[Federal Register: June 18, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 117)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 34103-34112]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18jn04-42]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 15
[ET Docket No. 04-186 and ET Docket No. 02-380; FCC 04-113]
Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes to amend the Commission's rules to
allow unlicensed radio transmitters to operate in the broadcast
television spectrum at locations where that spectrum is not being used.
We believe that the proposals set forth will provide for more efficient
and effective use of the TV spectrum and will have significant benefits
for the public by allowing the development of new and innovative types
of unlicensed broadband devices and services for businesses and
consumers.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before September 1, 2004, and reply
comments must be filed on or before October 1, 2004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hugh VanTuyl, (202) 418-7506, email:
Hugh.VanTuyl@fcc.gov or Alan Stillwell, (202) 418-2925, email:
Alan.Stillwell@fcc.gov, Office of Engineering and Technology. e-mail:,
TTY (202) 418-2989.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rule Making, ET Docket No. 04-186 and ET Docket No. 02-380,
FCC 04-113, adopted May 13, 2004, and released May 25, 2004. 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. Alternate formats are available to persons with
disabilities by contacting Brian Millin at (202) 418-7426 or TTY (202)
418-7365.
Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before
September 1, 2004, and reply comments on or before October 1, 2004.
Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing
System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998. Comments
filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the
Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. Although this
proceeding is captioned under multiple dockets, only one copy of an
electronic submission, captioned to ET Docket No. 04-186, should be
filed. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters 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 for
e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and
should include the following words in the body of the message, ``get
form .'' A sample form and directions will be sent
in reply. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and
four copies of each filing. All filings must be addressed to the
Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission. 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). The Commission's contractor,
Natek, Inc., 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 mail, Express mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed
to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Summary of Notice of Proposed Rule Making
1. The Notice of Proposed Rule Making proposes to allow unlicensed
radio transmitters to operate in the broadcast television spectrum at
[[Page 34104]]
locations where that spectrum is not being used. We believe that the
proposals set forth herein would provide for more efficient and
effective use of the TV spectrum and would have significant benefits
for the public by allowing the development of new and innovative types
of unlicensed broadband devices and services for businesses and
consumers.
2. We recognize that broadcasters are currently undergoing a
transition to digital operation, during which channel availability is
likely to change more frequently. Our approach will appropriately
account for these changes. To ensure that no harmful interference to
authorized users of the spectrum will occur, we propose to define when
a TV channel is ``unused'' and to require these unlicensed devices
comply with significant restrictions and technical protections.
Unlicensed devices would be required to incorporate ``smart radio''
features to identify the unused TV channels in the area where they are
located. We intend to consider several alternative methods for
identifying the unused TV channels, including approaches that would;
allow existing television and/or radio stations to transmit information
on TV channel availability directly to an unlicensed device; employ
geo-location technologies such as the Global Positioning Satellite
(GPS) system; or employ spectrum sensing techniques that would
determine if the signals of authorized TV stations are present in an
area.
3. On December 11, 2002, the Commission adopted a Notice of Inquiry
(NOI), 68 FR 2730, January 21, 2003, in this proceeding seeking comment
on the possibility of allowing unlicensed devices to operate in the TV
broadcast bands at locations and times when the spectrum is not being
used by authorized services. The Commission noted that unused portions
of the TV spectrum appear to be a suitable choice for expanded
unlicensed operations. In this regard, the Commission observed that
there is significant bandwidth available because each TV channel
occupies six megahertz and multiple channels are generally vacant or
unused in a particular area. The Commission stated that allowing
unlicensed devices to operate on unused TV channels would lead to more
efficient use of the spectrum. Commenting parties representing the
interests of manufacturers and users of unlicensed devices generally
support this approach, while those representing the interests of the
current users of the TV broadcast spectrum, both primary and secondary,
express concern about potential interference from such new unlicensed
operations.
Unlicensed Operation in the Broadcast TV Spectrum
4. Part 15 unlicensed devices and wireless broadband services using
such devices have been extremely successful. The past few years have
witnessed the development of broadband unlicensed industry standards
such as IEEE 802.11b (Wi-Fi), Bluetooth, and Home RF that have greatly
expanded the number and variety of devices that operate in the 2.4 GHz
and 5 GHz industrial, scientific and medical equipment (ISM) bands.
These standards have enabled the introduction of a host of new wireless
Internet products as well as wireless computer peripherals such as
printers and keyboards, and wireless headsets and computer connections
for cellular and PCS phones.
5. The record developed in response to the NOI indicates that there
is need for additional spectrum for unlicensed broadband devices. A
number of commenting parties in particular state that unlicensed
devices should be allowed to operate in the TV broadcast bands.
Broadcasters, however, express concern that allowing unlicensed
operation in the TV bands would pose a risk of interference to over-
the-air television service and could adversely affect the DTV
transition. They state that unlicensed operation in the TV bands would
be problematic during the DTV transition because the television bands
will be in a crowded, fluid and fragile state during that period, and
unlicensed devices could cause significant disruption to DTV service.
Other parties express concern about possible interference from
unlicensed devices to licensed non-broadcast services that operate on
TV channels. Parties representing Private Land Mobile Radio Service
(PLMRS) and Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) interests do not
believe that unlicensed devices should be permitted to operate on TV
channels 14-20, which are used by the PLMRS/CMRS in certain parts of
the country, or on TV channels above 51, which have been reallocated
for other services. In addition, manufacturers of wireless microphones
that operate on VHF and UHF TV channels are concerned about possible
interference from unlicensed devices.
