**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | ET Docket No. 00-47          |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Authorization and Use of         | ) |                              |
| Software Defined Radios          | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING**

**Adopted:** December 7, 2000 **Released:** December 8, 2000

By the Commission: Commissioner Ness issuing a statement.

**Comment date: \[75 days from publication in Federal Register\]**

**Reply comment date: \[135 days from publication in Federal
Register\]**

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

::: Definition-Term
Heading Para \#
:::

I. INTRODUCTION 1

II\. BACKGROUND [2](#background)

III\. DISCUSSION 8

A. Areas of Inquiry 9

1\. State of Technology 9

2\. Improving Interoperability between Radio Services 12

3\. Improving Spectrum Efficiency and Spectrum Sharing 14

4\. Equipment Approval Process 16

B. Proposed Rule Changes 19

1\. Definition of Software Defined Radio 21

2\. New Class III Permissive Change 22

3\. Unauthorized Software Modifications 30

4\. Other Matters 32

IV\. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 35

Appendix A: Proposed Rules

Appendix B: List of Commenting Parties

Appendix C: Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

# INTRODUCTION

1.  By this action, we propose to amend Part 2 of our rules to
    streamline the equipment authorization procedures for software
    defined radios (SDR). Specifically, we propose to define software
    defined radios as a new class of equipment with equipment
    authorization rules that reflect the additional flexibility
    incorporated into such radios. We propose to permit equipment
    manufacturers to make changes in the frequency, power and modulation
    of such radios without the need to file a new equipment
    authorization application with the Commission. We also propose to
    permit electronic labeling so that a third party may modify a
    radio\'s technical parameters without having to return to the
    manufacturer for re-labeling. We believe that these changes will
    facilitate the deployment and use of this new promising technology.
    The frequency and technology agility of software defined radios
    could increase the use of presently underutilized frequency bands.

# BACKGROUND

2.  Traditionally, a radio transmitter is approved for a specific set of
    technical parameters, including the operating frequencies, output
    power, and types of radio frequency emissions. Under the current
    rules, if the grantee of the equipment authorization changes these
    parameters after a piece of equipment has been authorized, the
    grantee must apply for a new approval and wait until the approval is
    issued before the unit may be marketed with the changes.[^1] These
    rules were developed to address radio characteristics defined by
    hardware. In comparison, the operating parameters of a software
    defined radio can be changed in the field by modifying its software.
    Such a change could violate the terms of the transmitter's equipment
    authorization by causing it to operate on frequencies or in modes
    that were not approved as part of the initial equipment
    authorization. In addition, our rules do not allow parties other
    than the grantee of the equipment authorization to make
    modifications to approved equipment.[^2] Once a new approval is
    obtained by the original grantee, the current rules require the
    modified transmitter to be labeled with a new FCC identification
    number permanently affixed to the device.[^3]

3.  In a software defined radio, operating parameters such as the
    frequency and modulation type are determined by software. The fact
    that these parameters are determined by software means that a
    software defined radio could be programmed to transmit and receive
    on any frequency and to use any desired transmission format within
    the limits of its design, affording the user substantial flexibility
    to operate in multiple radio services. The operating parameters of a
    software defined radio could be altered in the field by a software
    change. This is a significant technological advancement from
    traditional radios where technical characteristics are fixed at the
    time of manufacture and subsequently cannot be easily modified.

4.  The ability of software defined radios to be reprogrammed to new
    operating parameters in the field could have far reaching
    implications for the way the Commission allocates and licenses
    spectrum and authorizes radio equipment. Software defined radios
    could allow more efficient use of spectrum by facilitating spectrum
    sharing and by allowing equipment to be reprogrammed to more
    efficient modulation types. Their ability to be programmed could
    also enhance interoperability between different radio services.

5.  We view software defined radios as the result of an evolutionary
    process from purely hardware-based equipment to fully software-based
    equipment. In this regard, the process can be roughly described in
    three overlapping stages:

> 1\) A hardware driven radio performs all transmit and receive
> functions in dedicated hardware. The transmit frequencies, modulation
> type and other radio frequency (RF) parameters are determined by
> hardware and can not be changed without hardware changes.

2\) A digital radio performs part of the signal processing or
transmission digitally, but is not programmable in the field. Processing
may be done by digital signal processors, by fixed programs stored as
firmware, or by dedicated hardware such as application-specific
integrated circuits (ASICs).

3\) A fully software driven, or software defined radio performs all
signal processing in the digital domain using programmable digital
signal processors, general purpose microprocessors, or field
programmable gate arrays. All functions, modes and applications can be
reconfigured by software.

6.  The FCC Technological Advisory Council (TAC) has been studying
    issues related to the development and deployment of software defined
    radios. The Commission established the TAC in 1998 to provide
    technical advice and to make recommendations on the issues and
    questions presented to it by the Commission.[^4] In May 1999, the
    Commission requested that the TAC assess and report on the current
    state of the art for software defined radios, cognitive radios, and
    similar devices and, to the extent possible, predict future
    developments for these technologies.[^5] The TAC was also requested
    to suggest ways that the availability of such devices might affect
    the Commission's traditional approaches to spectrum management, as
    well as ways the agency could facilitate experimentation and
    commercial deployment of such devices. In response, the TAC issued a
    paper in August of 1999 discussing the evolution of software defined
    radio and its significant benefits in responding to the tremendous
    growth of mobile communications, as well as its potential role in
    designing, facilitating, operating and implementing a broad array of
    services and applications in the telecommunications and information
    transfer technologies.[^6]

7.  In March 2000, the Commission issued a *Notice of Inquiry*
    (*Notice*) on software defined radios.[^7] The *Notice* was intended
    to solicit comments from as broad an audience as possible.
    Twenty-four parties filed comments in response to the *Notice*, and
    nine parties filed reply comments. A list of parties responding is
    included in Appendix B.

# DISCUSSION

8.  The *Notice* sought comments in four broad areas related to software
    defined radios: 1) the state of technology, 2) improving
    interoperability between radio services, 3) improving spectrum
    efficiency and spectrum sharing, and 4) the equipment approval
    process.[^8] The comments received in each of these four areas are
    summarized below. In addition, we propose certain changes to our
    equipment authorization rules.

