Transcript Slides - MIT - Communications Futures Program

Spectrum Sharing: getting there from here
William Lehr
MIT
[email protected]
CFP Plenary Meeting
MIT
October 1-2, 2014
© Lehr, 2014
Spectrum Sharing: outline
(1) Spectrum Working Group: intro/review
(2) Research Projects
-- Spectrum Access System: toward a new paradigm
-- Small Cell Ecosystem
-- Spectrum valuation
© Lehr, 2014
2
CFP Spectrum Working Group
Website:
https://people.csail.mit.edu/wlehr/SpectrumWG/SpectrumWG.htm
(userid "SpectrumWG" and password "cfplsa")
• Launched Nov2012. Bi-weekly calls. CFP members & invited guests.
• Topics: enabling shared spectrum ecosystem
• Spectrum sharing and rights (management) regimes. Policy reform.
• Radio design/interference modeling, Standards, 3GPP LTE v. 802.11
• Spectrum valuation
• Focus:
• FCC 3.5GHz
• FCC 5GHz
• Other stuff: TVWS, Broadcast Incentive Auction, LTE-U, 3GPP LTE,
Ofcom, ITU, WRC, and LTE-U.
• White paper: “Toward more efficient spectrum management,” May 2014
© Lehr, 2014
3
FCC 3.5GHz proceeding
• “More spectrum for Broadband!” BB Plan (2010), Pres Memo (2010), PCAST (2012)
• New Citizens Band Radio Service (CBRS), part 96
• FNPRM (April 23, 2014, GN Docket #12-354)
• Commercial Sharing with Government (Incumbent DoD Radar)
• Small cells (low power, 3.5GHz not great for NLOS, smaller exclusion zones)
• Tiered model of usage:
• (1) Incumbents: shared with Federal users (naval radar)
• (2) Priority Access Licensee (PAL), like LSA/ASA, protected users
• (3) General Authorized Access (GAA), like unlicensed
• Spectrum Access System (SAS) and PALs
•
•
•
•
•
Census Block license areas, 10MHz blocks, 1 year
Aggregatable, Tradable
Seats-in-a-theater (not specific frequencies)
(Lightweight) auction if contention
Reserve minimum for GAA
© Lehr, 2014
How to design SAS?
4
Spectrum Access System: from static to dynamic
Today….
Today:
-- static, inflexible, uninformative
Tomorrow:
-- dynamic, flexible, informative
-- match use opportunities w/ users
-- enforcement of (changing) rights
Tomorrow (??)
5
© Lehr, 2014
5
Questions for Spectrum Access (eco)System (SAS)?
What functions should SAS include? (tech+users+institutions)
-- Database and/or Sensing (closed loop)?
-- Market making and/or Enforcement?
-- How dynamic?
-- Governance: role of regulator? SAS operator?
-- Evolvability: how to evolve SAS? Extensibility to other bands?
-- One or many SAS? (by band, by region?). Interoperability?
What are rights?
-- How many tiers of users? What are the sharing models?
-- (going beyond primary/secondary, overlays/underlays, licensed/unlicensed)
-- Granularity rights (time, geo, spectrum space)?
Details:
-- Interference models: worst case or more realistic? Realtime (sensors)?
-- Access/security (privacy): identity management?
-- Business model for SAS: how to pay for?
-- etc. etc.
© Lehr, 2014
6
Spectrum Valuation: some hypotheses
(*assuming transition to shared spectrum successful)
Will spectrum be less scarce?
-- Less artificial scarcity, but maybe more real scarcity.
-- “Artificial scarcity” = NOT equal to true economic opportunity cost
How will spectrum costs change?
-- Entrants: lower
-- Broadcasters/government: higher
-- Mobile operators: lower (?)
Will exclusive licensed spectrum value increase?
How to measure economic value of spectrum?
-- Auction values ($/MHz-POP)? M&A activity? Spectrum trading prices?
-- Marginal v. Long-term (paradigm shift) valuation?
-- Cost of sharing? Cost of noise? Enforcement? vs. Value excluded uses?
-- Spectrum caps: how to compare high/low frequency? Exclusive/shared?
-- Economic impact: Licensed more valuable than Unlicensed?
© Lehr, 2014
7
Lehr & Oliver (2014) Small Cells Ecosystem
Why “smaller cells”?
• What they are, why we need them, deployment trajectories
Femtocells v. WiFi
• WiFi looks like it is winning…
Market/Policy implications
• Fixed-Mobile convergence: accelerator, potential industry disruption
• End-user control: new vector for competition
• Spectrum policy: propels drive to DSA, tilts balance toward unlicensed
See: Lehr, W. and M. Oliver (2014), "Small cells and the mobile broadband ecosystem," Euro
ITS2014, Brussels, June 2014, see http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/zbwitse14/101406.htm.
© Lehr, 2014
8
What are questions for Small Cell Ecosystem?
WiFi (viral, single base station, unlicensed) vs. LTE (cell operators)
-- Complements v. Substitutes?
-- How to integrate? (at what Network Layer?)
-- What spectrum? Licensed/unlicensed, or DSA?
Small cell ownership/control (incentives)?
-- End-users own small cell, but do they control?
-- How to coordinate multiple APs?
-- Is WiFi off-loading Mobile traffic or other way around?
Small cells share much more than spectrum (CAPEX and OPEX)
-- Backhaul: community networking? Or, operator?
-- Power
-- Shared antenna/base station (e.g., Network MIMO)?
