The document discusses the multi-level standardization process for cognitive radio, using the Cognitive Pilot Channel (CPC) as a case study. It explains that standardization has become more complex, occurring across multiple levels and organizations simultaneously. For CPC, standardization is happening in both IEEE and ETSI, with some differences in timing, composition, and aspects being standardized, but also overlap between members and goals. The outcome of standardizing CPC so early is uncertain, as its impact and the strategies of involved companies and regulators are still unclear.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. CPC regulation tracks

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. 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. Development overview

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. 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. 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. 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