[Federal Register: November 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 222)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 66897-66905]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17no06-24]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 15
[ET Docket No. 04-186 and 02-380; FCC 06-156]
Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document asks questions and sets forth proposals
concerning the rules that will be necessary to enable low power devices
to operate in the TV bands without causing harmful interference to
other authorized operations in those bands. The process that the
Commission will follow in developing the final rules for devices in the
TV bands will allow it to develop a thorough record on the various
issues involved. While the Commission continues to focus on devices
operating on an unlicensed basis, it also asks whether such devices
should instead operate on a licensed or hybrid basis. The Commission
expects to complete this work and make final decisions in sufficient
time for industry to design and produce new products by completion of
the DTV transition.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before January 31, 2007, and reply
comments must be filed on or before March 2, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by ET Docket No. 04-186
and 02-380, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: [Optional: Include the E-mail address only if you
plan to accept comments from the general public]. Include the docket
number(s) in the subject line of the message.
Mail: [Optional: Include the mailing address for paper,
disk or CD-ROM submissions needed/requested by your Bureau or Office.
Do not include the Office of the Secretary's mailing address here.]
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hugh Van Tuyl, Office of Engineering
and Technology, (202) 418-7506, e-mail: Hugh.VanTuyl@fcc.gov, or Alan
Stillwell, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-2925, e-mail
Alan.Stillwell@fcc.gov, TTY (202) 418-2989.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, ET Docket No. 04-186 and 02-380,
FCC 06-156, adopted October 12, 2006, and released October 18, 2006.
The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying
during normal 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, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room,
CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at:
http://www.fcc.gov.
Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47
CFR
[[Page 66898]]
1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments
on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document.
Comments may be filed using: (1) The Commission's Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal,
or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers
should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting
comments.
For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers
appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one
electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number
referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers
should include their full name, U.S. 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,
filers should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following
words in the body of the message, ``get form.'' A sample form and
directions will be sent in response.
Paper Filers: 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,
filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service
mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S.
Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or
messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236
Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing
hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be
held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be
disposed of before entering the building.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: 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 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
Summary of Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
1. The purpose of this Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making
(FNPRM) is to develop additional information concerning the rules that
will be necessary to enable low power devices to operate in the TV
bands without causing harmful interference to other authorized
operations in those bands. TV stations are generally protected from
interference within defined signal contours, and the signal level that
defines a TV station's protected contour varies depending on the type
of station and the frequency band in which the station operates.
Consequently, in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) 69 FR 34103,
June 18, 2004, the Commission proposed to use these service area
criteria to define the areas that unlicensed devices must protect from
harmful interference, i.e., TV service within the contours defined by
these criteria would have to be protected. In the NPRM, the Commission
considered several different interference avoidance approaches for
unlicensed operations for two functional categories of operations--
fixed/access and personal/portable devices. Fixed/access devices
generally operate at higher power from a fixed location, including
outdoors, and may be used to provide a commercial service. Personal/
portable devices, on the other hand, are those generally anticipated to
operate at lower power, usually indoors or within a small localized
area, and include devices such as computers or personal digital
assistants (PDAs) that can be moved to operate at different locations.
The Commission proposed to require that fixed/access devices
incorporate a geo-location method such as GPS or be professionally
installed, and that they access a database to identify vacant channels
at their location. The Commission proposed that personal/portable
devices operate only when they receive a control signal from a source
such as an FM or TV station that identifies the vacant TV channels in
that particular area. Finally, it sought comment on the possibility of
using spectrum sensing as an alternative to the geo-location/database
and control signal approaches, but did not make any specific proposals
on the use of this technique for identifying unused TV channels.
2. The Commission does not believe there is sufficient information
in the record to adopt rules for any of these interference avoidance
approaches at this time. There are unresolved issues from the NPRM with
respect to both the geo-location/database approach and the control
signal approach, and the Commission is seeking further comment on ways
to resolve those issues. Because the Commission believes that the
spectrum sensing approach holds promise, it is making specific
proposals concerning this approach. Although the NPRM included
proposals that different interference avoidance schemes be used for
fixed/access and personal/portable devices, commenters responding to
this Further NPRM should address whether and how one interference
avoidance scheme could be used effectively for both types of TV band
devices. Commenters also should address how an interference avoidance
scheme would protect TV services within their defined contours.
Licensed vs. Unlicensed Operation
3. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to allow unlicensed
operation in the TV bands, but did not address the possibility of
instead providing for new low power operations on a licensed basis. A
number of parties suggest that if new wireless operations are permitted
in the TV bands, they should be on a licensed, rather than an
unlicensed, basis. No party provided specific recommendations for how
spectrum in the TV band could be assigned on a licensed basis for the
devices contemplated in the NPRM. In the interest of obtaining a
further record on this issue, the Commission seeks comment on whether
proposed low power operations in the TV bands should be allowed on an
unlicensed, licensed, or hybrid basis.
