#1569123664                                                                                                               ...
#1569123664                                                                                                               ...
#1569123664                                                                                                               ...
#1569123664                                                                                                               ...
#1569123664                                                                                                               ...
#1569123664                                                                                                               ...
#1569123664                                                                                                               ...
#1569123664                                                                                                               ...
#1569123664                                                                                                               ...
#1569123664                                                                                                               ...
#1569123664                                                                                                               ...
#1569123664                                                                                                               ...
#1569123664                                                                                                               ...
#1569123664                                                                                                               ...
Multi level standardization and business tugas paper (alwi fauzi - 163.100.010)
Multi level standardization and business tugas paper (alwi fauzi - 163.100.010)
Multi level standardization and business tugas paper (alwi fauzi - 163.100.010)
Multi level standardization and business tugas paper (alwi fauzi - 163.100.010)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Multi level standardization and business tugas paper (alwi fauzi - 163.100.010)

1,168 views

Published on

Manajemen Teknologi Strategi dan Inovasi Alwi Fauzi

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,168
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
53
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Multi level standardization and business tugas paper (alwi fauzi - 163.100.010)

  1. 1. #1569123664 1 Multi-level standardization and business models for cognitive radio: the case of the Cognitive Pilot Channel Simon Delaere and Pieter Ballon IBBT-SMIT, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium Tel +32-22691622, E-mail firstname.lastname@vub.ac.be to-end solutions to customers, and in which international, Abstract— This paper examines the international, inter- formal organisations brought together operators,organizational collaboration processes for the development of manufacturers and regulators to enable inter-countrycognitive radio, wich will be at the basis of potentially profound connectivity. Nor is it still true that large integratedchanges in the telecommunications value network, as well as its companies, with full-time standards-developing staff,functional architecture, cost and value structure and the eventual collaborate exclusively in the standardization organisation thatvalue proposition of any services deployed in such a valuenetwork. The paper will analyse the transition in they were historically linked to and/or that fits best with theirtelecommunications from linear standardization taking place broader objectives.mainly in the domain of formal Standardization Organizations, Today, driven by privatization, competition (policy) and theto a highly complex and multi-layered process simultaneously much increased complexity of telecommunicationsinvolving formal organizations, informal bodies and industrial technologies and their markets –a trend further reinforced byconsortia. Subsequently, the paper discusses the development of the continuing convergence with the IT and media sectors–a Cognitive Pilot Channel to show how innovation in this kind of linear process is no longer sufficient. In order for atelecommunications markets is determined by this complex technology to be successfully introduced, it needs to beinterplay, and explores how the collaborative process betweenresearch, regulation and standardization of a Cognitive Pilot standardized on at least a regional and preferably a globalChannel in different standardization platforms (viz. IEEE scale, with support from a large variety of stakeholders –SCC41 and ETSI TC RRS) might influence the eventual operators, network and equipment manufacturers, servicedeployment of such a cognitive radio technology and networks providers, regulators and user groups– and interoperable withand services enabled by it, as well as the business models for it, the modules, systems and services offered by many of theseby performing an exploratory business model scorecard analysis stakeholders. Moreover, where it concerns wirelesson some of the different revenue sharing models coming out of technologies, adequate spectrum needs to be found which, indiverging design choices of the CPC. many cases, needs to be harmonized on a regional or multi- regional basis, requiring significant political and industrial Index Terms—Standardization, Business Modelling, Cognitive support and, equally important, time.Pilot Channel, Radio Enabler, Business Modeling As a consequence, many different platforms for standardization have now been established, which include formal, de iure as well as de facto standardization I. INTRODUCTION organisations, complemented by ad hoc industrial consortiaIt is safe to say that standardization in telecoms has undergone and fora and situated on national, regional and global levels.dramatic changes over the past century or so. The times are These organisations both work in parallel, cooperate anddefinitely over in which incumbent telecommunications compete with each other, and nationally or regionally basedoperators, who were often the creators, implementers and consortia often attract stakeholders from outside their originalexclusive users of a standard within their territory, only territory and subsequently strive to extend the influence ofneeded to work together with national equipment their standards beyond the borders of that territory. Moreover,manufacturers –so-called national champions– to provide end- while some of these bodies may have originated in a telecoms context, others find their roots in the IT or electrotechnical Manuscript received May 1, 2008. This work was performed within the E3 world or spectrum community, yet all of these bodies nowproject, which has received research funding from the Communitys Seventh work on standardizing converged beyond 3G services. Often,Framework programme. This paper reflects only the authors views and theCommunity is not liable for any use that may be made of the information different processes of standardization are initiated at leastcontained therein. The contributions of colleagues from E3 consortium are partly simultaneously on different levels, for example in orderhereby acknowledged. to gain geographical influence, tackle different components of Simon Delaere is a researcher at the Centre for Studies on Media, the technology in a different way, or simply to play out oneInformation and Telecommunication (SMIT) of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel.SMIT is part of Interdisciplinary Institute for Broadband Technology (IBBT) standardization body against the other in what could be called(e-mail: simon.delaere@vub.ac.be) a standardization shopping strategy. In short, standardization Pieter Ballon is a programme manager at SMIT-IBBT, Vrije Universiteit of telecoms has become a complex, multi-layered processBrussel (e-mail: pieter.ballon@vub.ac.be) involving many stakeholders and varying strategies.
  2. 2. #1569123664 2In this paper, we will examine this trend from linear Taylorist production methods [3], which were first introducedstandardization taking place mainly in the domain of formal in the United States and from there spread to Europe, lead toStandardization Organizations, to a highly complex and multi- the production of uniform products; parts of both these endlayered process simultaneously involving formal products and the machines assembling them were uniform,organizations, informal bodies and industrial consortia. replicable and interchangeable thanks to agreements betweenSubsequently, we will apply the insights gained above to the manufacturers, in order to speed up and simplify production,relatively recent trend towards Flexible Spectrum lower maintenance and inventory holding costs and stimulateManagement, by analysing the recently initiated the specialization of production. During the First World War,standardization –and concurrent regulatory– process of one of scarcity in the workforce meant an increase in machinesits potential key enablers, the Cognitive Pilot Channel (CPC). needed and, thus, an increased importance for standardization.Flexible Spectrum Management (FSM), used as a concept Initially, low strategic importance was attributed topointing to a set of new and dynamic procedures and standardization; industry and trade associations contentedtechniques for obtaining and transferring spectrum usage themselves with what they perceived as common benefits ofrights and dynamically changing the specific use of standardization, leading to lower inventory holding costs andfrequencies, plays an important role in fully exploiting the giving incentives to specialize production in interchangeableadvantages of cognitive, reconfigurable networks and parts [4]:8-9 [5].terminals. Here, we argue that the standardization of the CPC, As David and Steinmueller note, the increasing importance ofalthough in a very early stage, constitutes a good example of standards for reaching economies of scale andthe complex, synchronous, multi-layered collaboration interchangeability implied that ad hoc agreements betweenprocess towards innovation in wireless telecommunications. industry actors started to give way to more formalized,Finally, starting from the assumption that crucial design regulated