**Before the**

**NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND**

**INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION**

**Washington, D.C. 20230**

**In the Matter of )**

**)**

**THE PRESIDENT'S SPECTRUM POLICY )**

**INITIATIVE \-- CREATION OF A ) Docket No.**

**SPECTRUM SHARING INNOVATION ) 060602142-6142-01**

**TEST BED )**

**To: Office of the Chief Counsel**

**Attention: Spectrum Sharing Innovation**

**Test-Bed Notice**

**COMMENTS OF ARRL, THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION**

**[FOR AMATEUR RADIO]{.underline}**

ARRL, the National Association for Amateur Radio, also known as the
American Radio Relay League, Incorporated (ARRL), by counsel, and
pursuant to the *Notice of Inquiry* released June 8, 2006 (the Notice),
hereby respectfully submits its comments in response to NTIA's proposal
to establish a spectrum test-bed. The concept would encourage
experimentation with "innovative" methods for spectrum sharing among
disparate users, and specifically Federal and non-Federal users, in
order to enable more intensive but compatible, use of the radio
spectrum. According to the Notice, NTIA and the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) propose to set up a "test-bed" (a segment or segments
of spectrum) where both Federal and non-Federal users could undertake
studies and experiments to test concepts and ideas to increase the
efficient use of the spectrum. The NTIA Notice, and a companion *Public
Notice* [^1] released contemporaneously by the FCC each seek comment[^2]
on a variety of very generalized questions about the creation of such a
test-bed, which will be called the Spectrum Sharing Innovation Test-Bed
("Test Bed"). In response to those questions, and to assist in the
conceptualization of a Test Bed, ARRL states as follows:

1\. ARRL, in general, supports the concept of a spectrum Test Bed. The
FCC and the Administration have each expressed a strong interest in
spectrum overlays in recent years. This is understandable, given the
increased pressure on the radio spectrum from competing, typically
commercial, proposed uses. The Amateur Service has always adapted to
spectrum sharing effectively, and is appreciative of the cooperation
received from NTIA in accommodating Amateur operations in Federal
allocations over the years. Indeed, most Amateur allocations at VHF and
above are compatibly shared with Federal government agencies. The
Amateur Service is heavily dependent on the ability to share spectrum
cooperatively and efficiently with Federal government uses. As well,
since the beginning of radio, the Amateur Service has effectively and in
an encouraging manner served as a test bed for new, experimental and
developing radio technologies, and continues to do so. The FCC's
Experimental Radio Service, regulated minimally under Part 5 of the
FCC's rules, has also provided an effective and flexible method of
encouraging and developing concepts and ideas to increase the efficient
use of the radio spectrum. In the Experimental Radio Service, by
applications which are coordinated with NTIA to protect Federal
government uses, the FCC routinely permits testing, development and
refinement of new and advanced concepts and technologies in frequency
bands allocated to different radio services. Some experimental
authorizations are conducted specifically to determine compatibility
with incumbent services and unlicensed devices and systems already
deployed. The Experimental Radio Service therefore already serves as a
very flexible mechanism for encouraging spectrum sharing and examining
methods of optimizing the use of the United States' spectrum assets for
Federal and non-Federal users.

2\. While the FCC has procedures already in place to experiment with
spectrum overlays and to accomplish the goals set in the *Presidential
Memorandum on Spectrum Policy for the 21^st^ Century* (69 Fed. Reg.
1568, January 6, 2004), NTIA and FCC could set aside some Federal
government shared or exclusive spectrum for a Test Bed which might
facilitate spectrum overlay experiments conducted by private sector
entities. These experiments can assist specifically in ascertaining
compatibility with present and future Federal (and other incumbent) uses
in those bands. In ARRL's experience, there is no present shortage of
incentive to conduct those experiments, and the FCC's Experimental Radio
Service is available to facilitate such experimentation. However, the
difference between the Test Bed concept and the present Part 5
Experimental Radio Service is that the Test Bed concept is intended
specifically to explore expanded Federal and non-Federal sharing of
spectrum. The participation of NTIA in the process, and the anticipated
addition of non-Federal to Federal uses in a subject band adds an
important dimension to the proposal that could in certain circumstances
lead to increased efficiency in the use of already deployed spectrum.
NTIA's expertise in spectrum allocation planning is well-established,
and a collaborative effort between Federal and non-Federal users in
field testing can be of value in establishing compatibility prior to
introduction of sharing partners in already deployed bands.

