Simon Forge (SCF Associates Ltd.) - Sharing Spectrum

SCF Associates Ltd Simon Forge All rights reserved 2012 1

Sharing spectrum – rethinking spectrum management for the next hundred years

German media congress "Medientreffpunkt Mitteldeutschland 2012" Leipzig 08 May 2012

SCF Associates LtdSimon Forge


Spectrum utilisation studies undertaken by the UK’s Ofcom indicate many areas of the spectrum are not fully utilised, also the case in the USA

IS the crowded spectrum all a myth?

Is today’s spectrum scarcity just a

legacy of our management policy ?

On average, only slightly more than 5% of the USA radio spectrum is used nationally at any given time.McHenry, Mark A., NSF Spectrum Occupancy Measurements Project Summary, Vienna, VA. USA, Shared Spectrum Company, 15 Aug. 2005

Source: OFCOM 2010 and Dettmer R, ‘Up the revolution’, IEE Review, May 2005, p. 44

HIuse

LOWuse

RURAL

SUBURBAN

DENSE URBAN


Overall impacts• Low spectrum utilization due to:-

– Overly specific, static allocations

– Long lags in adaptation to changing demand

– persistent channel assignments in services with intermittent/irregular channel use

• Cause: regulators prioritise interference-free channels for licensees rather than maximum use

• Solution: allocations become more generic - with flexible use & least restrictive technical conditions, more general authorizations, more shared access spectrum


- all situations in which 2 or more users or wireless applications are authorized to use the same range of frequencies on a non-exclusive basis in a defined sharing arrangement.

Shared Spectrum Access encompasses:

So what is ‘sharing spectrum’ ?

•License-exempt bands•Bands shared by licensed and exempt applications•Licensed and light-licensed “commons” •Any other possibility for multiple users to access the radio spectrum without individual rights.


•‘Hide’ signal such that it does not interfere

• Detect permanent or transient gaps (‘white spaces’) that avoid interference (frequency, time) when/if no other user (Cognitive Radio)

•Place in a context where cannot interfere (multiplexing in space/geography, direction, frequency, time…)

•Accept (some) interference and compensate

•PLUS agreements/ regulation:-

•Collective use – efficient sharing between licensed and secondary licensed and also unlicensed operators (‘borrowers’)

•Co-operative/collaborative use (eg mesh) - user collaboration co-ordinates other (unlicensed) users

Some key approaches to sharing spectrum


•Software Defined Radio (SDR)

•Cognitive radio (CR) and the white space / ‘borrowing’ opportunity

•Sharing concepts - direct spread spectrum /UWB

•Directional multiplexing using multiple-input, multiple-output (MIMO) systems, phased arrays

•Mesh and ad hoc networks

•Compression: coding of signals in less bandwidth

•Bit rate encoding: number of bits per Hertz of bandwidth transmitted.

Technologies that can change how spectrum may be allocated

Replace raw bandwidth with computing power


Socio-economics, not technology, is driving spectrum demand, led by mobile and its advance into consumer broadband, globally

Demand side:Changes in income

levels and global distribution

of wealth

Mobile take-upexpands further,

so more users

New capacity demandswith convergence ofdata and voice inwireless broadband for:-•Internet•AV media

New business model requires more accessto spectrum for:-• Content• Internet services

Supply side:the computer and

consumer electronicsindustry model

Supply side:broadcast media

internet model

Webservices


Shared spectrum economic and social benefits – as a relevance tree

SharedSpectrum

Wireless broadband

&Alternativenetworks

Broadbandcapacity

Mobility& ubiquity

Major deliverable

Key Attributes

SubstitutionMechanisms(for infrastructure etc)

Knowledgeworkerproductivity,eg Teleworking, data accessetc

GrossproductivityValue of workValue of workforce

FamilyunificationPersonalaspirationsSocial networkingProfessionalnetworking

Lower costsof living

(impacts on tariffs &

competition)

