Simon Forge (SCF Associates Ltd.) - Sharing Spectrum

Sharing spectrum
– rethinking spectrum management
for the next hundred years

German media congress "Medientreffpunkt Mitteldeutschland 2012" Leipzig 08 May 2012

Simon Forge
SCF Associates Ltd
SCF Associates Ltd Simon Forge All rights reserved 2012

IS the crowded spectrum all a myth?

RURAL HI
On average, only slightly more than 5% of the USA use
radio spectrum is used nationally at any given time.
McHenry, Mark A., NSF Spectrum Occupancy Measurements
Project Summary, Vienna, VA. USA, Shared Spectrum Company,
15 Aug. 2005

SUBURBAN ust a
ity j icy ?
mscarc t pol
ectru agemen
y ’ s s p r m an
Is t o da f o u
ga cy o DENSE URBAN LOW
le use

Spectrum utilisation studies undertaken by the UK’s Ofcom indicate many
areas of the spectrum are not fully utilised, also the case in the USA
Source: OFCOM 2010 and Dettmer R, ‘Up the revolution’, IEE Review, May 2005, p. 44

Overall impacts
• Low spectrum utilization due to:-
– Overly specific, static allocations
– Long lags in adaptation to changing demand
– persistent channel assignments in services with
intermittent/irregular channel use
• Cause: regulators prioritise interference-free
channels for licensees rather than maximum use
• Solution: allocations become more generic - with
flexible use & least restrictive technical conditions,
more general authorizations, more shared access
spectrum

So what is ‘sharing spectrum’ ?
- all situations in which 2 or more users or wireless
applications are authorized to use the same
range of frequencies on a non-exclusive basis in
a defined sharing arrangement.

Shared Spectrum Access encompasses:
•License-exempt bands
•Bands shared by licensed and exempt
applications
•Licensed and light-licensed “commons”
•Any other possibility for multiple users to access
the radio spectrum without individual rights.

Some key approaches to sharing spectrum

•‘Hide’ signal such that it does not interfere

• Detect permanent or transient gaps (‘white spaces’) that avoid
interference (frequency, time) when/if no other user (Cognitive Radio)

•Place in a context where cannot interfere (multiplexing in
space/geography, direction, frequency, time…)

•Accept (some) interference and compensate

•PLUS agreements/ regulation:-

•Collective use – efficient sharing between licensed and
secondary licensed and also unlicensed operators (‘borrowers’)

•Co-operative/collaborative use (eg mesh) - user collaboration
co-ordinates other (unlicensed) users


Technologies that can change how spectrum may
be allocated

•Software Defined Radio (SDR)

•Cognitive radio (CR) and the white space /
‘borrowing’ opportunity

•Sharing concepts - direct spread spectrum /UWB
Replace raw
bandwidth •Directional multiplexing using multiple-input,
with multiple-output (MIMO) systems, phased arrays
computing •Mesh and ad hoc networks
power
•Compression: coding of signals in less bandwidth

•Bit rate encoding: number of bits per Hertz of
bandwidth transmitted.


Socio-economics, not technology, is driving spectrum
demand, led by mobile and its advance into consumer
broadband, globally Web
services Supply side:
Supply side: the computer and
broadcast media
consumer electronics
internet model
industry model

Demand side: New business model
Changes in income Mobile take-up requires more access
levels and expands further, to spectrum for:-
global distribution so more users • Content
of wealth • Internet services

New capacity demands
with convergence of
data and voice in
wireless broadband for:-
•Internet
•AV media

Shared spectrum economic and social benefits – as a relevance tree
Major Key Economic Social Macro-
deliverable Attributes impacts impacts economic
Substitution impacts
Mechanisms Family
(for unification
infrastructure Personal
etc) aspirations
Broadband Gross Social networking
capacity productivity Professional
Value of work networking Net value
Value of of EU
Wireless workforce Support for the key
broadband services, at lower economy
Innovation &
Shared & new production cost
Spectrum for equipment, •Health
Alternative •Care of aged
devices, digital
networks content, internet •Emergency svces
Employment
services, etc
Mobility Lower costs
Knowledge of living
& ubiquity Capital creation, (impacts on
Education & tariffs &
vocational Standards
competition)
training of living
Knowledge Higher
worker social mobility
productivity, Access to
eg Teleworking, higher pay,
data access Higher disposable
SCF Associates Ltd Simon Forge All rights reserved 2012 etc income