4. The Commission notes that licensing would require it to
determine the rights and obligations of such licensees vis-[agrave]-vis
other licensees. In contrast to unlicensed use, licensees would, by
definition, have rights to transmit in this band with some interference
protection. For instance, what would be the allocation status of such
licensed operations? How would such services fit within the hierarchy
of currently authorized TV and other services in the band? Should they
have
[[Page 66899]]
equal, superior, or secondary rights to existing services, and if so,
which ones? Would TV band devices used by licensed services be required
to incorporate the same type of interference avoidance mechanisms and
low power limits that are proposed for unlicensed devices? Would an
exclusive licensing approach or a non-exclusive, shared approach better
serve the Commission's spectrum policy objectives? If the Commission
decides to license wireless services on an exclusive basis, it seeks
comment on what licensing areas should be used in this band--e.g.,
nationwide, regional, small geographic areas, or a site-specific
approach? Should the Commission divide the TV spectrum into different
blocks of channels--e.g., Channels 5 and 6, Channels 7 through 13,
Channels 21 through 36, and Channels 38 through 51--and issue separate
authorizations to operate on each of these blocks of channels in the
relevant geographic area?
5. The Commission seeks comment on these and any other issues
relevant to whether TV band devices should be allowed on an unlicensed,
licensed, or hybrid basis. It asks commenters to discuss the technical,
operational, legal, or economic advantages and costs associated with
the various options. Commenters should also discuss the benefits and
disadvantages associated with each of these approaches.
Spectrum Sensing and Other Technical Requirements
6. The Commission further explores the viability of spectrum
sensing as a method for identifying TV channels that may be used by TV
band devices and offers specific technical proposals for the sensing
capabilities and parameters that would need to be included in the
Commission's rules. It requests additional comment on whether TV band
devices should be allowed to use spectrum sensing as a means to
determine the availability of unused frequencies in the TV bands and,
if so, the technical features and parameters of the sensing capability
to be required.
7. Detection Threshold. The detection threshold is the sensitivity
level that would be used to determine the presence of other signals.
The Commission observes that IEEE 802.22 is considering different
threshold detection levels depending on the nature of the source
signal, with levels as low as -116 dBm. The Commission invites comment
as to this value or alternative values for the detection threshold.
8. The Commission appreciates that a variety of additional
considerations need to be taken into account in developing the
detection threshold for devices in the TV bands. For example, a lower
detection threshold infers greater interference protection for services
operating in the TV spectrum, but could also result in increased false
positives as a response to spurious radio noise or other unlicensed
devices, sharply reducing the usefulness of this spectrum for TV band
devices. Also, the height of the TV band device transmitting antenna
affects the distance that signals propagate, and therefore the distance
at which interference could occur. The Commission asks interested
parties to address how these factors might be taken into account in
developing the appropriate detection threshold.
9. A number of parties have asserted that sensing alone will not be
effective in preventing harmful interference to TV broadcasting within
its protected contour and to other authorized services in this spectrum
due to the problem of the ``hidden node.'' This situation results when
there is an obstruction between the sensing receiver and the signal to
be detected. In this case, the sensing receiver may fail to detect that
a channel is occupied and begin transmitting, thus causing interference
to other nearby parties attempting to receive that channel along an
unobstructed path. The Commission recognizes that this is indeed a
potential problem and request views on its scope and how to deal with
this phenomenon effectively. The Commission invites further comment as
to how it can ensure the viability of a distributed sensing approach
for systems deployed on an unlicensed basis. For example, could this
type of operation be achieved simply by requiring every device in a
network to have sensing capability and to pass its sensing information
on to other devices on the network? Another approach would be to use
sensing in combination with other information, such as geolocation,
under a set of policy rules that would serve as the gating criteria for
access to the spectrum. The Commission solicits comments on these and
any other approaches that would deal effectively with the hidden node
problem.
10. Channel Availability Check Time, Move Time and Non-Occupancy
Period. The operating pattern in the TV spectrum typically does not
change rapidly because TV stations rarely change their operating
characteristics, such as hours of operation, antenna height, power,
etc. Nevertheless, the Commission recognizes that operations in the TV
spectrum can and do change over time. For example, certain TV
broadcasting operations may be on most of the day, but not for brief
periods during late night or early morning hours. New low power TV and
translator operations could be authorized and come on the air at any
time. Wireless microphone operations tend to be used for a period of
hours at a particular location, but can also operate anywhere at any
time and may not have a signal that is on the air continuously.