6. We request comment on our tentative conclusions regarding the
interest in operation of unlicensed devices in the broadcast TV bands
and the suitability of those bands for such operations. We request
comment on proposals for requirements to ensure that unlicensed
broadband devices operating in the TV bands would transmit on vacant
spectrum and not interfere with authorized incumbent operations,
including: analog and digital television, low power television,
television translator, television booster, and Class A television
stations (as well as future authorization of digital low power
television, television translator and television booster stations being
considered in MB Docket No. 03-185), 68 FR 55566, September 26, 2003,
broadcast auxiliary services such as wireless microphones; and PLMRS
and CMRS backhaul operations.
Requirements for Unlicensed Use of the TV Bands
7. Because unlicensed broadband devices would share spectrum with
broadcast TV and other licensed services, they would need to have
capabilities to avoid causing harmful interference to licensed services
in the TV band. Specifically, an unlicensed device would need the
ability to determine whether a TV channel or frequency band is unused
before it could transmit. Additionally, an unlicensed device may need
capabilities to avoid occupying a frequency band in the event a
licensed user wishes to commence transmissions on a channel that was
previously vacant. As pointed out by a number of parties with interest
in TV broadcasting, this capability is especially important in light of
the transition to DTV and the facts that many broadcasters may be
required to change their current DTV channel and that new DTV stations
may begin operation.
8. For the purpose of developing interference protection criteria,
we propose to classify the unlicensed broadband devices to be used in
the TV bands into these two general functional categories. The first
category will consist of lower power ``personal/portable'' unlicensed
devices, such as Wi-Fi like cards in laptop computers or wireless in-
home LANs. The second category will consist of higher power ``fixed/
access'' unlicensed devices that are generally operated from a fixed
location and may be used to provide a commercial service such as
wireless broadband internet access. We believe that both of these types
of operations can be accommodated in the TV spectrum, provided
appropriate measures are taken to ensure that operations are limited to
unused TV channels. At the same time, we recognize that different
requirements may be appropriate for ensuring interference protection to
licensed operations from the two different types of devices, given the
differences in the
[[Page 34105]]
uses and the interference potential of these types of unlicensed
broadband applications. That is, certain methods that are appropriate
for limiting the interference potential of personal/portable devices
would be less appropriate for fixed/access devices and vice versa.
Therefore, we propose different interference avoidance requirements for
these two different types of unlicensed broadband applications. In both
cases, however, our goal is to make the technical requirements as
simple and as reliable as possible. We believe that this approach will
provide flexibility to permit a wide range of unlicensed broadband uses
and applications and ensure that the most appropriate and effective
mechanisms are in place to limit such unlicensed use to only unused TV
channels.
9. There are at least three methods that could be used to determine
whether a portion of the TV band is unused at a specific time and/or
location. First, the location of an unlicensed device could be
determined by a professional installer or by using geo-location
technology such as GPS incorporated within the device. Using either of
these methods, it could then be determined from either an internal or
external database whether the unlicensed device is located far enough
outside the protected service contours of licensed stations to avoid
causing harmful interference. A second method would be for an
unlicensed device to receive information transmitted by an external
source such as a broadcast station or another unlicensed transmitter
indicating which channels are available at its geographic location. A
third method would be to incorporate sensing capabilities in the
unlicensed device to detect whether other transmitters are operating in
an area. For example, a fixed unlicensed transmitter could be required
to incorporate an antenna and a receiver capable of detecting signals
down to a certain threshold level that would be used to determine if a
particular TV channel is actually in use. Generally, such sensing would
have to be much more sensitive than the receivers used in the licensed
service. If no signals were detected above the threshold, the device
would be allowed to transmit. If signals are detected above the
threshold on a particular channel, the unlicensed device would have to
search for another channel. As the Commission has previously noted,
there are techniques that can be used to increase the ability of a
sensing receiver to reliably detect other signals in a band which rely
on the fact that it is not necessary to decode the information in a
signal to determine whether a signal is present.
10. Unlicensed Personal/Portable Operations. Interference was the
primary concern raised by parties opposed to unlicensed operations in
the TV bands. These parties raise valid concerns that given the
potential ubiquitous and uncontrolled deployment of unlicensed devices,
any requirements on these devices must ensure that the devices only
transmit on unused TV channels. To ensure that this is the case, we are
proposing to allow personal/portable unlicensed broadband devices to
transmit only after they receive a ``control'' signal that positively
identifies which TV channels are vacant and therefore available for
use. Without reception of this ``control'' signal, no transmissions
would be permitted. This would provide positive assurance that these
devices would operate only on unused TV channels. We propose to permit
the transmission of control signal data by a number of sources. In
particular, we propose that the control signal could be a data stream
from a digital TV station, information transmitted in the vertical
blanking interval (VBI) of an analog TV station, subcarrier data from
an FM radio station, data transmitted by a licensed wireless provider,
or channel availability data from a fixed/access unlicensed device. We
propose that the transmission of this information would be on a
voluntary basis and that parties could receive compensation for
transmitting this information. Under the approach we are proposing, a
TV channel would be considered vacant only if no portion of the service
area of an authorized station assigned to use that channel was within
the service area of the station transmitting the control signal. For
example, if the information is transmitted by a DTV station, the
identified vacant channels must not be used for the provision of
television or other licensed services anywhere within the noise-limited
service contour of that DTV station. We also seek comment on how often
the control signal information should be transmitted and updated to
take into account changes in TV station operations that arise due to
the transition to DTV and the commencement of new stations. We
tentatively believe that control signal information should be at a
minimum current on a daily basis.
