1. SPECTRUM WARS 2002 The FCC’s RF Lighting Proceeding (ET Docket 98-42) Robert D. Primosch, Esq. Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP Washington, D.C. robert.primosch@wbklaw.com

2. What is RF Lighting? Devices that produce light by using RF energy to stimulate gases contained inside a lamp Utilized to light large commercial areas (warehouses, parking lots, shopping malls, etc.) Regulated under Part 18 of the FCC’s Rules. Fusion Lighting: high-power RF lamp for commercial use that operates in the 2400-2500 MHz band (the “ISM” band). Affected Parties: SDARS (2320-2345 GHz) and Part 15 License Exempt (2.4 GHz)

3. Why Is It Important? High-Power, Ubiquitous, Outdoor Device Reflects growing regulatory tension between licensed and license-exempt services Raises fundamental issues of what levels of interference are unacceptable, and who pays for it

4. Timeline 1985: FCC classifies RF lighting devices as Part 18 ISM equipment 4/9/98: FCC releases NPRM in ET Docket No. 98-42: Two types of devices: GE Lamp (2.2 and 2.8 MHz) and Fusion Lighting (2.4 GHz) FCC proposes to relax line-conducted emission limits and adopt radiated emission limits above 1 GHz 1/21/99: Fusion Lighting and Part 15 interests ask for delay re: rules for non-consumer RF lighting devices 6/16/99: First Report and Order – FCC defers action on non- consumer RF lighting devices 2/29/00: Fusion Lighting files Petition for Further Rulemaking

5. What’s On the Table Issue: Appropriate out-of-band emission limits for Fusion Lighting devices Current Limit: 71 dBu V/m @ 3M FCC Proposal: 54 dBu V/m @3M (85% reduction from current limit) Fusion Lighting: 44 dBu V/m @ 3M (95% reduction), plus “safe harbor” SDARS: 18.7 dBu V/M @ 3M

6. What’s On The Table (cont’d) Issue: In-Band Limits to Protect Part 15 Operations Bluetooth: Limit RF Lighting “pollution” to top one-third of 2.4 GHz band Part 15 Interests: 2400-2460 MHz: 10 mV/m @ 3M 2460-2480 MHz: 330 mV/m @ 3M 2480-2500 MHz: 10 mV/m @ 3M

7. Going Forward... 5/14/02: Fusion Lighting Proposes “Real World” Testing Procedures SDARS Has Committed to Renewed Joint Testing

8. What to Look For Post-UWB Approach to Interference: less reliance on “worst case” analysis Who pays? Is it the responsibility of the party receiving the interference to design better receivers? Treatment of “safe harbor” issue Relationship to other licensed vs. license- exempt proceedings