Sharing spectrum        – rethinking spectrum management        for the next hundred years     German media congress "Medi...
IS the crowded spectrum all a myth?                                      RURAL                                            ...
Overall impacts            • Low spectrum utilization due to:-                     – Overly specific, static allocations  ...
So what is ‘sharing spectrum’ ?     - all situations in which 2 or more users or wireless     applications are authorized ...
Some key approaches to sharing spectrum  •‘Hide’ signal such that it does not interfere  • Detect permanent or transient g...
Technologies that can change how spectrum may be allocated                                                              •S...
Socio-economics, not technology, is driving spectrumdemand, led by mobile and its advance into consumerbroadband, globally...
Shared spectrum economic and social benefits – as a relevance tree                                Major        Key        ...
Mobile data demand: an estimation for W. Europe      Petabytes (10E15)/ Month      1000         800         600         40...
And now we have far more TV distribution platforms    than just digital or analogue terrestrial broadcast    ENDORSE that ...
A single channel for all ultimately – mobile andbroadcast merge in a wireless internet infrastructure                     ...
Three scenarios of future perspectives                                        Scenario 1                                  ...
Characterising the scenarios•1 Theme - no change in regulation - use what is already permitted only•Types of “sharing" : a...
There are major differences over the     impacts of broadband on the economy                                              ...
Three options for a sharing policy shape recommendations • Do nothing – but is this really an option?          – Pressures...
Planning for what to do next –     the regulatory landscape     These are the main building blocks to move forward for pro...
Recommend new approach - a new strategy for spectrum  usage and its management is required – with a new legal regime      ...
Catalysts – a) Regulatory targets for sharing  The recommended framework  Sharing is performed under agreed and regulated ...
Regulatory targets for sharing (cont’d)     The key action recommended:     Licence exempt bands are expanded in     the U...
Catalysts – b) the technologies        Technology neutral approach                 •Any technology accepted that enables s...
In view of the barriers, sensitivities                                                                      and realities ...
The 3 phases for initiating shared-spectrum overlap        1. Regulatory Preparation           with LSA, LL, ASA etc      ...
A view of the future – One example of an allocation trajectory across the EU                      Projections of percentag...
These changes might even seem conservative compared to advances in the EU Member States leading change – eg the UK     200...
simon.forge@whsmithnet.co.uk                                                                             + 44 78 66 60 13 ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Simon Forge (SCF Associates Ltd.) - Sharing Spectrum

1,666 views

Published on

Sharing Spactrum - Rethinking Spectrum Management for the Next Hundred Years
Präsentation auf dem Medientreffpunkt Mitteldeutschland
Hybride Netze - Wettbewerb um die Frequenzen i
Dienstag, 08. 05. 2012 , 9.30-11.00 Uhr

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,666
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
32
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Simon Forge (SCF Associates Ltd.) - Sharing Spectrum

