The FCC today solicited comments on a petition for rulemaking filed recently asking the agency to establish “a fact-based, transparent, and timely adjudication process for spectrum interference disputes.” Comments are due July 13 in Rulemaking 11750.

“Under the Commission’s existing interference resolution procedure, operators cannot be certain whether, when, or how a harmful interference claim will be resolved. Without the ability to lodge a dispute directly against another operator, they have to rely on the Commission taking action. Operators caught up in unresolved disputes cannot make full use of their spectrum operating rights and may suffer economic and other losses,” said the petition, which was filed by the Samuelson-Glushko Technology Law & Policy Clinic at the University of Colorado Law School and Pierre de Vries, spectrum initiative co-director and senior adjunct fellow at the Silicon Flatirons Center for Law, Technology, and Entrepreneurship at the school.

“The Commission should provide a fact-based, transparent, and timely process to handle spectrum interference disputes. To achieve this, the Commission should adopt the ALJ option rule, which would allow private parties to file spectrum interference complaints against other private parties directly with the Office of Administrative Law Judges,” the filing added.

“Furthermore, the Commission should modify existing rules to add deadlines to the adjudication process. Finally, the Commission should hire new support staff, ALJs, and a spectrum technical advisor to facilitate an effective adjudication process.” “These rules will benefit the Commission and private parties that bring future spectrum interference disputes to the Commission as well,” the petition said. “A fact-based, transparent, and timely adjudication process will promote investment, innovation, and competition, ultimately benefitting the American public.” The petition cites several interference cases that it says “illustrate how key problems with the current process lead to outcomes that are not fact-based, transparent, and timely.” The cases dealt with cellular signal boosters, radar detectors, and FM radio/LTE interference.- Paul Kirby, paul.kirby@wolterskluwer.com