*Pages 1--1 from  Microsoft Word - 33822*
 SEPARATE  STATEMENT  OF  COMMISSIONER  JONATHAN  S.  ADELSTEIN 
 APPROVING  IN  PART,  CONCURRING  IN  PART 
 Re:  Establishment  of  an  Interference  Temperature  Metric  to  Quantify  and  Manage  Interference  and  to  Expand  Available  Unlicensed  operation  in  the  Fixed,  Mobile  and 
 Satellite  Frequency  Bands;  ET  Docket  No.  03-  237 
 I  commend  the  Spectrum  Policy  Task  Force  and  its  members  for  their  2002  report  and  for  bringing  to  the  Commission’s  attention  a  new  interference  temperature  approach  to  spectrum 
 management.  The  Task  Force  noted  that  the  “increasing  demand  for  spectrum-  based  services  and  devices  are  straining  longstanding,  and  outmoded,  spectrum  policies.”  I  could  not  agree  more. 
 The  reality  is  that  we  cannot  produce  more  spectrum.  We  need  to  foster  a  framework  for  innovation  that  enables  new  technologies  to  come  forward  to  meet  demand  more  efficiently  –  in 
 both  the  private  and  public  sectors. 
 Most  significantly,  the  Task  Force  report  offered  specific  findings  and  recommendations  that  have  been  very  useful  in  stimulating  debate  in  the  area  of  spectrum  management.  The  concept  of 
 interference  temperature  is  a  particularly  significant  recommendation,  and  I  very  much  look  forward  to  a  full  and  vigorous  discussion  on  this  challenging  issue.  I  recognize  that  this  is  one  of 
 the  more  controversial  proposals  to  come  out  of  the  report,  but  believe  that  it  is  entirely  appropriate  for  the  Commission  to  seek  comment  on  new  approaches  to  spectrum  management. 
 Whatever  the  outcome,  the  deliberation  process  makes  us  a  better,  more  informed  agency,  and  I  encourage  all  interested  parties  to  file  comments  in  this  proceeding. 


 I  have  previously  noted  my  belief  that  the  Commission  should  strive  to  push  the  boundaries  to  accommodate  new  technologies  provided  that  they  do  not  cause  harmful  interference.  Indeed,  a 
 little  noticed  provision  of  the  Communications  Act,  Section  157,  reads  that  “It  shall  be  the  policy  of  the  United  States  to  encourage  the  provision  of  new  technologies  and  services  to  the  public.” 
 If  an  interference  temperature  model  for  quantifying  and  managing  interference  can  be  developed  so  that  it  truly  prevents  real  harmful  interference  and  allows  for  the  provision  of  new  technologies 
 and  services,  then  we  should  encourage  its  development.  I  do  not  know  if  we  are  there  yet,  but  I  very  much  look  forward  to  the  debate. 


 Finally,  while  I  support  the  discussion  in  the  item  considering  the  application  of  the  interference  temperature  approach  to  unlicensed  operations  in  the  6525-  6700  MHz  and  12.75-  13.25  GHz 
 bands,  I  do  not  believe  that  this  portion  of  the  item  should  be  styled  as  a  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making,  as  opposed  to  remaining  part  of  the  Notice  of  Inquiry.  I  think  it  is  very  clear  that  we  are 
 exploring  an  entirely  new  concept  in  the  interference  temperature  model,  and  it  is  quite  premature  to  actually  discuss  proposed  rules  when  the  Commission  has  not  even  engaged  in  a  preliminary 
 discussion  on  the  interference  temperature  approach  as  a  whole. 
 I  am  not  sure  what  the  rush  is  and  am  not  convinced  that  moving  this  discussion  to  the  NOI  portion  of  the  item  somehow  holds  back  our  consideration  of  the  interference  temperature 
 approach.  I  think  the  licensees  in  these  bands  deserve  better.  For  this  reason,  I  can  only  concur  to  the  NPRM  portion  of  this  item. 
1