## Areas of Inquiry

### State of Technology

9.  The *Notice* asked for comments on the state of software defined
    radio technology, including the features that could be controlled by
    software, the capabilities of software defined radios, the
    technological limitations, and when software defined radios could be
    deployed commercially.[^9] Based upon the comments, it appears that
    most features in a radio could eventually be controlled by software.
    For example, NTIA states that nearly every RF attribute subject to
    regulation is potentially software controllable, including tuning
    range, channeling, bandwidth, bit rate, modulation frequency,
    pre-emphasis, deviation ratio, power, pulse characteristics, and
    digital-to-analog (D/A) converter update rate.[^10] Several other
    parties note the wide range of attributes that could eventually be
    controlled by software.[^11] The comments also recognize that
    software defined radios could have multi-band, multi-mode and
    multi-function capabilities that are not present in current radios.
    For example, software defined radios could allow post-manufacture
    re-programmability, and common hardware platforms for
    manufacturers.[^12] Software defined radios could also permit base
    stations of reduced size and enhanced technical flexibility at lower
    prices than base stations employing a separate transceiver for each
    radio frequency carrier.[^13]

10. However, some commenters note that a number of limitations currently
    exist in software defined radio technology. NTIA states that
    software defined radios may have added size, weight and power
    consumption relative to a single function radio implemented in
    hardware. They may also be limited in their ability to reconfigure
    the analog RF front ends and transmitter output stages.[^14]
    Operation across multiple bands requires that the transmitter have a
    highly linear power amplifier, and a receiver front end with a large
    dynamic range, high linearity and wide bandwidth.[^15] In addition,
    several parties state that more work must be done to increase the
    bandwidth and dynamic range of D/A and analog-to-digital (A/D)
    converters and to increase the speed and decrease the cost and power
    consumption of digital signal processors and memory.[^16]

11. We believe that the state of software defined radio technology is
    sufficiently developed to move forward at this time with proposed
    rules. As the comments indicate, the initial deployment of software
    defined radio technology is under way. The technology is continuing
    to develop and significant new technical capabilities will be
    possible. While the technology is currently only available in base
    stations, widespread handset use is expected within five years.[^17]
    This technology should eventually allow control of virtually all
    parameters in a radio transmitter. We note that there are currently
    limitations such as cost, complexity, size and the speed of the
    circuitry, but the technology is improving.

### Improving Interoperability between Radio Services

12. The *Notice* asked for comments on how software defined radios could
    improve interoperability between public safety agencies, improve
    interoperability between equipment and services using differing
    transmission standards, help move toward uniformity in standards,
    and facilitate transitions from one technical standard to another.
    The comments generally agree that software defined radios could help
    improve interoperability between public safety agencies, although
    that may not occur in the immediate future.[^18] The comments also
    note that software defined radios have the potential to facilitate
    interoperability in commercial radio services, although there are a
    number of issues that need to be resolved, such as protocols,
    channel establishment procedures, authentication and fraud
    detection, before roaming between networks that support different
    standards is possible.[^19] The comments describe a number of
    methods by which software defined radios could facilitate
    interoperability, including multiple channel operations,
    translation, smart antennas that can operate over multiple bands,
    multiband power amplifiers, tunable preselectors, interference
    cancellers, low noise synthesizers, wideband low noise amplifiers
    and mixers, high throughput digital signal processors (DSPs) and
    smaller chip packaging.[^20]

13. While technical limitations remain, it appears that software defined
    radios could help improve interoperability between public safety
    agencies as well as between commercial radio services through their
    ability to handle different transmission standards. We tentatively
    conclude that there is no need to propose rule changes at this time
    to improve interoperability between radio services, but we will
    continue to monitor developments in this area as the technology
    develops.

### Improving Spectrum Efficiency and Spectrum Sharing

14. The *Notice* requested comments on how software defined radios could
    improve the efficiency of spectrum use, the particular spectrum use
    functions that they could perform, the benefits of the spectrum
    sharing arrangements described in the *Notice*, and the changes to
    the Commission's spectrum allocations process that may be
    appropriate. Most commenters addressing this issue recognize the
    potential for software defined radios to improve the efficiency of
    spectrum use.[^21] For example, Hypres states that software defined
    radios could have the ability to improve bandwidth utilization by
    the use of programmable filters and the ability to change
    characteristics in response to various signal/input rates, various
    environment conditions and conditions related to the density of
    users.[^22] However, a number of parties express concern that the
    spectrum efficiency benefits of software defined radios are not yet
    technically or commercially feasible and no regulatory changes
    should take place at this time.[^23] In addition, the Federal Law
    Enforcement Wireless Users Group (FLEWUG) is concerned that software
    defined radios could potentially disrupt public safety operations
    when looking for unused channels, and that the benefits of real-time
    frequency selection have yet to be determined.[^24] A few parties
    suggest changes to the way the Commission currently allocates or
    licenses spectrum to allow greater spectrum sharing through greater
    flexibility and secondary use.[^25] However, the majority of the
    parties believe that no changes should be made to the spectrum
    allocation rules at this time and caution the Commission that
    software defined radios are not a replacement for conventional
    spectrum management policy.[^26]

15. We agree with the general consensus of the commenters that software
    defined radio technology shows significant promise to improve the
    efficiency of spectrum use in the long run. In our recently adopted
    Policy Statement on promoting spectrum efficiency through the
    development of secondary markets,[^27] we noted the critical role
    that frequency agile equipment, such as SDR, will play in the
    ability of service providers to rapidly begin operations in a newly
    acquired band of frequencies or to operate economically on a term
    basis on leased spectrum. We tentatively conclude that there is no
    need to propose rule changes at this time to increase the efficiency
    of spectrum use as related to SDR, but we will continue to monitor
    developments in this area as the technology develops.

### Equipment Approval Process

16. The *Notice* sought comments on a number of issues related to the
    authorization of software defined radios, including the approval of
    radio hardware and/or software; the required compliance
    measurements[^28]; the authorization process; the regulation of
    software changes; and the need for requirements to prevent
    unauthorized modifications to equipment.[^29] A number of commenters
    believe that radio hardware and software should be approved together
    for software defined radios.[^30] SBC states that an approval of the
    combination is necessary because the software controls the hardware,
    and a change in software could potentially put the equipment in
    violation of the rules. The SDR Forum believes that each possible
    combination of hardware and software that a radio will support
    should be tested in the same fashion that single mode systems are
    tested today. NTIA states that software defined radio technology has
    not matured to the point where it is possible to predict radio RF
    parameters from examining only the software or hardware. It further
    states that separate hardware or software approval will only be
    possible if a consistent predictable connection between the software
    and hardware can be established.[^31]

17. Several parties suggest changes to the equipment authorization
    procedures for software defined radios. There was general consensus
    that the Commission's current equipment authorization procedures
    could be overly burdensome and could limit the benefits of the
    enhanced flexibility of software defined radios. A number of parties
    recommend manufacturer's self-approval for software defined radios
    instead of approval by the Commission.[^32] The SDR Forum believes
    that changes should be made to the current labeling
    requirement.[^33] It suggests that all information currently
    required to be displayed on the FCC label could be made available on
    a liquid crystal display (LCD) or light emitting diode (LED)
    display, which would eliminate the need to re-label equipment in the
    field when the software is changed. Lucent suggests a different
    approach of allowing software changes to be authorized as Class II
    permissive changes to avoid burdensome renumbering and re-labeling
    requirements.[^34] We also received comments that the Commission
    needs to distinguish between software that affects the RF emissions
    from a device and software that does not.[^35] We agree that changes
    to the authorization procedure for software defined radios, as
    discussed below, would facilitate the authorization and deployment
    of software defined radios. We seek comment on this tentative
    conclusion.

