Last June, I reported that the FCC’s Technical Advisory Committee was asking licensed and unlicensed users of the electromagnetic spectrum to answer some questions about the noise they were experiencing and whether or not it was affecting their services. Specifically, they asked:
- Is there a noise floor problem?
- Where does the problem exist? Spectrally? Spatially? Temporally?
- Is there quantitative evidence of the overall increase in the total integrated noise floor across various segments of the radio frequency spectrum?
- How should a noise study be performed?
Well, the results are in, and Radio World recently published a summary of the responses that the FCC received. The FCC received 93 replies from 73 (great number, eh?) different people or organizations, including:
- 23 companies/industry organizations
- 39 RF professionals (broadcast and wireless)
- 31 licensed radio amateurs
- 9 responders did not reply to the questions asked
Respondents included the ARRL, the Society of Broadcast Engineers, the National Association of Broadcasters, the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council, ATT, and the National Electrical Manufacturers Association. I found especially interesting comments from the Society of Broadcast Engineers. They include:
- Increased cooperation is needed between manufacturers of Part 15 devices and users of radio spectrum to identify noise sources and take appropriate remedial action.
- Radiated emission limits below 30 MHz in the FCC Part 15 rules for unintentional emitters should be enacted. There are presently no radiated emission limits below 30 MHz for most unintentional emitters.
- Reduced Part 15 limits for LED lights should be enacted to be harmonized with the Part 18 lower limits for fluorescent bulbs.
- Better labeling on packaging for Part 18 fluorescent bulbs and ballasts to better inform consumers of potential interference to radio, TV and cellphone reception in the residential environment.
- Specific radiated and/or conducted emission limits for incidental emitters, such as motors or power lines, should be enacted.
- Conducted emission limits on pulse-width motor controllers used in appliances should be enacted.
- Substantially increase the visibility of enforcement in power line interference cases.
Other organizations made similar comments.
While all of this is certainly interesting, it won’t mean a thing if no action is taken on these comments. Given that the FCC is cutting back on its field offices, and our president-elect has said that he plans to reduce the number of governmental regulations, I’m not optimistic that we’ll see the noise situation get better before it gets worse. What do you all think?
Walter Underwood K6WRU says
The anti-regulation stance is probably an obstacle.
If this is sold as protecting high-quality US manufacturers against cheap RF-polluting devices from overseas, it might have a chance.
Working to change EU regs would be almost as effective. Devices are designed for a world market.
Bob K0NR says
The FCC has done a poor job of protecting the spectrum, especially with regard to Part 15 devices. A big change in direction and priorities will be needed to address the noise floor issue…seems unlikely.
Dave New, N8SBE says
A really big challenge is the patchwork quilt of regulations in the global market. It is almost impossible to design a device that meets regulations in all markets, and the testing and licensing requirements for some is prohibitive. Some countries insist on using their in-country test labs for testing, while others ‘lose’ your application in the pile on their desk, and you have to hire an ‘expediter’ to get anything approved. Then the permit expires every year, and you have to do it all over again. Some countries adopt FCC-like regulations, others line up behind the EU, while others just invent their own. Some countries use the approval process as political ammunition, in the global trade wars.
It would be nice if everyone could agree on conducted and radiated emission limits for all frequency bands, but there are a lot of reasons that no one seems to care about frequencies below 30 MHz these days. The HF bands seem a wasteland to a lot of commercial interests, who are busy wrangling over access to highly-valued microwave frequencies.
Just look at the world-wide allocations for something like Ultra-Wide Band (UWB). In essence, there aren’t any. How do you design a UWB system that you can export world-wide?