11. Given the portable and potentially ubiquitous nature of these
devices and the importance of protecting television service, we believe
that, at least initially, unlicensed personal/portable broadband
devices that operate in the TV bands should be subject to certain
additional requirements. In particular, we propose to limit the maximum
power output of these devices to 100 milliwatts (mW) and to require
that such devices have a permanently attached integral antenna with a
maximum permissible gain of 6 dBi. We believe that these power and
antenna provisions will provide sufficient communications capabilities
to allow personal/portable broadband devices to serve a wide range of
broadband applications, such as home networks, LANs and broadband
connectivity, while at the same time limiting the potential for
interference and RF safety concerns. We seek comment on whether these
devices should be subject to routine evaluation for RF exposure. We
also seek comment on whether we should allow higher power operation and
what safeguards would be needed to protect current and future licensees
in the TV bands. We further propose to require that such devices
automatically and periodically transmit a unique identification signal.
We seek comment on what information should be required to be
transmitted and how often it should be repeated for easy identification
of the unlicensed device. For example, should we require the device to
transmit the name of its manufacturer, its FCC identifier, and its
serial number? What time interval would be appropriate for periodic
transmission of the identifying information? We believe that taken
together these proposed requirements address the interference concerns
raised by commenting parties. In particular, we believe that this plan
will appropriately manage the potential for harmful interference to
television and other licensed services from unlicensed personal/
portable devices and, in the unlikely event that such interference were
to occur, provide a positive means to identify its source so that it
can be eliminated.
12. We seek comment on these proposals. In particular, we seek
specific comment on what is the most efficient and effective method for
providing control signals to unlicensed devices. In this regard, we ask
whether broadcasters would voluntarily engage in agreements with
unlicensed device manufacturers or service providers to transmit this
information. We note agreements with unlicensed device manufacturers to
carry channel availability data could provide broadcasters a new source
of revenue. For example, we understand that many FM radio broadcasters
have agreed to transmit information to support devices
[[Page 34106]]
using Microsoft's Smart Personal Object Technology (``SPOT''). While we
believe that voluntary approaches are the most desirable means for
providing control channel information, we also request comment on
whether we should require TV stations to transmit this information and
how frequently such information should be transmitted. We further
request comment on whether we should designate specific entities that
would be responsible for determining the unused channels in a station's
service area. For example, this function could be performed by
frequency coordinators, engineering consulting firms, or broadcast
trade associations. We also seek comment on the frequency with which
these entities update their information on allotments and vacancies and
whether we should provide guidelines in that regard. Additionally, we
seek comment on whether constraints are needed on stations
retransmitting control signals to ensure that the control signals are
not transmitted or received beyond the originating station's service
area. For example, translator stations generally retransmit the entire
signal of a primary TV station. How should we ensure that translators
do not inappropriately retransmit the control signals of their primary
TV stations beyond the coverage area of those stations? We also request
comment on the desirability and practicality of using other approaches
for preventing harmful interference to TV services from personal/
portable unlicensed devices in the TV bands. In particular, parties
favoring such approaches should describe how such techniques would
ensure that unlicensed devices only operate on vacant spectrum and not
cause harmful interference to licensed services. We also request
comment on whether additional requirements would be appropriate for
personal/portable operations. For example, should we require that all
personal/portable devices be registered with an industry-accepted
entity, such as a frequency coordinator, that maintains a registration
database of all models of personal/portable transmitters along with
their operating frequencies? This registration data base could include
the unique identification of the personal/portable device. We also
request comment and suggestions on the appropriate entity that we
should select to maintain such a registration database.
13. Fixed/Access Unlicensed Devices. Fixed/access types of devices
present different operational and interference considerations. In
general, we anticipate that these devices would be used by WISPs and
others as base stations to provide internet access and other broadband
data services to homes and businesses, including to personal/portable
services. We propose to allow fixed/access devices to operate under the
same technical provisions as digital transmission systems that operate
under Sec. 15.247 of the rules. This would permit fixed/access devices
to operate with a transmitter output power of up to one watt and to
employ higher gain directional antennas, with requirements for
transmitter output reductions for antennas with gains above 6 dBi. We
believe that these power levels are sufficient to be useful for WISPs
and other wireless networking applications and will ensure that these
devices can successfully share the TV spectrum. We also believe that
these power and antenna provisions will limit the potential for
interference and RF safety concerns. We seek comment on whether these
devices should be subject to routine evaluation for RF exposure. We
further propose to require that such devices automatically and
periodically transmit a unique identification so that any harmful
interference situation, should it occur, can be quickly identified and
remedied. We request comment on what information should be required to
be transmitted, in what format, and how often it should be repeated for
easy identification of the unlicensed device. For example, should we
require unlicensed fixed/access devices to transmit location
information, name of manufacturer, FCC identifier, and serial number?
What time interval would be appropriate for periodic transmission of
the identification information?
14. To ensure that fixed/access devices operate only on unused TV
channels, we propose to require that such devices incorporate a method
for determining geographic location with a minimum accuracy of 10
meters. To meet this requirement, for example, the device could
incorporate a GPS receiver to determine its geographic coordinates.