18. We agree that radio hardware and software should be approved
    together. Software defined radio technology has not matured at this
    point in time where it is possible to predict the RF characteristics
    of a radio from either the hardware or software alone. Therefore, we
    propose, as supported by the SDR Forum, that each combination of
    hardware and software that a radio supports should be tested. This
    is the only way at the present time to ensure that equipment
    complies with the technical standards in our rules to prevent
    interference and to protect users from excessive RF radiation. We
    anticipate that testing each hardware/software combination that will
    be used in a software defined radio would be no more burdensome than
    the current process which requires testing each mode in which a
    radio operates. We request comments on this tentative conclusion.

## Proposed Rule Changes

19. One of the major advantages of software defined radios is their
    ability to be reprogrammed in the field to operate in new frequency
    bands or in new transmission modes as technology changes. However,
    the current rules for authorizing radio equipment do not anticipate
    such modifications. As written, they could tend to discourage or
    inhibit the deployment and use of software defined radios. In this
    section, we propose rule changes to facilitate the deployment of
    software defined radios to consumers. Our proposals are limited to
    equipment authorization matters at this time, as commenters cited
    those rules as the most immediate regulatory barrier to the use of
    software defined radios in the near term. Specifically, we propose
    below a definition of software defined radios and a new alternative
    streamlined equipment approval process for such radios. We will
    continue to monitor the development of software defined radios and
    their implications for interoperability and spectrum management. We
    will propose additional rule changes in the future as warranted. We
    expect that this *Notice* will be the first in a series of actions
    to facilitate the deployment and use of this new technology.

20. In proposing new rules, we seek to ensure that our regulatory
    requirements keep pace with technology development. Consistent with
    this objective, we recognize that we must strike an appropriate
    balance between administrative burden and the need to ensure
    compliance with our technical rules. While we want to encourage the
    deployment of new software defined radio technology, we are
    concerned that the technical requirements in our rules continue to
    be met. We are specifically concerned about ensuring that changes to
    power levels are consistent with our RF exposure rules. We are also
    concerned with maintaining an ability to ensure that radios are only
    operated on approved frequency bands. We believe that the proposals
    we are making herein achieve the appropriate balance. However, we
    invite comment on other methods that may enable us to ensure that
    these objectives are met.

### Definition of Software Defined Radio

21. We recognize that there is no universally accepted definition of a
    software defined radio. We stated in the *Notice* that many radios
    now contain microprocessor technology that can control functions
    such as frequency and power. Until recently, these functions were
    controlled by firmware[^36] installed at the factory and are not
    readily changeable by the user. As noted above, radios are currently
    being developed that can be reprogrammed to new operating parameters
    in the field. To facilitate the development of these types of
    radios, we propose a new, more flexible equipment approval process.
    We propose the following definition of software defined radio to
    delineate what types of devices fall within the proposed new rules.

> A software defined radio is a radio that includes a transmitter in
> which the operating parameters of the transmitter, including the
> frequency range, modulation type or maximum radiated or conducted
> output power can be altered by making a change in software without
> making any hardware changes.[^37]

We seek comments on the sufficiency of this definition or any
alternative definitions that may be more appropriate.

### New Class III Permissive Change

22. As noted above, the rules currently require most radio transmitters
    to be approved by the Commission or a designated Telecommunication
    Certification Body (TCB) before they may be marketed. If changes are
    made to the operating frequencies, output power, and types of radio
    frequency emissions after a piece of equipment has been authorized,
    the grantee must apply for a new approval and wait until the
    approval is issued before the unit may be marketed with the
    changes.[^38] Changes to the operating parameters of a software
    defined radio in the field could violate the terms of the
    transmitter's equipment authorization by causing it to operate on
    frequencies or in modes for which it has not been approved. Even if
    a new approval were obtained, the current rules require the modified
    transmitter to be labeled with a new FCC identification number
    permanently affixed to the device,[^39] which would be impractical
    in the case of software modification of equipment in the field.

23. Our rules allow two classes of "permissive changes" for authorized
    equipment without requiring a new FCC identification number. [^40]
    Class I permissive changes include modifications that do not affect
    the RF emissions from a device. No filing is required for such a
    change. Class II permissive changes include modifications other than
    frequency, modulation or power that affect the RF emissions from a
    device.[^41] These changes are authorized through a streamlined
    filing procedure that does not require the filing of a complete
    application form with all exhibits normally required for a new
    approval. Instead, the applicant simply files a description of the
    changes and measurement results showing the changed equipment
    continues to comply with the rules.

24. The rules for authorizing transmitters were originally developed
    years ago when transmitters were hardware based. At that time,
    changes to the frequency, modulation type, and power output of a
    transmitter were performed by making changes to the layout and
    physical components of electronic circuits. Such changes essentially
    resulted in a new device, so we required a complete new application
    form with all exhibits, and we required the equipment to be labeled
    with a new identification number. However, in a software defined
    radio, changes to these operating parameters could be accomplished
    in the field by a software change with no change in hardware. We
    agree with the comments that the current application filing and
    equipment labeling requirements could be unnecessarily burdensome
    for software defined radios and could inhibit their development. At
    the same time, given the early state of software defined radio
    technology development, we do not believe that a manufacturer's
    self-approval approach, as suggested by some of the commenting
    parties, is appropriate at this time for software defined radio
    equipment. Equipment is generally placed in the self-approval
    category after the Commission has gained some experience that
    manufacturers can and will produce equipment that complies with the
    rules. Further experience with software defined radio equipment is
    necessary before we can determine whether self-approval is
    appropriate. We do believe, however, that some relaxation of the
    current equipment authorization procedures is appropriate. Thus, we
    propose to develop a more streamlined authorization procedure for
    changes to software defined radios.[^42]

25. Specifically, we propose that changes in the frequency, power, and
    modulation type of a software defined radio could be authorized as a
    new class of permissive change, which we propose to designate as
    Class III. This would eliminate the need to re-label equipment when
    new software is loaded and would streamline the filing procedure for
    changes to approved devices. Software changes that do not affect
    these operating parameters would be treated as Class I permissive
    changes, so no filing would be required for them.[^43] The applicant
    for a Class III change would submit test data showing that the
    equipment complies with the applicable requirements for the
    service(s) or rule parts under which it will operate with the new
    software loaded.[^44] The applicant would also have to demonstrate
    compliance with the applicable RF exposure requirements. The
    Commission would notify the applicant by letter when a permissive
    change is granted. Once a Class III permissive change has been
    granted for new software that affects the operating parameters, the
    software could be loaded into units in the field. The record in the
    Commission's database for each authorized device would show the
    approved frequency range(s), power and modulation type(s) as it does
    now. Additional frequency ranges or other new technical parameters
    would be added to the database record for an authorization when a
    permissive change is granted.

