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

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

2. Introduction
 The FCC formed a Spectrum Policy Task
Force (SPTF) in June 2002 to identify and
evaluate changes in spectrum policy that will
increase the public benefits derived from the
use of radio spectrum.
 This was the first time that there was a
comprehensive and systematic review of FCC
spectrum policy.
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 2
Berger & GLOCO

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

4. Interest in new spectrum
access models
 FCC has not kept up with the pace of
communication tech and accelerating
demand for spectrum
 Current “Command + Control” policy and
procedures micromanage spectrum
 Thus it is outmoded and obsolete
 Need “out-of-the-box” ways to allocate and
maximize spectrum access
 Find ways to maximize public benefits delivered
through spectrum based services and devices
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 4
Berger & GLOCO

5. Drivers for Spectrum Policy
Reform
 Explosive Demand for Spectrum-Based
Services and Devices
 Technological Advances: Enabling
Changes in Spectrum Policy
 Increased Access: Mitigating Scarcity of
Spectrum Resources
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 5
Berger & GLOCO

6. Explosive Demand for Spectrum-
Based Services and Devices
 Consistently underestimated demand
 1994 projected 54M mobile phone users for 2000
 Actual number of users in 2000 was 110M
 Unlicensed band (2.4Ghz) spurred explosion
of new devices and services
 $2.9B IN 2002
 New tech allows for devices paid for &
controlled by millions of end users
 Old policies based on small number of licensees
(broadcasters)
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 6
Berger & GLOCO

7. Tech Advances: Enabling
Changes in Spectrum Policy
 Digital Signal Processing allows for radical
new modulation techniques
 Wideband Spread Spectrum
 Ultra-Wideband pulse
 Very low power per hertz
 Cognitive / Software Defined Radios
 Dynamically and Intelligently utilize and share
spectrum
 Moore’s Law makes it practical and affordable
(and inevitable)
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 7
Berger & GLOCO

8. Increased Access: Mitigating
Scarcity of Spectrum Resources
 Measurements of actual spectrum utilization
in Metro areas showed:
 Nearly 100% of spectrum allocated, but only 30%
actually used
 Looking for new ways to better utilize
spectrum
 Underlay Spectrum Commons (UWB, Spread
Spectrum)
 Cognitive Radios dynamically sensing and
releasing spectrum
 Secondary Markets
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 8
Berger & GLOCO

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

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

11. Time vs. Frequency
 Time Domain
 Wavelength or Pulse
Width duration
 Viewed with
Oscilloscope
Time Frequency
 Frequency Domain
 Cycles / Second
 Viewed with
Spectrum Analyzer
(Spectrograph)
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 11
Berger & GLOCO

12. New tech facilitates sharing
beyond 802.11Wireless LAN
 Underlay legacy spectrum users
 Wideband Spread Spectrum
 Ultra-wideband nano-pulses
 Pico-watts / Hertz
 Intelligently utilize unused local spectrum
 Cognitive / Software Defined Radios
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 12
Berger & GLOCO

13. Wideband Spread Spectrum
 Trades off Spectrum
for power
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressorare needed to see this picture.
 Wider spectrum
produces more sharing
and bandwidth
 Called Process Gain
 Can underlay legacy
narrowband users Graphics from Spread spectrum communications by
Jay Fitzsummons, Troy Morris and Tony Parezanovic
http://murray.newcastle.edu.au/users/staff/eemf/ELEC351/
SProjects/Morris/project.htm
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 13
Berger & GLOCO

14. Direct Sequence Spread
Spectrum
 Pseudo-noise (PN-
code) mixed with Data
to produce the coded
signal to modulate a
carrier
 Looks like noise source
centered around the
carrier with a bandwidth
of the Pseudo-noise QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressorar
 Receiver knows PN-
code to demodulate
signal Graphics from Spread spectrum communications by
Jay Fitzsummons, Troy Morris and Tony Parezanovic
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 14
Berger & GLOCO

15. Frequency Hopping Spread
Spectrum
 Data is conventionally
modulated on carrier
 SS Bandwidth is carved up
to many narrow channels
 PN-code selects which
channel is utilized as the
carrier
 Hopping rate is in order of
milliseconds / hop thus
minimizing interference with
legacy narrowband users
Graphics from Spread spectrum communications by
Jay Fitzsummons, Troy Morris and Tony Parezanovic
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 15
Berger & GLOCO

16. Ultra-wideband nano-pulses
 Extremely short pulses
instead of carrier waves
 10 - 1000 of picoseconds
(trillionths of a second)
wide in time
 1 - 10 Gigahertz wide in
frequency
 Picowatts of power per
hertz (in the noise floor)
 Radios can create
output signal directly
with digital techniques
 High precision timing, but Graphics from
Scientific American: Wireless Data Blaster
low complexity by David G. Leeper
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 16
Berger & GLOCO

