Crsm 5 2009 Simon Delaere Vub Multi Level Standardization Of Cognitive Radio

513 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
513
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
9
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
13
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Crsm 5 2009 Simon Delaere Vub Multi Level Standardization Of Cognitive Radio

  1. 1. Multi-level standardization of cognitive radio: the case of the Cognitive Pilot Channel Simon Delaere IBBT-SMIT, Vrije Universiteit Brussel IBBT-MIT Joint Workshop on CRSM Brussels, 11 May 2009
  2. 2. Outline   Why following standardization is important   Standardization process has evolved   From linear process in SDOs   To complex, multi-level process   Case: Cognitive Pilot Channel   Concept   Regulation and standardization trajectories   Multi-level aspects   Conclusions S. Delaere & P. Ballon (2008). Multi-level standardization and business models for cognitive radio: the case of the Cognitive Pilot Channel. Paper presented at the DySPAN 2008 Conference, Chicago, 14-17 October 2008
  3. 3. Why following standardization is important  Technical design (= standardization) co- determines cognitive radio (CR) business models  Standardization influences companies and regulators  Different dynamics at play: within a firm/between firms (e.g. consortium), within a standardization forum, between different fora 3
  4. 4. The advent of standardization   Standardization has always existed   Process as we know it: 19th century   Centralized production of goods, Fordism and Taylorism   Products and machines: uniform, replicable and interchangeable   Objective: speed up & simplify production, lower maintenance and inventory holding costs, stimulate specialization   Standardization needed   Informal  formal process   Standards Development Organisations (SDOs)
  5. 5. Linear standardization in telecoms   Coordination more crucial in telecoms than other sectors: ITU (°1865) arguably oldest sectoral SDO   Essentially intergovernmental: ensuring interconnection of national monopolies   Tight integration between   Operators   Regulators   Manufacturers   Standardizers   Consequence: relatively simple, linear process, at least until end of 1960s
  6. 6. Transformation 1: increased systems complexity   Technical complexity   1970: three standardized, E2E compatible telecoms services   Increase in mass production  drive towards variety and cost reduction   Increased amount of data, more and new types of risks   Increased demand for health, safety and environmental protection   Convergence: brings together separated interest groups with different focus, infrastructure etc.   Globalization (Brunsson)   more actors   more international and transnational organisations   communication over vast distances possible   people more receptive to what happens in another region
  7. 7. Transformation 2: liberalization of markets   Europe: free market rationale and large corporate users alliance since 1970s  first actions in 1979   Coincided with national tendencies, e.g. Thatcher calls for liberalization (1978), AT&T divestiture (1974-1982), Carterfone Decision (1968)   EU 1988 equipment market liberalized   EU 1990 value added services   EU 1997 Open Network Provision Directive: competition in public network services, separation between regulation and operation   Consequences:   Less influence of PTOs in SDOs  pressure   New operators with new systems and standards   New manufacturers  proliferation of systems
  8. 8. Pressure on formal SDOs   Criticisms – eg. Van Wegberg: less responsive to market needs, too slow, too bureaucratic, participants with antagonistic views, blockages because of different views, submarine companies.   E.g. Wehnert: lack of support, focus, funding & mgt., no user involvement, lack of willingness to compromise, incompatible working methodologies, cultural differences and administrative constraints (enquiry, balloting procedures, translation requirements)   Doubts on ‘democratic’ advantage of SDOs (Egyedi)   David & Shurmer: Potential bias towards less innovative solutions due to the need of consensus, convergence causes uncertainty with regard to the ‘jurisdiction’ of SDOs in closely related areas.