types of standardization. As informal associationschoices with regard to the CPC will be taken during the and periodic regulatory interventions were no longer sufficientstandardization and regulation process, and that these design to meet the growing demand for standards, dedicatedchoices might influence the eventual deployment of such a Standards Development Organisations (SDOs) started to becognitive radio technology and networks and services enabled established. The first such body on a national level was theby it, as well as the business models for it, we perform a British Standards Institute (BSI), founded in 1901. Germanbusiness model scorecard analysis on some of the different (DIN) and French (AFNOR) organisations followed in 1917revenue sharing models coming out of diverging (theoretical) and 1926 respectively, while the US-based ANSI wasdesign choices of the CPC. To be clear, this part of the established in 1918. Soon, these national SDOs –which,analysis shall be exploratory in nature: since the CPC according to the authors, numbered more than 81 in 1996–standardization process has only just begun, technology were complemented by regional and international bodies. Forchoices are yet to be made and political or industrial alliances the telecommunications sector, but arguably for anyto be formed; even the concept in itself is far from being specialized area, the International Telecommunications Unionaccepted. However, we consider it worthwhile to make an ex (established as a UN agency in 1947, but with roots goingante analysis of what the consequences of future choices with back to 1865) is probably the oldest example. Other importantregard to the CPC could be, as an alternative to the more ones include the International Organisation forcommon ex post evaluations of standardization processes, Standardization (ISO, 1947), the European Committee forprecisely because so much is still unknown and so many Standardization (CEN, 1961), the Internationaldifferent directions could still be taken in its eventual Electrotechnical Commission (IEC, 1906) and, for Europe, thedeployment. European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC, 1973) and the European Telecommunications II. FROM LINEAR TO MULTI-LAYERED STANDARDIZATION Standardization Institute (ETSI, 1988). More than in other sectors, an immediate need for international standards was felt A. Linear, Formalized Standardization of in the telecommunications sector in order to ensure safety and Telecommunications network interoperability, leading many international SDOs inIt is impossible to locate the roots of standardization as a this sector to precede generalized national standardizationmeans of facilitating goods production; without any doubt, bodies [5]-[14]. As technology progressed and (national)agreements have been concluded between craftsmen or traders markets expanded, standardization became more and moreon procedures and rules for production, construction, trading crucial in the sector of telecommunications. As Schmidt andconduct and other industrial and commercial activities at any Werle put it: “Autonomous actors involved in the production,point in history. However, standardization as we know it operation and use of such a large technical system astoday, defined by ISO as the process of creating a “document, telecommunications rely on a minimum amount ofestablished by consensus and approved by a recognized body, coordination.” [15]:108. It is therefore not surprising that,that provides, for common and repeated use, rules, guidelines although some 25 other international organisations exist whichor characteristics for activities or their results, aimed at the are similar to the ITU in terms of standardization activities, theachievement of the optimum degree of order in a given context ISO, IEC and ITU together are responsible for 85% of all[1], first became important in the nineteenth century. In this current international standards [5].era, production of goods became centralized, resulting in the Although international coordinating bodies foremergence of large economies of scale and scope. Fordist and telecommunications have existed since the nineteenth century,
  3. 3. #1569123664 3they were essentially inter-governmental in that they merely Further exacerbation of this complexity ofensured interconnection of different, heavily protected telecommunications systems standardization has been causednational markets. Indeed, until at least the end of the 1960s, by the convergence of the sector with others, such as those ofpostal and telecommunications operators (PTOs) were mostly IT and broadcasting. To be clear, this convergence is not justowned by national governments, which means operation and technological in nature, but in fact comprises four differentregulation were dealt with by the same administrations, and domains: institutional (e.g. the move of telecoms groups intoexclusive links existed with domestic manufacturers, the so- cable operators), technological (e.g. digital broadcastingcalled national champions. In many cases, this was justified as requiring telecommunications based transmission processesbeing a remedy against market failures and a consequence of for conditional access systems, set top boxes, electronicnatural monopolies, even though the history of many programming guides etc.), functional (e.g. the rise of theincumbents clearly also shows the involved states’ interest in internet as an add-on to traditional telecommunications), andappropriating monopoly profits -dating back to pre-industrial infrastructural (e.g. telecoms services running over cablepostal monopolies [16][17]. Many of the PTOs were large systems or video-on-demand via copper wire DSL lines). [20]integrated companies –integrating R&D, production as well as Therefore, not only does standardization of these networks anddistribution of their products and services– with a staff of full- services bring together experts from diverging technologicaltime engineers dedicated to develop the organisations’ internal backgrounds, but also previously separated interest groupsstandards and introducing them to specific recognized SDOs focusing on different basic functions of the technologies they[18]. Since vertical integration between PTOs and their support, and traditionally relying on diverging infrastructures.preferred equipment providers was tight, the technical In this context, the coming about of the X.25 standard foragreements resulting from this integration had a status similar packet switched inter-computer datacommunications, issued into intra-firm standards, which were subsequently 1976, is one good and early example of the sometimesinterconnected on an international level [4]:10 [15]:44. As a “theatrical clash” between the IT and (voice)consequence of this triple integration (between PTOs on the telecommunication sectors within the Comité Consultatifone hand, and regulators, equipment manufacturers and International Télégraphique et Téléphonique (CCITT, thestandards developers on the other hand), the members of the predecessor of ITU-T) [14]:91-92; [4]:182-184.international SDOs were mostly PTOs themselves [4]:100, A final factor influencing standardization complexity is thecoordinating their international communications business globalization of telecommunications [19]:89. According tothrough such international treaty organisations [5]. Brunsson, this influence manifests itself in four ways: moreHowever, two evolutions began to put a strong pressure on the actors are involved which are far apart geographically, morestandardization of telecommunications which could, until organisations are international or transnational in nature –andthen, be characterized as relatively simple, formal and thus, cannot be pinpointed onto a national interest orcontrolled by national monopolies: increasing system jurisdiction (see also [15]:143 in this regard), communicationcomplexity –ultimately culminating in complete convergence over vast distances is possible and people feel more associatedbetween telecoms, IT and broadcasting worlds– and the and more receptive to developments happening in other partsliberalization of markets. of the world (what Brunsson calls mental globalization). Brunsson argues that while globalization increases the demand B. Transformations for standardization (because the need of interfaces to 1) System Complexity interconnect national or regional systems, and the generalAs Steinmueller and Werle argue, only three internationally absence of common norms), the smaller mental distancestandardized, end-to-end-compatible telecommunications equally facilitates such standardization. Besides this,services existed in the 1970: telegraphy operated by PTOs, globalization obviously creates global markets fortelex-based business communications and telephony [5]:123. telecommunication-related products, providing another strongHowever, as data generated an increasing amount on incentive for standardization whilst at the same time renderingtelecommunications networks, and potential as well as it more complex [21]:37-39.demand for new types of services grew, SDOs were 2) The Liberalization of Marketsconfronted with an increased amount of standardization As said above, for many decades the standardization ofactivities. In the same vein, Blind distinguishes three reasons telecommunications was a matter either of companieswhy increased technical complexity increases the needs for themselves (internally or within the national context on a morestandardization. Firstly, further increase in mass production or less ad hoc basis) or of formal national, regional orand inherent economies of scale extend the drive towards international SDOs whose members were in most cases againvariety and cost reduction; secondly, not only are complex the incumbent operators [4]. However, from the 1970sproducts and services less transparent to users, they also carry onwards this situation started to change. In Europe, thewith them new types of risks which may affect not only to economic depression of the seventies helped to create a freeusers but the wider community as well, and may occur not market rationale which was at the basis of many of the policyonly during the period of usage but for much longer periods. initiatives taken towards telecoms market liberalization.Finally, the increased demand for health, safety and Furthermore, an ‘electronic alliance’ of large corporate users,environmental protection brought about by increased multinational companies and IT equipment suppliers gave aeconomic welfare also further stimulates the formulation of strong impetus to this drive. Policy action on the Europeanrules and procedures [19]:1-2. level coincided with national tendencies inside and outside the EU: the initial focus on liberalization of telecoms under