Mobile data demand: an estimation for W. Europe
Petabytes (10E15)/ Month
1000

800

600

400

200

100 Mobile data grows 37 x
over 2009 - 2014
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
SCF Associates Ltd Simon Forge All rights reserved 2012 Source: Cisco 2010

And now we have far more TV distribution platforms
than just digital or analogue terrestrial broadcast

ENDORSE that old Negroponte Switch -
 Digital switched star CATV

 Digital & analogue Satellite TV

 Web TV, IPTV over Broadband
for Internet downloads/streaming:
NGN – fibre and xDSL
 Wireless Broadband TV
 Mobile TV


A single channel for all ultimately – mobile and
broadcast merge in a wireless internet infrastructure
g
mi n
am
Web Server rogr ctive)
farm ast p tera
adc es in
Bro om
c
(be

w eb
s
les Let the URL find the station Merges
Wire
In
te
ra
ct
iv
e
se
rv
i ce
s


Three scenarios of future perspectives
Scenario 1
(Baseline) Existing conditions
No changes and shared access:
to current
situation
Scenario 2-
Something stirring:
medium With new modest sharing
Common enhancements for for lightweight alternative
shared access, with:- networking:
economic
-Technical enablers •Sharing extensions, with
context white spaces, ASA, LSA etc
-Regulatory actions
Scenario 3-Sharing
takes off – and the
economy -with
major For greater shared
access for wireless
enhancements in:-
broadband:
-Technical enablers •Sharing extensions
-Regulatory actions •New Licence -exempt
-Refarming

Characterising the scenarios
•1 Theme - no change in regulation - use what is already permitted only
•Types of “sharing" : allocations, as now, increased spectrum use in existing bands
•More intense use of existing LE, eg Wi-Fi at 5GHz as 2.4GHz becomes saturated
•Negative impacts for mobile industry due to widening gap between supply and
demand: eg data traffic for mobile users is heavily capped, to restrict volume

2 Theme: Modest increase in LE for wireless BB: 200 MHz via sharing, through
white spaces with cognitive radio, also SRD expansion and light licensing
•Implies new regulation required for sharing existing bands
•Aim - gain extra band capacity, both below 1 GHz and across all the spectrum
•However, with the Exaflood for mobile data devices (tablets and smart phones in later
years after 2015/2016) Europe may experience saturation

•3 Theme : Shared spectrum totals 400 MHz; consists of a mix of sharing
existing spectrum and two new licence-exempt allocations – each of 50 MHz
at 500 MHz and 1500Mhz
•Dramatic increase in spectrum for wireless broadband under diverse conditions for a
diverse range of media types
•Assumes technical advances eg mesh, new sharing technologies – CR etc
•Regulation will be required to be formulated for the next WRC for LE swathes
•Further changes in regulation for sharing with LL, white spaces etc – use of AIP etc.


There are major differences over the
impacts of broadband on the economy
Q
3 8,
GDP growth % 1.
increase due e
m
to 10% 1.6% co
in
increase ed
in broadband -m
w

EO
penetration in Lo
DC
iH
various
hg

countries and 1.0
51
.

KU
,0

groups of
C

.0
countries
, 8

G
W5

re
0.6

am
yn

G
60

me
EO
.
K, 1

r
EO
DC

y na
C
0
em
L D

42 0
ud

o
Q Qiang, World Bank, C Czernich, Univ of Munich, W Waverman, LECG,
i w

.
i m
i

K Koutroumpis, Imperial College London, Ka Katz, Univ of Columbia aK,
ocn
cn


Three options for a sharing policy shape recommendations
• Do nothing – but is this really an option?
– Pressures are mounting from different parts of the ICT industries, be it the MNOs
wanting LTE bandwidth offload, or the chip manufacturers, the consumer
electronic manufacturers/ services operators and the internet players for more
spectrum access – through sharing – and generally more licence-exempt or
open spectrum.