Support for the keyservices, at lower cost•Health•Care of aged•Emergency svces

Standardsof living

Employment

Net valueof EU

economy

Social impacts

Economic impacts

KnowledgeCapital creation,Education &vocationaltraining

Innovation &new production for equipment, devices, digital content, internet services, etc

Highersocial mobility

Access to higher pay,

Higher disposable income

Macro-economic impacts


2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

1000

800

600

400

200

100

Petabytes (10E15)/ Month

Mobile data demand: an estimation for W. Europe

Source: Cisco 2010

Mobile data grows 37 x over 2009 - 2014


And now we have far more TV distribution platforms than just digital or analogue terrestrial broadcast

Digital switched star CATV

Digital & analogue Satellite TV

Web TV, IPTV over Broadband for Internet downloads/streaming:

NGN – fibre and xDSL Wireless Broadband TV Mobile TV

ENDORSE that old Negroponte Switch -


Web Server farm

Wireless web

Let the URL find the station

Broadcast programming

(becomes interactive)

Interactive services

Merges

A single channel for all ultimately – mobile and broadcast merge in a wireless internet infrastructure


Common economic

context

Three scenarios of future perspectivesScenario 1(Baseline)No changesto currentsituation

Scenario 2-Something stirring: mediumenhancements forshared access, with:--Technical enablers -Regulatory actions

Scenario 3-Sharing takes off – and theeconomy -with majorenhancements in:--Technical enablers-Regulatory actions-Refarming

Existing conditionsand shared access:

With new modest sharing for lightweight alternativenetworking:•Sharing extensions, with white spaces, ASA, LSA etc

For greater shared access for wireless broadband:•Sharing extensions•New Licence -exempt


Characterising the scenarios•1 Theme - no change in regulation - use what is already permitted only•Types of “sharing" : allocations, as now, increased spectrum use in existing bands•More intense use of existing LE, eg Wi-Fi at 5GHz as 2.4GHz becomes saturated •Negative impacts for mobile industry due to widening gap between supply and demand: eg data traffic for mobile users is heavily capped, to restrict volume

2 Theme: Modest increase in LE for wireless BB: 200 MHz via sharing, through white spaces with cognitive radio, also SRD expansion and light licensing•Implies new regulation required for sharing existing bands•Aim - gain extra band capacity, both below 1 GHz and across all the spectrum•However, with the Exaflood for mobile data devices (tablets and smart phones in later years after 2015/2016) Europe may experience saturation

•3 Theme : Shared spectrum totals 400 MHz; consists of a mix of sharing existing spectrum and two new licence-exempt allocations – each of 50 MHz at 500 MHz and 1500Mhz•Dramatic increase in spectrum for wireless broadband under diverse conditions for a diverse range of media types•Assumes technical advances eg mesh, new sharing technologies – CR etc •Regulation will be required to be formulated for the next WRC for LE swathes•Further changes in regulation for sharing with LL, white spaces etc – use of AIP etc.


There are major differences over the impacts of broadband on the economy

GDP growth % increase due to 10% increasein broadbandpenetration in various countries and groups of countries

OECD High 1.50, C

OECD m

edium incom

e countries 0.14, Ka

Germ

any 0.24, Ka

UK 0.85, W

Germany 0.61, K

Low- m

ed income 1.

38, Q

OECD Low

income 0.08, Ka

Q Qiang, World Bank, C Czernich, Univ of Munich, W Waverman, LECG, K Koutroumpis, Imperial College London, Ka Katz, Univ of Columbia

1.6%

1.0

0.6

0


Three options for a sharing policy shape recommendations

• Do nothing – but is this really an option? – Pressures are mounting from different parts of the ICT industries, be it the MNOs

wanting LTE bandwidth offload, or the chip manufacturers, the consumer electronic manufacturers/ services operators and the internet players for more spectrum access – through sharing – and generally more licence-exempt or open spectrum.