  4. 4. #1569123664 4Commissioner Davignon in 1979 almost coincided with • Slower procedures,Thatcher’s call for telecoms liberalisation in UK opposition in • Possibly comprising participants with different1978, and came in the midst of the illustrious government- backgrounds and antagonistic objectives,incited AT&T divestiture operation in the US (already • Intransigent participant behaviour caused by divergingpreceded by important events such as the Hush-a-Phone, views, slowing down the process since it is consensusCarterfone, MCI and Execunet decisions between 1957 and oriented,1978) bringing an end to nearly a century of • If a new standard replaces existing solutions, firms maytelecommunications monopoly and opening up competition in participate to slow down its standardization [25].the long distance, manufacturing and R&D markets Wehnert, who studied standardization processes within CEN,[17][22][23]. A similar, gradual path was followed on the concurs with the view that much could be done to increase theEuropean level, albeit with a slower pace. First, equipment efficiency and speed of SDOs; among other factors, he citesand value added services markets were liberalized in 1988 and lack of personal and technical support, lack of focus by both1990 respectively (severing ties between PTOs and equipment the SDO and the actor that steers its work (viz. the European‘national champions’ after a thirty month legal battle between Commission), lack of funding, suboptimal management, nothe European Commission and several Member States). full representation by the problem owners (e.g. users), theSubsequently, the 1997 Open Network Provision (ONP) voluntary nature of the standardization work, lack ofDirective created a full-fledged market for public network willingness to compromise, incompatible workingservices, and forced the separation between market regulation methodologies, cultural differences and administrativeand service provision, leading to the establishment of constraints including enquiry and balloting procedures andindependent regulatory authorities in most Member States translation requirements [26]. A number of these elements,[17]. particularly with regard to speed, are also echoed by SchmidtObviously, these evolutions have had a far-reaching impact on and Werle ([15]:142-146), Sherif [24] and Egyedi ([4]:108).the standardization process. Firstly, the separation between To this, the latter author adds that some of the basicregulators and operators decreased the influence of PTOs in ideological principles differentiating formal SDOs fromSDOs, leading to pressure for reform. Secondly, the consortia, such as the orientation towards consensus andliberalization of markets resulted in the establishment of new, democratic procedures, may not be as clear when it comes toprivate telecommunications operators having their own their practical application: “dominant rhetoric underestimatesinterest in standards, and setting up their own networks, which openness of most industry consortia and overestimates theneeded to be interconnected to the existing ones. Finally, the practical implications of the formal democratic procedures”separation between PTOs and equipment vendors caused a [27]. Not only does Egyedi note a “friction between ideologyproliferation in the number of systems, increasing the need for and praxis” (for example because national delegations tostandardized interfaces. Taken together, these influences –the SDOs most often consist of industrial delegations), but also aincreased number of heterogeneous stakeholders and systems, friction between ideological features (for example those ofand vertical disintegration of the telecoms ecosystem broad representation on the one hand, and technicalincluding regulation and standardization– started to exert great discussion on the other hand) and negative effects ofpressure on standardization bodies and methods. ideologies on the process of standardization itself. Examples of this are the consensus principle which promotes C. Shift Towards Alliance Based Standardization and SDO compromises and multi-option standards, national Reform membership which increased politicization of standardizationAs mentioned, the above evolutions towards increased activities, the democracy principle allowing minorities totechnical complexity, increased number of stakeholders hijack the process, and the need for internationally recognizedcoming from more heterogeneous backgrounds, globalization standards which again results in more compromise orientedand a regulatory context of liberalization and competition- activities [4]:113-116. Finally, in 1996 David and Shurmeroriented policies, have changed the way in which standards identified the following difficulties for formal SDOs,come about. As a first consequence, criticism grew on the concluding that these occasion “profound doubts as to the longformal SDOs, of which the decision making procedures were term sustainability of an institutional regime founded on theincreasingly considered slow and cumbersome, at a time when present set of industry-based SDOs” [28]:more and more standards were needed to enable and • Potential bias towards less innovative solutions due to needinterconnect converging networks and services contributed to of consensus,by a very large array of actors. As a consequence, other, • Difficulties due to large growth in number of participants:seemingly more dynamic ways of standardization are paradox of increased need for interoperability versus anincreasingly explored. As Sherif puts it: “It is widely believed increased complexity of reaching it; many SDOs still havethat formal standards bodies are less responsive to market a sphere of expertise and membership structure based on aneeds than industrial associations or consortia. This belief has limited number of incumbents,had at least two consequences. First, there has been an • Globalization and convergence have increased theunprecedented increase in the number of ad hoc groups to economic stakes of telecommunications, increasing thepromote specific technologies. Second, some traditional risk of antagonized vested interests and the deliberatestandards-developing organisations have fallen out of favour slowing down of standardization processes,and have reduced their activities” [24]. Van Wegberg • Convergence causes uncertainty with regard to thesummarizes the drawbacks of SDOs as follows: ‘jurisdiction’ of SDOs in closely related areas.
  5. 5. #1569123664 5The criticisms on formal SDOs gave rise to two evolutions, formal standards as a basis for their work, many privateone being the proliferation of standardization consortia, and consortia take long a long time to revise their initial standards,the other the reform of SDOs procedures to better fit industry and little are free of delayed or cancelled standards. Finally,needs. For what the first tendency is concerned, David and not all private organisations are free of political influence: theShurmer distinguish two strategies. At one extreme, there is example mentioned by Sherif is that of the Internetthe de facto standardization performed by non-cooperative, Engineering Task Force (IETF), which has been described ascompetitive industrial players, which, in the absence of the an “open and democratic forum”, but which has been heavilyneed for a regulated solution, may provide a rapid and influenced by the US Department of Defense, and of theefficient mechanism for selecting a technology and gaining related Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbersmomentum for it. Often, one major player introduces a (ICANN), which was authorized by the US Department oftechnology and creates a so-called bandwagon effect, causing Commerce to oversee domain name assignment andearly adopters to take on the system and alternative provider to registration processes, and has been criticized of not beingintegrate the proprietary specifications into their products democratic [24]. Finally, David and Shurmer add someand/or services. A second option consists in the formation of additional relevant concerns with regard to private consortia:private standardization consortia. According to David and • Duplication of efforts by rival groups,Shurmer, more than 400 such private organisations existed in • No single standards for certain technologies (e.g. divergingthe US alone by the early 1930s. Often these consortia have cellular technology standards in the US and New Zealand,cooperation agreements with formal SDOs; however, more different co-existing DVD standards),and more these SDOs are simply by-passed, and standards • Potentially high start-up costs,agreed upon by a private consortium are directly passed on to • Loss of specialized administrative and proceduralthe market for de facto ratification –that is, acceptance through expertise,uptake. Unlike technocratic formal or professional • Prioritization of profit driven private interests over publiccommittees, which are described as “collective attempts to interests (e.g. in technology choices made),achieve consensus in a collaborative professional effort” • Lack of openness and democracy: free and equal access to[15]:61, business interests have a very central role in these committee meetings, access and feedback channels to draftconsortia, and industry-wide consensus on the technical recommendations, possibility for non-exclusive licensingsolution is not primordial. Often, these types of consortia of technologies at reasonable rates and restrictions on thedirectly compete with others, such as in the recent cases of use of monetary side-payments for speeding up consensus,HD-DVD (supported by Toshiba, NEC, Sanyo, Microsoft, • Lack of continued support for legacy standards andRCA, Intel, Kenwood and others) versus BluRay technologies provision of backwards compatibility,(promoted by Sony, Hitachi, LG, Panasonic, Philips, • If coupled to recognition by formal SDOs, inferior qualitySamsung, Sharp, Dell, HP