3\. The Amateur Service has successfully shared spectrum with Federal
agencies for more than sixty years. In ARRL's view, which is apparently
shared by NTIA, this sharing works well.[^3] The success of the
Federal/Amateur spectrum sharing is due in no small part to the
technical review processes applied by NTIA to spectrum overlay and
underlay concepts and proposals. On the other hand, ARRL has, more
recently in the past few years, expressed criticism of the FCC's
non-technical approach to domestic spectrum allocations planning and the
means by which new, or overlay technologies have been evaluated and
authorized by the FCC. Proposed spectrum uses have been advanced by the
FCC and in some cases implemented without what ARRL would term a
sufficient technical basis. The creation of a spectrum Test Bed offers
the opportunity to objectively test and evaluate the compatibility of
various incumbent and proposed overlay (or underlay) uses of spectrum
prior to actually authorizing them. It brings all three parties
together: the proponent of a new technology, NTIA and FCC, in an
objective, evaluative process. This would prevent spectrum allocation
decisionmaking based on no more than the relative success of private
sector marketing of a technology by its own advocates. To this extent,
ARRL supports the Test Bed concept, as a means of properly refocusing
the FCC's spectrum planning effort toward technical compatibility
determinations based on actual testing.

4\. The Notice asks whether the Test Bed should be limited to
prototype/operational equipment or whether hardware simulation can also
be employed. It makes sense to first do simulations, and then test in
the field in the Test Bed spectrum, obtaining field measurements of
prototype devices and systems. As to what techniques or sharing
techniques should be implemented in the Test Bed, ARRL suggests that
there should be no assignments in the Test Bed spectrum. Rather, the
focus should be on code division multiplexing, rather than frequency or
time division multiplexing, such as Spread Spectrum technologies or
other code division multiple access systems; and on techniques that
occupy the entire bandwidth of the Test Bed spectrum. The goals of the
Test Bed should not, however, be preordained. In ARRL's view, the
overarching goal of the Test Bed should be to create a means of
conducting both theoretical testing of technologies, and practical
testing, prior to authorizing the systems and devices under test. The
FCC's and NTIA's intention should be to obtain hard, reliable data
concerning the compatibility of incumbent and proposed additional uses,
(regardless of whether the overlay technology is to be licensed or
unlicensed), prior to authorizing their deployment. Another important
goal is to use the test bed to evaluate aggregate effects of new
technologies. Neither the FCC nor, to the best of ARRL's knowledge,
NTIA, now has the ability, other than through computer modeling, to
determine what the cumulative effect of RF devices is in a subject band.
The Test Bed provides an opportunity, albeit somewhat limited, to
evaluate cumulative effects on the noise floor, and on ambient noise
levels, of multiple devices and systems. Such would contribute to
preventing the "tragedy of the commons" effect in authorizing unlicensed
devices which has occurred in, for example, the band 2400-2483.5 MHz.

5\. The Notice asks whether there should be specific technologies or
areas of interest that should be tested. ARRL suggests that the Test Bed
permits a valuable forum for testing cognitive radio designs,
listen-before-transmit protocols, and the functionality and sufficiency
of other interference avoidance mechanisms. Often, in FCC rulemaking,
the FCC suggests that certain technologies may be compatible with
incumbents, merely assuming the success of interference avoidance
mechanisms. Those assumptions, however, in many cases have an
insufficient technical foundation. The Test Bed offers an objective
means of evaluating the sufficiency of these mechanisms. Since more
intensive uses of spectrum are the end goal of the FCC and of NTIA, the
evaluation of interference avoidance mechanisms in ascertaining
compatibility should be the focus of the Test Bed experiments.