17. Ultra-wideband Modulations
 Many ways to modulate
pulse streams
 No Multipath fading
 Main issue is precision
synchronization
 Applications
 Communications
 Sub-centimeter
positioning
Graphics from
 Thru-wall/ground radar Scientific American: Wireless Data Blaster
by David G. Leeper
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 17
Berger & GLOCO

18. Ultra-wideband Status
 Feb 2002: US FCC
allowed limited use
 Less than Part 15 levels
below 3.1Ghz
 Some restrictions on
applications
 Several Chip Vendors
 Some samples
 XtremeSpectrum
 Most announcements for
mid to late 2003
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 18
Berger & GLOCO

19. Cognitive / Software Defined
Radios
 Cognitive radio “understands” local
conditions and user requirements
 Will aggregate bands of spectrum that may
be allocated but not being used locally
 Software Defined Radio (SDR)
 Radio signal modulated/demodulated in
software
 Can create arbitrary signals
 Could be Spread Spectrum, UWB or traditional
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 19
Berger & GLOCO

20. Status of SDRs
 Some commercial
implementations
 Very Limited Applications
like multi-band / multi-
standard cell phones
 Vanu Inc.
 SDR Software Developers
Kit
 Gnu-Radio
 Open Source SDR
 Military most advanced
 DARPA NeXt Generation
Communications
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 20
Berger & GLOCO

21. Mesh Networks
 End points can relay
through other user
nodes
 Low Power
 Route around obstacles
 Cooperation Gain Mesh Network Capacity vs Station Density
 Total Capacity of Mesh 50
45
14
increases with added 40
12
users / relay nodes 35
30
10
8
 Matches low power / high 25
6
process gain tech like 20
Total Capacity
15 4
Spread Spectrum & UWB
Per
10
2
5
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Number of Stations
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 21
Berger & GLOCO

22. Status of Mesh Networks
 Limited commercial deployment
 Nokia Rooftop
 First generation product very limited throughput, proprietary
and expensive.
 For residential / infrastructure use only
 http://www.wbs.nokia.com/
 Mesh Networks Inc.
 Initial product proprietary
 Promising an 802.11 based product that supports
infrastructure & end user relaying
 http://www.meshnetworks.com/
 Long history of Military development
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 22
Berger & GLOCO

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

24. Rather Incredible Document
from a Federal Bureaucracy
 9 months from start to finish
 Introduces and promotes several
concepts that would have been
unthinkable only a year ago
 Not perfect, several contradictory
positions
 Will mark a milestone for new regulatory
thinking
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 24
Berger & GLOCO

25. Spectrum Rights Models
 Command and Control
 Current style of regulatory policy
 Exclusive Use
 Spectrum as Private Property
 Spectrum Commons
 Technology used to share and manage
spectrum
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 25
Berger & GLOCO

26. Command and Control Model
 Traditional management of spectrum for the last
80 years
 Government agency micromanages all spectrum
allocation
 FCC
 National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA)
 Spectrum allocated to a specific entity for a
specific use and specific technology
 Little or no flexibility how licensees can utilize
spectrum
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 26
Berger & GLOCO

27. Exclusive Use Model
 Allocates spectrum as property
 Spectrum holder can do whatever they want
with it
 Within the power and interference technical
requirements
 Can lease/resell all or portions to create
secondary markets
 Economists believe this will evolve spectrum
to its “Highest Value”
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 27
Berger & GLOCO

28. Spectrum Commons Model
 Unlimited unlicensed users share spectrum
via technological mechanisms
 802.11 WLANs proved the value
 Already US$2B Industry and growing rapidly
 Still rules and limitations on how Spectrum is
used
 Power per hertz, freq range, geographical, etc.
 Marketplace of devices, services and
technology
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 28
Berger & GLOCO

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

30. Sharing Spectrum thru
Technology, Not Politics
 Spectrum is infinitely divisible
 Tech determines physical access to
usable spectrum 9 Politics
 Tech possibilities are just beginning 8 Economics
 Most legacy systems are based on early 7 Application
20th century technology 6 Presentation
 Cell phones and 802.11 use primitive 5 Session
sharing
4 Transport TCP/UDP
 Multi-dimensional real-time sharing by
space, frequency, time, coding, mesh
3 Network IP
2 Data Link (MAC)
1 Physical 802.11
has no comparison to today’s limited
capacity
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 30
Berger & GLOCO