26. We propose that the original certification application must identify
    the equipment as a software defined radio, and that only the grantee
    of the authorization for a software defined radio may file for a
    Class III permissive change. We also propose that Class III
    permissive changes may only be made to equipment in which no
    hardware changes have been made from the originally approved device
    to eliminate ambiguity about which hardware and software
    combinations have been approved. We recognize that while the filing
    procedure for permissive changes is streamlined, Commission staff is
    still required to perform a technical review of the new test data
    for compliance with the rules. Therefore, we propose to apply the
    filing fee for certification of transmitters used in licensed
    services to the new Class III permissive changes to reflect the
    staff time required to process these changes.[^45]

27. We seek comments on the proposals described above, including whether
    a new class of permissive change should be established, the type of
    information that should be submitted to show compliance with the
    service rules and RF exposure requirements, the appropriate filing
    fee for such changes, whether parties other than the grantee should
    be allowed to file for permissive changes.

28. In addition, we seek comments on whether this new class of
    permissive change should be limited to software changes only,
    whether we should allow a combination of hardware and software
    permissive changes in a single device, whether there is a need for
    applicants to submit a copy of radio software to the Commission, and
    whether we should place limits on the number of hardware and
    software combinations under a single approval.[^46] We further seek
    comment on the benefits of the proposed new permissive change
    compared to the existing requirement for new identification numbers
    if we allow the alternative labeling method described below.

29. We believe that a major benefit of software defined radios will be
    the ability of manufacturers to produce radios intended to be
    programmed by third parties with unique or specialized application
    software. To help realize this benefit, we are proposing an option
    for software defined radios to be equipped with an "electronic
    label" to display the FCC identification number by means of a light
    emitting diode (LED) display, a liquid crystal display (LCD) screen
    or other similar method. This would provide a method to re-label
    equipment in the field if a new approval were obtained by a third
    party for a previously approved device. The information would have
    to be readily accessible in a manner that allows it to be easily
    viewed. We request comments on this proposal, including whether
    there is a need for this capability, the type of display that should
    be required, the means that should be required for accessing the
    information, and the information to be displayed. We recognize that
    not all transmitters that are potentially programmable would
    normally have an LED, LCD or similar display, so we also request
    comments on whether manufacturers would need to add such displays to
    take advantage of the electronic labeling capability. We also seek
    comments on whether electronic labeling should be permitted for
    other types of equipment besides software defined radios.

### Unauthorized Software Modifications

30. In response to the *Notice*, several parties raised issues related
    to unauthorized software modifications.[^47] NTIA believes that
    software defined radios should be built to a common standard that
    uses authentication to ensure that radios can only run authorized
    waveform software, and that radios should have digital serial
    numbers to identify groups of users, such as commercial or
    government.[^48] The SDR Forum notes that it is working with the
    European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) to develop a
    software download protocol that includes authentication, and that
    public-key technology can be used to provide encryption and digital
    signatures.[^49] However, AirNet and Lucent believe that an
    authentication system for software is not necessary and could
    prolong the time to market for equipment.[^50]

31. We tentatively conclude that a means will be necessary to avoid
    unauthorized modifications to software that could affect the
    compliance of a radio. However, groups such as the SDR Forum and
    ETSI are still in the process of developing standards for encryption
    and digital signatures. While we believe we may eventually have to
    adopt rules addressing software authentication, we believe it would
    be premature for us to propose specific requirements for
    authentication while standards are still under development.
    Accordingly, at this time we are proposing a more general
    requirement that manufacturers must take steps to ensure that only
    software that is part of a hardware/software combination approved by
    the Commission or a TCB can be loaded into a radio. The software
    must not allow the user to operate the radio with frequencies,
    output power, modulation types or other parameters outside of those
    that were approved. Manufacturers may use authentication or any
    other means to meet these requirements, and must describe the
    methods in their application for equipment authorization. The
    grantee of an equipment authorization is responsible for ensuring
    the integrity of the authentication or security system. Failure to
    do so could result in the revocation of the authorization. We
    believe that this proposal would protect against harmful
    interference and safety hazards from software defined radios without
    interfering with the development of the technology. We request
    comments on this proposal, including whether it could impede
    legitimate third party software developers from developing
    applications for software defined radios. We also seek comments on
    the types of authentication standards that are likely to be
    developed, whether the standards should be industry developed or
    government sponsored, whether the standards should be voluntary or
    mandatory, and whether these standards would be applicable to all
    types of software defined radio equipment.

### Other Matters

32. The comments support retaining the measurements required in Part 2
    of the Commission's rules for radio transmitters.[^51] AirNet and
    NTIA also state that additional measurements may be necessary.
    AirNet believes that radio equipment should be tested for linearity
    to ensure that software modifications will not degrade out-of-band
    emission performance.[^52] NTIA believes that tests should be
    performed on adaptive spectrum access algorithms and on signal
    distortions caused by digitization.[^53] We do not believe that
    there is a demonstrated need to make any changes to the current
    required measurements in the rules, and thus decline to propose
    changes at this time. The current rules already address out-of-band
    emissions, and it has not been shown that signal distortions in
    software defined radios would be any worse than those in other
    radios. Therefore, there does not appear to be a need to propose
    additional requirements for linearity and other distortions. We note
    that the Commission's Technological Advisory Council (TAC) has been
    discussing "rule based systems" or logical algorithms for spectrum
    use by software defined radios.[^54] In such a system, a software
    defined radio transmitter is programmed to follow a sequence of
    steps in locating frequencies to use. These algorithms may enable
    sharing of spectrum without causing interference to other users. The
    algorithms could vary from system to system and in different
    geographic areas of the country. We believe that such spectrum
    sharing has the potential to be beneficial. However, we believe it
    is premature to propose requirements on spectrum access algorithms
    because such technology is still under development. We seek comment
    on any policy impacts of such systems, the expected timing of their
    deployment, and whether any rule changes are necessary.

33. In General Docket 98-68, we established the requirements for TCBs
    that can approve equipment in the same manner as the
    Commission.[^55] In that proceeding, we stated that while we
    intended to use TCBs to certify a broad range of equipment, we found
    that certain functions should continue to be performed by the
    Commission. The functions included certifying new or unique
    equipment for which the rules or requirements do not exist or for
    which the application of the rules is not clear.[^56] Because
    software defined radios are a new technology and we are proposing
    new rules to accommodate them, we expect that many questions about
    the application of the rules would arise. Therefore, we tentatively
    conclude that TCBs should not be permitted to certify software
    defined radios or approve permissive changes to software defined
    radios for at least six months after the effective date of final
    rules adopted in this proceeding.[^57] We request comments on this
    tentative conclusion.

34. We believe that the rule changes we are proposing will allow
    manufacturers greater flexibility in obtaining approval for software
    defined radios and will facilitate deployment of this equipment to
    consumers. We further believe that the proposed requirements for
    authentication of software will provide a safeguard against
    unauthorized modifications of approved equipment. However, we
    recognize that a non-compliant software defined radio has the
    potential to interfere with other radio services due to its
    potential to operate in multiple frequency bands. Therefore, we
    request comments on whether we should enhance our enforcement
    capabilities and what particular changes we should make. For
    example, should we establish requirements prohibiting manufacturers
    or grantees from knowingly marketing software that would cause a
    software defined radio to operate in violation of the Commission's
    rules[^58]? We request comments on this and any other matters that
    may be pertinent to software defined radios.