and others) and WiMAX versus formal standards.LTE. Some of the advantages of these types of consortia In summary, whereas a clear tendency towards de factoidentified by David and Shurmer, which contribute to the standardization by private consortia can be noted, this strategyflexibility and speed of the standardization process, are: too is not without its deficiencies. The second way that • Membership, internal organization and procedures tailored criticisms on formal SDOs have been dealt with, is to reform to the objectives of the group, of SDOs themselves, in order to create rules and procedures • More adapted to ICT standardization characterized by that better fit the needs of converged IT and telecoms short product cycles, faster change and inherently more industries. A good typology of the different mechanisms at collaborative R&D-styled standardization tradition (as play is again provided by David and Shurmer, who locate the opposed to traditional SDO diversity reduction activities first of these reforms already in the early 1980s, and among several existing technologies), distinguish between three types of changes. Firstly, procedural • Flexibility to dispense with rules and guidelines that slow reforms have been undertaken. These include, for example, the the decision making process, strengthening of committee support; the introduction of new • Less political intervention, project information management systems and new production • More financial resources than formal SDOs [28]. techniques, by-passing of the SDO’s General Assembly forThese advantages attributed to industrial consortia are widely certain approval procedures or increase of Generalmentioned in the literature. However, a lot of criticism also Assemblies’ meeting frequency; speeding up and streamliningexists as to the ideological bias of statements, which hail SDO of Technical Committee procedures for deliberating, drafting,by-pass strategies to the detriment of formal SDO public comment and revision stages; and introduction of e-standardization. Egyedi has already been mentioned in this mail and internet deliberation in order to drive down meetingrespect; Similarly, Sherif argues that “unqualified statements costs.on the benefit of one type of standardization over another are A second category of reforms is related to new modes ofessentially ideological statements that, in the current context, coordination and cooperation between different SDOs. Astend to favor deregulation, privatization, and the mentioned, many jurisdictional problems have arisen betweenestablishment of unfettered markets”. According to the author, global, regional or sectoral bodies with different backgroundsthe need for rapid standardization is ultimately dependent on and memberships. While fearing that “there will be furtherwhether it concerns radical, substitutive technologies with intensification of the already dysfunctional jurisdictionallong lead times for development or deployment, or more competition and inter-organisational turf battles”, David andincremental innovations. Moreover, many consortia use Shurmer do see considerable effort in SDOs to coordinate
  6. 6. #1569123664 6their activities, and to find ways of cooperating with private are fully aware of this, and wish to maximize the potential ofconsortia, for example by formally approving specifications their technologies by taking advantage of as much qualities asfirst drafted inside these private organisations (which for possible: on the one hand, they want a rapid and streamlinedexample was tested with Digital Video Broadcasting standards process leading to a quality standard that is accepted inin ETSI), or to bring more flexible, rapid standardization practice and even accredited or mandated by official bodies;structures directly under the umbrella of an SDO. on the other hand they are also keen on protecting intellectualA third and final domain of reform is the introduction or property rights introduced in the standard, maximizing therefinement of mechanisms for conflict resolution. Here, the rents derived from these property rights and having maximumfour key strategies identified are: sacrificing the strict impact on the market. Also, companies are aware thatconsensus principle (e.g. by introducing weighted majority standardization bodies –even if they strive to be globalizedvoting); standardizing ahead of the market (i.e. before and holistic– still often have a background in a specific sectorconsiderable costs have been incurred by partners and before (IT, telecommunications, broadcasting or other) and a specificmuch is known about the possible market impacts for certain region, and may not in themselves have the capacity tosolutions compared to others); incomplete standards-setting provide standards that are universally acceptable, or that cover(creating meta-standards or high level performance-oriented all aspects of a technology.standards); and altering participants’ intellectual property For these reasons our hypothesis is that, beyond linear formalrights in order to increase incentives for industrial partners to standardization, the drive towards industrial consortia and thestart up SDO trajectories [28]. related transformation of traditional organisations, standardization is evolving towards a third, new stage, actively D. Towards Multi-layered Standardization and simultaneously combining the merits and weaknesses ofAs the sections above have demonstrated, the complexity of both formal and de facto standardization. This standardizationtelecommunications standardization has significantly strategy acknowledges that different aspects of a standardincreased over the past years. Numerous factors have been might need to be standardized in different bodies, at differentmentioned which contribute to this increased complexity: moments in the research, development and deployment cycleconvergence of previously separated heterogeneous of a product or service, and possibly in different regions. Ittechnologies, markets and companies; globalization; and also presumes that a successful standard might not only needliberalization and competition policies breaking up the vertical technical quality and industrial support, but often also regionalintegration between equipment, carrier infrastructure, service or global acceptance and political support, and that neitherprovision and regulation and causing a proliferation of formal SDOs, nor industrial consortia are able to provide thesecompanies to take into account and technologies to in equal measures. In other words, we hypothesize thatstandardize and interconnect. These trends have put the standardization has become a multi-layered process, not onlytraditional, formal SDOs under pressure, and have caused a characterized by its multi-dimensionality but also by itspartial transfer of standardization activities to private complexity and lack of certainty. As technologies enter theconsortia, which with their higher degree of flexibility and standardization phase –or better said, multiple concurrent orspeed are deemed more appropriate to respond to an ever subsequent standardization trajectories– very early onwards inhigher need for standardization of products and services with their development and far ahead of the market, very little isever shorter product life cycles. Many SDOs, in their turn, known about the possible market impacts of design choiceshave responded by adapting their membership, rules and made, and stakeholders participating in the standardizationprocedures, in order to move away from standardization cycles process have difficulties in estimating what choices wouldtaking more than four years on average; weighted majority serve their interest best. Moreover, in a multi-layeredvoting, increased support systems and changed IPR rules standardization context companies might be confronted bystrengthen this process. Also, SDOs spend significant effort in diverging alliances in the different standardization bodies; forfinding a modus vivendi with other formal SDOs as well as example, while one might be a private consortium with rootswith private consortia and other standardization bodies, in the IT sector and dominated by US based firms, anothersometimes taking the role of “official validator” of standards might be a European telecommunications oriented formalfirst developed within the private sphere, in other instances standardization body. Companies might be forced to beinternalizing alternative working methods within their own simultaneously active in these different bodies, but could alsoorganization. be absent from one or the other, causing alliances to beIn spite of all these measures, standardization complexity has radically different and the outcome of the process even morenot decreased, and jurisdictional tensions between uncertain.standardization bodies (both formal and informal, both The multi-track standardization activity with regard to thegeographical and sectoral) have not disappeared. As has been Cognitive Pilot Channel constitutes an interesting potentialdemonstrated above, both formal and de facto SDOs have example of this new evolution. As shall be shown below, thetheir strengths and their weaknesses; qualities such as speed, standardization of this technology takes place in multipleopenness (in membership, access to draft documents, contexts that are, amongst other things, different in geography,standards and meetings, IPR arrangements etc.), orientation type of body, membership, accessibility and objective. As willtowards consensus, technical quality, acceptance rate and so be shown, efforts are being made to delineate as well as alignon are different from one body to the next and, despite all the different trajectories. Also, the CPC is a good example of aideological claims, rarely do all these characteristics unite in technology that is entering standardization far ahead of marketone specific organization. Companies wanting to standardize introduction. In the absence of definitive design choices for