31. FCC SPTF Commons
Suggestions
 A Low Power Underlay
 Spread Spectrum, UWB, and other tech to utilize
new capacity in the noise floor of legacy systems
 Interference Temperature defines noise floor
 Dynamic Reuse of idle spectrum
 Sense and utilize local spectrum being unused by
primary, release as soon as primary uses it.
 Geographical / Guard Bands
 Max power determined by local conditions + rules
set by FCC and/or primary licensee
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 31
Berger & GLOCO

32. Interference Temperature
 A paradigm for assessing the
interference in an environment
 A quantitative measurement that allows
for technology based access control to
spectrum
 Measures the RF power available at the
receiving antenna per unit bandwidth.
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 32
Berger & GLOCO

33. Interference Temperature
 Metric to establish maximum permissible levels of interference
 Characterizes the worst case environment in which a receiver
would be expected to operate.
 Different threshold levels could be set for each band,
geographic region or service,
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 33
Berger & GLOCO

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

35. Agile Radio Enables Dynamic
Sharing
 Also known as Cognitive or Software Defined Radio
(SDR)
 Dynamically discovers + utilizes local unused
spectrum in real-time
 Takes advantage of “White Space” in spectrum allocations
 Releases slices of spectrum if primary licensee starts to use
it also
 Scales power based on application, local condition and rules
set by FCC and/or Primary Licensee
 Combine with Spread Spectrum and UWB
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 35
Berger & GLOCO

36. Example Agile Use of
Spectrum
 Legacy uses such as TV do not
allow adjacent channels in the
same geographical location due
to primitive receivers Channel Channel
 Agile Radio could use low power 6 7
channel 5 inside of channel 6
and 7 coverage areas Channel
 Could use any channel at higher 5
power outside of their and
adjacent channels in areas
where they are not allocated
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 36
Berger & GLOCO

37. SPTF Recommendations
 Designate additional bands for unlicensed use
 Pursue secondary markets for use of licensed
spectrum
 Government granted easements to licensed
spectrum to enable a commons for low power
non-interfering users
 Promote spectrum flexibility in rural areas
 Promote experimental spectrum allocations
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 37
Berger & GLOCO

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

39. Big Bang Auction of Spectrum
 Championed by FCC Economists Evan Kwerel and John Williams
 Existing spectrum licensees incentivized to put “their” spectrum up
for auction
 Not required, but if they don’t, their use of the spectrum continues to be
bound by old rules
 Get to keep all the proceeds from their sale
 Government (including military) puts all its spectrum in the auction
 Government can “buy back” spectrum for government (military, public
safety) or public “Spectrum Parks”
 Purchasers can aggregate spectrum
 Corporations or Organizations can buy spectrum for “unlicensed”
uses
 WiFi Alliance could buy spectrum for 802.11 for instance
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 39
Berger & GLOCO

40. Faulhaber & Farber Proposal
 Place all spectrum into the market, using Big Bang
 Ownership model: Fee simple with non-interference
easement
 I own the spectrum and have absolute use priority; others can
use it but only if they don’t interfere with this absolute use priority
 UWB, agile radio, mesh networks OK; “virtual commons”
 Monitoring and enforcement = transactions costs
 Gov’t (at all levels) and private groups can own spectrum
and make it available for commons use: “spectrum
parks”
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 40
Berger & GLOCO

41. Concerns with Faulhaber &
Farber Proposal
 Better than a pure Private Property Model
 Still assumes spectrum as private property should be
the dominant model
 Does not show that the benefits outweigh its costs
 Treats the Commons as a hedge
 Still constrains Commons opportunity
 Promotes permanent grant of private property
 Provides no revisability when technology or applications
change
 Not enough information to make such final and
irrevocable decision
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 41
Berger & GLOCO

42. Technology based Commons
 Advocated by many technologists and
consumer advocates
 David Reed (MIT), Yochai Benkler (NYU School of
Law), Lawrence Lessig (Stanford) Dewayne
Hendricks (Dandin Group) among others
 New Tech utilizes spectrum more efficiently
 Works best with large swaths of spectrum
 Underlays & Agile radios can allow for transition
from legacy
 Industry Standards and technology manage most
sharing issues
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 42
Berger & GLOCO

43. National Association of
Broadcasters (NAB)
 Mostly concerned with protecting their existing “rights”
 Maintain that they are defenders of public interest with
“free” Television
 Against auctions because they undervalue the public interest
benefits
 Claim they are already “setting new standards in spectral
efficiency”
 Against commons for fear of interference with old radios
and TVs
 Consider the Cellular industry their biggest threat in terms
of spectrum
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 43
Berger & GLOCO

