The document discusses the FCC's Spectrum Policy Task Force (SPTF) formed to evaluate and recommend changes in U.S. spectrum policy to better accommodate the growing demand for wireless communication technologies. It highlights the need for innovative spectrum access models, such as underlay commons and unlicensed use, as well as the challenges posed by outdated 'command and control' policies. Key advancements in technology like cognitive radios and ultra-wideband modulations are emphasized as crucial for optimizing spectrum utilization and enhancing public benefits.

1. Open Spectrum
New Technology / FCC SPTF
Impact and Policy Implications
Robert J. Berger
Glocom Visiting Research Fellow
Rberger@glocom.ac.jp
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. Berger & GLOCOM 1

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. FCC Interest in Spectrum
Policy Reform
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. Berger & GLOCOM 3

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 devices
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 4
Berger & GLOCO

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 Resources
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 5
Berger & GLOCO

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. 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. 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 Markets
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 8
Berger & GLOCO

9. New Technologies
Radically new way to utilize &
expand the capacity of spectrum
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. Berger & GLOCOM 9

10. Some Spectrum Basics
image obtained from http://www.lbl.gov/MicroWorlds/ALSTool/EMSpec/EMSpec2.html
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 10
Berger & GLOCO

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. 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 Radios
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 12
Berger & GLOCO

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.htm
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 13
Berger & GLOCO

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 Parezanovic
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 14
Berger & GLOCO

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 Parezanovic
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 15
Berger & GLOCO

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. Leeper
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 16
Berger & GLOCO

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. Leeper
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 17
Berger & GLOCO

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 2003
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 18
Berger & GLOCO

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 traditional
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 19
Berger & GLOCO

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
Communications
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 20
Berger & GLOCO

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 Stations
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 21
Berger & GLOCO

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 development
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 22
Berger & GLOCO

23. The SPTF Report
The Groundbreaking FCC
Spectrum Policy Task Force
Report
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. Berger & GLOCOM 23

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
thinking
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 24
Berger & GLOCO

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
spectrum
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 25
Berger & GLOCO

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
spectrum
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 26
Berger & GLOCO

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. 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
technology
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 28
Berger & GLOCO

29. Creating a Spectrum
Commons
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. Berger & GLOCOM 29

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. 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. 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. 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. Creating an Underlay
Commons
Receiver
Power at
Distance from licensed transmitting antenna
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 34
Berger & GLOCO

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 UWB
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 35
Berger & GLOCO

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 allocated
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 36
Berger & GLOCO

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 allocations
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 37
Berger & GLOCO

38. Some Public Responses
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. Berger & GLOCOM 38

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. 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. 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 decision
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 41
Berger & GLOCO

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 issues
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 42
Berger & GLOCO

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. 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 stated
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 44
Berger & GLOCO

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 above
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 45
Berger & GLOCO

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 radio
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 46
Berger & GLOCO

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 receivers
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 47
Berger & GLOCO

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 Commons
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 48
Berger & GLOCO

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 spectrum
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 49
Berger & GLOCO

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
harmonization
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 50
Berger & GLOCO

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 technology
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 51
Berger & GLOCO

52. Potential Action Items
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. Berger & GLOCOM 52

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. 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. 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 environment
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 55
Berger & GLOCO

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
unlicensed
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 56
Berger & GLOCO