New from the FCC: Interference Limits Policy, The use of harm claim thresholds to improve the interference tolerance of wireless systems, White Paper
If you are having trouble sleeping, check it out. Amateur radio is mentioned as an interference case. I haven't read enough of the doc to determine if the conclusions would be good or bad for amateur radio.
http://transition.fcc.gov/bureaus/oet/tac/tacdocs/WhitePaperTACInterferenceLimitsv1.0.pdf
6.1. Enforcement action – base case
In order to provide more clarity and detail, the process by which adjacent band interference situations would be resolved under a regime of receiver limits (based upon the concept of a harms claim threshold) is illustrated in the flow diagram in Figure 7 below. The flow diagram and associated description of the steps involved is based upon a set of conditions that reflect a comparatively straightforward adjacent band interference situation. This base case was chosen for its relative simplicity and is intended to provide the basis for (a) consideration of more complex situations (e.g., where decoupled rather than coupled receivers are involved) and (b) developing a logical framework for more detailed descriptions of each individual step.
The set of conditions or assumptions used in constructing the flow diagram include the following:
First, it is assumed that the services on either side of the frequency boundary separating the two bands are licensed services and that the associated providers of these services are commercial licensees with adequate resources to participate in the process. More complexity would be involved if, for example, the service on one side was a non-commercial service under the jurisdiction of the NTIA rather than the FCC.
Second, it is assumed that coupled receivers are associated with the licensed systems on both sides of the boundary. That is, it assumed the licensees have control over the technical performance characteristics of the associated receivers (and transmitters) and control the conditions and timing of their upgrading or replacement. More complexity would be involved if the receivers are not controlled by the licensees (e.g., as in the case of television broadcasting) and/or unlicensed services were involved.
Third, and importantly, it is assumed that the receiver interference limits/harm claim thresholds for services on both sides of the boundary have already been adopted by the FCC using the process described in Section 3.3. Likewise, it is assumed that transmitting system signal power limits have also been adopted for both sides of the frequency boundary.
Fourth, it is assumed for this base case that the interference being experienced is widely distributed both geographically and temporally. This would be the case when, for example, widely deployed consumer devices like television sets or handheld wireless devices receiving signals “over the air” are interfered with by, say, geographically dispersed private land mobile radio, amateur radio transmitters or other wireless devices operating in an adjacent band. Thus the base case would exclude resolution of interference that arises when multiple radio systems (i.e., transmitters and receivers) are co-located at a single antenna site, or on a single tower, or even share a single antenna on a tower.25 It would also exclude situations where the interference is very transient and does not occur with any degree of regularity.
Fifth, it assumed that the interference is being generated by intentional radiators, i.e., “a device that intentionally generates or emits radio frequency by radiation or inductions,” as opposed to unintentional radiators that do not deliberately generate radio frequency emissions. Examples of unintended radiators include personal computers (whose internal clocks can generate such emissions) and switching power supplies. Furthermore it is assumed that the interference is not being generated by a limited number of malfunctioning devices or by intentional jammers.
Sixth, it is further assumed that the interference being experienced does not produce an immediate threat to public safety services. Interference that threaten the safety of life and property on an urgent basis is treated by the FCC and the NTIA and affected government agencies as a non-routine matter that differs from the more routine interference resolution processes of the type described herein.