# PROCEDURAL MATTERS

35. As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
    U.S.C. § 603, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory
    Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible economic impact on small
    entities of the policies and rules proposed in this document. The
    IRFA is set forth in Appendix C. Written public comments are
    requested on the IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance
    with the same filing deadlines as comments filed in this *Notice of
    Proposed Rule Making* as set forth in paragraph 38, but they must
    have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses
    to the IRFA.

[Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis]{.underline}

36. This NPRM contains either a proposed or modified information
    collection. As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork
    burdens, we invite the general public and the Office of Management
    and Budget (OMB) to take this opportunity to comment on the
    information collections contained in this NPRM, as required by the
    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and
    agency comments are due at the same time as other comments on this
    NPRM; OMB comments are due 60 days from date of publication of this
    NPRM in the Federal Register. Comments should address: (a) whether
    the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
    performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether
    the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of
    the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
    utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
    minimize the burden of the collection of information on the
    respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or
    other forms of information technology.

37. This is a permit-but-disclose notice and comment rule making
    proceeding. *Ex parte* presentations are permitted, except during
    the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as provided
    in the Commission\'s rules. *See generally* 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1202,
    1.1203, and 1.2306(a).

38. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission\'s Rules, 47
    C.F.R. §§ 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments on
    or before \[**75 days from date of publication in the Federal
    Register**\] and reply comments on or before \[**135 days from date
    of publication in the Federal Register**\]. Comments may be filed
    using the Commission\'s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS),
    <http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html>, or by filing paper copies.
    *See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings*, 63
    Fed. Reg. 23,121 (1998).

39. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file
    via the Internet to <http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html>.
    Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed.
    If multiple docket or rule making numbers appear in the caption of
    this proceeding, however, commenters must transmit one electronic
    copy of the comments to each docket or rule making number referenced
    in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters
    should include their full name, Postal Service mailing address, and
    the applicable docket or rule making number. Parties may also submit
    an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions
    for e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to
    ecfs@fcc.gov, and should including the following words in the body
    of the message, \"get form \<your e-mail address\>.\" A sample form
    and directions will be sent in reply.

40. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four
    copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rule making number
    appear in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must submit two
    additional copies for each additional docket or rule making number.
    All filings must be sent to the Commission\'s Secretary, Magalie
    Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications
    Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., TW‑A325, Washington, D.C. 20554.
    Comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection
    during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center of the
    Federal Communications Commission, Room TW-A306, 445 12th Street,
    S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.

41. Parties who choose to file by paper should also submit their
    comments on diskette. Such a submission should be on a 3.5-inch
    diskette formatted in an IBM compatible format using Microsoft Word
    or compatible software. The diskette should be accompanied by a
    cover letter and should be submitted in "read only" mode. The
    diskette should be clearly labeled with the commenter's name,
    proceeding (including the lead docket number), type of pleading
    (comment or reply comment), date of submission, and the name of the
    electronic file on the diskette. The label should also include the
    following phrase "Disk Copy -- Not an Original." Each diskette
    should contain only one party's pleading, preferably in a single
    electronic file. In addition, commenters must send diskette copies
    to the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription
    Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037.

42. Alternative formats (computer diskette, large print, audio cassette
    and Braille) are available to persons with disabilities by
    contacting Martha Contee at (202) 418-0260, TTY (202) 418-2555, or
    via e-mail to <mcontee@fcc.gov>. This Notice of Proposed Rule Making
    can also be downloaded at <http://www.fcc.gov/oet>.

43. Written comments by the public on the proposed and/or modified
    information collections are due at the same time as comments on the
    NPRM. Written comments must be submitted by the Office of Management
    and Budget (OMB) on the proposed and/or modified information
    collections on or before **\[60 days after date of publication in
    the Federal Register.\]** In addition to filing comments with the
    Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collection(s)
    contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal
    Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW,
    Washington, D.C. 20554, or via the Internet to <jboley@fcc.gov> and
    to Virginia Huth, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 -- 17th Street,
    N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503, or via the Internet to
    <vhuth@omb.eop.gov>.

44. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to the authority contained
    in Sections 4(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r), 304 and 307 of
    the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 USC Sections 154(i),
    301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r), 304, and 307, this Notice of
    Proposed Rule Making IS ADOPTED.

45. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission\'s Consumer Information
    Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this
    NPRM, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the
    Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

46. To make cited sources more easily available to the readers, we are
    testing the use of hyperlinks to some FCC documents that are cited
    in this document. The World Wide Web addresses/URLs that we give
    here were correct at the time this document was prepared but may
    change over time. We do not have staff dedicated to updating these
    URLs, however, so readers may find some URLs to be out of date as
    time progresses. We also advise that the only definitive text of FCC
    documents is the one that is published in the FCC Record. In case of
    discrepancy between the electronic documents cited here and the FCC
    Record, the version in the FCC Record is definitive.

47. For further information regarding this Notice of Proposed Rule
    Making, contact Mr. Hugh L. Van Tuyl, Office of Engineering and
    Technology, (202) 418-7506, e-mail <hvantuyl@fcc.gov>.

> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
>
> Magalie Roman Salas
>
> Secretary

# Appendix A: Proposed Rules {#appendix-a-proposed-rules .unnumbered}

For the reasons set forth above, Parts 1 and 2 of title 47 of the Code
of Federal Regulations are proposed to be amended as follows:

**PART 1 -- PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE**

1.  The authority citation for Part 1 continues to read as follows:

> **AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 225, 303(r), 309.**

2.  Section 1.1103 is revised by adding the following new entry to the
    table:

§1.1103 Schedule of charges for equipment authorization, experimental
radio services, and international telecommunications settlements.

+-----------------+---------+-----+------+----------------------------+
| Action          | FCC     | Fee | Pay  | Address                    |
|                 | Form    | amo | ment |                            |
|                 | No.     | unt | type |                            |
|                 |         |     | code |                            |
+-----------------+---------+-----+------+----------------------------+
| 1\.             |         |     |      |                            |
| Certification:  |         |     |      |                            |
+-----------------+---------+-----+------+----------------------------+
| \* \* \* \* \*  |         |     |      |                            |
+-----------------+---------+-----+------+----------------------------+
| > f\. Class III | 731 &   | 495 | ECC  | Federal Communications     |
| > permissive    | 159...  |     |      | Commission, Equipment      |
| > changes.      |         |     |      | Approval Services, P.O.    |
|                 |         |     |      | Box 358315, Pittsburgh, PA |
|                 |         |     |      | 15251-5315                 |
+-----------------+---------+-----+------+----------------------------+
| \* \* \* \* \*  |         |     |      |                            |
+-----------------+---------+-----+------+----------------------------+

> **PART 2 -- FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL
> RULES AND REGULATIONS**

3.  The authority citation for Part 2 continues to read as follows:

**AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise
noted.**

4.  Section 2.1 is proposed to be amended by adding the following
    definition:

**§ 2.1 Terms and definition.**

**\* \* \* \* \***

\(c\) \* \* \*

*Software defined radio.* A radio that includes a transmitter in which
the operating parameters of the transmitter, including the frequency
range, modulation type and maximum radiated or conducted output power
can be altered by making a change in software without making any
hardware changes.