  7. 7. #1569123664 7the CPC, this paper will introduce some potential options, and opportunistic RATs may use varying frequencies dependingshow what the market impact (in this case the possible on their availability, e.g. by using spread spectrum techniques.revenue sharing models, and the feasibility and desirability of The paradox here is that, in an environment where regulatorsthese models) could be. increasingly make use of market based methods, where reconfigurable systems decentralize decision-making to a III. THE CASE OF THE COGNITIVE PILOT CHANNEL significant degree and where real-time mechanisms for dynamic spectrum management are used, certain inherent A. Introduction risks and challenges could necessitate the introduction of new, centralized instruments of coordination and control. In [41],In this section, we will apply the insights gained above to the where these central controlling entities are discussed in morerelatively recent trend towards Flexible Spectrum detail, five risk domains are distinguished where these entitiesManagement, by analysing the recently initiated might prove necessary (based on an earlier analysis ofstandardization –and concurrent regulatory- process of one of potential secondary market failure performed by Xavier andits potential key enablers, the Cognitive Pilot Channel (CPC). Ypsilanti [29]) 1) an information deficit; 2) interference; 3) aFlexible Spectrum Management (FSM), used as a concept lack of coordination and harmonization of frequencies; 4)pointing to a set of new and dynamic procedures and anti-competitive behaviour; and 5) threats to the publictechniques for obtaining and transferring spectrum usage interest and consumer protection issues. Regarding the firstrights and dynamically changing the specific use of risk domain (viz. the information deficit), different types offrequencies, plays an important role in fully exploiting the controlling entities can be envisaged, some of which alreadyadvantages of cognitive, reconfigurable networks and exist; examples mentioned in [41] include central registers ofterminals. It is therefore strongly linked to the development of spectrum availability, license ownership and rights of use,cognitive radio (CR) and software defined radio (SDR) in databases of real-time spectrum occupancy (includingterms of research, standardization and regulation. secondary usage) GIS mappings of such data etc.As already mentioned in the introduction of this paper, what However, in a composite and dynamic radio environment, thiswe will argue in this section is that the standardization of the information deficit may become even more acute. InCPC constitutes a good example of the complex, synchronous, particular, as radio frequency usage becomes highly complexmulti-layered collaboration process towards innovation in and variable in terms of frequency and bandwidth as well aswireless telecommunications. At the same time, we posit that Radio Access Technology (RAT) used for a given service at athe way in which protocols and interfaces for the CPC are given time and in a given space, cognitive radio terminals –standardized, and the specific harmonization of bands for it, although able to reconfigure themselves in order to connect tomay have a significant impact on the market deployment of all these different RATs on various frequency bands- maythe CPC itself and of the networks and services enabled by it. experience significant difficulties in locating wireless servicesTo be clear, this part of the analysis shall be exploratory in in the first place. In order to get knowledge of its radionature: since the CPC standardization process has only just environment, cognitive radios might simply scan the entirebegun, technology choices are yet to be made and political or spectrum or significant parts of it, but most probably thisindustrial alliances to be formed; even the concept in itself is process would be far too power- and time consuming to befar from being accepted. However, we consider it worthwhile efficient. Therefore, a new type of central controlling entity isto make an ex ante analysis of what the consequences of currently under research, which could be considered as anfuture choices with regard to the CPC could be, as an advanced, active registry: the Cognitive Pilot Channel (CPC).alternative to the more common ex post evaluations of This concept consists in using an invariable radio link tostandardization processes, precisely because so much is still convey, in real-time, all necessary information to terminalsunknown and so many different directions could still be taken concerning the available frequency bands, RATs, services,in its eventual deployment. load situation, network policies, etc., so that terminals can beBelow, we will first explain the concept of the CPC. Then, an reconfigured to connect to whatever service available onoutline will be given of the regulatory process towards the whatever frequency. Moreover, CPC-distributed policies2011 ITU World Radio Conference, followed by an analysis could help to manage composite networks by imposing certainof the multi-level standardization process currently set up for constraints upon terminals, while at the same time potentiallythe CPC. Finally we shall reflect on the possible consequences allowing terminals to dynamically make use of whatever RATof standardization en harmonization on the market structure fits the requested service best (in terms of bandwidth, qualityand business models for the CPC itself and FSM-enabled of service, price etc.). Therefore, the CPC may not only bewireless networks and services. considered as a potential new controlling entity in the B. CPC concept telecommunications ecosystem, but as a crucial environment-The concepts of Flexible Spectrum Management and knowledge enabler for the Cognitive system in a multi-Radioreconfigurability carry the potential to significantly enhance Access Technologies (RATs) and dynamic spectrumspectrum efficiency. In particular, underused frequencies can allocation context [30].be leased or sold to parties which value these frequencies In the current state-of-the-art of the concept, the CPC wouldmore, secondary use may be allowed if it does not cause operate in a certain geographical area subdivided into meshes.excessive interference, radio access technologies (RATs) A mesh is defined as an area where certain radio-electricaloperating on these frequencies may be changed, and commonalities can be identified (e.g. a certain frequency that is detected with a power above a certain level in all the points
  8. 8. #1569123664 8of the mesh etc.). The mesh is defined by its geographiccoordinates, and its size would depend on the minimumspatial resolution where the mentioned commonalities can beidentified. Figure 1 illustrates the concept [31]. Figure 1: CPC meshesThree variants of the CPC are under study. The first is theGlobal/Public Advertiser CPC, where a single, previouslynon-existant operator would deploy an infrastructure to Figure 2: Four deployment models for CPCtransmit RAT and frequency information for all operators in agiven mesh. This CPC would preferably use a dedicated, As mentioned, the CPC as a concept is currently still in auniversal frequency, making it accessible regardless of the research phase; for a general, up-to-date overview we refer todeployed RATs available or the country or region in which [30] as well as to [32], while [33]-[40] provide furtherthe terminal is located. From a business/regulatory technical background. Also, Delaere and Ballon have alreadyperspective, this type of CPC could be run by a government performed exploratory business-model oriented research as toagency (regulatory option), by one designated operator (under possible deployment configurations and revenue sharingstrict rules), or by multiple operators in a competitive setting. options [41][42][43]. However, at the recent ITU 2007 WorldThe second variant of the CPC is the Private Advertiser CPC, Radio Conference, the issue of the CPC was put on the agendain which the CPC falls under the domain of the existing for WRC-11, effectively initiating a regulatory roadmap for it,operators. This solution does not need a dedicated frequency and different components of the concept are part of currentand infrastructure, but reduces discoverability of the CPC as standardization activities. Below, we shall give a shortwell as possibilities for DSA in the country or region where it overview of the current regulatory context and standardizationis deployed. From a business perspective, two subvariants are process underway, focussing on the two main areas ofpossible: a ‘pure’ operator model on the one hand, and an standardization activity, i.e. that within IEEE and ETSI.association model on the other hand, in which an operatordeploys a CPC but allows complementary RATs from other C. Regulatory contextoperators to be advertized on it. The third and final variant A worldwide implementation of the public CPC in the samewould be a hierarchical solution, combining both an upper- frequency channel –which would constitute the optimallevel, single CPC on a harmonized frequency and several solution for maximizing the benefits of a CPC whilelower-level, operator-based CPCs. The four options (operator, minimizing the complexity by not having take into accountassociation, intermediary and hierarchical) are shown in regional, national or even sub-national CPC frequencies–Figure 2 [30][31]. requires not only standardization but also regulatory activity. A worldwide implementation requires an appropriate decision taken by a World Radio Conference (WRC) modifying the Radio Regulation (RR) of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU). WRCs convene every four years and the agenda of a WRC is decided at the previous one. Often, a decision on including a particular item is taken at the second WRC where this item is discussed. To prepare such potential agenda setting, work was undertaken from 2006 to initiate a Question on Cognitive Radio within the ITU. In the ITU-R context, a question is defined as a “statement of a technical, operational or procedural problem, generally seeking a Recommendation” [44]. Recommendations in their turn are defined as international technical standards developed by the Radiocommunication Sector of the ITU, which are approved by the Member States and which, while not mandatory, enjoy a relatively high status and are widely implemented [45].In September 2006, the question was approved. With regard to