• Promote a simple but limited economic agenda – Encourage growth through more spectrum access with sharing. – Implies a push for new networking and lower cost communications,

corresponding to a light interpretation of sharing, with an ad hoc approach

• Embrace sharing to accelerate the EU economy through universal coverage by wireless broadband

– Open up spectrum access for everyone, - business, communities and the ‘radio-based industries’ – mobile and the rest - to benefit from EU-wide wireless broadband

– But may be a long-term goal (2020)– Might imply restructuring the mobile services industry and its pricing – perhaps

through the consumer device and content segments - already in process– Enables ad hoc, user-defined and perhaps user-owned/operated networking,

without an organizing operator.– It eventually implies an abolition of a specific spectrum usage licence, apart from

a ‘type licence’ for technical conformance in a specific band.


Regulatory Actions

Technology roll out

Standards

These are the main building blocks to move forward for progress to a shared use of spectrum

Planning for what to do next – the regulatory landscape

Industrial policy for innovation and

economic stimulation

Supply side: Network equipment,

service providers, ICs, devices, web content,

etc

User community

Opportunistic environment

Social environment

Public sectorenvironment

Business environment

Policy – passive or active?


Recommend new approach - a new strategy for spectrum usage and its management is required – with a new legal regime

Traditional regime of spectrum regulation•Forbid everythingForbid everything•Only permit explicit Only permit explicit exceptionsexceptions

The new regime

•Allow anythingAllow anything•Only forbid in explicit Only forbid in explicit casescases

Regulator’srole

Controller and commander Co-ordinator and facilitator

Decision Criteria How many users How much interference

Economic & legal status

Marketable property – restricted economic benefit from sale to

‘owner’

Publicly owned commodity - widespread economic benefit from

sharing


Catalysts – a) Regulatory targets for sharing The recommended frameworkSharing is performed under agreed and regulated conditions (no ad hoc free for all – but no timidity due to overblown threats of interference):

•Existing Licences are respected

•Formal agreements on refarming of existing licences are reached

•Licence exempt bands carry assurances for technical conformance (as now eg for Wi-Fi) with monitoring and database control

•Technologies conform – eg White space devices could be Light Licensed or under specific licensed shared spectrum agreements (LSA) but their operation avoids interference


Regulatory targets for sharing (cont’d)

The key action recommended:

Licence exempt bands are expanded in the UHF range:

•Enables offload of the Exabyte flood•Enables wireless broadband coverage

- Use the (next) digital dividend (from WRC2012)

- Use refarming of public sector, MNO and broadcast incumbents


Catalysts – b) the technologies

Technology neutral approach

•Any technology accepted that enables sharing (eg NO absolute preference for Wi-Fi although it is useful and ubiquitous)

•Constraints are on interference only


Prepare

Build framework

Move towards full sharing and wireless

broadband

In view of the barriers, sensitivities and realities of the inertia of change in the industry – a triple phase approach to policy setting is recommended


The 3 phases for initiating shared-spectrum overlap

3. New LE bands, moreLL, etc, for more

shared networking

2. Early sharing initiatives expand:formalised, licensed advances in LL, LSA & WSD/CR technologies

for an agreed sharing framework

2012 2014 2016 2018 2020

Phase 1Phase 2

Phase 3

Light network infrastructure for sharing

Wirelessbroadbandfull rollout

1. Regulatory Preparationwith LSA, LL, ASA etc


A view of the future – One example of an allocation trajectory across the EU

Projections of percentages of each type of spectrum allocation in the EU

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2000

% o

f use

able

radi

o sp

ectru

m

SCF Associates Ltd

Managed Command & ControlMarket-based: auctions & 2ndary tradingLicence exempt: commons, white spaces, etc

SCF

TIME


MarketMechanisms71.5%

Command & control21.6%

Licence exempt 6.9%

2010

These changes might even seem conservative compared to advances in the EU Member States leading change – eg the UK

Source OFCOM UK, website, Oct 2010

Licence exempt 4.3%

Command & control95.7%

2000


Simon Forge SCF Associates Ltd

[email protected]@whsmithnet.co.uk + 44 78 66 60 13 52

mailto:[email protected]

Date post:	24-Jan-2015
Category:	Technology
Upload:	medientreffpunkt-mitteldeutschland
View:	1,132 times
Download:	1 times