6\. There should be sufficient spectrum dedicated to the project to
conduct multiple experiments at once. The FCC envisions a situation in
which 10 MHz is identified by the FCC for the Test Bed and another 10
MHz is identified by NTIA for the same purpose, for a total of 20 MHz.
In ARRL's view, 10 MHz of shared government and non-government spectrum
is ample for the Test Bed. It is unclear whether more than 10 MHz in the
aggregate is necessary. Which portions of the spectrum should be
identified is not clear at the moment. ARRL urges that the principal
criterion to be used in identifying candidate bands for the Test Bed
should be non-interference to incumbents. Higher microwave spectrum is
preferable for several reasons, though that portion of the spectrum
suffers atmospheric attenuation. The advantages of that segment are that
it promotes frequency re-use based on geographic separation. The
determination of a specific band requires further study, however, and
should be the subject of specific further rulemaking. The limitations
applicable to the candidate bands should include the need for dynamic
frequency selection (i.e. listen-before-transmit protocols); limitations
on power spectral density; antenna beamwidth limitations (i.e.
encouraging antenna directivity); and geographic separations between and
among incompatible experiments. The power limitations should be modeled
after the current FCC Part 15 rules for unlicensed devices. Though such
limits are liberal by comparison to those of certain other
administrations, they provide a base line for Test Bed experiments. Of
course, proposals for new licensed services which require higher power
levels should be accommodated, but with careful determination of their
proximity to incumbent services. The spectrum identified should be
Federal and non-Federal shared spectrum, or Federal exclusive spectrum.
The Test Bed concept is premised on increased, more efficient shared use
of Federal and non-Federal spectrum, and use of non-Federal exclusive
spectrum does not contribute to the goals of the Test Bed. If there are
two bands to be selected, one by NTIA and one by the FCC, they should be
contiguous.

7\. The Notice asks what processes, principles and guidelines should be
applicable. In ARRL's view, multiple experiments should be conducted at
once, but on a managed basis. The experiments should be separated, so
that the outcomes are not corrupted by other ongoing experimentation at
the same time. There is going to be required a management entity,
independent of the experiment sponsors, that should provide oversight to
insure the integrity of each experiment.

8\. In order to provide protection for incumbent users in the Test Bed,
the limitations in FCC's (Part 5) rules governing issuance of
experimental authorizations should be used: All operation should be on a
non-interference basis, and all experiments should be specifically
authorized by the Test Bed administrator/manager. Experiments should be
terminated immediately in the event of a complaint of interference from
an incumbent and should not recommence unless and until the experimenter
and the incumbent licensee coordinate interference elimination. Both
parties should be required to cooperate in interference resolution, but
the burden of modifying operations to eliminate interference should be
on the experimenter.

9\. The authorization of the Test Bed experiments should be based on the
FCC's Part 5 rules as well. The process should involve, prior to any
Test Bed operation, Federal government-funded simulation studies,
including aggregate interference predictions (if applicable) using
computer modeling. Then, based on the results of those developed models,
and predicted sharing compatibility results, the field testing should be
conducted in the Test Bed over a period of time sufficient to yield
reliable results. Information provided in the application should, at
minimum, include that which is provided in an FCC Part 5 experimental
license application. An exhibit to the application should list the
assumed or ascertained technical parameters of incumbent operations in
the Test Bed band in the geographic area(s) in which the testing will
occur. A copy of the computer modeling results should be appended to the
application, and at the conclusion of the Test Bed operations, the
results should be compared to the modeling results in a report filed
with both the FCC and NTIA. A test plan should be developed by the
applicant as well. The test plan, and the application contents and
simulation results should be disclosed and made publicly available for
comment after filing.

