1 / 21

Testing Newly-Approved Technologies: Challenges and Solutions Mitchell Lazarus

Testing Newly-Approved Technologies: Challenges and Solutions Mitchell Lazarus 703-812-0440 | lazarus@fhhlaw.com April 10, 2014. Innovator’s Tasks. Invent device Obtain FCC waiver or rule change can entail substantial delay: technical waiver takes about 2 years

azriel
Download Presentation

Testing Newly-Approved Technologies: Challenges and Solutions Mitchell Lazarus

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Testing Newly-Approved Technologies: Challenges and Solutions Mitchell Lazarus 703-812-0440 | lazarus@fhhlaw.com April 10, 2014

  2. Innovator’s Tasks • Invent device • Obtain FCC waiver or rule change • can entail substantial delay: • technical waiver takes about 2 years • technical rulemaking takes 2-5 years • Obtain FCC certification • can take several more months.

  3. Delays Due to Testing • New technologies may require new compliance test procedures • Even after FCC settles on procedures: • FCC may want to try out procedures • labs and TCBs will consult with FCC on how procedures work • client may have last-minute design issues, e.g.: • needed test modes missing from device software • problems with out-of-band emissions • commercial labs may have to acquire equipment, train personnel • testing takes longer than for established technologies.

  4. Consequences of Delay • technology becomes outdated • investors pull out • customers go elsewhere • key employees leave • businesses fail • people die.

  5. Rulemakings for New Technologies • Outcomes apply to everyone • Legal processes are uniform • set by Administrative Procedure Act • public comment (nearly) always required • Test procedures usually considered along with technical rules • often topic of public comment • sometimes topic of vigorous dispute • Rulemaking examples …

  6. Level Probing Radars – 1 • Measure quantity of materials, liquid depth outdoors • wideband operation • traditional rules set limit on transmitted (downward) emissions • interference arises from scattered (horizontal) emissions • difficult to measure reliably.

  7. Level Probing Radars – 2 • New rules require boresight measurement • seeking max. horizontal emissions of –41.3 dBm • boresight emissions limits exceed that level by 22–38 dB, depending on band • allows for losses due to scattering, etc. • Authorized in three bands: 5.925–7.25, 24.05–29,75–85 GHz • Rules took effect April 7 • FCC lab issued detailed draft KDB.

  8. Broadband over Power Line – 1 • Communications over power distribution lines at 1.7-80 MHz • regulated devices: couplers take signal off line, feed to premises • typically one coupler per 3-8 houses • only one coupler per several blocks works at one time • Compliance testing inherently difficult • FCC requires testing in situ: low signal, high noise • Detailed testing guidance in Report & Order • FCC engineers worked at manufacturers’ prototype houses.

  9. Broadband over Power Line – 2 • Amateur radio licensees and ARRL filed 6,000+ oppositions: • claimed power lines act as city-sized antennas • BPL providers argued that couplers act as isolated point sources • agreed to rules that turn down or turn off couplers that cause interference • Timetable: • 2003-04-28 Notice of Inquiry • 2004-02-23 NPRM • 2004-10-28 Report and Order (18 months after NOI) • 2006-08-07 Order on Reconsideration • 2006-08-28 first certification (22 months after R&O).

  10. Broadband over Power Line – 3 • Dispute throughout proceeding over extrapolation factor: • Amateur radio interests favored 20 dB/decade at all frequencies • challenged 40 dB/decade in U.S. Court of Appeals • court sent back to FCC for second look • FCC reaffirmed.

  11. Ultra-Wideband • Authorized low-emission signals over very wide bandwidth • eight types of devices; each has different rules • max emissions for any device in any band: –41.3 dBm/MHz • lower in some bands • Testing challenges • Class B digital emissions can exceed intentional emissions • FCC specified procedures to isolate digital emissions • GPS band emissions as low as –85.3 dBm • Timetable: • 1998-09-01 Notice of Inquiry • 2000-05-11 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking • 2002-04-22 First Report and Order (44 months after NOI) • 2002-09-12 first certification (5 months after R&O).

  12. TV Band (“White Space”) Devices • Downside risk: interference to broadcast TV, other services • FCC proceeded with great caution: • multiple successive rule modifications • live field tests in multiple kinds of environments • highly detailed test procedures • initial roll-outs limited to small areas • live, public testing of candidate database managers • Timetable: • Dec. 2002: proceeding began • Dec. 2012: first large-scale roll-out (after 10 years) • so far only fixed devices have been certified.

  13. Waivers for New Technologies • Process driven by waiver proponent • no required procedure; can vary • FCC usually seeks public comment • waiver initially applies only to company that asked for it • central issue is usually technical rules • FCC may not look at compliance testing until prompted by client (or TCB) • Examples …

  14. Surveillance Robot – 1 • Police surveillance robot • steered by remote control • transmits analog video back to controller • manufacturer sought 430-448 MHz (federal radar & amateur) • dozens of police departments wrote to the FCC in support • amateursstrongly opposed • FCC authorized.

  15. Surveillance Robot – 2 • Timetable: • 2008-01-11 waiver requested • 2010-02-23 waiver granted (25 months after request) • 2010-04-22 certification granted (two months after waiver) • 2012-02-06 first licenses granted (21 months after certification) • Licensing delay due in part to challenges to certification …

  16. Surveillance Robot – 3 • First model had B/W video, no sound • measured bandwidth per required procedure: 100 kHz • Opponents: analog video is “inevitably on the order of 5.75 MHz” • demanded that certification be set aside • FCC retained certification, granted licenses (after delay).

  17. Airport Body Scanners – 1 • Uses fast sweep 24.25–30 GHz • sweep takes 5.2 microseconds • (pauses for 2.6 microseconds) • sweep repeats twice for each of 192 antennas on vertical mast • mast sequence repeats for each of 210 rotating mast positions • complete scan uses 80,640 sweeps • takes less than 2 seconds (including mast rotation) • software processes reflections into image.

  18. Airport Body Scanners – 2 • Compliance issues: • Sec. 15.31(c) requires measurement with sweep stopped • Sec. 15.35(b) sets 20 dB peak-to-average limit • FCC waived both rules. 17

  19. Airport Body Scanners – 3 • Timetable: • 2004-08-18 waiver requested • 2006-08-04 waiver granted (24 months after request) • 2006-08-22 certification granted (18 days after waiver) • FCC allowed certification process to begin while waiver was pending • FCC conducted tests at Columbia lab • waiver order had detailed guidance on testing.

  20. Conclusion • Delays are reduced when rulemaking or waiver order has clear guidance on testing • How labs and TCBs can help innovators: • if asked, become involved early • deal with the right person at the client (not the lawyer) • the client may not know what services they need; tell them • and may not know what information you need; ask them • be creative on test procedures • if guidance is needed, go to the FCC promptly • for novel questions, KDB may not be the best place to start • but if rules and procedures are clear, do not ask the FCC • Time is always critical.

  21. Questions? Mitchell Lazarus 703-812-0440 | lazarus@fhhlaw.com

More Related