Using this location information, local broadcast station data and the
protection requirements described, channel availability for the
unlicensed device can be determined. We therefore propose to require
that the fixed/access unlicensed transmitter have the capability to
access such a database and appropriate computational software to
determine which TV channels are available for unlicensed use based on
its location. The equipment would also be required to have the
capability to limit its transmissions to only those channels that are
identified as unused through this process. As an alternative, we
propose to require that the unlicensed device be professionally
installed by a party that would determine the device's geographic
location and the available unused channels at that location. In this
case, the installer could provide the device's coordinates to a
frequency coordinator, industry association, local broadcast group or
other party that maintains an appropriate and current data base to
determine which TV channels are unused at the device's location. The
installing party would then configure the device to operate only on
unused channels. We seek comment on the qualifications an individual
must possess in order to be classified as a professional installer. We
recognize that industry organizations such as the National Association
of Radio Telecommunications Engineers (NARTE) and the Part 15
Organization have developed Professional Installer Certification
programs designed to ensure that installers are able to set up
unlicensed links in a manner to minimize the possibility of creating
harmful interference to other users of the spectrum. Should the
Commission consider completion of industry-based certification programs
such as these to be sufficient training to be recognized as a
professional installer? What criteria should the Commission place on
any such programs that it deems acceptable? As a second alternative, we
seek comment on whether the control signal approach would also be
appropriate for fixed/access devices. Under any of these approaches, we
would require that the unlicensed device or its operator periodically
access the channel availability database and software to ensure that
the channels on which the device operates remain unused. We anticipate
that this database and software could be made available by unlicensed
equipment vendors, broadcast engineering firms or other third-party
providers. We request comment on how often an unlicensed device or
operator must access the channel availability database and update or
reprogram the device's usable channel list.
15. We request comment on this approach, recognizing in particular
the changes that will occur during the DTV transition. We also seek
comment on whether we should allow fixed/access devices to operate with
higher power than proposed above and, if so, what safeguards would be
needed to protect current licensees in the TV bands. We note that we
recently proposed to allow certain unlicensed devices to operate with
higher power in rural or other
[[Page 34107]]
areas with limited spectrum use. We also seek comment on whether we
should require devices to use transmit power control (TPC) and operate
with the minimum power necessary to achieve reliable communication to
reduce the possibility of interference to licensed services and to
enable better spectrum sharing between unlicensed devices.
16. We also request comment on whether additional requirements
would be appropriate for fixed/access operations. For example, should
we require that all fixed/access devices also be registered with an
industry-accepted entity, such as a frequency coordinator, that
maintains a registration database of all fixed/access transmitters
along with their operating frequencies? This registration data base
would include the unique identification of the fixed/access device, its
geographic coordinates, and the channels available for use at that
location. We also request comment and suggestions on the appropriate
entity that we should select to maintain such a registration database.
In addition, we request comment on whether we should permit fixed/
access devices to use a spectrum sensing approach, as an alternative to
the geo-location approach described above. We request comment on what
would be the appropriate signal levels that an unlicensed device would
need to be capable of detecting to ensure that no harmful interference
is caused to licensed operations, and the current availability of
suitable detection measures and devices. In addition, when making a
determination as to an appropriate signal level, it would also be
necessary to specify other parameters of the detection methodology to
the extent these could not be incorporated in a signal level
measurement, including, for example, the length, location, and
frequency of the detection measurement. In particular, we request
parties to address how such an approach would consider the so-called
``hidden node'' problem where the unlicensed transmitting device may be
shielded from the TV transmitter but have a direct path to a nearby TV
receiver.
Protection of Broadcast Television Service
17. We propose to define the technical criteria for determining
when a TV channel can be considered vacant for the purpose of allowing
operation of an unlicensed device on that channel. Analog and digital
full service TV stations and Class A TV, low power TV, TV translator
and TV booster stations are generally protected from interference
within defined signal contours. The signal level defining a television
station's protected contour varies depending on the type of station,
e.g., analog or digital TV, and the band in which a TV station
operates. Different protected contour values are specified for both
analog and digital stations that operate in the low VHF band (channels
2-6), the high VHF band (channels 7-13) and the UHF band (channels 14-
69), see chart in paragraph 29 of the NPRM. We propose to use the
service area criteria to define the areas that unlicensed devices must
protect from harmful interference. All unlicensed operations would be
required to protect TV service within the contours defined by the
criteria.
18. Whether or not interference occurs depends on the desired-to-
undesired (D/U) signal ratio needed for acceptable service. This D/U
ratio will vary depending on the type of station, the frequency band
and the nature of the undesired signal. In considering digital
broadband unlicensed operations in the television band, we note that
such operations will be at very low power compared to television
operations. We also believe that the signals from such unlicensed
devices can be expected to appear ``noise-like'' and that the carrier-
related interference mechanisms that can affect analog television would
not occur. We therefore believe that the requirements needed to protect
television service from digital unlicensed devices should be limited to
co- and adjacent channel operations only for fixed/access operations
and co-channel operations only for personal/portable operations. Given
the expected noise-like character of signals from unlicensed devices,
we are proposing to use the same protection criteria that are currently
specified in the rules for digital television. We request comment on
this approach and on whether we need to proscribe a modulation
requirement for such unlicensed devices to ensure that their
transmissions appear noise-like. With regard to personal/portable
operations, we believe at this time that the potential for harmful
interference to adjacent channel television operations is sufficiently
low that we do not need to impose adjacent channel restrictions on
these devices. We note that even in the ``worst case'' situation at the
edge of a television station's service area, i.e., where the TV
station's signal is the lowest, the interference potential from an
adjacent channel personal/portable device would be minimal and, in
practice, would be mitigated by the effects of ambient noise, shielding
from buildings, walls, ground clutter, etc. We therefore are proposing
to use the criteria in paragraph 30 of the NPRM, to ensure that
unlicensed devices do not cause harmful interference to TV service.
19. We propose to require that the service and protection criteria
be used in conjunction with appropriate computational software,
including use of the Commission's propagation curves, and a television
station engineering database to develop the control signal information
on available channels for unlicensed personal/portable devices and for
coordination and deployment of unlicensed fixed/access devices. All
unlicensed operations in the TV bands would be subject to the general
requirements of part 15 for not causing harmful interference and would
be required to ensure that the D/U ratios for acceptable television
service always maintained. We also seek comment on whether there are
any special considerations for cases where consumers use indoor DTV
antennas. As indicated, fixed/access unlicensed devices would be
subject to the co- and adjacent channel D/U criteria while personal/
portable devices would be subject only to the co-channel criteria. The
adjacent channel D/U criteria would not apply to fixed/access devices
between channels 4 and 5, channels 6 and 7, and channels 13 and 14
because of the frequency separations that exist between those channels.