  9. 9. #1569123664 9the CPC, it is important to note that subquestion 2 of this and be aware of their environment” into the capacity to “gaindocument includes “reconfigurable radio, policy-defined knowledge on that environment”, so that assisting, centraladaptive radio and their associated control mechanisms and controlling entities are also included) as well as a descriptiontheir functionalities that may be a part of cognitive radio of the concept of cognitive networks, mentioning that thesesystems” (own emphasis) as objects of study. The question networks enable the introduction of a cognition radio enabler,further resolves to include the results of the studies performed such as the CPC [52][53][54]. However, as mentioned, thein one or more recommendations, reports or handbooks, and deadline of 2010 for completion of the report leaves manysets the deadline for these studies at the year 2010, thereby questions unanswered. The figure below represents themaking WRC-11 the first potential forum for introducing hypothetical regulatory path for the CPC in the coming years.regulatory change [46]. Then, in June 2007, a contributionfrom France Télécom was filed which specifically introducedthe CPC concept into the work of ITU-R 8A [47]. Thiscontribution stemmed from the EU research project E2RII andhad the support of project partners such as Motorola, Nokia,Alcatel Lucent, Telefonica and Telecom Italia. As aconsequence, the CPC was included as a related radiotechnology in the working document which was to lead to adraft report, and a detailed explanation was added as an annex[48].The most recent meeting of ITU-R 8, which changed intoITU-R WP5A following an internal restructuring of activities,was held in February 2008. Meanwhile, however, effortsshifted towards the upcoming 2007 WRC. In July 2007, theEuropean Conference of Postal and TelecommunicationsAdministrations (CEPT) submitted a proposal to put the CPC Figure 3: Potential CPC regulatory roadmapconcept on the agenda for the 2011 edition of the WRC, and Besides the very early, specific regulatory steps describedCEPT members promoted this agenda item in the discussions above with regard to the Cognitive Pilot Channel, one alsothat took place at the WRC-07 (October-November 2007, needs to take into account the more general regulatoryGeneva). At the same time, a number of Arab States, via evolutions towards more flexible forms of spectrumagenda item 1.10, introduced their own proposal with regard management which, for example, introduce secondary tradingto cognitive radio studies, putting more emphasis on SDR of spectrum frequencies, flexible use of spectrum (by which isaspects. As a result of the ensuing negotiations, in which the meant that the specific RAT to be used on a certain frequencyNetherlands administration allegedly played an important is no longer prescribed in the spectrum license), andmediating role, the approved agenda of the WRC-11 proposes secondary use of frequencies. An overview of the European“to consider regulatory measures and their relevance to context in this regard, including the WAPECS initiative, asenable the introduction of software defined radio and well as evolutions in the US and a number of EU Membercognitive radio systems based on the results of ITU-R States, is provided in [43]. With regard to policies towardsstudies”, indicating with regard to the CPC that “some studies FSM, this paper concluded that, while there is a clear shift ofindicate a possible need for a worldwide harmonized policy focus from the command-and-control model to morecognitive supporting pilot channel (…) whilst other studies market based forms of spectrum management, otherindicate that the availability of a database could support mechanisms have not been abandoned, and no consensusaccess and connectivity, and therefore support the use of these exists among regulators as to what constitutes the optimumsystems” . However, it needs to be noted that wired or wireless balance between them. In view of this existing work we shallaccess to some form of database is also mentioned as a not go into these evolutions here; however, it is clear thatpotential alternative to the CPC [30][49][50][51]. these changing policies –as well as the relatively slow pace atFollowing the inclusion of this agenda item to WRC-11, which these changes occur and the considerable resistancestudies are now to be carried out between 2007 and 2011 at against some of them– play an important role in relation to theCEPT and ITU levels so that appropriate proposals can be (lack of) development of cognitive, reconfigurableconsidered and possibly endorsed by WRC. Although telecommunications networks and services in general, and todifferent Study Groups are concerned (SG1 and SG3 to SG7) the scope of application and the potential success of theand different relevant Questions are being studied (e.g. Cognitive Pilot Channel in particular.Question ITU-R 230-1/8 on Software Defined Radio), with D. Standardization of the CPCspecific regard to the CPC this first and foremost concerns thework within ITU-R WP5A mentioned above [51]. Relevant As was mentioned already, different standardization tracksaccepted contributions made so far with regard to the CPC have been set up for the CPC, in conjunction with theinclude a proposal by Alcatel-Lucent, France Telecom, regulatory roadmap 2006-2015. The most important of theseMotorola, Telecom Italia and the administration of The are the IEEE’s P1900.4 SCC41 committee, which started as aNetherlands to alter the definition of “Cognitive Radio Study Group in September 2006 and in evolved into aSystems” in such a way that it would better fit the CPC Working Group in the Spring of 2007, and the ETSI RRSconcept (re-wording the capability for radio systems to “sense committee, which initiated as an ad-hoc group on SDR and
  10. 10. #1569123664 10CR in May 2007 and was upgraded to a committee in January an overview of standardization activities in relation to the2008. Both activities will be discussed here. Figure 4 provides regulatory roadmap of the CPC. Figure 4: Overview of CPC standardization and regulation roadmaps projects under development [56]. In the typology ofAs will be shown below, the discussed platforms for CPC Krechmer, the IEEE-SA is defined as a Standards Settingstandardization differ from each other in quite a number of Organisation (SSO) on the same level as, for example, ETSIaspects, of which the most important are: 1) timing; 2) or ANSI, because it is directly or indirectly recognized by ageography; 3) member structure; 4) scope of work; 5) nature government (and in that sense is to be distinguished fromof the standard. These variables to a great extent explain the industrial consortia) [18]. Egyedi however –along with manychosen strategy of initiating these multiple parallel other scholars– differentiates the IEEE as a de factostandardization tracks. standardization body which, unlike de iure bodies (such as 1) In IEEE SCC41 ETSI), operates outside of official, national or regionalThe Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE, administration related SSOs [4]:5-6. Then again, thenow only referred to by its acronym due to the considerable distinguishing notion of “official recognition” is a vague oneexpansion in other than the original domains of expertise) is a since IEEE standards are widely distributed, and the IEEE-SAprofessional, not-for-profit organization established in 1963 as has strategic relationships with the IEC, ISO and ITU, as wella merger of the Institute of Radio Engineers (IRE, 1923) and as satisfying all SDO requirements set by the World Tradethe American Institute of Electrical Engineers (AIEE, 1884). Organization [56]. Equally, although IEEE is a US nationalA United States based organization in principle, the 900-staff organisation in origin and is accredited as such by theIEEE now counts more than 375,000 members in more than American National Standards Institute [57]:91, this160 countries, grouped in 324 geographical sections, 1,784 geographical distinction is no longer tenable since the IEEE,local chapters, 38 subject-related societies, 7 technical as mentioned, is internationally oriented in its activities andcouncils and 390 affinity groups (data of end 2007) [55]. membership, its standards are often applied worldwide [1]:9- 10. Because of this confusion, Egyedi rightly introduces aBesides the publication of 144 journals and the yearly specific type of de facto standards called grey standards, ofsponsoring of more than 850 conferences, the IEEE is also which professional organisations such as the IEEE areactive in standardization through its IEEE Standards important providers. Grey standards are defined as “publiclyAssociation (IEEE-SA). It develops global industry standards available or accessible multi-party specifications, which areon a wide range of topics, including power and energy, developed with a multi-vendor intention”, which distinguishesbiomedical and health care, information technology, them from proprietary de facto standards developed withintransportation, nanotechnology and information assurance. industry consortia and later ‘imposed’ onto the market. [4]:6).More than 20,000 people contribute to the standards portfolio Finally, when following the typology of De Vries, developedof IEEE-SA, which currently counts 1,300 standards and
