Part 15 of the FCC’s rules allow unlicensed white space devices to operate at locations on frequencies not in use by licensed services. Twelve years ago, the FCC authorized unlicensed white space device operations for the first time on television channels not being used locally by broadcasters and associated service licensees. The devices are required to obtain a list of available channels and power levels for use at their particular location from FCC-approved entities that maintain accessible databases. Fixed devices must also incorporate geo-location capability. Portable devices must include geo-location and database access capabilities or, alternatively, acquire a list of available channels via another device with geo-location ability and access to a database. While several orders in the intervening years have been designed to increase flexibility and promote additional opportunities for deployment of such devices, such as relaxed technical accommodations for devices in rural and underserved areas, their use has fallen somewhat below initial aspirations.

Last May, Microsoft Corporation filed a petition for rulemaking requesting that the FCC provide yet additional flexibility for white space device operations. Many commenters filed in support, but the National Association of Broadcasters (“NAB”) raised concerns, as did stakeholders with interests in Wireless Medical Telemetry Service (“WMTS”) operations on Channel 37 and proponents of wireless microphones using spectrum not being used by other licensed services.

Proposed New Power and Height Limits for White Space Devices in “Less Congested” Areas

Now, after the NAB and Microsoft have worked together to resolve most of their differences, the FCC proposes to permit fixed white space devices in spectrally “less congested” areas over larger distances through using higher transmit powers (16 v. 10 W EIRP) and deploying antennas at greater heights above average terrain (up to 500 meters from a maximum of 250 meters) – while maintaining the existing one-watt transmitter conducted power limit for fixed devices and proposing certain adjustments when higher gain antennas are used. This flexibility would come with the need to maintain greater separation distances from authorized services, although the FCC also invites comment about even greater flexibility in powers used and antenna heights and whether coordination or notification procedures should be adopted in combination with the proposed relaxed requirements.

Given the foregoing proposals, the FCC, in the NPRM, additionally inquires whether it should relax the limit on antenna height above ground level, including potentially in all areas within the United States. But current power and height limits would remain in Channel 36, which the FCC believes would be adequate to protect WMTS and Radio Astronomy operations in Channel 37.

As an overarching matter, the FCC also inquires whether it should change the definition of “less congested” areas which now are those areas where, within the band of intended operation, at least half of the TV channels that will continue to be allocated and assigned only for broadcast service are unused for broadcast and other protected services, and are thus available for white space device use. For example, the FCC asks whether “less congested” areas should be defined, in part, based on population density.

In conjunction with these proposals, the FCC will consider making additional changes to the protection criteria for operations in the TV bands other than broadcasting, such as TV translator receive sites, Low Power TV (including Class A) receive sites, Multichannel Video Programming Distributor (“MVPD”) receive sites, fixed Broadcast Auxiliary Service (“BAS”) links, the private land mobile radio and commercial mobile radio services (“PLMRS” and “CMRS”), and licensed wireless microphones.

Potential Operation of White Space Devices on Mobile Platforms in Geo-Fenced Locations

Additionally, the NPRM proposes to permit higher-power operation of white space devices on TV Channels 2-35 on mobile platforms inside “geo-fenced” areas (within “less congested” areas) enforced by incorporated geo-location capabilities, e.g., GPS coupled with a database, and new operational requirements, such as prohibiting operation on board aircraft or satellites to limit the potential for interference. The FCC seeks comment on a wide variety of other questions related to permitting wider deployment of white space devices on mobile platforms, including limitations on the size of the area over which a higher-power mobile device could operate, changes to the databases used for white space devices, and other possible safeguards.

Prospective Changes That Might Propose Use of White Space Devices for IoT

The FCC also hopes to facilitate innovative narrowband IoT services by considering certain changes to the power spectral density (“PSD”) limits applicable to white space devices in the TV bands. Matters raised by the NPRM include a revised definition of “narrowband” white space devices and spectrum utilization limits, while the FCC leans toward permitting manufacturers and standards groups to develop their own protocols to prevent multiple devices from transmitting simultaneously and interfering with each other without a regulatory mandate. As with all of the other areas under consideration in the proceeding, the FCC asks whether there are other rule modifications needed to promote narrowband operations while ensuring protection of authorized services that operate in the TV bands from harmful interference potentially caused by narrowband white space devices.