\* \* \* \* \*

5.  Section 2.932 is proposed to be amended by adding a new paragraph
    (e):

**§2.932 Modification of equipment.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(e\) Manufacturers must take steps to ensure that only software that
has been approved by the FCC or a TCB can be loaded into a transmitter.
The software must not allow the user to operate the transmitter with
frequencies, output power, modulation types or other parameters outside
of those that were approved. Manufacturers may use authentication codes
or any other means to meet these requirements, and must describe the
methods in their application for equipment authorization.

6.  Section 2.1043 is proposed to be revised to read as follows:

**§ 2.1043 Changes in certificated equipment.**

::: Definition-Term
\(a\) Except for Class III permissive changes, changes to the basic
frequency determining and stabilizing circuitry (including clock or data
rates), frequency multiplication stages, basic modulator circuit or
maximum power or field strength ratings shall not be performed without
application for and authorization of a new grant of certification.
Variations in electrical or mechanical construction, other than these
indicated items, are permitted provided the variations either do not
affect the characteristics required to be reported to the Commission or
the variations are made in compliance with the other provisions of this
section.
:::

::: Definition-Term
\(b\) Three classes of permissive changes may be made in certificated
equipment without requiring a new application for and grant of
certification. None of the classes of changes shall result in a change
in identification.
:::

::: Definition-Term
\(1\) A Class I permissive change includes those modifications in the
equipment which do not degrade the characteristics reported by the
manufacturer and accepted by the Commission when certification is
granted. No filing with the Commission is required for a Class I
permissive change.
:::

::: Definition-Term
\(2\) A Class II permissive change includes those modifications which
degrade the performance characteristics as reported to the Commission at
the time of the initial certification. Such degraded performance must
still meet the minimum requirements of the applicable rules. When a
:::

::: Definition-Term
Class II permissive change is made by the grantee, the grantee shall
supply the Commission with complete information and the results of tests
of the characteristics affected by such change. The modified equipment
shall not be marketed under the existing grant of certification prior to
:::

::: Definition-Term
acknowledgement by the Commission that the change is acceptable.
:::

::: Definition-Term
\(3\) A Class III permissive change includes modifications to the
software of a software defined radio transmitter that affect the
frequency, modulation type, output power or maximum field strength. When
a Class III permissive change is made, the grantee shall supply the
Commission with a description of the changes and test results showing
that the equipment complies with the applicable rules with the new
software loaded, including compliance with the applicable RF exposure
requirements. The modified software shall not be loaded into equipment,
and the equipment shall not be marketed with the modified software under
the existing grant of certification, prior to acknowledgement by the
Commission that the change is acceptable.
:::

::: Definition-Term
\(4\) Class III permissive changes may only be made by the original
grantee. Class I and Class II permissive changes may only be made by the
original grantee, except as specified below.
:::

**\* \* \* \* \***

7.  Section 2.925 is proposed to be revised by adding a new
    paragraph (e) and re-designating the existing paragraphs (e) and (f)
    as (f) and (g).

**§ 2.925 Identification of equipment.**

**\* \* \* \* \***

\(e\) A software defined radio may be equipped with a means such as a
user display screen to display the information normally contained in the
nameplate or label. The information must be readily accessible.

**\* \* \* \* \***

# Appendix B: List of Commenting Parties {#appendix-b-list-of-commenting-parties .unnumbered}

[Comments]{.underline}

1.  AirNet Communications Corp. (AirNet)

2.  American Petroleum Institute (API)

3.  APCO

4.  Amateur Radio Relay League (ARRL)

5.  Bellsouth

6.  Dandin Group

7.  Educase

8.  Ericsson

9.  Harris Corp.

10. Hypres, Inc. (Hypres)

11. Industrial Telecommunications Association (ITA)

12. Lucent Technologies (Lucent)

13. Motorola

14. National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)

15. Network Technology Division

16. Nokia, Inc. (Nokia)

17. Nortel Networks, Inc. (Nortel)

18. Public Safety National Coordination Committee

19. Red Bat Communications

20. SBC Wireless (SBC)

21. SDR Forum

22. Shared Spectrum Company

23. Technological Advisory Council (TAC)

24. Vanu, Inc. (Vanu)

[Reply Comments]{.underline}

1.  AirNet Communications Corporation (AirNet)

2.  AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. (AT&T)

3.  Bellsouth

4.  Federal Law Enforcement Wireless Users Group (FLEWUG)

5.  Frederick G. Griffin (Cleve Watkins)

6.  Lucent Technologies, Inc. (Lucent)

7.  Public Safety Wireless Network (PSWN)

8.  SBC Wireless, Inc. (SBC)

9.  SDR Forum

# Appendix C: Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis {#appendix-c-initial-regulatory-flexibility-analysis .unnumbered}

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^59] the Commission
has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the
policies and rules proposed in this *Notice of Proposed Rule Making
(NPRM)*. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments
must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the
deadlines for comments provided in paragraph 38 of this *NPRM*. The
Commission will send a copy of this *NPRM*, including this IRFA, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
(SBA).[^60] In addition, the *NPRM* and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will
be published in the Federal Register.[^61]

**A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules**

A number of parties are currently developing software defined radio
technology. In a software defined radio, functions that were carried out
by hardware in the past are performed by software. This means that the
operating parameters of the radio, such as the frequency and type of
modulation, could be readily changed in the field. The current rules do
not prohibit software programmable radios. However, they require a new
approval and a new identification number on a permanently affixed label
when changes to the frequency, power or type of modulation are made. The
requirement to re-label equipment in the field when a change is made
could tend to discourage deployment of software defined radios to
consumers. Therefore, we are proposing changes to our equipment
authorization rules to facilitate such deployment. These changes would
streamline the equipment approval process for software defined radios
and would reduce the filing burden on applicants.

**B. Legal Basis**

The proposed action is authorized under Sections 4(i), 301, 302, 303(e),
303(f), 303(r), 304 and 307 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r),
304 and 307.

**C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply**

The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, herein adopted.[^62] The RFA generally
defines the term \"small entity\" as having the same meaning as the
terms \"small business,\" \"small organization,\" and \"small
governmental jurisdiction.\"[^63] In addition, the term \"small
business\" has the same meaning as the term \"small business concern\"
under the Small Business Act.[^64] A small business concern is one
which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in
its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria
established by the SBA.[^65]

The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities
applicable to Radio Frequency Equipment Manufacturers (RF
Manufacturers). Therefore, the applicable definition of small entity is
the definition under the SBA rules applicable to manufacturers of
\"Radio and Television Broadcasting and Communications Equipment.\"
According to the SBA\'s regulation, an RF manufacturer must have 750 or
fewer employees in order to qualify as a small business.[^66] Census
Bureau data indicates that there are 858 companies in the United States
that manufacture radio and television broadcasting and communications
equipment, and that 778 of these firms have fewer than 750 employees and
would be classified as small entities.[^67] We believe that many of the
companies that manufacture RF equipment may qualify as small entities.

