FCC Launches 'Very Broad' NOI on Receiver Performance

Among the questions asked are whether the FCC has the legal authority to impose receiver standards. Commissioners conceded Thursday that addressing the matter will be difficult. Industry observers agree there are no easy answers (see 2204040052).

Office of Engineering and Technology officials said during a press call the NOI is essentially a record refresh, with lots of information on file since the last NOI in 2003. “There’s quite a lot of work that went on after the proceeding was terminated in 2007,” said OET acting Chief Ron Repasi. “Twenty years ago was a long, long time in terms of spectrum management and thinking about standards and the kind of improvements in receivers,” OET Associate Chief Paul Murray said on the issue of industry-led standards. “There are differences in quality and depth of the questions asked this go around compared to 2003,” he said.

“The NOI is very broad in its perspective and its questions and what it’s seeking comment on,” Repasi said. In addition to industry-led voluntary standards, “it’s also seeking comment on commission guidance that could be in the form of a policy statement and such, and then even what could be considered from a mandatory perspective, in the form of regulation,” he said. OET expects “significant comment” on all the issues teed up, he said. “To the extent that the industry favors voluntary standards, we would expect the industry to make those comments in the record,” he said.

In addition to the Starks questions, the NOI also now asks about “regulatory approaches in the context of the evolving life cycle of receivers,” Murray said. “It was just another set of questions that said we fully appreciate there’s a lifecycle of receivers, how might the FCC consider that,” he said.

“The spectral environment has only grown more complicated” since the earlier NOI, Rosenworcel told reporters. “What we’re hoping is that we develop a record that’s fairly modern, speaks to the moment that we’re in right now and has creative ideas,” she said.

Addressing receiver standards “won’t be easy” and is further complicated by the need for coordination with federal agencies, Starks said: “We can only move forward on the issue of receiver performance if we act in collaboration with NTIA, since any action here will inevitably impact the interests of federal agencies and their stakeholders. Emerging technologies will continue to run up against the interference concerns of incumbents, as our experiences in the C-band, the L-band and the 6 GHz band show.”

The FCC has to find a “regulatory balance that favors innovation,” Starks said: “Overly sensitive receivers may limit spectrum usage, but overly prescriptive standards might stifle receiver innovation and ultimately do more harm than good.” Starks also got the FCC to add questions on how standards could help public safety.

“The era of abundant spectrum is coming to a close,” Simington said. “The future is dense spectral neighborhoods of commercial users packed tightly in space and in spectrum, vying for every last hertz of usable real estate,” he said: “We should think of our spectrum as fully occupied land whose usage must inevitably intensify, and our regulatory philosophy must accommodate this new reality.” The NOI asks all the questions that need to be addressed, Simington said: “How should the commission allocate spectral rates? How should the commission adjudicate spectral disputes? And how can the commission treat the receive side of RF systems?” The FCC needs a “duplex” regulatory approach, he said.

Receiver issues aren’t “the easiest of areas to cut through,” said Commissioner Brendan Carr, who noted the 2003 inquiry. “Many predicted that spectrum management would become more difficult as the airwaves became more crowded due to the proliferation of wireless services,” he said: “Flash forward nearly 20 years later and this prediction has come to pass. So I am hopeful that working together we can make good progress on this issue this time around.”

Receivers that aren’t “sufficiently resilient can make it more difficult to introduce additional services in the same or adjacent airwaves,” Rosenworcel said during the meeting: “They can diminish the spectral environment and shut out new uses before they even begin.” Too little “in our existing spectrum policies ... recognizes this truth,” she said. “There is also too little that incentivizes users or manufacturers to invest in better quality receivers.”

“By considering the receiver side of spectrum interference issues, the Commission will take a much needed look at the other half of the interference problem,” said Kathleen Burke, Public Knowledge policy counsel. “If our telecommunications system is going to meet the modern needs of our nation, every aspect needs to operate efficiently.”

Russian Case

The FCC also proposed a fine of $660,639 against Truphone “for apparently exceeding statutory limits for ownership by foreign individuals or entities holding equity or voting interests in FCC-issued licenses without Commission approval.” FCC officials said sanctioned Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich invested in the company and Truphone didn’t provide timely notice or seek commission approval.

The notice grew out of the FCC’s broader review of Russian ownership of U.S. telecom assets (see 2203250067), Rosenworcel said. “Through our increased oversight of past grants of authority, we discovered that Truphone filed inaccurate information … about its ownership structure and control,” she said: “This violates our rules. It undermines our ability to assess foreign investments in licenses under the Communications Act.”

“Network security is national security,” Starks said. “Even before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine” the U.S. and other democracies “were reassessing their policies towards entities affiliated, or otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of adversary states,” he said. The case involves a small Montana wireless carrier “indirectly owned by a group of Russian oligarchs since at least 2011” who have been “targeted with sanctions overseas,” he said. The company didn’t comment.

FCC Meeting Notebook

The swirl of discussion around Tesla CEO Elon Musk potentially buying Twitter has surfaced many of the arguments in favor of government “pro-speech reforms” of social media platforms, Carr said on a press call Thursday. “I don’t think we need to be reliant on a benevolent billionaire,” he said, adding the government should step in to enact “common-sense measures” on content moderation by large social media companies. A Musk filing Thursday at the SEC said he raised $46.5 billion in funding to buy Twitter (see 2204210038).

The FCC continued to ramp up its return to in-person work with Thursday’s open meeting, with all four commissioners and some bureau chiefs physically present together in the FCC’s headquarters and other staff appearing virtually. At the March meeting, only the commissioners were in person. Rosenworcel said the agency would assess how the April meeting went before deciding if the May 19 meeting would be open to the public. The May meeting is set to happen four days after the FCC begins phase 3 of its office reentry plan (see 2204060064).