FCC UPHOLDS UWB COMMITMENT WITH MINOR CHANGES

FCC Office of Engineering & Technology Chief Edmond Thomas and other senior staff outlined changes at news conference held although agenda meeting date had been pushed back from Thurs. until Dec. 20 as result of pending Triennial UNE Review (see separate story). Changes will “provide ultra-wideband developers and manufacturers with much-needed certainty,” Thomas said. Feb. 2002 UWB order generated 14 petitions for reconsideration, some of which sought changes that would make rules more stringent to protect incumbent services such as PCS and GPS operations. Of particular note, “in these difficult times, is the potential for ultra- wideband technology to assist in homeland security,” Thomas said. UWB applications include radar-imaging of objects buried in ground or behind walls that can be used for locating missing persons or hostage rescue, he said. Action “reaffirms the Commission’s commitment to the framework adopted last year to guide deployment of this important technology,” he said.

“Until such time as manufacturers have had a chance to place equipment on the market, and we have gained additional experience with ultra-wideband devices, we do not believe that any major changes to the regulations are warranted,” OET Senior Engineer John Reed said in news conference. Briefing was followed by technology demonstrations by UWB companies, including Time Domain, XtremeSpectrum, Geophysical Survey Systems, Multispectral Solutions. “We believe that major changes to the rules at this early stage would be disruptive to current industry product development efforts,” Reed said.

Minor changes in rules, he said, included: (1) Facilitating use of through-wall imaging systems used by public safety officials and law enforcement officers. Modification also would enhance ability of firefighters and rescue personnel, he said. Changes in that area had been sought by Time Domain. (2) Eliminating certain restrictions that impeded use of ground-penetrating radar. (3) Denying petitions of users of authorized radio services that sought tighter restrictions on UWB devices. FCC also proposed “limited changes” to accommodate devices with technical characteristics similar to UWB devices. FCC officials said that in next 12-18 months they expected introduction of UWB devices under those rules. Govt. and non-govt. agencies are contemplating further UWB tests. FCC plans to conduct interference tests and evaluations using off-the-shelf UWB devices, Reed said. Results will help guide agency in determining what additional changes should be considered, he said.

FCC said changes also eliminated requirement that ground-penetrating radar units and wall imaging devices operate with -10 dB bandwidths below 960 MHz or above 3.1 GHz. Changes spelled out limitations on who could operate GPR systems and wall-imaging units and for what purposes, did away with requirement for non-handheld GPRs to use “dead man switch” and clarified coordination requirements for imaging devices. It also clarified rules on emissions produced by digital circuitry used by UWB transmitters.

Commission proposed additional rules to address operation of low pulse repetition frequency UWB systems, including vehicular radars, in 3.1-10.6 GHz band. Proposal also covered operation of frequency-hopping vehicular radars at 22-29 GHz as UWB devices and would establish new peak power limits for wideband Part 15 devices that don’t operate as UWB devices. Proposal also covered definition of UWB device, FCC said.

Separately, FCC turned down application for review of its certification of Time Domain UWB transmitter. Time Domain device that was challenged by coalition of companies and trade groups is “a transmit-only radio to be used by UWB application developers to evaluate UWB propagation and co- existence with other RF devices,” Commission said. FCC said it found that transmitter complied with all limits spelled out in its rules.

In line with goals of Spectrum Policy Task force report, “the order we adopt increases access to spectrum by leveraging innovative technology while protecting incumbents from harmful interference,” Chmn. Powell said. Obtaining regulatory certainty in that area allows for “a reorientation of energy” away from regulatory process and toward actually making those devices available, particularly by public safety operators, he said. “The UWB experience also offers a valuable lesson in the pitfalls of reactive spectrum policymaking, and emphasizes the need for new, forward- thinking approaches, such as those recommended by the task force,” he said. With “disruptive technology” such as UWB, FCC “scrambled” to develop regulatory framework that would allow for its deployment, he said. Powell said implementation of task force’s recommendations would place FCC “on the leading edge of innovation -- creating clear ground rules that allow new technologies to be developed and then deployed immediately, without requiring innovators to approach the Commission on bended knee and to face a protracted regulatory approval process.”

Copps said UWB technologies had made “great progress” in year since FCC adopted first report and order. “As UWB devices are brought to market, the FCC will test them and be alert for interference complaints -- but today’s continued conservative approach should minimize interference problems,” he said. Copps lauded UWB applications such as safety devices for firefighters and police officers and automotive radar systems for drivers.

FCC lab in Columbia, Md., will begin extensive test program, Thomas told reporters. “As soon as there is an empirical determination that something needs to be changed, either relaxed or made more stringent, it would move forward,” he said. Test plan won’t be made available for public comment before start of tests, but will be when results are released, Thomas said. “We view ourselves as experts and this is science,” he said. “We obviously will be consulting with experts in this field, especially with NTIA and possibly DoD,” he said. In response to question that decision to not make earlier test plan available for public comment was “controversial,” Thomas said as expert agency FCC knew how to conduct tests in objective fashion. “Science isn’t really up for a vote.”