  11. 11. #1569123664 11as a consequence of his critique on formal versus informal and this group was to complete work by the end of 2007 and tonational versus international standardization typologies, one initiate the IEEE sponsor balloting process at that timecould describe IEEE-SA as a sectoral standardization [58][59]. The official purpose of SCC41 1900.4 is defined asorganisation, to be distinguished from consortia, “to improve overall composite capacity and quality of servicegovernmental organisations and company standardization, and of wireless systems in a multiple Radio Access Technologiesdefined as “standardization set by an organization that unites (RATs) environment, by defining an appropriate systemparties in a certain branch of business” [1]:11. architecture and protocols which will facilitate the optimization of radio resource usage, in particular, byStandardization activity in the IEEE typically takes place exploiting information exchanged between network andwithin Working Groups. These are initiated after an IEEE- mobile Terminals, whether or not they support multipleapproved organization has taken up sponsorship of a standard, simultaneous links and dynamic spectrum access.” [60].and the IEEE-SA standards board has reviewed and approveda Project Authorization Request. After a standard is drafted To work towards this objective, three reference use cases ofand approved within the Working Group, it goes into a the P1900.4 system have been defined: a) Dynamic Spectrumballoting process in which all interested members of IEEE-SA, Assignment, i.e. the dynamic assignment of frequencies to aas well as entities that have paid a balloting fee, may vote on given RAT within a composite network for a given space andthe proposal. There is a quorum of 75 percent (of those time; b) Dynamic Spectrum Access, i.e. the dynamic access byindividuals and entities which expressed their interest in the different RATs to a given set of overlapping frequenciesstandard at the beginning of the activity), and an approval rate without excessive interference and with or withoutof 75 percent of votes cast. Upon approval, the standard is negotiation; and c) Distributed Radio Resource Usagethen reviewed by the IEEE-SA Standards Board Review Optimisation, i.e. an optimized use of spectrum by differentCommittee and receives a final vote from the IEEE-SA RATs in a composite network by distributing decision-makingStandards Board [55]. Although every individual is able to intelligently between networks and terminals. On this basis, acontribute to a standard, the membership and balloting fees number of system requirements were collected, and three(almost USD 4,000 for entities), and the registration fees and crucial system entities defined:travel costs for Working Groups do constitute a significant • The Network Reconfiguration Manager (NRM), managingbarrier for smaller organizations and individuals. the Composite Wireless Network and terminals for network-terminal-distributed optimization of spectrumThe standardization of the CPC within IEEE was initiated usage,through the creation of a new Working Group P1900.4 within • The Terminal Reconfiguration Manager (TRM), managingthe P1900 Standards Group, dealing with “New Generation the terminal for network-terminal-distributed optimizationRadio Standards”. This Standards Group was established in of spectrum usage within the framework defined by theearly 2005 under joint sponsorship of the IEEE NRM and in a manner consistent with user preferences andCommunications Society and the IEEE Electromagnetic available context information,Society, with the objective to develop supporting standards • The Radio Enabler (RE) used as a logical communicationdealing with new technologies and techniques being channel between NRM and TRM.developed for next generation radio and advanced spectrum It is this last component, which may run over one or moremanagement. Three earlier Working Groups were already existing (or dedicated) RATs, that constitutes the Cognitivedealing with Standard Definitions and Concepts for Dynamic Pilot Channel. These entities, extended by additional ones onSpectrum Access (P1900.1), Recommended Practice for the terminal and RAN side (in either case an entity forAnalysis of In-Band and Adjacent Band Interference and reconfiguration control and an entity for measurementsCoexistence Between Radio Systems (P1900.2) and with a collection) have subsequently been integrated into a SystemStandard for Assessing the Spectrum Access Behavior of Architecture, and functional requirements for them have beenRadio Systems Employing Dynamic Spectrum Access Methods listed. As a further refinement, a functional architecture based(P1900.3). After a meeting in May 06 (Hannover, Germany) on these functional requirements has been introduced.between IEEE representatives, the P1900 and P1900.3 Subsequently, an Information Model has been elaboratedchairmen and interested parties, a Study Group (SG) P1900.B which is to match the requirements of the System andwas set up in September of that year, which was more Functional architecture, is to be extensible and flexible, notspecifically oriented to the overall system architecture of overly complex, and making use of platform and technology-cognitive radio systems. A few months later, in December 06, independent information and data type definitions. Finally,a PAR was approved and in February 07 P1900.B was scenario examples are given to show how the NRM managesupgraded to a Working Group entitled “Architectural Building the TRM via the RE, by performing operationsBlocks Enabling Network-Device Distributed Decision (read/set/create/delete) on a number of well-defined objects inMaking for Optimized Radio Resource Usage in the system. It should be noted that the actual execution ofHeterogeneous Wireless Access Networks”. One month later, reconfiguration operations on the network or terminal side,IEEE P1900 was reorganized into the Standards Coordination based on the choice made by NRM or TRM, is outside of theCommittee 41 (SCC 41), Dynamic Spectrum Access project’s scope, as are the protocols needed for theseNetworks (DySPAN). Again, the IEEE Communications operations [61][62][63].Society and EMC Society are sponsoring societies for this After successful working group internal letter ballot in JulyCommittee. Like all Working Groups under SCC41, WG 08, it was expected that a sponsor ballot on the 1900.41900.4 continued its work under this name. The objective of
  12. 12. #1569123664 12Baseline Document would start in August 08. As of July 08, The recognition of ETSI by the European Commission as wellthe Working Group consisted of 21 voting members. A large as by the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) implies anumber of these were/are participants in the European E2R II number of ‘official’ responsibilities. One well-known exampleand E3 projects (e.g. Motorola, France Telecom, Alcatel- is the set of harmonized standards (currently over 270) thatLucent, Toshiba Research Europe, King’s College London, ETSI has released in pursuit of the Commission’s Radio andthe Universities of Athens and of Piraeus and the Polytechnic Telecommunications Terminal Equipment DirectiveUniversity of Catalunya). A significant part of the other (R&TTD) of 1999. It is this set of standards that allowsmembers is from Japanese origin (e.g. NICT, Tokyo equipment manufacturers to self-declare conformity of theirUniversity of Science, Hitachi, KDDI, NEC, ISB Corporation, products and introduce them in all European markets. AnotherKozo Keikaku Engineering and Worldpicom). Other members important point of interaction is the use of mandates by theare, e.g., Intel and BAE systems [58]. Commission and by EFTA in order to develop standards in 2) In ETSI TC RRS line with European policies. Since 1996, 49 such mandatesThe European Telecommunications Standardization Institute have been forwarded to ETSI [14]. Taking all the above into(ETSI) is a European regional standardization organisation for account, we can conclude that ETSI is a formal, de iureInformation and Communication Technologies. It was standardization organization. Note that, as Egyedi points out,established in 1988 by the Conférence Européenne des de iure does not mean that standards must imperatively beAdministrations des Postes et des Télécommunications applied since ETSI, as most formal bodies, works towards(CEPT), the organisation of European postal and telecoms consensus-based, voluntary standards. Like IEEE, ETSI isadministrations. CEPT did this at the incitement of the regional in nature but supersedes this level through its dailyEuropean Commission, whose Directorate-General XIII activities and membership [4]:5; [1]: 9-11. This membership(Telecommunications, Information Industries and Innovation) includes network operators, manufacturers, consultants,had proposed the creation of the organisation in its 1987 national standardization organisations and administrations, butGreen Paper on Telecommunications; the Commission itself also service providers, universities, public research bodies andtook up the position of Counsellor and could influence ETSI’s user associations. For the latter three categories, as well as forpriorities through the use of mandates; yet it was not until micro-enterprises, reduced membership fees apply, whereas1992 that the organization was officially recognized as a for large companies and administrations contributions areEuropean SSO. Egyedi interestingly notes that, while ETSI determined by turnover and country GDP respectively [14].was primarily oriented towards DG XIII in its first years, The standardization activities of ETSI take place inside‘competing’ organisations CEN/CENELEC focused on DG III Technical Committees, Special Committees, Projects and(Internal Market and Industrial Affairs) which preferred the Partnership Projects. A Technical Committee (TC) is definednational sub-structure of the latter bodies, a structure ETSI, as a “semi-permanent entity organized around a number ofwith its direct individual membership and clear European standardization activities addressing a specific technologyoutlook, clearly (and consciously) lacked; this, at least partly, area”. TCs may have different Working Groups, which inexplains why ETSI was able to be established as an their turn discuss one or more Work Items. These Work Itemsindependent organisation. Later, the three bodies would are inserted into ETSI’s Work Programme. During the work,conclude a “CEN-CENELEC-ETSI Basic Cooperation consensus is sought but weighted, secret balloting is alsoAgreement for the Handling of Technical Work”, thereby possible, in which case 71 percent of votes is needed (or 71streamlining a cohesive European standardization [4][64]. As percent of full member votes in a second round); however, nowith the IEEE, ETSI has local roots and enjoys official quorum applies. Eventually, the work of a Technicalrecognition on a regional level, but has since its establishment Committee (as other Technical Bodies) results in Europeangrown into a global standardization organisation, counting Standards (EN), Harmonised Standards, ETSI standards, ETSIalmost 700 member organisations from 62 countries. This guides, Technical Specifications, Technical Reports, Specialinternational outlook is evidenced first and foremost by the Reports and Group Specifications. For the approval of theseglobal application of some of ETSI’s standards such as GSM, different types of deliverables, diverging and complexthe SIM card, DECT, TETRA, xDSL and DVB. Secondly, regulations exist which fall outside the scope of this paperETSI