Open spectrum

433 views

Published on

New Technology / FCC SPTF Impact and Policy Implications of Open Spectrum and the Unlicensed Bands. Presented in March of 2003 at GLOCOM Japan

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
433
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
14
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Time vs Freq diagram from Agilent Spectrum  Analysis  BasicsApplication  Note    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000780A0-0CA3-1CD4-B4A8809EC588EEDF
  • In the US, the FCC controls the allocation and use of all spectrum other than that which is used by the US Government / Military. Another two organizations, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) which is part of the Department of Commerce and the Interdepartmental Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC), which is composed of all federal agencies that are major spectrum users.
  • Exclusive use model attempts to make spectrum private property. A licensee is allocated exclusive and transferable flexible use rights for specified spectrum within a defined geographic area. The flexible use rights are limited primarily by technical rules to protect spectrum users against interference and market forces that should promote usage and hopefully innovation. The fact that the primary licensee can transfer or resell some or all of their rights to the spectrum creates a secondary market. The expectation is that by making spectrum allocations like property, a market economy would emerge that would evolve spectrum use to its “highest value” (at least in economic terms). This is described in more detail in following sections
  • Open spectrum

    1. 1. Open Spectrum New Technology / FCC SPTF Impact and Policy Implications Robert J. Berger Glocom Visiting Research Fellow Rberger@glocom.ac.jp04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. Berger & GLOCOM 1
    2. 2. Introduction  The FCC formed a Spectrum Policy Task Force (SPTF) in June 2002 to identify and evaluate changes in spectrum policy that will increase the public benefits derived from the use of radio spectrum.  This was the first time that there was a comprehensive and systematic review of FCC spectrum policy.04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 2 Berger & GLOCO
    3. 3. FCC Interest in SpectrumPolicy Reform04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. Berger & GLOCOM 3
    4. 4. Interest in new spectrum access models  FCC has not kept up with the pace of communication tech and accelerating demand for spectrum  Current “Command + Control” policy and procedures micromanage spectrum  Thus it is outmoded and obsolete  Need “out-of-the-box” ways to allocate and maximize spectrum access  Find ways to maximize public benefits delivered through spectrum based services and devices04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 4 Berger & GLOCO
    5. 5. Drivers for Spectrum Policy Reform  Explosive Demand for Spectrum-Based Services and Devices  Technological Advances: Enabling Changes in Spectrum Policy  Increased Access: Mitigating Scarcity of Spectrum Resources04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 5 Berger & GLOCO
    6. 6. Explosive Demand for Spectrum- Based Services and Devices  Consistently underestimated demand  1994 projected 54M mobile phone users for 2000  Actual number of users in 2000 was 110M  Unlicensed band (2.4Ghz) spurred explosion of new devices and services  $2.9B IN 2002  New tech allows for devices paid for & controlled by millions of end users  Old policies based on small number of licensees (broadcasters)04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 6 Berger & GLOCO
    7. 7. Tech Advances: Enabling Changes in Spectrum Policy  Digital Signal Processing allows for radical new modulation techniques  Wideband Spread Spectrum  Ultra-Wideband pulse  Very low power per hertz  Cognitive / Software Defined Radios  Dynamically and Intelligently utilize and share spectrum  Moore’s Law makes it practical and affordable (and inevitable)04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 7 Berger & GLOCO
    8. 8. Increased Access: Mitigating Scarcity of Spectrum Resources  Measurements of actual spectrum utilization in Metro areas showed:  Nearly 100% of spectrum allocated, but only 30% actually used  Looking for new ways to better utilize spectrum  Underlay Spectrum Commons (UWB, Spread Spectrum)  Cognitive Radios dynamically sensing and releasing spectrum  Secondary Markets04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 8 Berger & GLOCO
    9. 9. New Technologies Radically new way to utilize & expand the capacity of spectrum04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. Berger & GLOCOM 9
