Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Establishment of an Interference Temperature Metric

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 16:21:33 -0500

Before the
Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the matter of

Establishment of an Interference Temperature Metric

to Quantify and Manage Interference and to Expand

Available Unlicensed Operation in Certain Fixed,

Mobile and Satellite Frequency Bands

ET Docket No. 03-237

NOTICE OF INQUIRY AND NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

Adopted:  November 13, 2003      Released:  November 28, 2003

Comment Date:  [75 days from publication in the Federal Register]

Reply Comment Date:  [105 days from publication in the Federal Register]

INTRODUCTION

1.  By this action, the Commission seeks comment on a new "interference
temperature" model for quantifying and managing interference.  This new
concept could shift the current method for assessing interference which is
based on transmitter operations, to an approach that is based on the actual
radiofrequency (RF) environment, taking into account the interactions
between transmitters and receivers.  The interference temperature model
could represent a fundamental paradigm shift in the Commission's approach to
spectrum management by specifying a potentially more accurate measure of
interference that takes into account the cumulative effects of all undesired
RF energy, i.e., energy that may result in interference from both
transmitters and noise sources, that is present at a receiver at any instant
of time.  This new approach could provide radio service licensees with
greater certainty regarding the maximum permissible interference, and
greater protections against harmful interference that could be present in
the frequency bands in which they operate.  In addition, to the extent that
the interference temperature limit in a band is not reached, there could be
opportunities for other transmitters, whether licensed or unlicensed, to
operate in the band at higher power levels than are currently authorized.
In such cases, the interference temperature limit for the band would serve
as an upper bound or "cap" on the potential RF energy that could be
introduced into the band.  We therefore seek comment on the potential of
this new approach to interference control and management to promote more
efficient use of the spectrum and to possibly create opportunities for new
and additional use of radio communications by the American public.

2.  The interference temperature concepts introduced in this proceeding were
initially developed as part of the Commission's Spectrum Policy Task Force's
(Task Force) work on means for improving the management of the radio
spectrum to increase the public benefits derived from use of the spectrum
resource.[1]  In its Report, the Task Force observed that interference
management has become more difficult because of the greater density,
mobility, and variability of RF transmitters and because users have been
granted increased flexibility in using the spectrum.[2]  The Task Force
presented several recommendations for improving interference management in
this changed environment, one of which was for the Commission, as a long
term strategy, to shift its paradigm for assessing interference towards an
approach that uses real-time adaptation based on actual RF environments, and
in particular to adopt a new "interference temperature" metric to quantify
and manage interference.[3]  In response to the Task Force Report, a number
of parties expressed general support for further analysis and study of the
interference temperature concept.[4]  Other parties oppose the interference
temperature concept as impractical and unworkable.[5]  We further note that
the Commission's Technical Advisory Committee has concluded that
introduction of the interference temperature concept is a reasonable
approach to defining harmful interference as a function of how the spectrum
is actually being used and the designs and margins of particular
receivers.[6]

3.  In the Notice of Inquiry (Inquiry) phase of this proceeding, we are
requesting comment, information, and research on a number of issues relating
to the development and use of the interference temperature metric and for
managing a possible transition from the current transmitter-based approach
for interference management to the new interference temperature paradigm.
In particular, we are posing questions concerning the development of the
interference temperature metric, including the determination of interference
temperature limits for specific frequency bands, and an assessment of the
cumulative noise and interference environment in radiofrequency bands,
including standard methodologies for making assessments, to support the
selection of those limits.  We are also requesting responses on issues
concerning the process that would be involved in possible transitioning to
the new interference control methods in the various frequency bands.

A general implementation of the interference temperature approach would
involve planning, study of existing RF noise and interference levels and
other factors, and transition processes that would take a substantial amount
of time to complete.  We seek comment on several steps we could possibly
take prior to a general implementation that would bring elements of this new
paradigm into use in the near term and thereby provide a test bed for this
model that can be studied and evaluated before any broader implementation is
considered.  Therefore, in the instant Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM)
phase, we seek comment on technical rules that would establish interference
temperature limits and procedures for assessing the interference temperature
in specific frequency bands used by fixed satellite uplinks and by
terrestrial fixed point-to-point links.  We seek comment on whether the
operating circumstances of these facilities would allow for simple and
reliable measurement of the interference temperature at a variety of receive
sites under diverse situations and circumstances.  If we ultimately adopt
new technical rules, we seek comment on whether unlicensed devices should be
allowed to operate at higher power levels than currently allowed by the
rules, so long as they do not cause the interference temperature to exceed
the established limits.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

[1]  See Spectrum Policy Task Force Report (Task Force Report), ET Docket
No. 02-135, November 15, 2002, at p. 1.  On November 25, 2002, the
Commission issued a public notice FCC 02-322, inviting public comment on the
Task Force report.  Twenty-eight parties filed comments specifically
addressing the issue of the interference temperature concept.

[2]  Id. at 25-27.

[3]  The Task Force's other principal recommendation for improving
interference management was for the Commission to incorporate receiver
interference immunity performance into its spectrum policies.  Task Force
Report, at 31.  Pursuant to that recommendation, the Commission recently
adopted a Notice of Inquiry (Inquiry) in a related proceeding to begin
consideration of incorporation of receiver interference performance
specifications into its spectrum policy on a broader basis.  See Notice of
Inquiry in ET Docket No. 03-65, adopted March 13, 2003, FCC 03-54 (released
March 24, 2003).  In that Inquiry, the Commission observed that if the
receivers used with a radio service are designed to provide a certain degree
of immunity to, or tolerance of, undesired RF energy and signals, more
efficient and predictable use of the spectrum can be achieved, as well as
greater opportunities for access to the spectrum.  It asked for comment,
information and research on a wide range of issues concerning the
interference immunity performance capabilities of existing receivers,
possibilities for improving the level of receiver interference immunity in
the various radio services, possible approaches by which desired levels of
performance could be achieved, and the potential positive and negative
impacts of receiver standards on innovation and the marketplace.

[4]  See National Association for Amateur Radio (ARRL) comments at 8,
Agilent Technologies, Inc. comments at 7, HYPRES, Inc. comments at 3-4,
Motorola comments at 14, and Wireless Communications Association
International, Inc. comments at 10-12.

[5]  See Agere comments at 6, AT&T comments at 12-14, Cingular comments at
18-19, and Verizon Wireless comments at 10-12.

[6]  See Report of the Second Meeting of the FCC Technological Advisory
Council III held on July 7, 2003 at http://www.fcc.gov/oet/tac/.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-289A1.doc

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/61FxlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/