执法工作组报告

Critical Questions/Critical Assumptions(p.2) NTIA Case Study(p. 4) Recommendations (Preliminary) (p.5) Enforcement in Spectrum Sharing Proceedings (Draft) (p.7) Members - Enforcement Working Group Larry AlderDavid DonovanDale HatfieldJanice ObuchowskiSteve SharkeyJennifer Warren Mark CrosbyThomas DombrowskyMark McHenryDennis RobersonBryan Tramont Critical Assumptions/Critical Questions The Enforcement Working Group has identified a series of questions that it believes should beanswered in its enforcement study effort. The questions below are based on a number ofoperational assumptions, specifically: Critical Assumptions Spectrum use is based on a generic Spectrum Access System (SAS) that employs dynamicspectrumsharing based upon the geo-location/database approach applicable togeographic/co-channel and/or adjacent-band sharing;Sharing is between a commercial system and a federal-government system; andAccess points associated with the commercial system are under the control of a NetworkOperating System (NOS) which has the ability to remotely change the power of theindividual access points, to change the antenna radiation patterns (e.g., using beamsteering), to turn the access point off entirely, to change channels within the band, and toperform certain other diagnostic and interference mitigation actions. Critical Questions 1.What proof would a potential victim system have to supply in making an interferencecomplaint? How would (harmful?) interference be defined and who would specify themeasurement process? Could the measurement and reporting mechanism be automatedbythe Spectrum Access System(SAS)?Would the victim be expected to supplyinformation on the signal causing the interference -- i.e., the equivalent of call letters ifavailable or the direction or location of the interference source? How would the cost ofdetecting and mitigating the interference be distributed? 2.What if very poor receiver performance was the cause of the interference rather than atransmitter issue? Is a minimum receiver performance specification assumed? Are harmclaim thresholds as proposed by the FCC's Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) necessaryto protect the rights of transmitting parties?3.On what grounds could the commercial system causing interference refuse to take action?What would happen if that entity refused to respond and mitigate the interference? Whatdue process rights would a commercial entity have when faced with a demand by a federalgovernment agency to mitigate the interference? Who decides whether the mitigation isadequate and resolves disputes over whetherit is or not? Is a third-party disputeresolution authority necessary to resolve government-commercial disputes? What processis followed if the system operated by the federal government agency is causing unexpected(harmful)interference?Who decides whether the interference has,in fact,beenadequately mitigated?4.Is it assumed that there will be some type of contractual relationship or MOU between thecommercial operator and the government agency? Would the agreement spell out the processes and responsibilities of the parties involved? How would the terms of such acontract or MOU be enforced when the federal government is on one side of theagreement? What type(s) of sharing arrangements would require a bilateral agreement, asopposed to general rules-based terms of use? 5.What would be the FCC Enforcement Bureau’s (EB) scope of authority? For example, if theinterference to the government systems persists despite mitigation efforts, could thegovernment system operator complain directly to the FCC? What if the interference iscaused by another source, not the system under control of the NOS operator? What bodywould be tasked with investigating issues of third-party interference? If the interferenceresults from noise or another licensed user, operating within their license terms, is thereany recourse for the complainant? Apparently NTIA has no enforcement authority but,even if that remains the case, what resources will NTIA and/or individual agencies devoteto interference resolution and enforcement. 6.Related to Q. 5, how would the process outlined interface with the normal EB interferenceresolution and enforcement activities? What provisions would be made for emergencyshut-downs in severe situations and who would make the decision as to whether aparticular incident is severe enough to trigger an emergency response? Would theemergency shut-down process vary depending upon the nature of the agencies' missions?Can these decisions be made rapidly in an automated fashion by the Spectrum AccessSystem (SAS)? Should transmitting devices be required to integrate a hardware lock toensure shutdown in emergency situations? NTIA Case Study Sharing radio spectrum raises many new concerns when it comes to potential interference andthe enforcement mechanisms that might be needed to resolve interference. Specific Examples 1.In portions of the 5 GHz range, the FCC ha