    10. 10. Some Spectrum Basics image obtained from http://www.lbl.gov/MicroWorlds/ALSTool/EMSpec/EMSpec2.html04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 10 Berger & GLOCO
    11. 11. Time vs. Frequency  Time Domain  Wavelength or Pulse Width duration  Viewed with Oscilloscope Time Frequency  Frequency Domain  Cycles / Second  Viewed with Spectrum Analyzer (Spectrograph)04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 11 Berger & GLOCO
    12. 12. New tech facilitates sharing beyond 802.11Wireless LAN Underlay legacy spectrum users  Wideband Spread Spectrum  Ultra-wideband nano-pulses  Pico-watts / Hertz Intelligently utilize unused local spectrum  Cognitive / Software Defined Radios04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 12 Berger & GLOCO
    13. 13. Wideband Spread Spectrum Trades off Spectrum for power QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressorare needed to see this picture.  Wider spectrum produces more sharing and bandwidth  Called Process Gain Can underlay legacy narrowband users Graphics from Spread spectrum communications by Jay Fitzsummons, Troy Morris and Tony Parezanovic http://murray.newcastle.edu.au/users/staff/eemf/ELEC351/ SProjects/Morris/project.htm04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 13 Berger & GLOCO
    14. 14. Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum  Pseudo-noise (PN- code) mixed with Data to produce the coded signal to modulate a carrier  Looks like noise source centered around the carrier with a bandwidth of the Pseudo-noise QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressorar  Receiver knows PN- code to demodulate signal Graphics from Spread spectrum communications by Jay Fitzsummons, Troy Morris and Tony Parezanovic04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 14 Berger & GLOCO
    15. 15. Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum  Data is conventionally modulated on carrier  SS Bandwidth is carved up to many narrow channels  PN-code selects which channel is utilized as the carrier  Hopping rate is in order of milliseconds / hop thus minimizing interference with legacy narrowband users Graphics from Spread spectrum communications by Jay Fitzsummons, Troy Morris and Tony Parezanovic04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 15 Berger & GLOCO
    16. 16. Ultra-wideband nano-pulses  Extremely short pulses instead of carrier waves  10 - 1000 of picoseconds (trillionths of a second) wide in time  1 - 10 Gigahertz wide in frequency  Picowatts of power per hertz (in the noise floor)  Radios can create output signal directly with digital techniques  High precision timing, but Graphics from Scientific American: Wireless Data Blaster low complexity by David G. Leeper04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 16 Berger & GLOCO
    17. 17. Ultra-wideband Modulations  Many ways to modulate pulse streams  No Multipath fading  Main issue is precision synchronization  Applications  Communications  Sub-centimeter positioning Graphics from  Thru-wall/ground radar Scientific American: Wireless Data Blaster by David G. Leeper04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 17 Berger & GLOCO
    18. 18. Ultra-wideband Status  Feb 2002: US FCC allowed limited use  Less than Part 15 levels below 3.1Ghz  Some restrictions on applications  Several Chip Vendors  Some samples  XtremeSpectrum  Most announcements for mid to late 200304/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 18 Berger & GLOCO
    19. 19. Cognitive / Software Defined Radios  Cognitive radio “understands” local conditions and user requirements  Will aggregate bands of spectrum that may be allocated but not being used locally  Software Defined Radio (SDR)  Radio signal modulated/demodulated in software  Can create arbitrary signals  Could be Spread Spectrum, UWB or traditional04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 19 Berger & GLOCO
    20. 20. Status of SDRs  Some commercial implementations  Very Limited Applications like multi-band / multi- standard cell phones  Vanu Inc.  SDR Software Developers Kit  Gnu-Radio  Open Source SDR  Military most advanced  DARPA NeXt Generation Communications04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 20 Berger & GLOCO
    21. 21. Mesh Networks  End points can relay through other user nodes  Low Power  Route around obstacles  Cooperation Gain Mesh Network Capacity vs Station Density  Total Capacity of Mesh 50 45 14 increases with added 40 12 users / relay nodes 35 30 10 8  Matches low power / high 25 6 process gain tech like 20 Total Capacity 15 4 Spread Spectrum & UWB Per 10 2 5 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Number of Stations04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 21 Berger & GLOCO