That is, those channels are not actually on adjacent frequencies. For
adjacent channel operations within the protected service contour, we
propose to require that calculation of desired signal levels be based
on FCC F(90,90) curves or the protected contour field strength value,
whichever is higher. For unlicensed operation outside the protected
contour of a television station, calculations of television (desired)
signal levels would be based on the FCC F(50,50) curves. Calculations
of unlicensed (undesired) signal levels would be based on the FCC
F(50,50) curves or other appropriate models. We believe this approach
should provide additional protection to television viewers within the
protected contour of an adjacent channel station.
20. In addition, we propose to not allow unlicensed devices to
operate within the protected contour of any co-channel TV operation.
This proposal along with the minimum D/U requirements would mean that
such devices would have to be located at least some minimum distance
outside the protected signal contours of co-channel television
stations. This minimum distance would be determined using the values in
above Table and would depend on the maximum power and antenna
[[Page 34108]]
characteristics of the unlicensed device, the signal strength of the
licensed station's protected service contour, the desired-to-undesired
(D/U) signal ratio permitted at the licensed station's protected
service contour, and the method used to calculate the signal contours
of the unlicensed device. We seek comment on these proposals, including
whether the proposed protection criteria are appropriate.
Permissible Channels for Unlicensed Operation
21. We believe it is generally desirable to allow unlicensed
devices to access the largest practicable number of the 68 television
channels. This would maximize the opportunities for operation of
unlicensed devices in all areas, and would be particularly important
for the successful implementation of unlicensed devices in areas where
the TV bands are crowded with other services. There are, however,
certain channels that we believe are, not suitable or appropriate for
use by unlicensed devices, see paragraphs 34-36 of the NPRM for more
discussion. These include channels 2-4, 37, and 52-69. In addition, we
tentatively conclude that channels 14-20 are not suitable for use in
markets where they are used for PLMRS and CMRS. With the exception of
these channels, we propose to allow unlicensed devices to operate on
any unused TV channel. Thus, TV channels 5-36 and 38-51 would be
generally available for unlicensed operation and channels 14-20 would
be available in most locations.
22. We seek comment on our proposals for the TV channels that would
be available for unlicensed use. We also request comment on whether the
proposed minimum separations to protect PLMRS/CMRS operations are
appropriate, and in particular, what special protections, if any, are
necessary to accommodate these operations, including those operations
that are licensed pursuant to a waiver.
Wireless Microphone Operations
23. As noted, manufacturers of wireless microphones express concern
that operation of new unlicensed devices in the TV bands could cause
interference to wireless microphones. We believe that the operational
characteristics of wireless microphones significantly reduce the
likelihood of interference from unlicensed devices for several reasons.
Wireless microphones are permitted relatively high output power given
the range over which they are typically operating. The maximum
permitted output power of these devices is 50 milliwatts in the VHF
band and 250 milliwatts in the UHF band. Wireless microphones are used
in locations such as theaters and sports arenas where the operating
range would typically be hundreds of feet at the most, so operation at
the power levels permitted in the rules results in a significant signal
level at the wireless microphone receiver. Further, the vast majority
of wireless microphones are frequency modulated (FM). FM receivers
exhibit a ``capture effect'' in which they respond to only the
strongest signal received on a frequency and reject any weaker
interfering signals. Because the desired signal at a wireless
microphone receiver is relatively strong, we believe that the
likelihood of interference from unlicensed device signals is therefore
low such that unlicensed use should generally be compatible with
wireless microphones. Nonetheless, we seek comment on whether other
measures are needed to protect wireless microphone operation including
the possibility of designating one or two unused TV channels in each
market for use by only wireless microphones.
Other Issues
24. Out of Band Emission Limits. We propose to require that
unlicensed devices operating in the TV bands comply with the same out-
of-band emission limits that apply to other part 15 digital
transmission system transmitters. These limits seem appropriate given
that we are proposing power and antenna characteristics for unlicensed
devices in the TV bands that are similar to those for other part 15
devices that employ digital modulation. Specifically, we propose to
require that out-of-band emissions in any 100 kHz bandwidth outside the
frequency band in which the unlicensed device operates be at least 20
dB below that in the 100 kHz bandwidth within the band that contains
the highest level of the desired power. Consistent with the current
rules, we also propose to not require attenuation of emissions below
the general limits specified in Sec. 15.209(a). To reduce the
likelihood of harmful interference to licensed services on adjacent
channels or outside the TV bands, we further propose to require that
emissions outside the TV channel(s) where an unlicensed device operates
comply with the general limits in Sec. 15.209(a). This is consistent
with the out-of-band emission requirements for certain other part 15
intentional radiators. We seek comment on these proposals.