11. In light of these factors, the Commission proposes to require
that TV band devices that use sensing to determine the availability of
unused TV band frequencies perform sensing before accessing a channel
and periodically thereafter to ensure that the channel is still
available, i.e., unoccupied. The Commission asks commenters to indicate
whether there is a need to specify the period of time over which
sensing must occur before a channel may be accessed, and if so, what
that should be. For example, would 30 seconds be a necessary or
sufficient period of time for the initial channel availability check
when a device is placed in operation, i.e., turned-on? The Commission
also invites comment as to the appropriate period when the channel must
be rechecked to determine that it continues to be available. Its
initial proposal is to require devices to recheck the channel at least
every 10 seconds. The Commission does not propose to require devices to
remain off the air for any prescribed period of time after a channel is
first determined to be occupied. It believes the requirement to perform
sensing before operating should ensure that devices will not cause
harmful interference to authorized services that are already on the
air.
12. Channels Over Which Sensing Is Required. In order to avoid co-
channel interference to authorized services in the TV spectrum, sensing
is clearly needed in the channel in which the device will operate. The
Commission requests comment on the need for sensing in adjacent
channels by fixed and personal/portable devices. It also requests
comment and information on the threshold levels at which protection
should be invoked for sensed adjacent channel signals and whether
protections other than simply requiring an unlicensed device to not
transmit would be workable and appropriate. For example, if an adjacent
channel signal were sensed, could interference be avoided by requiring
the device to reduce power rather than cease operation? The Commission
further seeks comment on whether any protection requirements are needed
for services outside of the channels where
[[Page 66900]]
TV band devices would be permitted to operate, and if so, what these
would be.
13. Bandwidth Considerations. The Commission seeks comment on
whether there is a need to specify a sensing bandwidth in addition to a
detection threshold, or whether it is necessary to specify only the
characteristics of the signals to be detected, and leave the sensing
bandwidth to the manufacturer's discretion.
14. Antenna Considerations. The Commission invites comment about
whether the Commission should require the use of an omnidirectional
antenna with a 0 dBi gain for sensing. It also invites comment as to
what considerations for sensing should be taken into account for
devices that employ a gain antenna for transmission. For example, a TV
band device with an omnidirectional sensing antenna may detect that TV
signals on a channel are below the monitoring threshold and begin
transmitting, but could conceivably cause interference if it uses a
higher gain directional transmitting antenna aimed toward a TV
receiver. What provisions would be necessary to avoid such a situation?
Further, the Commission invites comment on whether any requirements are
necessary with respect to the transmit antenna height, such as a
maximum antenna height requirement or reduced power when a greater
antenna height is used.
15. Transmit power control. The Commission proposes to apply the
same transmit power control requirements to devices operating in the TV
spectrum that apply to U-NII devices at 5 GHz. It invites comment as to
whether it should require a greater dynamic range for transmit power
control, such as the ability to operate 9 or 12 dB below the limits if
that is sufficient to achieve the desired communications. In addition,
the Commission invites comment as to whether it should permit
adjustments to any TV band device operating parameters, such as the
detection threshold, if a TV band device operates at a power level
substantially below the limit.
16. Master/Client Operation. The Commission proposes to allow fixed
operations in the TV bands under a master/client model that is
consistent with the model for U-NII devices. That is, each system of TV
band devices will have one master device and one or more client
devices. It proposes to define a master device as a device operating in
a mode in which it has the capability to transmit without receiving an
enabling signal. In this mode it would be able to select a channel and
initiate a network by sending enabling signals to other devices. A
network would always have one device operating in master mode. The
Commission proposes to define a client device as a device operating in
a mode in which the transmissions are under control of the master. A
device in client mode would not be able to initiate a network. A
network could have one or more client devices. The Commission seeks
comment on this proposal and whether any other approaches would be more
appropriate.
17. Spectrum Sharing. The Commission invites comment as to whether
it may be necessary or appropriate for the Commission to establish
minimal technical requirements to facilitate sharing by unlicensed TV
band devices, or by TV band devices licensed under a non-exclusive
model if the Commission chose to adopt such an approach. For example,
such steps might include limitations on the duration of transmissions
and repeating spectrum sensing at intervals more frequently than 10
seconds. Parties addressing this matter should make specific proposals.
In addition, the Commission asks that parties address the implications
of their proposals for potential applications for TV band devices.
18. Measurement procedures. The Commission is presenting proposals
and inviting comment on certain specific testing matters at this time.
In performing the test for detection threshold, it proposes to subject
the sensing capabilities of unlicensed devices to an ATSC DTV signal,
an NTSC signal and a 200 kHz FM signal with peak levels adjusted to the
threshold level. The Commission seeks comment on whether this approach
is appropriate or whether some other method should be used. The test
procedure for 5 GHz U-NII devices calls for performing the detection
tests a number of times and specifies pass/fail ratios. The Commission
does not believe such an approach is appropriate here because it should
be simpler to detect signals from the types of devices operating in the
TV spectrum than for radars, but it invites comment in this regard.