    22. 22. Status of Mesh Networks  Limited commercial deployment  Nokia Rooftop  First generation product very limited throughput, proprietary and expensive.  For residential / infrastructure use only  http://www.wbs.nokia.com/  Mesh Networks Inc.  Initial product proprietary  Promising an 802.11 based product that supports infrastructure & end user relaying  http://www.meshnetworks.com/  Long history of Military development04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 22 Berger & GLOCO
    23. 23. The SPTF Report The Groundbreaking FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Report04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. Berger & GLOCOM 23
    24. 24. Rather Incredible Document from a Federal Bureaucracy  9 months from start to finish  Introduces and promotes several concepts that would have been unthinkable only a year ago  Not perfect, several contradictory positions  Will mark a milestone for new regulatory thinking04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 24 Berger & GLOCO
    25. 25. Spectrum Rights Models  Command and Control  Current style of regulatory policy  Exclusive Use  Spectrum as Private Property  Spectrum Commons  Technology used to share and manage spectrum04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 25 Berger & GLOCO
    26. 26. Command and Control Model Traditional management of spectrum for the last 80 years Government agency micromanages all spectrum allocation  FCC  National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) Spectrum allocated to a specific entity for a specific use and specific technology Little or no flexibility how licensees can utilize spectrum04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 26 Berger & GLOCO
    27. 27. Exclusive Use Model  Allocates spectrum as property  Spectrum holder can do whatever they want with it  Within the power and interference technical requirements  Can lease/resell all or portions to create secondary markets  Economists believe this will evolve spectrum to its “Highest Value”04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 27 Berger & GLOCO
    28. 28. Spectrum Commons Model  Unlimited unlicensed users share spectrum via technological mechanisms  802.11 WLANs proved the value  Already US$2B Industry and growing rapidly  Still rules and limitations on how Spectrum is used  Power per hertz, freq range, geographical, etc.  Marketplace of devices, services and technology04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 28 Berger & GLOCO
    29. 29. Creating a SpectrumCommons04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. Berger & GLOCOM 29
    30. 30. Sharing Spectrum thru Technology, Not Politics Spectrum is infinitely divisible Tech determines physical access to usable spectrum 9 Politics Tech possibilities are just beginning 8 Economics  Most legacy systems are based on early 7 Application 20th century technology 6 Presentation  Cell phones and 802.11 use primitive 5 Session sharing 4 Transport TCP/UDP Multi-dimensional real-time sharing by space, frequency, time, coding, mesh 3 Network IP 2 Data Link (MAC) 1 Physical 802.11 has no comparison to today’s limited capacity 04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 30 Berger & GLOCO
    31. 31. FCC SPTF Commons Suggestions A Low Power Underlay  Spread Spectrum, UWB, and other tech to utilize new capacity in the noise floor of legacy systems  Interference Temperature defines noise floor Dynamic Reuse of idle spectrum  Sense and utilize local spectrum being unused by primary, release as soon as primary uses it.  Geographical / Guard Bands  Max power determined by local conditions + rules set by FCC and/or primary licensee 04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 31 Berger & GLOCO
    32. 32. Interference Temperature  A paradigm for assessing the interference in an environment  A quantitative measurement that allows for technology based access control to spectrum  Measures the RF power available at the receiving antenna per unit bandwidth.04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 32 Berger & GLOCO
    33. 33. Interference Temperature Metric to establish maximum permissible levels of interference Characterizes the worst case environment in which a receiver would be expected to operate. Different threshold levels could be set for each band, geographic region or service, 04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 33 Berger & GLOCO
    34. 34. Creating an Underlay CommonsReceiverPower at Distance from licensed transmitting antenna 04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 34 Berger & GLOCO
    35. 35. Agile Radio Enables Dynamic Sharing  Also known as Cognitive or Software Defined Radio (SDR)  Dynamically discovers + utilizes local unused spectrum in real-time  Takes advantage of “White Space” in spectrum allocations  Releases slices of spectrum if primary licensee starts to use it also  Scales power based on application, local condition and rules set by FCC and/or Primary Licensee  Combine with Spread Spectrum and UWB04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 35 Berger & GLOCO