25. Security Requirements. As the Commission noted in the cognitive
radio proceeding, equipment that relies on new capabilities such as
geo-location raises the possibility of new types of abuse, such as
reprogramming GPS receivers with geographic offsets or altering
database information. In addition, the software used to select the
appropriate operating parameters could be altered to make an unlicensed
device transmit at frequencies, power levels or locations where it
should not. To prevent devices from being modified to transmit on
occupied frequencies and causing harmful interference to licensed
services, we propose to require that an unlicensed device that operates
in the TV bands have certain capabilities to ensure that it cannot be
easily modified. Specifically, we propose to require that an unlicensed
device not have any controls accessible to any party, other than a
professional installer, that allow selection of the transmit channel or
output power. We also propose to require that manufacturers of
unlicensed devices that operate in the TV bands take steps to ensure
that only the software that was approved with a device can be loaded
into a device, and that the software not allow the user to operate the
device with parameters outside those that were approved. This proposed
requirement would apply to software that selects a device's operating
frequency, to software used in determining a device's geographic
location or identifying TV channels that are vacant, and to the
information in the database accessed by a device. We further propose to
require that an unlicensed device incorporate a means to detect whether
tampering with the hardware or software has occurred, and that a device
not operate if tampering is detected. We also propose to require that
manufacturers describe their device's security features in the
application for equipment authorization. We seek comment on these
proposals. In particular, we seek comment on the steps manufacturers
could take to protect hardware and software from modifications for
improper purposes and how tampering with hardware or software could be
detected.
26. Compliance and Enforcement. We propose to subject unlicensed
devices operated under the proposals to the general operating
conditions in Sec. 15.5 that an unlicensed device not cause harmful
interference and that it must accept interference caused by the
operation of an authorized radio station. The operator of an unlicensed
device operating under the rules proposed would be required to cease
operation upon notification by a Commission
[[Page 34109]]
representative that the device was causing harmful interference,
regardless or whether the device was otherwise in compliance with the
rules, until such time as the condition causing the harmful
interference was corrected. We also ask whether we should hold parties
that provide information on channel availability to unlicensed devices
responsible for the validity of that information. To what extent should
these parties be able to rely on information obtained from the
Commission? In cases where errors or other inaccuracies were found in
such data, we would require the responsible party to cease distributing
the control information when advised that it is incorrect by a
Commission representative. Such party would be allowed to resume
distribution of channel availability information if and when that
information was corrected. We request comment on these proposals for
ensuring that harmful interference is not caused by the operation of
these devices and the enforcement of the rules we are proposing for
unlicensed operation on vacant channels. We also invite interested
parties to submit comments and suggestions regarding any other possible
enforcement mechanisms that might be appropriate and effective for
unlicensed devices operating in the broadcast TV bands.
27. Measurement/Testing Procedures. Unlicensed transmitters must be
tested to show compliance with the applicable technical requirements in
part 15 of the rules before they can be certified. Part 15 specifies
general testing requirements applicable to unlicensed transmitters and
incorporates some industry procedures into the rules by reference, such
as the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) C63.4-2001
measurement procedure. The types of tests required typically include
the maximum output power or field strength, spurious emissions,
occupied bandwidth and operating frequency.
28. We expect that any new testing procedures would be specified at
the time any rules are adopted, as the Commission did in the proceeding
making additional spectrum available for unlicensed devices in the 5
GHz band. We seek comment on any new tests that may be required for
unlicensed devices that operate in the TV bands and on the appropriate
testing procedures.
29. Certification by TCBs. Unlicensed transmitters operating under
part 15 of the rules are required to be certified by the Commission or
a designated Telecommunication Certification Body (TCB) before they may
be legally marketed within the United States. In establishing the
requirements and rules for TCBs, the Commission stated that while it
intended to allow TCBs to certify a broad range of equipment, certain
functions should continue to be performed by the Commission. These
functions include certifying new or unique equipment for which the
rules or requirements do not exist or for which the application of the
rules is not clear. Because unlicensed devices operating in the TV
bands would contain new technologies and we are proposing new rules to
accommodate them, we expect that many questions about the application
of the rules would arise. Consistent with the Commission's previous
action in the software defined radio proceeding, we tentatively
conclude that TCBs should not be permitted to certify unlicensed
devices that operate in the TV bands until the Chief of the Office of
Engineering and Technology issues a public notice announcing that TCBs
may certify such devices. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.
30. Unlicensed Use in Border Areas near Canada and Mexico. The
allotment and assignment of TV channels in the border areas with Canada
and Mexico are subject to agreements with each of those countries. Low
power TV assignments within 32 kilometers (20 miles) of the Canadian
border must be referred to the Canadian authorities for approval. In
addition, low power UHF TV stations that are located less than 40
kilometers (25 miles) from the Mexican border, and low power VHF TV
stations that are less than 60 kilometers (37 miles) from the Mexican
border, must be referred to the Mexican government for approval. In
keeping with the current agreements with Canada and Mexico, we propose
to prohibit unlicensed fixed/access devices from operating less than
these distances from the Canadian and Mexican borders until agreements
are reached with those countries. We seek comment on this proposal. In
particular, we request comment on how to ensure that unlicensed devices
using vacant TV channels do not operate within the border areas,
whether the methods used to ensure that these devices operate only on
vacant TV channels could be adapted to preclude operation in the border
areas, or whether some other methods would be more appropriate in this
regard.
31. Need for Voluntary Standards. Unlicensed devices operating
under part 15 of the rules have no protection from interference from
other unlicensed devices. In bands that are heavily used by unlicensed
devices such as the spread spectrum bands under Sec. 15.247 of the
rules, industry bodies have developed voluntary standards that
facilitate spectrum sharing between unlicensed devices, such as the
IEEE 802.11 standards. We seek comment on whether there is a need for
such voluntary standards to facilitate sharing between unlicensed users
in the TV bands. If so, how should such voluntary standards be
developed and what should the Commission's role, if any, be in such a
process to make certain that the standards remain current and support
innovation?