Parties suggesting approaches based on multiple tests and pass/fail
ratios should offer specific proposals.
Geo-Location/Database Approach
19. The Commission does not maintain a database of all TV and other
stations in the TV bands that could be accessed in real-time (or near
real-time) by large numbers of unlicensed devices dispersed throughout
the country. However, in other cases, the Commission has relied on
private parties to develop and maintain databases of certain operations
that others can access, and these databases are funded by the entities
that use them. For example, the Commission selected the United Telecom
Council (UTC) to maintain a database of broadband over power (BPL)
systems, and the American Society for Healthcare Engineering of the
American Hospital Association (ASHE/AHA) to maintain a database of
wireless medical telemetry service devices. In these cases, the
Commission developed basic regulations regarding the scope of the
databases, solicited proposals from parties interested in developing
and maintaining the database, and selected the database provider. The
Commission seeks comment on relying on a similar approach here,
particularly from parties who would be interested in developing and
maintaining a database of operations in the TV bands. It also seeks
further comment on some issues regarding the content of and access to a
TV band database. For example, what information about stations should
be in a database, such as geographic coordinates, type and class of
station, power level, antenna height and other antenna characteristics?
What information about wireless microphones could be entered in a
database so that their location can be ascertained because the
Commission does not license them by geographic coordinates? How would
an unlicensed device access a database, and how often would a database
need to be updated?
20. Finally, the Commission seeks additional comment on some of the
technical requirements for TV band devices relying on the geo-location/
database approach. For example, what is the appropriate method of geo-
location: GPS, professional installation, or some other method? Could
devices incorporate Assisted GPS to help receive GPS signals in
obstructed and indoor locations? If a device is professionally
installed, who should be permitted to install it? What is the
appropriate method of determining the required separation from
authorized users in the TV bands? How will the geo-location/database
approach protect other authorized services, such as wireless
microphones, the location of which may not be included in the
databases? The Commission seeks comment on these and any other issues
that need to be addressed to make this a viable interference avoidance
scheme.
Control Signal Approach
21. The control signal approach is essentially a variation of the
geo-location/database approach, and some of the same concerns apply to
both methods, specifically, those about
[[Page 66901]]
maintaining the database and the method used to calculate the required
separation between unlicensed devices and authorized stations in the TV
bands. As discussed in regards to a geo-location database, a control
signal database could be developed and maintained by a private entity
selected by the Commission, and the database could be funded by parties
who use it. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should develop
basic regulations regarding the scope of a database to be used with a
control signal approach, solicit proposals from parties interested in
developing and maintaining a database, and select a database provider.
The Commission particularly seeks comment from parties who would be
interested in developing and maintaining a database for the control
signal approach. It also seeks further comment on some issues regarding
the content of and access to a TV band database. For example, what
information about vacant TV spectrum should be in a database and who
should determine the list of vacant TV channels in a broadcaster's
service area, e.g., the database manager, a designated frequency
coordinator? Is there any inherent conflict of interest in permitting
broadcasters to identify and to send information identifying channels
not licensed to them as vacant and therefore available for use by
unlicensed devices?
22. Regarding the technical requirements for unlicensed devices,
the Commission seeks further comment on the format and content of the
control signal. How will the control signal approach protect other
authorized services, such as wireless microphones, the location of
which may not be included in the databases? Also, can the control
signal approach be relied upon as an interference avoidance mechanism
in areas where no broadcast station or other facility sends a control
signal?
A. Operation on Channels 14-20 and 2-4
23. The Commission seeks additional comment on whether fixed TV
band devices should be allowed on channels 14-20 in those areas of the
country where those channels are not used by public safety. It notes
that the PLRMS/CMRS is permitted to operate in only 13 metropolitan
areas in the country, and on only one to three channels in each area.
Further, PLMRS/CMRS operations are limited to a defined radius around
geographic coordinates specified in the rules for each metropolitan
area. Thus, prohibiting operation of all fixed TV band devices (e.g.,
devices used for backhaul) on all channels in the range of 14-20 in all
parts of the country could preclude operation of fixed low power
devices in many areas where these channels are not in use by the PLMRS/
CMRS or other authorized services. The Commission seeks comment on
whether allowing fixed operation of TV band devices on channels 14-20
would cause harmful interference to public safety. If the Commission
were to allow such use, how would it be implemented? Would any of the
proposals have to be modified to protect the PLMRS/CMRS? Should the
Commission define an ``exclusion zone'' around the specified
coordinates of each of the 13 metropolitan areas where operation of low
power devices would be prohibited? If so, what would be the appropriate
size of the zone and how could it be enforced?