    36. 36. Example Agile Use of Spectrum  Legacy uses such as TV do not allow adjacent channels in the same geographical location due to primitive receivers Channel Channel  Agile Radio could use low power 6 7 channel 5 inside of channel 6 and 7 coverage areas Channel  Could use any channel at higher 5 power outside of their and adjacent channels in areas where they are not allocated04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 36 Berger & GLOCO
    37. 37. SPTF Recommendations  Designate additional bands for unlicensed use  Pursue secondary markets for use of licensed spectrum  Government granted easements to licensed spectrum to enable a commons for low power non-interfering users  Promote spectrum flexibility in rural areas  Promote experimental spectrum allocations04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 37 Berger & GLOCO
    38. 38. Some Public Responses04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. Berger & GLOCOM 38
    39. 39. Big Bang Auction of Spectrum Championed by FCC Economists Evan Kwerel and John Williams Existing spectrum licensees incentivized to put “their” spectrum up for auction  Not required, but if they don’t, their use of the spectrum continues to be bound by old rules  Get to keep all the proceeds from their sale Government (including military) puts all its spectrum in the auction  Government can “buy back” spectrum for government (military, public safety) or public “Spectrum Parks” Purchasers can aggregate spectrum Corporations or Organizations can buy spectrum for “unlicensed” uses  WiFi Alliance could buy spectrum for 802.11 for instance 04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 39 Berger & GLOCO
    40. 40. Faulhaber & Farber Proposal Place all spectrum into the market, using Big Bang Ownership model: Fee simple with non-interference easement  I own the spectrum and have absolute use priority; others can use it but only if they don’t interfere with this absolute use priority  UWB, agile radio, mesh networks OK; “virtual commons”  Monitoring and enforcement = transactions costs Gov’t (at all levels) and private groups can own spectrum and make it available for commons use: “spectrum parks” 04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 40 Berger & GLOCO
    41. 41. Concerns with Faulhaber & Farber Proposal  Better than a pure Private Property Model  Still assumes spectrum as private property should be the dominant model  Does not show that the benefits outweigh its costs  Treats the Commons as a hedge  Still constrains Commons opportunity  Promotes permanent grant of private property  Provides no revisability when technology or applications change  Not enough information to make such final and irrevocable decision04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 41 Berger & GLOCO
    42. 42. Technology based Commons  Advocated by many technologists and consumer advocates  David Reed (MIT), Yochai Benkler (NYU School of Law), Lawrence Lessig (Stanford) Dewayne Hendricks (Dandin Group) among others  New Tech utilizes spectrum more efficiently  Works best with large swaths of spectrum  Underlays & Agile radios can allow for transition from legacy  Industry Standards and technology manage most sharing issues04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 42 Berger & GLOCO
    43. 43. National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) Mostly concerned with protecting their existing “rights” Maintain that they are defenders of public interest with “free” Television  Against auctions because they undervalue the public interest benefits  Claim they are already “setting new standards in spectral efficiency” Against commons for fear of interference with old radios and TVs Consider the Cellular industry their biggest threat in terms of spectrum 04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 43 Berger & GLOCO
    44. 44. Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA) Represents the Cellular / Mobile Phone Industry Aggressively supports spectrum policy reform  Cellular industry wants more spectrum for more capacity Against “giving non-viable incumbents flexibility to provide any service”  I.E. allowing TV stations to compete with Mobile Phone Companies Against underlay in already allocated bands  Ok for new licenses where it can be explicitly stated04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 44 Berger & GLOCO