  9. 9. Reactions   First reaction: proliferation of standardization consortia   De facto standardization by non-cooperative, competitive industrial players   Formation of private standardization criteria   Sometimes, cooperation with SDOs, but often bypassed   Many perceived advantages, but also disadvantages   Second reaction: reform of formal SDOs (1980s onwards) – David and Schurmer   Procedures   Coordination   Conflict resolution
  10. 10. The transition to multi-level standardization   Companies want speed and flexibility, quality and acceptance, IPR protection and openness, cover several aspects, sectors and regions   Moving towards multi-level standardization   # regions, bodies, phases of product cycle, partners   Combining merits of # types of SDOs   Complex and uncertain process   Technologies standardized very early   Little known about impact of design choices, interests to defend   Composition of groups might be different
  11. 11. Context of CPC development   Current regulatory system of exclusive, long-term spectrum licensing: inefficiency and high entry barriers   Spectrum underused   Innovation stifled   Customers locked-in   Increasing heterogeneity of access technologies   Digital dividend incites debate   Moves towards more flexible forms of spectrum management   Dynamic Spectrum Allocation   Spectrum pooling   Secondary markets and change of use
  12. 12. Cognitive Pilot Channel concept   FSM may invoke a particular information deficit   E2RII/E3 proposes Cognitive Pilot Channel as a solution ? hz 50 M 2 nect C PC 4 4 Con Con nect O3 W 0 iFi 2 -150 .5 G hz O1 -GSM X-2000 CPC iMA O2-W iFi-2500 3 O3-W O1-GS Operator 1 Operator 1 Operator 2 3 M O2-WiM -1500 GSM WiMAX UMTS WiFi A O3-WiF X-2000 1500 1800 Mhz 1800 Mhz 2 Ghz 2 Ghz 2.5 Ghz i-2500 1
  13. 13. CPC regulation tracks
  14. 14. CPC in IEEE   IEEE SCC41 1900.4   Established February 2007 (decision 12/06) as WG 1900.4   Objective: to standardize the architecture and protocols enabling a network-device distribution of decision-making in order to optimize radio resource usage.   Functional requirements, functional architecture, information model, scenario examples   CPC included as a crucial enabler for communication between terminals and networks   Chicago meeting October 2008: ballot successfull   27 February 2009: 1900.4 baseline document published   Work continues in two subgroups (4.1: interfaces/protocols, 4a DSA in White Space frequencies)
  15. 15. CPC in ETSI   ETSI TC RRS   Established January 2008   Objectives  to study the feasibility of RRS standardization activities  collect and define the RRS requirements  identify gaps in current ETSI standards and suggest further standardization activities   Five meetings held, WG FA & CPC with WI CPC established, report underway but some delay   Contains CPC definition, advantages, functionalities, procedures, information conveyed, # architectures (in- band, out-band, application layer variant, hierarchical model
  16. 16. Development overview
  17. 17. CPC in multi-level standardization   IEEE and ETSI are different in   Timing   Geographical location   Type of standardization organization   Composition   Procedure/Cost   Aspect of CPC standardized   Yet they are closely intertwined   Similar companies   EU objectives in US SG, Japanese involvement in ETSI   Overlapping objectives
  18. 18. CPC in multi-level standardization ETSI RRS PART EU US JAP 1 36 11 3 2 33 9 2 3 28 3 4 4 28 1 5 5 31 3 6 ETSI RRS3 PART 1 8 0 2 2 13 0 4 3 9 1 5 4 7 0 3 5 13 1 5 ETSI RRS3 CONT 1 7 0 0 2 9 0 2 3 10 0 2 4 6 1 4 5 8 1 1  IEEE SCC41 1900.4 continuation: 4  IEEE SCC41 1900.4, dd. July 2008: 21 original EU driving partners active voting members, of which 8 Japanese 18
  19. 19. CPC in multi-level standardization   Pre-market, uncertain process   CPC is one of several options: database, collaborative sensing are others   For some, CPC is still in study phase and should be treated as such  others want to standardize and regulate   Not everyone promotes the CPC   E.g. WRC debates on CR/SDR agenda item, discussions on whether they should be in the RR at all, potential dangers   Within Europe: some regulators and industries more sceptic than others, CEPT/ECC ask for more arguments   Impact unknown, strategies vary   Strain on companies involved: composition changes 19
  20. 20. Conclusions  CPC could be important enabler for Cognitive Radio Systems  Is currently in a regulatory process as well as multi-level standardization  Standardization comes very early, strategies and outcomes unclear, one of many options, different dynamics  Definite impact on business models

×