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
32. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA),\1\ the Commission has prepared this present Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant
economic impact on a substantial number of 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 NPRM provided in paragraph 51 of the
NPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA,
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
(SBA).\2\ In addition, the Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will
be published in the Federal Register.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601-612, has been
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA), Public Law 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
\2\ See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
\3\ See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
33. The NPRM would propose to allow unlicensed devices to operate
in the TV broadcast bands at locations where spectrum is not being used
by licensed services. The NPRM would propose to require unlicensed
devices to incorporate ``smart radio features'' to prevent harmful
interference from unlicensed devices to licensed services. For the
purpose of developing interference protection criteria, the NPRM would
propose to classify unlicensed broadband devices to be used in the TV
bands into two general functional categories. The first category would
consist of lower power ``personal/portable'' unlicensed devices, such
as Wi-Fi like cards in laptop computers or wireless in-home LANs. The
second category would consist of higher power ``fixed/access''
unlicensed devices that are generally operated from
[[Page 34110]]
a fixed location and may be used to provide a commercial service such
as wireless broadband internet access.
34. These proposals, if adopted, will prove beneficial to
manufacturers and users of unlicensed technology, including those who
provide services to rural communities. Specifically, we note that a
growing number of wireless internet service providers (WISPs) are using
unlicensed devices within wireless networks to serve the needs of
consumers. WISPs around the country are providing an alternative high-
speed connection in areas where cable or DSL services have been slow to
arrive. The additional frequency bands where operation is proposed will
help to foster a viable last mile solution for delivering Internet
services, other data applications, or even video and voice services to
underserved, rural, or isolated communities. In addition, TV
frequencies, which are below 900 MHz, have less signal attenuation
through foliage and walls than frequencies above 900 MHz currently used
by WISPs, thus affording improved signal coverage.
B. Legal Basis
35. 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. 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
36. 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.\4\ The RFA defines the term
``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small business concern''
under Section 3 of the Small Business Act.\5\ Under the Small Business
Act, a ``small business concern'' is one that: (1) Is independently
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operations; and
(3) meets many additional criteria established by the Small Business
Administration (SBA).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3).
\5\ Id. 601(3).
\6\ 15 U.S.C. 632.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment
Manufacturers
37. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wireless Service Providers
38. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for
wireless firms within the two broad economic census categories of
``Paging''\9\ and ``Cellular and Other Wireless
Telecommunications.''\10\ Under both SBA categories, a wireless
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the census
category of Paging, Census Bureau data for 1997 show that there were
1,320 firms in this category, total, that operated for the entire
year.\11\ Of this total, 1,303 firms had employment of 999 or fewer
employees, and an additional 17 firms had employment of 1,000 employees
or more.\12\ Thus, under this category and associated small business
size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. For the
census category Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications, Census
Bureau data for 1997 show that there were 977 firms in this category,
total, that operated for the entire year.\13\ Of this total, 965 firms
had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and an additional 12 firms
had employment of 1,000 employees or more.\14\ Thus, under this second
category and size standard, the majority of firms can, again, be
considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 513321 (changed to 517211 in
October 2002).
\10\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 513322 (changed to 517212 in
October 2002).
\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 513321 (issued October 2000).
\12\ U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:
``Information,'' Table 5, Employment Size of Firms Subject to
Federal Income Tax: 1997, NAICS code 513321 (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.''
\13\ 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).
\14\ 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
39. Unlicensed transmitters are already required to be authorized
under the Commission's certification procedure as a prerequisite to
marketing and importation, and the proposals in this proceeding would
not change that requirement. There would, however, be several changes
to the compliance requirements.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See text of NPRM at paragraphs 21, 22, 25, 26, 30, 31, 32,
34, 35, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42, 45, and 46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
40. Unlicensed transmitters capable of operating in the TV bands
would have to incorporate features to ensure that they operate on only
vacant channels. A transmitter used for fixed operation would have to
incorporate a GPS receiver to determine its location and would have to
access a database and computational software to determine which TV
channels are vacant at its location. Alternatively, an unlicensed
transmitter would not have to incorporate these features if it is
professionally installed and the installer determines the geographic
coordinates of the transmitter, determines which TV channels are vacant
at that location, and adjusts the transmitter to operate on only those
vacant channels. Portable unlicensed devices would have to be capable
of receiving a signal from a fixed unlicensed transmitter, or a local
FM or TV station indicating which TV
[[Page 34111]]
channels are vacant in that area. If the unlicensed device did not
detect a signal with this channel availability information, or if no
vacant channels were available at its location, the unlicensed device
would not be allowed to operate. In addition, any unlicensed
transmitter used in the TV bands would have to incorporate features to
prevent unauthorized modifications that could cause it to operate on
occupied frequencies and therefore cause harmful interference. The
applicant for certification would have to demonstrate in the
application that the equipment meets these requirements.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
41. 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.''
\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)-(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
42. 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 GPS receiver and database access capabilities into an unlicensed
device to determine its location and which TV channels are vacant in an
area, or incorporating an FM or TV receiver to detect the presence of
channel availability data being transmitted in its area. However, the
burdens for complying with the proposed rules would be the same for
both large and small entities. Further, the proposals in this NPRM are
ultimately beneficial for both large and small entities. We cannot find
electrical engineering alternatives 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.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rule
43. None.
Ordering Clauses
44. 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. 154(i), 302,
303(e), 303(f), 303(r) and 307, this Notice of Proposed Rule Making is
hereby adopted.
45. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau,
Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this notice,
including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 15
Communications equipment, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
Rule Changes
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 15 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 15 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 336, and 544a.
2. Section Sec. 15.244 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 15.244 Operation within the bands 76-88 MHz, 174-216 MHz, 470-
608 MHz and 614-698 MHz.
(a) The fundamental emissions from intentional radiators operated
under this section shall be confined to one or more contiguous
television broadcast channels as defined in part 73 of this chapter.
(b) The maximum conducted output power for fixed devices is 1 watt
peak. The maximum conducted output power for portable devices is 100
milliwatts peak.