  1. 1. Sharing spectrum – rethinking spectrum management for the next hundred years German media congress "Medientreffpunkt Mitteldeutschland 2012" Leipzig 08 May 2012 Simon Forge SCF Associates LtdSCF Associates Ltd Simon Forge All rights reserved 2012
  2. 2. IS the crowded spectrum all a myth? RURAL HI On average, only slightly more than 5% of the USA use 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 SUBURBAN ust a ity j icy ? mscarc t pol ectru agemen y ’ s s p r m an Is t o da f o u ga cy o DENSE URBAN LOW le use 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 Source: OFCOM 2010 and Dettmer R, ‘Up the revolution’, IEE Review, May 2005, p. 44SCF Associates Ltd Simon Forge All rights reserved 2012
  3. 3. 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 spectrumSCF Associates Ltd Simon Forge All rights reserved 2012
  4. 4. So what is ‘sharing 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: •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.SCF Associates Ltd Simon Forge All rights reserved 2012
  5. 5. Some key approaches to sharing spectrum •‘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) usersSCF Associates Ltd Simon Forge All rights reserved 2012
  6. 6. Technologies that can change how spectrum may be allocated •Software Defined Radio (SDR) •Cognitive radio (CR) and the white space / ‘borrowing’ opportunity •Sharing concepts - direct spread spectrum /UWB Replace raw bandwidth •Directional multiplexing using multiple-input, with multiple-output (MIMO) systems, phased arrays computing •Mesh and ad hoc networks power •Compression: coding of signals in less bandwidth •Bit rate encoding: number of bits per Hertz of bandwidth transmitted.SCF Associates Ltd Simon Forge All rights reserved 2012
  7. 7. Socio-economics, not technology, is driving spectrumdemand, led by mobile and its advance into consumerbroadband, globally Web services Supply side: Supply side: the computer and broadcast media consumer electronics internet model industry model Demand side: New business modelChanges in income Mobile take-up requires more access levels and expands further, to spectrum for:- global distribution so more users • Content of wealth • Internet services New capacity demands with convergence of data and voice in wireless broadband for:- •Internet •AV mediaSCF Associates Ltd Simon Forge All rights reserved 2012
  8. 8. Shared spectrum economic and social benefits – as a relevance tree Major Key Economic Social Macro- deliverable Attributes impacts impacts economic Substitution impacts Mechanisms Family (for unification infrastructure Personal etc) aspirations Broadband Gross Social networking capacity productivity Professional Value of work networking Net value Value of of EU Wireless workforce Support for the key broadband services, at lower economy Innovation & Shared & new production costSpectrum for equipment, •Health Alternative •Care of aged devices, digital networks content, internet •Emergency svces Employment services, etc Mobility Lower costs Knowledge of living & ubiquity Capital creation, (impacts on Education & tariffs & vocational Standards competition) training of living Knowledge Higher worker social mobility productivity, Access to eg Teleworking, higher pay, data access Higher disposableSCF Associates Ltd Simon Forge All rights reserved 2012 etc income
  9. 9. Mobile data demand: an estimation for W. Europe Petabytes (10E15)/ Month 1000 800 600 400 200 100 Mobile data grows 37 x over 2009 - 2014 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014SCF Associates Ltd Simon Forge All rights reserved 2012 Source: Cisco 2010
  10. 10. And now we have far more TV distribution platforms than just digital or analogue terrestrial broadcast ENDORSE that old Negroponte Switch -  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 TVSCF Associates Ltd Simon Forge All rights reserved 2012
  11. 11. A single channel for all ultimately – mobile andbroadcast merge in a wireless internet infrastructure g mi n am Web Server rogr ctive) farm ast p tera adc es in Bro om c (be w eb s les Let the URL find the station Merges Wire In te ra ct iv e se rv i ce sSCF Associates Ltd Simon Forge All rights reserved 2012
  12. 12. Three scenarios of future perspectives Scenario 1 (Baseline) Existing conditions No changes and shared access: to current situation Scenario 2- Something stirring: medium With new modest sharing Common enhancements for for lightweight alternative shared access, with:- networking: economic -Technical enablers •Sharing extensions, with context white spaces, ASA, LSA etc -Regulatory actions Scenario 3-Sharing takes off – and the economy -with major For greater shared access for wireless enhancements in:- broadband: -Technical enablers •Sharing extensions -Regulatory actions •New Licence -exempt -RefarmingSCF Associates Ltd Simon Forge All rights reserved 2012
  13. 13. 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 anddemand: eg data traffic for mobile users is heavily capped, to restrict volume2 Theme: Modest increase in LE for wireless BB: 200 MHz via sharing, throughwhite 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 lateryears after 2015/2016) Europe may experience saturation•3 Theme : Shared spectrum totals 400 MHz; consists of a mix of sharingexisting spectrum and two new licence-exempt allocations – each of 50 MHzat 500 MHz and 1500Mhz•Dramatic increase in spectrum for wireless broadband under diverse conditions for adiverse 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.SCF Associates Ltd Simon Forge All rights reserved 2012
  14. 14. There are major differences over the impacts of broadband on the economy Q 3 8, GDP growth % 1. increase due e m to 10% 1.6% co in increase ed in broadband -m w EO penetration in Lo DC iH various hg countries and 1.0 51 . KU ,0 groups of C .0 countries , 8 G W5 re 0.6 am yn G 60 me EO . K, 1 r EO DC y na C 0 em L D 42 0 ud o Q Qiang, World Bank, C Czernich, Univ of Munich, W Waverman, LECG, i w . i m i K Koutroumpis, Imperial College London, Ka Katz, Univ of Columbia aK, ocn cnSCF Associates Ltd Simon Forge All rights reserved 2012
  15. 15. 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.SCF Associates Ltd Simon Forge All rights reserved 2012
  16. 16. Planning for what to do next – the regulatory landscape These are the main building blocks to move forward for progress to a shared use of spectrum Policy – passive or active? Industrial policy for innovation and Opportunistic environment economic stimulation Public sector Social Business environment environment environment User community Regulatory Actions Supply side: Network equipment, Standards service providers, ICs, devices, web content, Technology roll out etcSCF Associates Ltd Simon Forge All rights reserved 2012
  17. 17. Recommend new approach - a new strategy for spectrum usage and its management is required – with a new legal regime Traditional regime of The new regime spectrum regulation •Forbid everything •Allow anything •Only permit explicit •Only forbid in explicit exceptions cases Regulator’s Controller and commander Co-ordinator and facilitator role Decision How many users How much interference Criteria Marketable property – restricted Publicly owned commodity - Economic & economic benefit from sale to widespread economic benefit from legal status ‘owner’ sharingSCF Associates Ltd Simon Forge All rights reserved 2012
  18. 18. Catalysts – a) Regulatory targets for sharing The recommended framework Sharing 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 interferenceSCF Associates Ltd Simon Forge All rights reserved 2012
  19. 19. 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 incumbentsSCF Associates Ltd Simon Forge All rights reserved 2012
  20. 20. 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 onlySCF Associates Ltd Simon Forge All rights reserved 2012
  21. 21. In view of the barriers, sensitivities and realities of the inertia of change in the industry – a triple phase approach to policy setting Prepare is recommended Build framework Move towards full sharing and wireless broadbandSCF Associates Ltd Simon Forge All rights reserved 2012
  22. 22. The 3 phases for initiating shared-spectrum overlap 1. Regulatory Preparation with LSA, LL, ASA etc Light network infrastructure for sharing 2. Early sharing initiatives expand: Wireless formalised, licensed advances in broadband LL, LSA & WSD/CR technologies full rollout for an agreed sharing framework 3. New LE bands, more LL, etc, for more shared networking Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020SCF Associates Ltd Simon Forge All rights reserved 2012
  23. 23. 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 100 Managed Command & Control 90 Market-based: auctions & 2ndary trading Licence exempt: commons, white spaces, etc 80 SCF% of useable radio spectrum 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 SCF Associates Ltd 2000 TIMESCF Associates Ltd Simon Forge All rights reserved 2012
  24. 24. These changes might even seem conservative compared to advances in the EU Member States leading change – eg the UK 2000 Licence exempt 2010 4.3% Command & control 21.6% Licence Command & exempt control 6.9% 95.7% Market Mechanisms Source OFCOM UK, website, Oct 2010 71.5%SCF Associates Ltd Simon Forge All rights reserved 2012
  25. 25. simon.forge@whsmithnet.co.uk + 44 78 66 60 13 52 Simon Forge SCF Associates LtdSCF Associates Ltd Simon Forge All rights reserved 2012

×