**D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements**

We propose to establish a new class of "permissive change" for software
defined radios when changes are made to the software that affect the
frequency, power or type of modulation. This class of change would
require the manufacturer to submit a description of the software changes
to the FCC or a designated Telecommunications Certification Body (TCB).
The manufacturer would also be required to submit test data showing that
the radio complies with the technical standards in our rules with the
new software loaded. The new software could not be loaded into radios
until the FCC or TCB notifies the manufacturer that the changes are
acceptable. The original FCC identification number for the equipment
could continue to be used, so no re-labeling would be required.

We also proposed to allow an "electronic label" to be used on software
defined radio transmitters as an alternative to the permanently affixed
label the rules currently require. The equipment would display the FCC
identification number by means of a liquid crystal display or similar
screen.

We further proposed that manufacturers must take steps to ensure that
only software that has been approved by the FCC or a TCB can be loaded
into a transmitter. The software must not allow the user to operate the
transmitter with frequencies, output power, modulation types or other
parameters outside of those that were approved. Manufacturers may use
authentication codes or any other means to meet these requirements, and
must describe the methods in their application for equipment
authorization.

E.  **Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
    Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered**

The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that
it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include
the following four alternatives (among others): (1) the establishment of
differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take
into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of
performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.[^68]

We considered three alternatives to streamline the requirements for
software defined radios, which will reduce the burden on small entities.

The first alternative, which we proposed in the NPRM, would permit
changes in the frequency, power, and modulation type of a software
defined radio to be authorized as a new class of permissive change. A
new FCC identification number is not required for permissive changes, so
there would be no need to re-label equipment when new software that
changes the operating parameters is loaded. Permissive changes only
require filing test data showing that the equipment complies with the
applicable requirements in the rules with the new software. A complete
application with exhibits including block diagrams, schematic diagrams,
photographs and the users' manual is not required. Only the party
holding the grant of equipment authorization my file for permissive
changes.

The second alternative, which we proposed as an option in the NPRM, is
to allow the FCC identification number to be displayed electronically
rather than on a permanently affixed label. A major benefit of software
defined radios will be the ability of manufacturers to produce radios
intended to be programmed by third parties, including small entities,
which could develop unique or specialized application software. The
"electronic label" would help realize this benefit. It would provide a
method to re-label equipment in the field without having to change a
physical label if a new approval were obtained by a third party for a
previously approved device.

The third alternative we considered is to allow software changes to be
approved under the Declaration of Conformity (DoC) procedure. DoC is a
self-approval procedure in which the manufacturer has the equipment
tested for compliance at an accredited laboratory. Once the equipment
has been found to comply, it may be marketed without any approval from
the FCC or a TCB. Although this alternative would reduce the burden on
small entities, we declined to propose it because we believe that most
radio transmitters require a higher level of oversight to ensure that
they comply with the rules to prevent interference and protect users
from excessive RF radiation. Certain radio transmitters are already
permitted to be self-approved, and we are not proposing any change in
the authorization requirements for them.

**F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rule**

None.

**Separate Statement of Commissioner Susan Ness**

# ***Re: In the Matter of the Authorization and Use of Software Defined Radios,*** {#re-in-the-matter-of-the-authorization-and-use-of-software-defined-radios .unnumbered}

# ***ET Docket No. 00-47*** {#et-docket-no.-00-47 .unnumbered}

As I stated at the time we adopted our Notice of Inquiry, I am bullish
about the prospect of "software defined radio" ("SDR"). SDR is a new
generation of technology that would allow communications equipment to
adapt to multiple standards and add service features without changes to
the equipment's hardware.

SDR holds the potential to enhance our participation in the global
economy, to access new services, and to use the spectrum more
efficiently. For example, SDR could facilitate the development of
secondary markets for spectrum, because equipment could more easily
operate under different parameters in different places. SDR could
facilitate interoperability for users \-- including public safety \-- by
making it easier to modify devices to communicate with each other. And
SDR could facilitate global deployment of equipment, by making it easier
for devices to operate in different bands and different modes,
consistent with country allocations and rules.

To realize these benefits, however, we will have to alter our
traditional equipment authorization process. Let me be clear: our need
to protect the public from harmful interference from non-compliant
equipment is not diminished. But as we have found elsewhere with our
regulatory framework, our legacy regulations for equipment approval may
impede rather than facilitate innovation. Thus, we must focus on
developing more flexible ways to assure the Commission and the public
that equipment complies with our technical rules, and that health and
safety of the public is not compromised.

Today, we propose several modest steps to facilitate the use of SDR. I
encourage parties to think creatively on ways to ensure that equipment
complies with our rules without impeding the development of new and
useful technologies like Software Defined Radio. Any rules that would
enable new and innovative products to reach the marketplace more quickly
without compromising safety and interference protection for existing
services would most certainly serve the public interest.

[^1]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.1043(a).

[^2]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.1043(b)(3).

[^3]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.925.

[^4]: *See Public Notice,* [FCC Requests Nominations for Membership on
    the Technological Advisory
    Council](http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Public_Notices/1998/pnet8024.html),
    released December 1, 1998. The TAC consists of 25 individuals from
    industry and academia, plus a designated Federal Officer. For a list
    of TAC members, please see
    <http://www.fcc.gov/oet/tac/members.html>.

[^5]: *See Official Requests from the Federal Communications Commission
    to the Technological Advisory Council*, dated May 26, 1999,
    available at
    [www.fcc.gov/oet/tac/requests.pdf](http://www.fcc.gov/oet/tac/requests.pdf).

[^6]: TAC documents on software defined radios are available at
    <http://www.fcc.gov/oet/tac/focusgroups.html>. To view them, click
    on the link for the Spectrum Management Website, then click on the
    link for software defined radios.

[^7]: *See Inquiry Regarding Software Defined Radios, Notice of
    Inquiry*, [ET Docket
    00-47](http://www.fcc.gov/oet/dockets/et00-47/), 15 FCC Rcd 5930
    (2000).

[^8]: *See Notice* at ¶ 8, ¶ 10, ¶ 12 and ¶18.

[^9]: *See Notice* at ¶ 9.

[^10]: *See* NTIA comments at 5.

[^11]: See SDR Forum comments at 8, AirNet comments at 5, and SBC
    comments at 5-6.

[^12]: *See* Bellsouth comments at B-4 and Motorola comments at 3.

[^13]: *See* SBC comments at 8 and 9, Hypres comments at 4, and AirNet
    comments at 6-7.

[^14]: *See* NTIA comments at 6-7.

[^15]: *See* SBC comments at 7.

[^16]: *See* Nortel comments at 3-4, Bellsouth comments at B-2 and SDR
    Forum comments at 9.

[^17]: *See* SDR Forum comments at 6, 12-13, Bellsouth comments at
    B-5,6, Vanu comments at 2, and SBC comments at 11.

[^18]: *See* NTIA comments at 13, PSWN reply comments at 2, and NCC
    comments at 2.