(c) If transmitting antennas of directional gain greater than 6 dBi
are used, the peak output power specified in paragraph (b) of this
section shall be reduced by the amount in dB that the directional gain
of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi.
(d) In any 100 kHz bandwidth outside the frequency band in which
the intentional radiator is operating, the radio frequency power that
is produced by the intentional radiator shall be at least 20 dB below
that in the 100 kHz bandwidth within the band that contains the highest
level of desired power, based on either an RF conducted or radiated
measurement. Attenuation below the general limits specified in Sec.
15.209(a) is not required. Radiated emissions that fall outside the TV
broadcast channel(s) where the device operates must comply with the
radiated emission limits specified in Sec. 15.209(a).
(e) An intentional radiator used for fixed operation must comply
with one of the following paragraphs (e)(1) or (e)(2):
(1) The intentional radiator shall incorporate a GPS receiver to
determine the geographic coordinates at its location with an accuracy
of 10 meters. The intentional radiator shall have the
capability of accessing a database and computational software to
determine the TV channels that are vacant at its location. The device
must have the capability to limit its transmissions to only those
channels that are identified as unused.
(2) The intentional radiator must be professionally installed by a
party that will determine the device's geographic location and the
available unused TV channels at that location. The installing party
will configure the device to operate on only unused channels. The
unlicensed device or its operator must periodically access a channel
availability database and computational software to ensure that the
channels on which the device operates remain unused.
(f) An intentional radiator used for portable operation must be
capable of receiving a control signal from an unlicensed transmitter,
or a TV or FM broadcast station indicating the TV channel(s) that are
vacant within the service area of the unlicensed transmitter, TV or FM
station. The intentional radiator must transmit only on channels(s)
that are designated as vacant. The intentional radiator shall not
operate if no unoccupied frequency band is available within its
frequency range of operation or if it does not detect any unlicensed
transmitters, FM or TV broadcast stations transmitting channel
availability information.
(g)(1) An intentional radiator must protect TV stations from
harmful interference within the following service contours.
[[Page 34112]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Protected contour
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of station Contour
Channel (dBu) Propagation curve
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analog TV................................ Low VHF (2-6)............... 47 F(50,50)
High VHF (7-13)............. 56 F(50,50)
UHF (14-69)................. 64 F(50,50)
Analog Class A, LPTV, translator and Low VHF (2-6)............... 62 F(50,50)
booster.
High VHF (7-13)............. 68 F(50,50)
UHF (14-69)................. 74 F(50,50)
Digital TV............................... Low VHF (2-6)............... 28 F(50,90)
High VHF (7-13)............. 36 F(50,90)
UHF (14-51)................. 41 F(50,90)
Digital Class A.......................... Low VHF (2-6)............... 43 F(50,90)
High VHF (7-13)............. 48 F(50,90)
UHF (14-51)................. 51 F(50,90)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) A TV channel will be considered vacant for use by an
intentional radiator operating under the provisions of this section if
the following desired-to-undesired (D/U) signal ratios between co-
channel and adjacent channel TV stations and the intentional radiator
are met at all points within the service area of the unlicensed
transmitter, TV or FM broadcast station that transmits channel
availability information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Protection ratios
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of station D/U ratio
Channel separation (dB) Propagation curve
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analog TV, Class A, LPTV, translator and Co-channel.................. 34 F(50,10)
booster.
Upper adjacent.............. -17 F(50,50)
Lower adjacent.............. -14 F(50,50)
Digital TV and Class A................... Co-channel.................. 23 F(50,10)
Upper adjacent.............. -26 F(50,50)
Lower adjacent.............. -28 F(50,50)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(h) Operation is not permitted within the service contours of co-
channel stations. Portable devices are not required to comply with the
D/U ratios for TV stations operating on adjacent channels. Fixed
devices are not required to comply with the adjacent channel D/U ratios
between channels 4 and 5, channels 6 and 7, and channels 13 and 14
because of the frequency separations that exist between those channels.
For adjacent channel operation within the protected service contour of
a television station, calculation of desired signal levels shall be
based on FCC F(90,90) curves or the protected contour field strength
value, whichever is higher. For unlicensed operation outside the
protected contour of a television station, calculations of television
(desired) signal levels would be based on the FCC F(50,50) curves.
Calculations of unlicensed (undesired) signal levels would be based on
the FCC F(50,50) curves or other appropriate models.
(i) Operation on a TV channel shared with the PLMRS or CMRS is
permitted only if every point in the reception area of an unlicensed
transmitter, or a TV or FM station that transmits channel availability
information is separated by the following distances from the of the
center coordinates of the metropolitan areas where shared operation is
permitted: 134 kilometers for co-channel operation and 131 kilometers
for adjacent channel operation.
(j) Operation of fixed devices under the provisions of this section
is not permitted on VHF channels within 32 kilometers of the border
with Mexico, on UHF channels within 40 kilometers of the border with
Mexico, or on either VHF or UHF channels within 60 kilometers of the
border with Canada.
(k) Devices operating under the provisions of this section shall be
equipped with a means to automatically and periodically transmit a
unique identification signal. Devices must not be equipped with any
controls accessible to any party, other than a professional installer,
that allow selection of the transmit channel or output power. Devices
must include features to ensure that only the software that was
approved with a device can be loaded into a device, and the software
may not allow the user to operate the device with parameters outside
those that were approved. ``Software'' in this context includes the
software that selects a device's operating frequency, software used in
determining a device's geographic location or identifying TV channels
that are vacant, and to the information in the database accessed by a
device. Devices must incorporate a means to detect whether tampering
with the hardware or software has occurred and must not operate if
tampering is detected. The application for certification must describe
how the device complies with these requirements.
[FR Doc. 04-13573 Filed 6-17-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P