has a permanent representation in China and contributes [65].to several collaboration projects with Latin America. Finally, The work of ETSI regarding the Cognitive Pilot Channel willbut equally important, the organisation has partnership take place in a newly established Technical Committee onagreements with the International Electrotechnical Reconfigurable Radio Services (RRS). Following a workshopCommission (IEC), the International Standards Organisation on SDR and Cognitive Radio in February 07, the ETSI Board(ISO) and with the ITU, and keeps formal links with 3GPP, decided to establish the SDR/CR ad hoc group, in order toEMTEL, MESA, ICANN and GSC. Within Europe, ETSI has evaluate the potential for standardization on these topics andsigned a Memorandum of Understanding with National propose orientation to the Board. The ad hoc group held itsStandardization Organisations (NSOs) in 36 countries, first meeting in May 07 and decided to draft a report analyzingregulating, among other things, the flow of information SDR/CR requirements and standardization opportunities, andbetween the bodies, the standstill procedure (obliging NSOs making recommendations to the Board. Among other things,not to undertake standardization activity which could the report –completed in September 07– called for morejeopardise the preparation of European harmonized standards) support from Members for the effort and suggested that theand the transposition of these standards into national ones. outcome of WRC07 would first be awaited. Therefore, the ETSI Board approved the establishment of the TC RRS only
  13. 13. #1569123664 13in January 08, and the first meeting was held in Sophia IV. IMPACT OF CPC STANDARDIZATION ON MARKETAntipolis in March of this year [58][66]. As defined by its STRUCTURE AND BUSINESS MODELSTerms of Reference, the Committee’s primary tasks at thisstage are to 1) study the feasibility of standardization activities A. Introductionrelated to Reconfigurable Radio Systems; 2) collect and define In the sections above, we have given an overview of thethe related Reconfigurable Radio Systems requirements from transitions in telecommunications standardization, and haverelevant stakeholders; and 3) identify gaps, where existing outlined the different concurrent regulatory andETSI standards do not fulfil the requirements, and suggest standardization tracks of the Cognitive Pilot Channel as anfurther standardization activities to fill those gaps. example of this. It is clear that these trajectories are only in theDeliverables envisaged are Technical Reports and ETSI start-up phase, and that no definite design choices have beenguides, which are to be completed within 18-24 months. In made on which an analysis of potential business impacts canother words, actual ETSI standards on reconfigurability be performed. However, on a conceptual level it is possible toprincipally are not part of the committee’s current description outline at least some of the design choices for which aof work; rather than this, the focus is on the mere feasibility of decision will eventually have to be taken, and to use thesestandardization, requirements from stakeholders and design choices as the basis for an exploratory analysis ofshortcomings in current standardization material that would possible business impacts. For this paper, we have focused onlegitimize ETSI standardization [67]. how different deployment models might influence theAt the time of writing of this section, two meetings of ETSI relationships between different actors in theTC RRS have taken place. During the second meeting, which telecommunications ecosystem, focusing in particular on thewas held in Sophia Antipolis on 02-04.06.08, a Working revenue sharing models that are feasible when introducingGroup on Functional Architecture and Cognitive Pilot Channel certain CPC deployments. As shall become clear, differentwas set up [68] with the following responsibilities: deployments lead to different potential revenue sharing • To collect and define the system functionalities for models, not all of which are technically feasible, economically Reconfigurable Radio Systems. These system viable or strategically desirable. Therefore, after defining nine functionalities are e.g. related to Spectrum Management different CPC-enabled revenue sharing models, we will apply and Joint Radio Resource Management across the business model scorecard methodology to evaluate the heterogeneous access technologies, feasibility and desirability of these models. • To develop a Functional Architecture for Reconfigurable B. Flexible Spectrum Revenue Sharing Options Radio Systems including the defined system functionalities The CPC typology proposed in Section 4.5.1, which as building blocks, distinguishes between an Operator, Association, Intermediary • To describe key interfaces between these building blocks, and Hierarchical model, puts an emphasis on the different • To describe and analyze the concept of a Cognitive Pilot configurations that are possible for the CPC (e.g. with regard Channel as an enabler to support the management of the to which actors exchange data, how many CPCs would need to RRS including on how information on e.g. available radio be standardized and deployed, and how many RATs they need resources and network policies are distributed and how to to carry) and their impact on FS business models. However, take decisions based on this information, when considering the different ways in which value may be • To verify that the Functional Architecture and Cognitive created through the CPC, some other discriminating options Pilot Channel fulfils the requirements for Reconfigurable need to be taken into account. Radio Systems as defined in the WG SA – System Aspects. First, asset control and customer ownership need to beThe CPC aspects of this work will be dealt with in the context distinguished when considering different potential revenueof a specific Work Item on Cognitive Pilot Channel streams. Second, the various configurations identified earlierSpecification, which was set up during the same meeting [69]. need to be taken into account. Obviously, in the pure OperatorIts scope is to study the CPC as a means “to support and model no revenue sharing mechanism is needed, therefore thefacilitate end-to-end connectivity in a heterogeneous radio associated revenue model can be combined conceptually withaccess environment where technologies are used in a flexible the Association model, in which also a single operatorand dynamic manner in their spectrum allocation context”. operates the CPC. Therefore these configurations will beThis implies that technical work has now started, and a first summed up below as both being operator-based models.parallel WG meeting will take place in September 08. Two basic variables can be distinguished which may eachA clear differentiation needs to be made between the IEEE have three modes.1900 and ETSI work on CPC. Proposals so far seem to • Variable 1 is linked to the question of CPC control –i.e.indicate that, while IEEE focuses on Cognitive Radio aspects who deploys the CPC? The potential modes, related to theof Reconfigurable Systems (including context information FS business configurations identified earlier, are:gathering and autonomous terminal behaviour), the role of o Mode 1: a CPC is controlled by the operator, e.g. inETSI could lie more in the facilitation of the adoption of SDR both the operator-based models,equipment by industry, through the definition of interfaces o Mode 2: a CPC is controlled by both the operator andand APIs and –in a second stage– the through provision of an independent party (i.e. the hierarchical model),cognitive support functions such as context provisioning, o Mode 3: a CPC is controlled by an independentdecision making in terminals, etc. [70]. intermediary (i.e. the intermediary model).
  14. 14. #1569123664 14 • Variable 2 refers to the issue of customer ownership –i.e. CPC operator to get access to the services of this with whom does the end user have a contractual agreement operator as well as to those listed by partners of the and/or billing relationship? Again, the potential modes, operator association, and then may enter into a related to the FS business configurations identified earlier, contractual relationship with one of these partners are: offering one or more particular RATs. In a hierarchical o Mode 1: CPC customer ownership. In the operator- scenario, the end user pays both the independent CPC- based models, this implies that one operator deploys a operator and the operators of the listed RATs that this CPC, and that various other operators are present under end user chooses via the CPC. In an intermediary-based that CPC, but that the end user only has an agreement scenario, the end user similarly pays for the services of with the CPC-operating entity to get access to the an independent CPC operator, and for use of the RATs different RATs available under the association. The chosen, CPC-operator would then pay the RAT operators for o Mode 3: RAT customer ownership. In the operator- making their services available. In a hierarchical based scenarios, this means that the discovery of the scenario, this implies that the customer has a contract services offered by an association of operators happens with a CPC operator, to offer this customer favourable via the CPC of one particular operator, but that the end access to a host of operators via their CPCs, but does user does not pay the CPC operator but enters into an not have direct contact with these operators’ CPCs. In agreement with the operator of the RAT chosen. In a an intermediary-based scenario, the end user has an hierarchical scenario, similarly only the operator agreement with an independent CPC operator to get (deploying its own, second-level CPC and underlying Figure 5: FS Revenue Sharing Models direct access to the RATs of different operators listed RATs) is paid by the end user. In an intermediary- on this CPC. In the two latter variants, the CPC based scenario, the end-user also only pays the operator operator remunerates the RAT operators that it gives of the underlying RATs. In these three variants, the access to, RAT operators then compensate the CPC operator, or it o Mode 2: Mixed customer ownership. In the operator- is a subsidized entity. based models, this implies that the customer pays a

×