44. Cellular Telecommunications
& Internet Association (CTIA)
 Represents the Cellular / Mobile Phone Industry
 Aggressively supports spectrum policy reform
 Cellular industry wants more spectrum for more
capacity
 Against “giving non-viable incumbents flexibility
to provide any service”
 I.E. allowing TV stations to compete with Mobile
Phone Companies
 Against underlay in already allocated bands
 Ok for new licenses where it can be explicitly stated
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 44
Berger & GLOCO

45. Motorola: Go slow, mostly
licensed, some unlicensed ok
 Offered two technical papers
 Good analysis of mesh networks
 Raises questions on ability of cognitive radios to
release spectrum fast enough
 Still seems more FUD to slow down new tech
 Supports R&D in mesh and cognitive radios
 But not immediate roll out or licensing
 Supports more unlicensed spectrum
 Some in 5Ghz, but most in 10Ghz and above
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 45
Berger & GLOCO

46. Satellite Broadcasting &
Communications Association
 Protect DBS receivers from Terrestrial
Interference
 Concerned with sharing spectrum with terrestrial
Multi-channel Video Distribution and Data Service
(MVDDS)
 Against underlays and unlicensed spectrum
 Current DBS receivers are easily interfered with
 GPS is very sensitive to interference
 Fear of near channel overlap on satellite radio
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 46
Berger & GLOCO

47. National Association of
Amateur Radio (ARRL)
 Amateur Operators use to be radio innovators
 Since the IC and Digital revolutions Amateurs have
not been as involved
 Now are mostly legacy users
 FCC should use the SPTF for planning
 No Big Bang / privatization of spectrum

Unless Amateur’s get their own “Public Park”
 Concerns of unlicensed spectrum
 Proper policing of power and other tech constraints
 Supports the need for regulation of receivers
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 47
Berger & GLOCO

48. Consumer Federation of
America
 Pro-consumer advocacy organization
 Considers spectrum to be a “First
Amendment (Freedom of Speech) asset of
citizens
 Privatization of spectrum would limit free speech
 Selling of spectrum would accelerate
consolidation of media
 Supports Spectrum Commons
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 48
Berger & GLOCO

49. Microsoft: Unlicensed Spectrum
will Unleash Broadband
 Unlicensed wireless can break the broadband
bottleneck
 Allows the Internet to “route around” incumbents
Telcos who are slow to build broadband
 Allows end users to finance broadband builds
 Supports Spectrum Commons and additional
unlicensed spectrum
 Believe there should be “rules of the road” to
facilitate sharing of spectrum
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 49
Berger & GLOCO

50. Cisco: Unlicensed Spectrum
for the Network Revolution
 Similar to Microsoft’s points
 Some additional points of Cisco:
 More commons, less private spectrum
ownership
 Don’t get stuck on international spectrum
harmonization
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 50
Berger & GLOCO

51. XtremeSpectrum: UWB; new
understanding of Interference
 Manufacturer of UWB technology
 Current vague definition of interference
be replaced by explicit definition
 The new “Interference Temperature is a
good start.
 Specify minimal capabilities of receivers to
reject interference
 Translate that into max permissible
emissions levels for underlay technology
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 51
Berger & GLOCO

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

53. Policy Recommendations
 Avoid irrevocable and difficult to change policies
 Privatizing large amounts of spectrum would be difficult to reverse
 Technology is just beginning
 Enable some form of “easements” on existing and new
licenses to allow for underlays and agile radios.
 Be explicit with legacy incumbent licenses
 Much of the issues of the report were concerning incumbents, but
were not openly discussed as such
 Treat incumbents as a transition issue, not assume that they should
be incumbents forever
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 53
Berger & GLOCO

54. Reality Checks
 Spectrum Utilization Audits
 See how spectrum is really being used in various regions
 Analyze capacity of spectrum
 Consider several dense usage scenarios using data from
the spectrum audits and demand growth profiles
 Calculate various spectrum utilizations with different
technology assumptions
 See how often there is really a “tragedy of the commons”
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 54
Berger & GLOCO

55. Consortium to develop Open
Spectrum Technologies
 Open Spectrum will be a boon for
hardware device manufacturers
 Japan could lead in Open Spectrum
device technology
 A consortium to develop core
technologies could be highly leveraged
 Radio Haven in a secondary market
would be an excellent test environment
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 55
Berger & GLOCO

56. Status: Major Fork in the Road
 FCC & Industry split
 Economists &
Incumbents like Property
Models
 Technologists & Internet
types like Commons
 Surprising support for
commons though
 Boxer/Allen Senate Bill
 Pronouncements from
Chairman Powell
considering making
unused TV bands
unlicensed
04/01/13 Copyright 2003 Robert J. 56
Berger & GLOCO