10\. Large geographical areas should be used for Test Bed
implementation. Larger geographical areas are necessary in order to
include a variety of RF environments. If limited areas are tested, the
results may be inapplicable to other RF environments. ARRL suggests
that, as a minimum, specific urban, suburban, exurban and rural areas
should be studied for each overlay technology under study. If a
technology is determined to be compatible with incumbents in a rural RF
environment but not in an urban environment, that information is
critical to determining the outcome of any later rulemaking with respect
to that particular overlay technology.

11\. Multiple candidates should be selected. If there are competing
proposals, they should be permitted to conduct experiments in separate
geographical areas. The method that candidates would use to coordinate
with each other would be through a publicly accessible database
maintained by a Test Bed Manager. In order to conduct operations in
shared Federal and non-Federal allocations, the test plans submitted by
the potential experimenter should have all necessary information for
NTIA's and FCC's review in the application. The preparation and
submission of the test plan should be reviewed by both FCC and NTIA.
However, the role of the FCC and NTIA should be a reduced role. At least
one person from either NTIA or the FCC should be designated for
oversight when needed, and to review applications and test plans, and to
coordinate them with Federal agencies. An administrator in the private
sector which is not conducting experiments in the Test Bed should be
appointed as a Test Bed Manager, to handle administrative functions. The
proponents of new technologies should provide the test personnel and
equipment. The proponent should also be required to coordinate
operations in the Test Bed with representatives of incumbent licensees.

12\. The selection criteria discussed at Item III of the Notice are, in
general, not useful. However, one proposed criterion, how well the
proposed technology or service addresses the potential impact on
incumbent spectrum users, is of critical importance. This should be a
principal criterion. Perceived public benefit, however, should not be a
factor at all. Public benefit is difficult to measure, is subjective,
and is not a good selection criterion. Indeed, if the proposed service
or technology is unlicensed, the perceived public benefit cannot as a
matter of law be offset against the interference potential of the device
or service. The entire purpose of the Test Bed is, in ARRL's view, a
means of avoiding subjective predictions of public benefit, or
predictions based on unknown future conditions and anticipated demand.
Instead, it is a means of making objective the compatibility analysis
and evaluating the effect of a new technology on incumbent licensees and
Federal uses. Any prediction of public benefit of a service is directly
contrary to the principal benefit of the Test Bed.

13\. The simulations that ARRL suggests as a precondition to use of the
Test Bed should be Federally funded so as to insure feasibility of the
experiment prior to its being conducted in the Test Bed. Proprietary
technologies should not be permitted in the Test Bed. The benchmark of
the concept should be that all experiments are conducted openly and
based on a publicly available database. The test plan, the database, the
application, and the computer modeling should all be public information.
The test plan should be prepared and submitted by the parties involved.
It should be evaluated in terms of interference potential to incumbent
services. The experiment should not be authorized if the computer
modeling shows a significant interference potential to licensed or
Federal incumbents, and, once commenced, it should be terminated if it
results in interference to incumbent licensed or Federal government
services in the Test Bed more than one (1) percent of the time. The
extent to which the noise floor at an incumbent's receiver is increased
should be measured and determined. The test plan should specify who is
responsible for analyzing and evaluating the data from the experiment.
Status report should be provided every six months, as is currently
required for experimental authorizations issued by the FCC under Part 5
of its rules.