    45. 45. Motorola: Go slow, mostly licensed, some unlicensed ok  Offered two technical papers  Good analysis of mesh networks  Raises questions on ability of cognitive radios to release spectrum fast enough  Still seems more FUD to slow down new tech  Supports R&D in mesh and cognitive radios  But not immediate roll out or licensing  Supports more unlicensed spectrum  Some in 5Ghz, but most in 10Ghz and above04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 45 Berger & GLOCO
    46. 46. Satellite Broadcasting & Communications Association  Protect DBS receivers from Terrestrial Interference  Concerned with sharing spectrum with terrestrial Multi-channel Video Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS)  Against underlays and unlicensed spectrum  Current DBS receivers are easily interfered with  GPS is very sensitive to interference  Fear of near channel overlap on satellite radio04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 46 Berger & GLOCO
    47. 47. National Association of Amateur Radio (ARRL) Amateur Operators use to be radio innovators  Since the IC and Digital revolutions Amateurs have not been as involved  Now are mostly legacy users FCC should use the SPTF for planning  No Big Bang / privatization of spectrum  Unless Amateur’s get their own “Public Park” Concerns of unlicensed spectrum  Proper policing of power and other tech constraints Supports the need for regulation of receivers04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 47 Berger & GLOCO
    48. 48. Consumer Federation of America  Pro-consumer advocacy organization  Considers spectrum to be a “First Amendment (Freedom of Speech) asset of citizens  Privatization of spectrum would limit free speech  Selling of spectrum would accelerate consolidation of media  Supports Spectrum Commons04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 48 Berger & GLOCO
    49. 49. Microsoft: Unlicensed Spectrum will Unleash Broadband  Unlicensed wireless can break the broadband bottleneck  Allows the Internet to “route around” incumbents Telcos who are slow to build broadband  Allows end users to finance broadband builds  Supports Spectrum Commons and additional unlicensed spectrum  Believe there should be “rules of the road” to facilitate sharing of spectrum04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 49 Berger & GLOCO
    50. 50. Cisco: Unlicensed Spectrum for the Network Revolution  Similar to Microsoft’s points  Some additional points of Cisco:  More commons, less private spectrum ownership  Don’t get stuck on international spectrum harmonization04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 50 Berger & GLOCO
    51. 51. XtremeSpectrum: UWB; new understanding of Interference  Manufacturer of UWB technology  Current vague definition of interference be replaced by explicit definition  The new “Interference Temperature is a good start.  Specify minimal capabilities of receivers to reject interference  Translate that into max permissible emissions levels for underlay technology04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 51 Berger & GLOCO
    52. 52. Potential Action Items04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. Berger & GLOCOM 52
    53. 53. Policy Recommendations Avoid irrevocable and difficult to change policies  Privatizing large amounts of spectrum would be difficult to reverse  Technology is just beginning Enable some form of “easements” on existing and new licenses to allow for underlays and agile radios. Be explicit with legacy incumbent licenses  Much of the issues of the report were concerning incumbents, but were not openly discussed as such  Treat incumbents as a transition issue, not assume that they should be incumbents forever 04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 53 Berger & GLOCO
    54. 54. Reality Checks Spectrum Utilization Audits  See how spectrum is really being used in various regions Analyze capacity of spectrum  Consider several dense usage scenarios using data from the spectrum audits and demand growth profiles  Calculate various spectrum utilizations with different technology assumptions  See how often there is really a “tragedy of the commons” 04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 54 Berger & GLOCO
    55. 55. Consortium to develop Open Spectrum Technologies  Open Spectrum will be a boon for hardware device manufacturers  Japan could lead in Open Spectrum device technology  A consortium to develop core technologies could be highly leveraged  Radio Haven in a secondary market would be an excellent test environment04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 55 Berger & GLOCO
    56. 56. Status: Major Fork in the Road  FCC & Industry split  Economists & Incumbents like Property Models  Technologists & Internet types like Commons  Surprising support for commons though  Boxer/Allen Senate Bill  Pronouncements from Chairman Powell considering making unused TV bands unlicensed04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 56 Berger & GLOCO

    ×