[^19]: *See* Harris comments at 5 and SBC comments at 12-13. A protocol
    is a set of rules that governs how information is sent from one
    point to another. Devices that use different protocols would not be
    able to communicate with each other, even if they were on the same
    frequency. Channel establishment procedures are the methods used by
    devices such as cellular handsets and base stations determine the
    frequency that will be used to communicate. Authentication and fraud
    detection determine whether a particular user is authorized to use a
    network, and whether a user is deliberating operating without
    authorization.

[^20]: *See* SDR Forum comments at 15, Vanu comments at 5, AirNet
    comments at 8, and NTIA comments at 13-14.

[^21]: *See* SDR forum comments at 15, Bellsouth comments at B-12,
    Motorola comments at 27 and NTIA comments at 15. The comments note
    that there are at least two definitions of the efficiency of
    spectrum use. One is spectral efficiency, expressed as bits per
    second per Hertz (BPS/Hz). This is a measure of the rate of data
    transmission within a given bandwidth. More efficient types of
    modulation result in a higher spectral efficiency. Another measure
    of efficiency is channel or utilization efficiency, which refers to
    the amount of a block of spectrum that is in use.

[^22]: *See* Hypres comments at 5.

[^23]: *See* SBC comments at 16, Nokia comments at 8, Bellsouth comments
    at B-13, and SDR Forum reply comments at 4.

[^24]: *See* FLEWUG reply comments at 3, 5.

[^25]: *See* Dandin *ex parte* comments at 5, SDR Forum comments at 22,
    and SDR Forum comments at 30.

[^26]: *See* SBC reply comments at 4, AT&T reply comments at 1, Nortel
    comments at 10-11, Bellsouth comments at B-15 -- B-17, and Motorola
    comments at 27.

[^27]: *See In the Matter of Principles for Encouraging the Development
    of Secondary Markets for Spectrum*, *Policy Statement* (*Policy
    Statement*), ¶¶ 1, 32-33, adopted November 9, 2000. An effectively
    functioning system of secondary markets would allow and encourage
    licensees to freely trade their unused or unneeded spectrum
    capacity, either leasing it temporarily, or on a longer term basis
    or selling unused frequencies.

[^28]: Part 2 of the rules requires the following measurements on
    transmitters used in licensed services: RF power, modulation
    characteristics, occupied bandwidth, spurious emissions at antenna
    terminals, field strength of spurious emissions and frequency
    stability. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.1046 through 2.1055.

[^29]: *See Notice* at ¶ 19.

[^30]: *See* SBC comments at 17, SDR Forum comments at 31, and NTIA
    comments at 18.

[^31]: *See* NTIA comments at 20.

[^32]: *See* Nortel comments at 8, Ericsson comments at 4 and Lucent
    comments at 3-4.

[^33]: *See* SDR Forum reply comments at 4.

[^34]: *See* Lucent reply comments at 2.

[^35]: *See* Nortel comments at 8.

[^36]: Firmware is software installed in a device that is typically
    stored in a read only memory (ROM) or programmable read only memory
    (PROM).

[^37]: This definition is not intended to encompass cellular telephones
    that use software simply to control functions such as power or
    frequency within a range approved by the Commission pursuant to Part
    22 of the rules.

[^38]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.1043(a).

[^39]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.925.

[^40]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.1043.

[^41]: The Commission's staff has in fact allowed certain changes in the
    frequency range of transmitters to be authorized as Class II
    permissive changes. Such changes have been permitted when the
    transmitter already had the capability of operating over the new
    frequency range, and the change could be made through the internal
    programming of the equipment without making any hardware changes.

[^42]: We are not proposing changes to the requirements for amateur
    radio transmitters at this time. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.815, 97.315
    and 97.318. *See also*, *Extended Coverage High Frequency
    Transceivers*, Public Notice
    [62882](http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Public_Notices/1996/pnet6023.txt),
    dated May 13, 1996.

[^43]: For example, changes to the user interface, such as information
    displayed, audio output or keyboard programming may be done through
    software changes that do not affect the operating parameters.

[^44]: Any changes to a radio would have to ensure it remains consistent
    with the Commission's operating and service rules, e.g.,
    eligibility, authorized frequency bands and power levels. We
    specifically note that we are not proposing to change Sections
    80.203 and 90.203 concerning the programmability of frequencies by
    the user using external controls. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 80.203 and
    90.203.

[^45]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.1103.

[^46]: For example, a spread spectrum transmitter approved under Part 15
    of the rules may be tested with more than 20 different antennas to
    ensure it will comply with the rules in every possible
    configuration. Allowing multiple software variations as well would
    substantially increase the number of possible hardware/software
    combinations that could exist under a single approval.

[^47]: *See Notice* at ¶ 18-21.

[^48]: *See* NTIA comments at 26.

[^49]: *See* SDR Forum comments at 35-37.

[^50]: *See* AirNet comments at 15-16 and Lucent comments at 4.

[^51]: *See* SDR Forum comments at 32.

[^52]: *See* AirNet comments at 13.

[^53]: *See* NTIA comments at 21.

[^54]: We note that while engineers typically refer to "rule based
    systems", the term "rules" could be confused with the Commission's
    regulations. Therefore, we will use the term "algorithms" instead of
    "rules". Documents presented at the TAC are available at
    <http://www.fcc.gov/oet/tac/focusgroups.html>. In addition, a video
    recording of the September 27, 2000 TAC meeting is available online
    at <http://www.fcc.gov/realaudio/publicforums.html>.

[^55]: *See In the Matter of 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review --
    Amendment of Parts 2, 25 and 68 of the Commission's Rules to Further
    Streamline the Equipment Authorization Process for Radio Frequency
    Equipment, Modify the Equipment Authorization Process for Telephone
    Terminal Equipment, Implement Mutual Recognition Agreements and
    Begin Implementation of the Global Mobile Personal Communications by
    Satellite (GMPCS) Arrangements*, Report and Order, FCC 98-338, 13
    FCC Rcd 24687 (1999).

[^56]: *Id.* at ¶ 33.

[^57]: We currently do not allow TCBs to certify equipment requiring
    measurements of the specific absorption rate (SAR) of RF radiation
    by the body. No change in that policy is proposed.

[^58]: Marketing as defined by the Commission's rules includes selling,
    offering for sale, and advertising. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.803(e)(4).

[^59]: ^ ?^ *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601 *et.
    seq.*, has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act
    of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II
    of the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
    Act of 1996 (SBREFA).

[^60]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

[^61]: *See id.*

[^62]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^63]: *Id*. 601(6).

[^64]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    \"small business concern\" in 15 U.S.C. §  632). Pursuant to the
    RFA, the statutory definition of a small business applies \"unless
    an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the
    Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public
    comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are
    appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such
    definition(s) in the Federal Register.\" 5 U.S.C. § 601(3).

[^65]: Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632 (1996).

[^66]: ^ ?^ *See* 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, Standard Industrial
    Classification (SIC) Code 3663.

[^67]: ^ ?^ *See* U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992 Census of
    Transportation, Communications and Utilities (issued May 1995), SIC
    category 3663.

[^68]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(c).