The FCC has reoriented its spectrum management framework to treat receivers as first-order actors in coexistence discussions, not just passive victims of transmitters. In a Policy Statement adopted in April 2023 the Commission laid out three core categories of principles: the realities of interference, shared responsibilities for transmitters and receivers, and the need for data-driven regulatory approaches. This move formalizes what RF engineers and EW practitioners have known from practice — receiver design and operational context shape whether two spectrally proximate systems can coexist.

The three principle buckets are practical and technology neutral. Interference Realities recognizes that interference outcomes depend on both the emitter and the receiver in frequency, space, and time; zero risk of occasional service degradation is not realistic; and services need to plan for evolving electromagnetic environments. Shared Responsibilities states that transmitters should minimize energy outside their assigned frequencies and that receivers should be designed to mitigate out-of-band emissions and overload. Data-Driven Approaches means the FCC wants robust, transparent quantitative analysis and, where useful, receiver and transmitter characteristic data to inform coexistence decisions.

From an engineering standpoint the Policy Statement explicitly points to measurable receiver parameters that matter in coexistence analyses: filter masks and blocking dynamic range to limit out-of-band signals entering the receiver chain; intermodulation rejection and adjacent channel rejection; noise figure and sensitivity; and signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio requirements. If you design or buy radios for contested environments, these are the metrics you should evaluate and document.

This Policy Statement did not arrive in a vacuum. The Commission opened a Notice of Inquiry on receiver interference immunity in April 2022 to collect technical input on whether and how to encourage or require better receiver performance. The NOI and follow-on filings shaped the Policy Statement, and the FCC made clear the Statement itself is guidance rather than binding rule changes. Expect the Commission to use the improved record to consider band-specific rulemakings in the future.

Industry responses have been mixed and instructive for EW communities. Federal technical shops and NTIA have long used immunity specs for federal receivers and urged that private sector standards would help plan and coordinate spectrum more efficiently. Some industry trade groups cautioned against one-size-fits-all mandatory receiver mandates, arguing voluntary industry standards or market incentives could preserve innovation while improving immunity where needed. Meanwhile trade associations focused on mobile infrastructure welcomed a more balanced transmitter/receiver approach that could enable denser spectrum reuse. These competing views point to likely hybrid outcomes — more transparency and voluntary standards in many bands, with targeted mandates where public-safety or critical systems require it.

What this means for electronic warfare, drone operators, and countermeasure planning

  • Measurement first. When you evaluate a receiver in the lab or the field, quantify blocking dynamic range, third-order intermodulation intercept (IP3), adjacent channel rejection (ACR), noise figure, and the effective front-end filter mask. These numbers are now exactly the kind of data the FCC says will be probative in coexistence claims. Use standardized measurement setups so results are reproducible.

  • Don’t rely on legacy assumptions. Many legacy receivers were designed for historically quieter RF neighborhoods. When a band next door gets repurposed you can no longer assume protection without either updating the receiver fleet or showing, with data, that receivers meet an immunity baseline. That is a planning and lifecycle problem, not just a regulatory one.

  • Hardware mitigations matter. For hobbyist and small-system deployments use practical front-end mitigations: narrowband filtering ahead of active stages, front-end limiters, RF shielding, ferrite chokes on cabling, and good grounding. These are low-cost steps that significantly increase immunity to strong off-band signals. For more capable systems consider active notch filters, adaptive front ends, and automatic gain control tuning to widen operational dynamic range. Field-test changes under representative interferer scenarios.

  • Quantitative analysis is the new currency. If you are planning to deploy a new service, move a drone link into a congested area, or claim harmful interference, be ready to supply transparent, reproducible modeling and measurement supporting your case. The FCC now expects that analyses be fact-based and representative of large data sets where possible. That favors operators who keep measurement logs and instrument-calibrated datasets.

  • Safety-critical systems remain special cases. Aviation systems and other safety-critical receivers have been the tail that wagged this dog. Altimeter and other avionics concerns tied to nearby mobile allocations show how high the stakes can be. If your EW activity or testing could affect air navigation or other public-safety receivers, treat the issue as technical and regulatory high priority: coordinate with authorities, run conservative safety margins, and document your mitigation measures.

Legal and operational caveats for EW practitioners and hobbyists

  • The Policy Statement is guidance not a new ban. The FCC explicitly framed the document as nonbinding guidance to inform future decisions. Still, it signals where enforcement attention and future rulemakings may land. Treat this as an early warning to raise your engineering bar.

  • Jamming is largely illegal. Intentional jamming of licensed services is prohibited in the United States under current statutory and Part 15 frameworks. Improving receiver immunity does not remove legal exposure for operators who intentionally interfere with critical services. Always confirm the legality of spectrum uses and testing before emitting.

Practical checklist for EW teams assessing risk and planning deployments

  1. Baseline measurements: record receiver blocking, ACR, IP3, NF, and SINR under representative conditions.
  2. Mitigation plan: select and test front-end filters, limiters, and shielding; record before/after gains in immunity.
  3. Quantitative modeling: produce reproducible models that include transmitter masks, antenna patterns, and representative receiver distributions.
  4. Documentation: keep instrument-calibrated logs, measurement scripts, and test configurations to support any coexistence or interference claim.
  5. Coordination: for safety-critical spectrum, notify and coordinate with relevant agencies well before operations. For commercial bands consider voluntary industry standards and consortium testing when available.

Bottom line

The FCC’s Policy Statement makes explicit a balance that RF people have always worked to achieve: spectrum coexistence is a system-level problem where both transmitters and receivers matter. For the EW community, drone operators, and RF hobbyists this means a stronger technical expectation to measure, design, and document receiver performance, and to use robust quantitative analysis when proposing new operations or contesting interference. Upgrading receiver front ends and choosing radios with documented immunity will pay operational dividends as spectrum gets busier. The policy steers the ecosystem toward transparency and technical rigor rather than quick regulatory shortcuts, but it also opens the door to targeted rulemaking where the public interest demands it.