FCC Approves Another Ultra-Wideband Waiver

Posted on January 15, 2012 by Mitchell Lazarus

This time, a ground-penetrating radar gets the nod

The FCC has issued yet another in a long series of waivers for ultra-wideband imaging devices.

This time the product is an instance of “ground-penetrating radar” (GPR), one of eight species of ultra-wideband equipment approved by the FCC back in 2002, each with its own set of technical restrictions. This particular GPR unit is towed behind a truck at highway speeds to inspect roadbeds and bridges for hidden defects.

The device fails to comply with two of the detailed rules that govern ultra-wideband devices: it generates a wide bandwidth by quickly stepping from one frequency to another, rather than transmitting on many frequencies at once; and it complies with the applicable emissions limits only when the frequency stepping is active, rather than stopped on one frequency, as the rules require. The waiver applicant, Curtiss-Wright Controls, Inc., explained why these departures are necessary to achieve better performance, and why they do not increase the threat of interference to other spectrum users.

Two opponents argued, in effect, that a waiver would allow manufacturers to concentrate radio-frequency energy in sensitive bands, including the band used by GPS satellites. The FCC responded with conditions on the waiver that prevent the device from using any one frequency for longer than 2 microseconds at a stretch, and more than 0.033 percent of the time overall. Other conditions require the device to avoid certain sensitive bands. With those limitations in place, the FCC determined, the Curtiss-Wright device will be no more interfering than a compliant GPR.

We have written before about the disadvantages of regulating by waiver: delays in getting a product to market (the Curtiss-Wright proceeding took 19 months, about par for the course), high legal expenses, unpredictability as to outcome and, in the end, a confusing patchwork of permitted and non-permitted devices. Not that the FCC should stop granting waivers to applicants that make a good case. Given the fragmented nature of the ultra-wideband rules, the waivers are the only way the industry can evolve to meet customers’ demands. Far better, though, would be an overhaul of the ultra-wideband rules that drops unnecessary restrictions and distinctions, and instead authorizes any ultra-wideband device that presents no realistic threat of interference. We understand that would take political finesse, as certain influential spectrum users have a history of overstating the risk of interference to their respective services. But we think the task is worth the effort. A single, coherent set of rules would be a big boost to an industry that, from the beginning, has shown an enviable flair for technical innovation.

Tags: , , , , , ,

The FCC Waives The Ultra-Wideband Rules - Again

Posted on June 9, 2011 by Mitchell Lazarus

A succession of waivers is no substitute for a good set of rules.

When the FCC first proposed to authorize ultra-wideband technology, back in 1998, the idea was controversial, to say the least. Ultra-wideband distributes a signal across a very wide range of spectrum, sometimes many gigahertz, but at very low levels. The maximum emissions proposed (and eventually adopted) are the same as the stray radio-frequency emissions allowed from an iPod or a digital alarm clock: at or below 75 billionths of a watt. Yet spectrum occupants of every stripe (see a partial list here) rose up as one to object. Among the opponents were the FAA and other Federal agencies, arguing that ultra-wideband signals could interfere with critical safety equipment, such as aircraft radar and communications, and thereby pose a threat to the public.

The FCC responded with a compromise: eight separate categories of ultra-wideband devices, each with its own rules. Each has a different set of maximum emissions at various frequencies. All of the categories have limitations: indoor only, hand-held only, sale only to police and fire departments, etc. All but two have limitations to a specific use: medical imaging, ground-penetrating radar, and so on. The purpose of the restrictions is to limit the spread of devices that operate at frequencies used to provide critical services.

The eight categories reflected the state of ultra-wideband technology at the time the rules were adopted, nine years ago. But the engineers have stayed busy since. Predictably, not all of the later-emerging technologies fit within the original scheme. Many of the newer devices need an FCC rule interpretation or waiver before they can be marketed in the United States. We count about a dozen waivers after the 2002 rulemaking, either granted or currently out for public comment. Not included are requests that were later withdrawn, and other requests that are pending but not yet on public notice. Also not counted are private letter rulings to individual companies, the number of which is not publicly known.

This high level of activity – more than one waiver a year – suggests the ultra-wideband rules are badly in need of revision. To its credit, the FCC expected as much. The very first paragraph of the 2002 order promised, within the ensuing six to twelve months (i.e., by April, 2003), to issue “a further rule making to explore more flexible technical standards and to address the operation of additional types” of UWB devices. And, to be sure, the FCC has since added a few more categories called “wideband” systems in a different part of the rulebook. But the original ultra-wideband categories rules remain unchanged. And the waivers keep coming.

The most recent concerns two separate categories, one covering devices that can be used only for imaging within walls, and another for devices that can be used only for imaging through walls. Needless to say, the two have different technical rules and sales restrictions. A within-wall device is further limited to use with walls that are thick enough to absorb most of the signal. Specifically excluded are “stud locators” of the kind typically used on walls made of thinner materials. A qualifying within-wall device can be sold to the construction and mining trades, among others. A through-wall device has none of the limitations listed above, but can be sold only to state and local police and firefighters.

A company called Robert Bosch wanted to sell an in-wall device to construction professionals. But its product is capable of locating studs, among other functions, and the company could not guarantee it would never be used on thin walls. Under this combination of circumstances, it satisfied neither category, and was ineligible for sale. The FCC responded with a waiver, in part on a finding that the device does not increase the potential for interference to other services.

The Robert Bosch waiver is typical of those that have gone before: a non-interfering device fails to satisfy the rules only because it falls through the cracks among the various categories. Indeed, at least one product needed a waiver because it was less interfering than a compliant device. 

Regulation by waiver has disadvantages. The process is slow and expensive. Most waivers take a year or two (at six months, the Robert Bosch has broken all recent records), and consume significant legal fees or the equivalent in other resources. The unpredictability of the outcomes hinders business planning and can make investors nervous. Worst of all, the end result is an odd patchwork of boundaries between permitted and non-permitted devices that makes no coherent sense.

Much better would be a revision of the rules that eliminates the ultra-wideband categories and instead lays out a uniform set of technical and marketing requirements. The FCC knows how to do this. For decades, the Part 15 rules for unlicensed devices were category-based, like the ultra-wideband rules are today. Every new application required a rulemaking or a waiver. But in 1989 the FCC made the switch to technically-based Part 15 rules that are largely independent of applications. There followed a surge of innovation in unlicensed devices that included Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, RFID, and countless other developments. 

The initial ultra-wideband proceeding was politically difficult for the FCC – that shows clearly in the record. Perhaps granting individual waivers is less painful than dealing with the underlying rules. But the present system impedes the development of new and potentially valuable technologies. The sooner the FCC can face up to the task of simplifying ultra-wideband regulation, the sooner the country can reap the benefits of its engineers’ creativity.
Tags: , , ,