Preliminary Report of the Unlicensed Subcommittee Preliminary Working

Preliminary Report of the Unlicensed Subcommittee Preliminary Working Draft. For Discussion: CSMAC Meeting July 27, 2011 We expect this to be revised based on discussion at the meeting and further work by the subcommittee

What Procedures Should Federal Agencies Have in Place? Workplan Questions: • A. Enforcement – i. How should federal agencies deal with complaints of interference received by unlicensed users? – ii. How should federal agencies deal with interference from unlicensed users in the hands of citizens who don’t understand the rules? – iii. How should we prevent software modifications that alter the compatibility characteristics of a device? – iv. With widely distributed products, what is the best approach to enforcing rules when the number of offenders may be significant? • B. Dedicated bands – Do unlicensed need dedicated bands? Which? How would relocation be paid for if a dedicated unlicensed band is created? What requirements or conditions would improve utility? • C. What method should be used to “inventory” or identify where in the spectrum specific unlicensed devices operate. 2

What Procedures Should Federal Agencies Have? • i. How should federal agencies deal with complaints of interference received by unlicensed users? • ii. How should federal agencies deal with interference from unlicensed users in the hands of citizens who don’t understand the rules? • iii. How should we prevent software modifications that alter the compatibility characteristics of a device? • iv. With widely distributed products, what is the best approach to enforcing rules when the number of offenders may be significant? 3

Enforcement: Committee Recommendations Proposed Recommendation #1: NTIA should put in place regulatory requirements, and work with the FCC on parallel measures, that reduce reliance on post-hoc regulatory enforcement of interference by turning to technology-based solutions for connected devices. Proposed Recommendation #2: To the extent possible, NTIA, in coordination with the FCC, should require that in new unlicensed or shared bands unlicensed devices be cable of connecting periodically to “call home” and obtain a firmware update, and to be disabled in a particular frequency or move to another band when necessary. 4

Enforcement: Recommendations (Cont. ) Proposed Recommendation #3: When non-compliant devices do not operate within the rules to prevent interference or when “avoidance through technology” measures fail, NTIA should consider recommending that FCC strengthen enforcement measures to provide better deterrents. • The Committee endorses the last CSMAC recommendations on enforcement measures. Proposed Recommendation #4: When devices are not intentionally operating outside of the rules, but interference still occurs, manufacturers should engage in consumer education about Part 15. NTIA should work with the FCC and with industry to ensure that consumer awareness provides a counterpart to enforcement. Proposed Recommendation #5: [Tentative] NTIA, in coordination with the FCC, should further study the current unlicensed framework for “cheap, dumb” devices. • For example, should legacy and other unconnected devices be constrained to one or two particular bands? 5

Enforcement Factors Considered The recommendations are guided by two types of unlicensed wireless operations, which generally call for different courses of prevention and remediation when it comes to interference: • Untethered consumer devices and systems, which typically are less expensive and/or legacy devices. • Connected equipment that can be required to “call home” and take mitigation steps when interference occurs, including the possibility of automatic shut off or changing frequencies. 6

Enforcement Factors Considered (Cont. ) Proliferation of “connected devices” means spectrum demand is driven by smart devices already linked to the Internet, at least periodically. • This opens new policy options for avoidance through technology: – Certification might require a device reauthorize itself by contacting its manufacturer or a governing database (e. g. , weekly). – Failure to do this would, by rule, require the device to disable sharing sensitive spectrum until reauthorization can be done. – Combining this reauthorization with the ability to force firmware updates would give the manufacturer and the regulator the tools to do complete and timely mitigation. 7

Other Factors • Effective enforcement remains critical as a deterrent. • Consumer education and awareness of Part 15 parameters is still important. • Policymakers must assess how to deal with ‘cheap, dumb’ devices. – Possible limitation of untethered devices to certain bands? 8

B. Dedicated Unlicensed Bands 1. Do Unlicensed Users Need Dedicated Bands? Alternatives Discussed: • YES: There advantages to enhancing spectrum ecosystem with a contiguous and ideally wide band (e. g. , more than 6 MHz, discontinuous TV white space channels) dedicated to advanced unlicensed use (e. g. , with database and/or cognitive radio requirements, barring “dumb” devices, as discussed above under 9 Enforcement)

Dedicated Unlicensed Bands? • NO: Unlicensed has proven it can best add value as a fill-in, at low power, on shared bands (900 Mhz, 5 GHz), or fragmented bands (TV White Space), that are not particularly in demand or valuable to the exclusively-licensed business models of carriers and other high-power uses. 10

Dedicated Unlicensed Bands? • Recommendation [tentative]: The greatest marginal utility for unlicensed allocations may continue to be in shared bands that are subject to constraints making them undesirable for high-power licensed use. Nevertheless, a band dedicated to unlicensed use with rules that optimize utility with more cooperative protocols and/or coordination should be considered. 11

B. 2. How to pay for relocation? Options Discussed: • Reallocation costs could be combined with another band that is auctioned (likely needs to be done legislatively) • Expand scope of CSEA Relocation Fund to reimburse agency costs for relocation, unlicensed sharing with private sector, or more efficiency/sharing among federal users. • User fees, most likely one-time based on device certification (similar to TV Bands Database fee) 12

B. 3. How to improve utility of new unlicensed bands? Options Discussed • Require cognitive radio capability to sense and communicate information with a realtime database to promote more efficient coordination among users. and/or • Require cooperative radio protocol (as an alternative to Wi-Fi contention-based) 13

C. What method to inventory where in the spectrum specific unlicensed devices operate? Options Discussed • Actual spectrum use measurements would have a difficult time ‘mapping’ very low-power unlicensed use. • Deepen the FCC’s device certification database Ø Annual device certification renewal could require parties to report number of devices put in service, expected useful life, changes in power levels, OOBE, etc. • Database checking/reporting requirements (e. g. , TV Bands Database) can track and report the numbers of devices by frequency, location, activity as a part of an automated, ongoing “census. ” 14

Backup Slides 15

Previous Enforcement Recommendations The Committee endorses earlier CSMAC recommendations on enforcement, including: • Streamlined interference reporting tools to complement “spot monitoring” of new operations. • Increased penalties for violations. • Increased budgetary resources for monitoring and enforcement. • A “shot clock” approach to responding to interference complaints so licensees and operators of unlicensed devices have certainty on the timing of responses. • Tools for Temporary Restraint of Interference (TRI) (e. g. , similar to a temporary restraining order to address egregious complaints immediately). 16

Enforcement Recommendations (Cont. ) • Remote shut-off technologies for resolving interference problems. • Use of cognitive radio technology to sense the spectrum environment to assist in reporting cases of “bad actors” in which nearby RF emitters are operating outside of their permissible parameters and causing interference. • Potential FCC and NTIA review of equipment authorization practicesto ensure incentives to manufacture and distribute spectrally efficient equipment consistent with the FCC and NTIA rules. • A streamlined process for the maintenance and retention of interference reporting and enforcement data. • Exploration of the ability of the federal government to expand its enforcement of spectrum interference rules. 17