14\. If the experiment meets the performance metrics, it should not
automatically be permitted to remain in the Test Bed or expanded to
other frequency bands. Each test should be complete and separate from
others, and should be evaluated on its merits thereafter. At the
conclusion of the Test Bed operation, the experimenter should be
required to submit a public report, stating the goals, assumptions,
methodology, and claimed results of the experiment and any conclusions
drawn. There should be no prejudgment of the service at the conclusion
of the test, except as conducted through normal allocations processes
such as notice and comment rulemaking. However, success in the Test Bed
would be a significant factor in evaluating any separate, later
rulemaking or application process needed to implement the technology
after the conclusion of the experiment. The experiment should not
necessarily be left in the Test Bed spectrum, however. If the tests
reveal no significant interference potential, or the potential to
preclude future Test Bed experiments, and if there is a compelling need
for the technology or service in the short term, it could be permitted
to remain in the Test Bed. However, that should be determined through
rulemaking, and the rulemaking should rely heavily on the publicly
accessible findings from the Test Bed experiments in order to expedite
the decisionmaking process. The key to the success of the Test Bed
concept is, ARRL would argue, the public availability of the test plan;
the application for the Test Bed experiment; the periodic reports, and
the final evaluative report. At every stage, a publicly accessible
database should be maintained by the Test Bed Manager in order that
interference reporting and resolution is facilitated.

15\. The Notice asks whether initial conditions should change or be
re-evaluated periodically, such as additional locations, spectrum
modifications, or the time frame of the experiment. That should be
determined for each test individually, based on the results of the test.

16\. In summary, ARRL supports the Test Bed concept. The extent to which
there are compatible means of intensifying the use of existing shared
Federal and non-Federal spectrum obviously requires study. The Test Bed
concept, in ARRL's view, makes the process of determining compatibility
in this process objective, rather than subjective or predictive. The
Amateur Service has long shared successfully with Federal government
users. It is far more challenging to add commercial uses to bands used
by Federal government agencies, often intensively. Sharing in bands
already occupied by Federal and Amateur operations is especially
problematic where the overlay technology is commercial; uses a
relatively high transmitter power; has a high aggregate number of
transmitters or intentional emitters in heavily populated areas, and/or
has a high duty cycle. But ascertainment of increased sharing
opportunities is best done through a combination of computer modeling
and simulations, and through field measurements in varied geographic and
RF environments. The Test Bed concept is a welcome, objective addition
to a domestic spectrum allocation process that has, more often than not
in recent years, been premised on policy or political expediencies,
rather than on hard technical fact. The FCC and NTIA are to be
congratulated for this initiative. It is overdue.

Therefore, the foregoing considered, ARRL respectfully requests that
NTIA

implement the spectrum Test Bed in accordance with the foregoing
comments.

> Respectfully submitted,
>
> ARRL, THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
>
> FOR AMATEUR RADIO

225 Main Street\
Newington, CT 06111

> By \_\_\_\_[Christopher D. Imlay]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\
> Christopher D. Imlay\
> Its General Counsel

BOOTH, FRERET, IMLAY & TEPPER, P.C.\
14356 Cape May Road

Silver Spring, MD 20904-6011\
301-384-5525

July 10, 2006

[^1]: See, the FCC's *Public Notice,* ET Docket No. 06-89, FCC 06-77,
    released June 8, 2006.

[^2]: ARRL is submitting comments in both the instant NTIA proceeding
    and the FCC proceeding, inasmuch as the questions asked about a
    spectrum test-bed in each of the two proceedings are similar, but
    not identical.

[^3]: *See,* the *Spectrum Reallocation Final Report*, in response to
    Title VI, Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, NTIA Special
    Publication 95-32, released February, 1995 at Appendix B, Page B-2.
    In that report, NTIA stated as follows:

    > The amateur radio service has successfully co-existed with Federal
    > fixed, mobile and radiolocation services (i.e. radar) for nearly
    > fifty years (footnote omitted). As indicated in many of the public
    > comments on the Preliminary Report and the FCC NOI, this sharing
    > arrangement has been successful for both Federal and amateur
    > spectrum users. This success is primarily due to the fact that
    > much of the Federal spectrum usage is located away form populated
    > areas, minimizing potential interference as well as the amateur's
    > ability to use the guard bands placed between different types of
    > Federal services.