• Promote a simple but limited economic agenda
– Encourage growth through more spectrum access with sharing.
– Implies a push for new networking and lower cost communications,
corresponding to a light interpretation of sharing, with an ad hoc approach

• Embrace sharing to accelerate the EU economy through
universal coverage by wireless broadband
– Open up spectrum access for everyone, - business, communities and the ‘radio-
based industries’ – mobile and the rest - to benefit from EU-wide wireless
broadband
– But may be a long-term goal (2020)
– Might imply restructuring the mobile services industry and its pricing – perhaps
through the consumer device and content segments - already in process
– Enables ad hoc, user-defined and perhaps user-owned/operated networking,
without an organizing operator.
– It eventually implies an abolition of a specific spectrum usage licence, apart from
a ‘type licence’ for technical conformance in a specific band.

Planning for what to do next –
the regulatory landscape
These are the main building blocks to move forward for progress to a
shared use of spectrum
Policy – passive or active?

Industrial policy for
innovation and Opportunistic environment
economic stimulation

Public sector Social Business
environment environment environment

User community

Regulatory Actions
Supply side:
Network equipment,
Standards service providers, ICs,
devices, web content,
Technology roll out etc

Recommend new approach - a new strategy for spectrum
usage and its management is required – with a new legal regime

Traditional regime of The new regime
spectrum regulation
•Forbid everything •Allow anything
•Only permit explicit •Only forbid in explicit
exceptions cases

Regulator’s
Controller and commander Co-ordinator and facilitator
role
Decision
How many users How much interference
Criteria
Marketable property – restricted Publicly owned commodity -
Economic &
economic benefit from sale to widespread economic benefit from
legal status
‘owner’ sharing


Catalysts – a) Regulatory targets for
sharing
The recommended framework
Sharing is performed under agreed and regulated conditions (no ad
hoc free for all – but no timidity due to overblown threats of
interference):
•Existing Licences are respected

•Formal agreements on refarming of existing licences are reached

•Licence exempt bands carry assurances for technical
conformance (as now eg for Wi-Fi) with monitoring and database
control

•Technologies conform – eg White space devices could be Light
Licensed or under specific licensed shared spectrum agreements
(LSA) but their operation avoids interference


Regulatory targets for sharing (cont’d)

The key action recommended:

Licence exempt bands are expanded in
the UHF range:

•Enables offload of the Exabyte flood
•Enables wireless broadband coverage

- Use the (next) digital dividend (from WRC2012)

- Use refarming of public sector, MNO and
broadcast incumbents

Catalysts – b) the technologies

Technology neutral approach

•Any technology accepted that enables sharing
(eg NO absolute preference for Wi-Fi although it
is useful and ubiquitous)

•Constraints are on interference only


In view of the barriers, sensitivities
and realities of the inertia of
change in the industry – a triple
phase approach to policy setting
Prepare is recommended

Build framework

Move towards full
sharing and wireless
broadband


The 3 phases for initiating shared-spectrum overlap
1. Regulatory Preparation
with LSA, LL, ASA etc

Light network infrastructure for sharing

2. Early sharing initiatives expand:
Wireless
formalised, licensed advances in broadband
LL, LSA & WSD/CR technologies full rollout
for an agreed sharing framework

3. New LE bands, more
LL, etc, for more
shared networking
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3

2012 2014 2016 2018 2020

A view of the future – One example of an allocation trajectory across the EU
Projections of percentages of each type of spectrum allocation in the EU
100 Managed Command & Control
90 Market-based: auctions & 2ndary trading
Licence exempt: commons, white spaces, etc
80
SCF
% of useable radio spectrum

70

60

50

40

30

20

10
0
SCF Associates Ltd

2000 TIME

These changes might even seem conservative compared
to advances in the EU Member States leading change – eg
the UK

2000 Licence
exempt 2010
4.3%
Command &
control
21.6%

Licence
Command & exempt
control
6.9%
95.7%
Market
Mechanisms

Source OFCOM UK, website, Oct 2010 71.5%

simon.forge@whsmithnet.co.uk
+ 44 78 66 60 13 52

Simon Forge SCF Associates Ltd

Simon Forge (SCF Associates Ltd.) - Sharing Spectrum

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Featured

Featured (20)

Simon Forge (SCF Associates Ltd.) - Sharing Spectrum