24. The Commission seeks further comment on whether it should allow
TV band devices to operate on channels 2-4. In particular, the
Commission seeks comment on whether TV interface devices would be more
susceptible to interference from low power TV band devices than other
TV receivers. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the cabling
between a TV interface device and a TV receiver typically provides
adequate shielding from unwanted signals on channels 2-4. The
Commission also seeks information indicating the extent to which such
signals may be picked up directly within the TV receiver. In addition,
it notes a trend toward devices that connect directly to a TV receiver
without going through the tuner. The Commission seeks comment on how
much longer consumers are expected to use TV interface devices that
connect to a TV through the tuner rather than an alternative interface
connection.
B. Other Issues
25. Types and Applications of Devices. The Commission seeks
additional comment on the types and applications of unlicensed devices
that parties expect to be developed to operate in the TV bands. In
particular, it seeks comment on the relationship between the technical
requirements it is now proposing and the potential types of TV band
devices that could be needed and developed. For example, how would a
specific interference avoidance mechanism affect the types of potential
applications? The Commission also invites comment as to whether the
applications would be different if the Commission were to provide for
TV band devices on a licensed basis instead of an unlicensed basis.
26. Out of Band Emission Limits. The Commission proposes to require
that emissions outside a TV band device's operating channel comply with
the Sec. 15.209 limits, but seek comment on whether different emission
limits would be more appropriate. Parties that believe limits other
than those in Sec. 15.209 are necessary to protect incumbent TV band
operations against harmful interference may perform tests and submit
the results into the record in this proceeding.
27. The Commission also seeks comment on how out-of-band limits
should be specified. Radiated emission limits at TV band frequencies
are based on measuring equipment employing CISPR quasi-peak detector
function and related measurement bandwidths. The Commission seeks
comment on whether there is a better measure available for quantifying
effects of interference on incumbent services in the TV bands, e.g.,
ATSC digital television signals. For example, should measurement
bandwidth be larger than the 120 kHz used by CISPR quasi-peak detectors
in this frequency range in order to more closely match DTV receiver
bandwidths? Should interference effects be quantified by measurements
of average power, peak power, or some other function within the
recommended measurement bandwidth? The Commission also seeks input on
the appropriate emission levels using the proposed measurements. Should
the levels be set to be equivalent in some sense to the 15.209 limits
or should they be set at a different level?
28. Direct Pickup Interference and Receiver Desensitization. The
Commission believes that fixed TV band devices will typically not be
operated as close to TV receivers as some parties assume and should not
generally cause direct pickup interference problems. Although personal/
portable TV band devices could be located in close proximity to TV
receivers, such devices are typically under control of the same party
who can increase the separation distance between them or cease
operating a device to eliminate any interference that occurs. The
Commission invites parties to submit test results to evaluate the
interference potential of low power devices to TV receivers. If any
parties discover actual direct pickup interference or other adverse
effects on TV receivers or other radio equipment in or adjacent to the
TV bands during testing, they can submit results to the Commission that
it will consider in the rule making process.
29. Certification by TCBs. Because TV band devices would contain
new technologies and the Commission proposes new rules to accommodate
[[Page 66902]]
them, it expects that many questions about the application of the rules
would arise. The Commission proposes that Telecommunication
Certification Bodies not be permitted to certify TV band devices until
the Commission has experience with them and can properly advise the
TCBs on how to apply the applicable rules. The Commission's Laboratory
maintains a list of types of devices that TCBs are excluded from
certifying, and it proposes to place TV band transmitters on this list
until such time as it determines that TCBs are capable of certifying
them. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
30. Unlicensed Use in Border Areas near Canada and Mexico. The
Commission asks whether the agreements with Canada and Mexico would
need to be modified before it allows unlicensed TV band devices to
operate in the border areas. To the extent they would need to be
modified, the Commission seeks further comment on the methods that
could be used to ensure that unlicensed TV band devices do not operate
in the border areas until such time as the appropriate agreements are
concluded. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the answers to
these questions would be different under a licensed approach, and if
so, how. Would these matters be more easily addressed under a licensed
approach rather than an unlicensed approach?
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
31. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this present Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities small
entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed
Rule Making (NPRM). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA.
Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed
by the deadlines for comments on the Notice provided in paragraph 69 of
the Further NPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and
Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including this IRFA,
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
(SBA).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
32. This Further NPRM proposes to allow low power transmitters to
operate in the TV broadcast bands at locations where spectrum is not
being used by authorized services without causing harmful interference
to these services. The Further NPRM seeks comment on whether these TV
band devices should be authorized on a licensed, unlicensed or hybrid
basis.\2\ It would propose to require TV band devices to incorporate
``smart radio'' features to detect vacant TV channels and prevent
harmful interference from TV band devices to authorized services
operating in the TV bands. These features would include the abilities
to (1) Monitor spectrum prior to transmitting to ensure that it is not
in use by authorized services, (2) switch frequencies or cease
transmitting if an authorized service begins using a previously unused
frequency, (3) adjust transmit power to the minimum needed to establish
a link, (4) determine geographic location and access a database to
determine which channels are in use, and/or (5) receive a control
signal and select the operating frequency based on data in the control
signal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Licensed operation requires the operator to obtain an
authorization issued by the Commission to use a particular frequency
band. Unlicensed operation may be done without a prior authorization
from the Commission. Hybrid operation would be some mix of these two
approaches but is not specifically defined in the Further NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
33. These proposals, if adopted, will prove beneficial to
manufacturers and users of low power transmitters because they will
provide for more efficient and effective use of the TV spectrum and
allow the development of new and innovative types of wireless devices
and communication services for businesses and consumers. The additional
frequency bands where operation is proposed can provide an alternative
last mile solution to cable or DSL services for delivering high speed
Internet services, other data applications, or even video and voice
services. This could particularly benefit underserved, rural, or
isolated communities where cable and DSL services are not available.
Also, because transmissions in the TV band have less signal attenuation
through foliage and walls than frequencies above 900 MHz (such as
unlicensed operations in the 2.4 GHz band), operations in the TV bands
can improve the service range of wireless operations, thereby allowing
operators to reach new customers and improve service to existing
customers.
B. Legal Basis
34. The proposed action is authorized under Sections 4(i), 301,
302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r), 304 and 307 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f),
303(r), 304 and 307.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
35. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and,
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.\3\ The RFA generally
defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the
terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small
governmental jurisdiction.\4\ In addition, the ``small business'' has
the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small
Business Act.\5\ A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) Is
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of
operations; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by
the Small Business Administration (SBA).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3).
\4\ 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
\5\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition
of ``small-business concern'' in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.
632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition of a
small business applies ``unless an agency, after consultation with
the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and
after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more
definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of
the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal
Register.''
\6\ 15 U.S.C. 632.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 66903]]
36. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications
Equipment Manufacturers. The Commission has not developed a definition
of small entities applicable to unlicensed communications devices
manufacturers. Therefore, we will utilize the SBA definition
application to manufacturers of Radio and Television Broadcasting and
Communications Equipment. Under the SBA's regulations, a Radio and
Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment
Manufacturer must have 750 or fewer employees in order to qualify as a
small business concern.\7\ Census Bureau data indicate that there are
1,215 U.S. establishments that manufacture radio and television
broadcasting and wireless communications equipment, and that 1,150 of
these establishments have fewer than 500 employees and would be
classified as small entities.\8\ The remaining 65 establishments have
500 or more employees; however, we are unable to determine how many of
those have fewer than 750 employees and, therefore, also qualify as
small entities under the SBA definition. We therefore conclude that
there are at least 1,150 small manufacturers of radio and television
broadcasting and wireless communications equipment, and possibly there
are more that operate with more than 500 but fewer than 750 employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 334220.
\8\ Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1997 Economic Census, Industry Series--
Manufacturing, Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless
Communications Equipment Manufacturing, Table 4 at 9 (1999). The
amount of 500 employees was used to estimate the number of small
business firms because the relevant Census categories stopped at 499
employees and began at 500 employees. No category for 750 employees
existed. Thus, the number is as accurate as it is possible to
calculate with the available information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
37. Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications. The SBA has
developed a small business size standard for Cellular and Other
Wireless Telecommunications, which consists of all such firms having
1,500 or fewer employees.'' \9\ According to Census Bureau data for
1997, in this category there were 977 firms that operated for the
entire year.\10\ Of this total, 965 firms had employment of 999 or
fewer employees, and an additional twelve firms had employment of 1,000
employees or more.\11\ Thus, under this size standard, the majority of
firms can be considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517211.
\10\ U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:
``Information,'' Table 5, Employment Size of Firms Subject to
Federal Income Tax: 1997, NAICS code 513322 (issued October 2000).
\11\ U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:
``Information,'' Table 5, Employment Size of Firms Subject to
Federal Income Tax: 1997, NAICS code 513322 (issued October 2000).
The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number
of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer employees; the
largest category provided is ``Firms with 1000 employees or more.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
38. Most licensed and unlicensed transmitters are required to be
authorized under the Commission's certification procedure as a
prerequisite to marketing and importation, and the proposed new types
of TV band devices would be subject to the same certification
requirement. There are no proposed new recordkeeping or reporting
requirements in the Further Notice. There are a number of proposed
compliance requirements for TV band devices.
