may resolve a semantic conflict, but does nothing to change realities on the ground,” he wrote. “In point of fact, if existing interference complaints aren’t resolved and then the subject spectrum is packed with even more competing users, the commission is effectively diminishing the value of that spectrum and decreasing likelihood of innovation. Redefining interference, even with a corresponding improvement in receiver performance, is a dubious approach to regulating unless the goal is to abrogate regulating altogether, leaving the competing parties to hash out their differences.”

The subject of receiver standards rose to the level of Congressional scrutiny following the bankruptcy of LightSquared. The start-ups proposed LTE network was sunk by GPS receivers in the adjacent band that were unable to reject the associated interference. LightSquared filed for bankruptcy in May of 2012. The company is now looking to share spectrum with federal users.

~ Deborah D. McAdams


Post New Comment
If you are already a member, or would like to receive email alerts as new comments are
made, please login or register.

Enter the code shown above:

(Note: If you cannot read the numbers in the above
image, reload the page to generate a new one.)

Posted by: James Whedbee
Tue, 07-02-2013 06:59 PM Report Comment
...And we're still hearing nothin' but crickets chirping in 13-101. Like I say in my comments to the FCC, the easiest way to show FCC the error of its ways (either with auctions or with receiver standards) is to do absolutely nothing. Don't bid, don't give in to the incentive, etc. Now... A word of caution: value. What is the value of your service? Can you show that your allocation of the spectrum is as valuable as anything the FCC plans to contrive? If not, start your marketing campaigns now before they start looking at your spectrum allocation. Be innovative: know your digital technology and prepare to ask for implementation from the FCC so you can clearly demonstrate that your service isn't stagnating. For those whose services aren't commercial in nature, be able to demonstrate the public good you do. The new Chairman-nominee is going to push these receiver standards and harm-claim thresholds hard. If a telecommunications-wide pushback is possible,'ll probably stop him. But just like now the FCC is venturing into reducing power levels with its RF emissions rulemakings, its deliberate over-fining of broadcasters for de minimis infractions, etc., and this receiver performance standard stuff, expect some dubious rulemakings to make the FCC receive more money (in fines and fees) while doing less than ever (in enforcement of interference complaints). Best wishes, friends! /s./ James E. Whedbee

Thursday 11:07 AM
The Best Deconstruction of a 4K Shoot You'll Ever Read
With higher resolutions and larger HD screens, wide shots using very wide lenses can be a problem because they allow viewers to see that infinity doesn’t quite resolve into perfect sharpness.

Featured Articles
Exhibitions & Events
Discover TV Technology