Possible Flexibility for White Space Devices to Operate Adjacent to Occupied TV Channels

Further, the FCC seeks comment about higher-power white space device operation within the service contour of an adjacent-channel TV station. Generally, white space device operations above 40 milliwatts EIRP must generally operate outside the protected contours of adjacent-channel TV stations, although fixed white space devices may operate within the protected contour of adjacent-channel TV stations with a power level of 100 milliwatts EIRP when the white space device operates in a six-megahertz band centered on the boundary of two contiguous vacant channels, which requires three contiguous vacant channels available for use. Microsoft noted that these conditions are not always present and the FCC should therefore consider other ways to permit higher-power operation of white space devices when adjacent TV channels are occupied, such as more sophisticated location-determining computer models (e.g., Longley-Rice) and consideration of improved selectivity in next-generation TV receivers. NAB opposes any consideration of this matter – the primary area where Microsoft and the broadcasters could not reconcile their differences over Microsoft’s proposals.

Interest in Microsoft’s proposals has already been considerable, with almost two dozen parties commenting. There is every reason to expect that a similar level of participation will emerge during the rulemaking. Manufacturers of white space devices, developers of agricultural, mining, construction, and other IoT applications, and potential users of these devices should be especially interested, as well as broadcasters and those operating in the authorized services in the TV bands.

This action, released August 2, 2013, represents the first of which we are aware where the Commission imposed a fine on an individual user of a GPS jammer. As we reported in late 2012, in recent years, the FCC’s investigations and enforcement matters against unauthorized marketing and use of GPS blockers, cellphone jammers, and similar equipment led principally to citations without monetary penalties, as well as to enforcement advisories for the general public. We anticipated then that the Commission might soon find reason to issue substantial forfeitures for illegal operation of such devices, especially where facts are present demonstrating either, one, that large corporations are utilizing such unauthorized devices or, two, that 9-1-1 or other emergency communications are being subjected to interference.

In April 2013, the Commission found the first set of circumstances in the case of two sizeable corporations, The Supply Room, Inc. and Taylor Oilfield Manufacturing, Inc., operating cell phone jammers. The Commission issued NALs against each corporation in excess of $125,000.

The present NAL is an instance of the second set of circumstances. In proposing the almost-$32,000 forfeiture against Mr. Bojczak (which Mr. Bojczak can seek to have the agency reduce or cancel), the Commission expressed clear concern about interference to navigational equipment designed to promote public safety. The device in question was found by Enforcement Bureau staff to be operating in the vicinity of, and presumably causing interference to, a ground-based augmentation system (“GBAS”) operated by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey at Newark Liberty International Airport and used to support precision approaches by aircraft, departure procedures, and terminal area operations.

Several aspects of the Commission’s calculation of the proposed forfeitures bear mention. First, the Commission once again used the maximum per violation per day forfeiture amounts of $16,000 for using unauthorized equipment and, separately, for operating without a license or other authorization. (Jammers, the FCC underscored, are per se unlawful.) Second, the Commission increased the base forfeiture amount for interference of $7,000 by 50% because of the safety-oriented nature of the GBAS operations to which Mr. Bojczak’s device is alleged to have caused interference. Third, the Commission reduced the overall proposed forfeiture amount by 25% because the violator cooperated with, and voluntarily relinquished his equipment to, Bureau personnel. The FCC, as a final comment and signaling what appears to be an ongoing evolution and toughening of its enforcement approach to jammers, noted that in future cases, it may pursue “alternative or more aggressive sanctions” – including referral to the Department of Justice for possible criminal action – if remedies like the one proposed in the Bojczak NAL do not deter future similar violations.