39. Transmitters capable of operating in the TV bands would have to
incorporate the following features to ensure that they operate on only
vacant TV channels. Specifically, a transmitter would have to
incorporate a dynamic frequency selection (DFS) mechanism to monitor a
TV channel before transmitting. If no signals on a channel were
detected above a specified level within a specified period of time, the
device would be allowed to transmit on that channel. Otherwise, the
device would have to monitor other TV channels to find one that is
vacant, or if no vacant TV channels were available, the device would
not be allowed to transmit. A TV band device would have to periodically
monitor the TV channel on which it transmits during operation, and if
any new signals appear, the device would have to switch to another
channel within a specified period of time or cease transmitting if no
vacant channels are available. A TV band device would also have to
incorporate a transmit power control mechanism to lower the output
power by 6 dB (4 times lower) than the maximum permitted power of one
watt if that level is sufficient to accomplish the desired
communications.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
40. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant,
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four
alternatives (among others): ``(1) The establishment of differing
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and
reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the
use of performance, rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.''
\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)-(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
41. If the rules proposed in this notice are adopted, we believe
they might have a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities. For an entity that chooses to manufacture or import
equipment for the subject bands, the rules would impose costs for
compliance with equipment technical requirements, such as incorporating
a DFS mechanism to detect vacant TV channels where the equipment can
operate. However, the burdens for complying with the proposed rules
would be the same for both large and small entities. Therefore, no
disproportionate burden of compliance would be sustained by small
entities. Further, the proposals in this NPRM are ultimately beneficial
for both large and small entities because they will provide for more
efficient and effective use of the TV spectrum and allow the
development of new and innovative types of wireless devices and
communication services for businesses and consumers. Also, because
transmissions in the TV band are subject to less propagation
attenuation than transmissions in other bands where lower power
operations are permitted (such as unlicensed operations in the 2.4 GHz
band), operations in the TV bands can improve the service range of
wireless operations, thereby allowing operators to reach new customers.
42. The Further NPRM seeks comment on alternatives to the proposed
DFS mechanism for detecting vacant TV channels. Specifically, it seeks
additional comment on how to implement the geo-location/database and
control signal approaches for identifying vacant TV channels that was
proposed in the original NPRM in this proceeding. The geo-location/
database method would require that a TV band device incorporate a
Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver or be professionally installed
to determine its location, and that the device would have to access a
database to identify vacant channels at its location. The control
signal approach would require that a TV band device operate only when
it receives a control signal from a source such as an FM or TV station
that identifies the vacant TV channels that
[[Page 66904]]
could be used by the device in that particular area. We cannot find
electrical engineering alternatives, such as exemptions from the
requirements to include certain interference avoidance mechanisms into
TV band devices that would achieve our goals while treating small
entities differently. Nonetheless, we solicit comment on any
alternatives commenters may wish to suggest for the purpose of
facilitating the Commission's intention to minimize the compliance
burden on smaller entities. As described, the compliance burdens would
include incorporating certain features into TV band devices to prevent
interference to authorized services, such as DFS, transmit power
control, geo-location/database access and/or the ability to receive and
respond to a control signal.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rule
None.
43. Pursuant to sections 4(i), 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r) and 307
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections
154(i), 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r) and 307, this First Report and
Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby adopted.
44. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau,
Reference Information Center, Shall send a copy of this First Report
and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and Final Regulatory
Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 15
Communications equipment, Radio.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
Rules Changes
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 15 to read as
follows:
PART 15--RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES
1. The authority citation of part 15 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 336, and 544a.
2. Section 15.209 is amended by revising the footnote to the table
in paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 15.209 Radiated emission limits, general requirements.
(a) * * *
* * * * *
* * * Except as provided in paragraph (g) of this section,
fundamental emissions from intentional radiators operating under this
section shall not be located in the frequency bands 54-72 MHz, 76-88
MHz, 174-216 MHz or 470-806 MHz. However, operation within these
frequency bands is permitted under subpart H and under other sections
of this part, e.g., Sec. Sec. 15.231, 15.241 and 15.242.
* * * * *
3. Subpart H is added to part 15 to read as follows:
Subpart H--Unlicensed TV Band Devices
Sec.
15.701 Scope.
15.703 Definitions.
15.705 Cross reference.
15.707 General technical requirements.
Sec. 15.701 Scope.
This subpart sets out the regulations for unlicensed TV band
devices operating in the 76-88 MHz, 174-216 MHz, 512-608 MHz and 614-
698 MHz bands.
Sec. 15.703 Definitions.
(a) Available Channel. A radio channel on which a Channel
Availability Check has not identified the presence of a signal.
(b) Channel Availability Check. A check during which the TV band
device listens on a particular radio channel to identify whether there
is a station operating on that radio channel.
(c) Channel Move Time. The time needed by a TV band device to cease
all transmissions on the current channel upon detection of a station
above the DFS detection threshold.
(d) Dynamic Frequency Selection (DFS). A mechanism that dynamically
detects signals from other systems and avoids co-channel operation with
these systems.
(e) DFS Detection Threshold. The required detection level defined
by detecting a received signal strength that is greater than a
threshold specified, within the TV band device channel bandwidth.
(f) In-Service Monitoring. A mechanism to check a channel in use by
the TV band device for the presence of a station.
(g) Operating Channel. Once a TV band device starts to operate on
an Available Channel then that channel becomes the Operating Channel.
(h) Maximum Conducted Output Power. The total transmit power
delivered to all antennas and antenna elements averaged across all
symbols in the signaling alphabet when the transmitter is operating at
its maximum power control level. Power must be summed across all
antennas and antenna elements. The average must not include any time
intervals during which the transmitter is off or is transmitting at a
reduced power level. If multiple modes of operation are possible (e.g.,
alternative modulation methods), the maximum conducted output power is
the highest total transmit power occurring in any mode.
(i) TV band devices. Intentional radiators operating in the
frequency bands 76-88 MHz, 174-216 MHz, 470-608 MHz and 614-698 MHz.
Sec. 15.705 Cross reference.
(a) The provisions of subparts A, B, and C of this part apply to
unlicensed TV band devices, except where specific provisions are
contained in subpart H. Manufacturers should note that this includes
the provisions of Sec. Sec. 15.203 and 15.205.
(b) The requirements of subpart H apply only to the radio
transmitter contained in the TV band device. Other aspects of the
operation of a TV band device may be subject to requirements contained
elsewhere in this chapter. In particular, a TV band device that
includes digital circuitry not directly associated with the radio
transmitter also is subject to the requirements for unintentional
radiators in subpart B of this part.
Sec. 15.707 General technical requirements.
(a) The maximum conducted output power is 1 watt. If a transmitting
antenna of directional gain greater than 6 dBi is used, the peak output
power shall be reduced by the amount in dB that the maximum directional
gain of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi.
(b) Unwanted emissions shall comply with the following:
(1) Unwanted emissions outside the channel of operation must comply
with the general field strength limits set forth in Sec. 15.209.
(2) The provisions of Sec. 15.205 apply to intentional radiators
operating under this section.
(3) Any devices using an AC power line are required to comply with
the conducted limits set forth in Sec. 15.207.
(c) The device shall automatically discontinue transmission in case
of either absence of information to transmit or operational failure.
These provisions are not intended to preclude the transmission of
control or signaling
[[Page 66905]]
information or the use of repetitive codes used by certain digital
technologies to complete frame or burst intervals. Applicants shall
include in their application for equipment authorization a description
of how this requirement is met.
(d) TV band devices are subject to the radio frequency radiation
exposure requirements specified in Sec. Sec. 1.1307(b), 2.1091 and
2.1093 of this chapter, as appropriate. All equipment shall be
considered to operate in a ``general population/uncontrolled''
environment. Applications for equipment authorization of devices
operating under this section must contain a statement confirming
compliance with these requirements for both fundamental emissions and
unwanted emissions. Technical information showing the basis for this
statement must be submitted to the Commission upon request.
(e) Manufacturers of TV band devices are responsible for ensuring
frequency stability such that an emission is maintained within the band
of operation under all conditions of normal operation as specified in
the user's manual.
(f) Dynamic Frequency Selection (DFS). TV band devices shall employ
a DFS detection mechanism to detect the presence of authorized stations
in the TV bands and to avoid co-channel operation with them. The
detection threshold is referenced to a 0 dBi gain antenna. The minimum
DFS detection threshold for TV band devices is -116 dBm.
(1) Channel Availability Check Time. A TV band device shall check
if there is a station already operating on the channel before it may
initiate a transmission on a channel and when it has to move to a new
channel. The TV band device may start using the channel if no station
with a power level greater than the detection threshold value listed in
paragraph (f) of this section is detected within 30 seconds.
(2) In-Service Monitoring. A TV band device shall perform in-
service monitoring at intervals no greater than 10 seconds.
(3) Channel Move Time. After a station's presence is detected, all
transmissions shall cease on the operating channel within 10 seconds.
Transmissions during this period shall consist of normal traffic for a
maximum of 200 ms after detection of the station's signal. In addition,
intermittent management and control signals can be sent during the
remaining time to facilitate vacating the operating channel.
(g) Transmit power control (TPC). TV band devices shall employ a
TPC mechanism. The TV band device is required to have the capability to
operate at least 6 dB below the maximum conducted output power limit of
1 watt. A TPC mechanism is not required for devices with a maximum
conducted output power of less than 500 mW.
[FR Doc. E6-18910 Filed 11-16-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P