-- User interface/management (configuration, liability)
© Lehr, 2014
9
References
Lehr, W. and M. Oliver (2014), "Small cells and the mobile broadband ecosystem,"
Euro ITS2014, Brussels, June 2014, available at
http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/zbwitse14/101406.htm.
Lehr, W. (2014), “PALs as Options to Exclude GAA,” Reply Comments submitted in the
matter of Amendment of the Commission's Rules with Regard to Commercial
Operations in the 3550-3650 MHz Band, GN Docket 12-354, August 15, 2014,
available at http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521763142.
Lehr, W. (chair) (2014) “Toward More Efficient Spectrum Management: New Models
for Protected Shared Access,” a White Paper prepared by the MIT Communications
Futures Program Spectrum Working Group, submitted to FCC’s 3.5GHz proceeding
(Docket #12-354), available at
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/confirm?confirmation=201437236301.
Chapin, John and William Lehr (2011), "Mobile Broadband Growth, Spectrum Scarcity,
and Sustainable Competition," TPRC 2011, Alexandria Virginia, September 2011,
available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1992423.
© Lehr, 2014
10
Slides Not Used
Background
© Lehr, 2014
11
ASA/LSA/PA/GAA
-- 3.5 US
-- 2.3 EU
© Lehr, 2014
March 2014
12
Spectrum scarcity is matter of perspective
User/Use …
Transaction
Costs
(to acquire rights
relative to value)
Interference Protection Needed
Weak
Strong
High
Unlicensed
C&C, subsidized licensed
Low
Licensed/Unlicensed ??
Licensed
Smart radio systems:
Market success:
Greater interference robustness
More sharing options
More congestion
Fast innovation
Off-diagonal cases more common? Weak/low or Strong/high
 Dynamic shared spectrum options
 Multiple, complementary regulatory options
© Lehr, 2014
13
Small Cells and the Mobile Broadband Ecosystem
(or, Small cells: Femtocells v. WiFi
or, Off-loading Mobile Traffic: Femtocells v. WiFi)
William Lehr
Miquel Oliver
MIT
UPF
ANA Group Presentation
May 8, 2014
© Lehr, 2014
Outline
Why “smaller cells”?
• What they are, why we need them, deployment trajectories
Femtocells v. WiFi
• WiFi looks like it is winning…
Market/Policy implications
• Fixed-Mobile convergence: accelerator, potential industry disruption
• End-user control: new vector for competition
• Spectrum policy: propels drive to DSA, tilts balance toward unlicensed
© Lehr, 2014
15
“Small Cells”
Cellular legacy… expand coverage, capacity mobile cellular 2G/3G/4G
e.g., Femto forum becomes SmallCellForum in Feb 2012
WiFi – a 802.11a/b WLAN, originally for wireless Ethernet up to 100m
• Limited Range (~100m)
• Variable data rates (10-100Mbps+, faster than current cellular)
• Low power (20-100mW)
© Lehr, 2014
16
Why smaller cells?
Spectrum scarcity : spatial reuse
• Split cells and 2x the number of users
• Bigger hand-off problem for mobility
Coverage & Capacity hot spots
• Coverage: in-home dead-zones, rural extension
• Capacity: high-traffic areas, incremental additions
Power conservation
• Power/range related (especially for omni-directional)
• More resource intense services, more power is a concern
• Safety? (Miquel says no…)
Market evolution/Technical progress
• Demand growth  everywhere/always connected, rich services…
• Technology  faster, smaller, cheaper; hetnets; convergence of
WiFi/LTE functionality…
• Strategic & policy…
© Lehr, 2014
17
Femtocells v. WiFi
WiFi winning today…scale/installed base/cost advantages compelling…
But….
•LTE-U : why can’t LTE match cost-economies of WiFi? Maybe just software…
•NextGen Wi-Fi : (Hotspot 2.0, etc.). Xfinity modems with dual WiFi. Etc.
•NextGen wireless may be something else altogether
© Lehr, 2014
18
Small cell future?
Deployment/Market Scenarios
Backhaul?
•
•
Fixed BB, yes. But how managed? Usually end-user.
Could this be over IP, but NOT Internet BB?
AP owner/management?
•
•
Owner (CAPEX, OPEX): end-user typically in home/local; operator wide-area
Management: typically, end-user (WiFi), operator (femto)
Spectrum?
•
Licensed/unlicensed or something new?
© Lehr, 2014
19
Fixed-Mobile Convergence Accelerator!
• Drives need to integrate networks, enables platform competition
•
•
Mobile & fixed BB have differentiated, complementary features.
Platform competition: Fixed v. Mobile, WiFi v. 3G/4G?
• Coverage, capacity  Demand : fixed/mobile complements…
•
•
and demand price substitutes (low-end market  drive fixed/mobile
differentiation)
but potential for supply substitution: demand cream-skimming/investment
crowding out  “dirt road” risk
• Small cells  wired backhaul (FTTx driver)
•
•
•
Fixed BB providers own the wires
(Community networking: mesh/wireless backhaul feasible)
Mobility: nomadic (slow hand-off) v. fast? Tail of the dog: Cellular off-loads to
WiFi or WiFi off-loads to cellular? (allocation of shared costs…)
• Interconnection: Fixed/Mobile operators
•
•
Who owns the customer? How are back-haul costs recovered?
Is off-load traffic OTT or separate service? New ISP peering model?
© Lehr, 2014
20
End-user control
Wireless: new vector for value creation, facilities competition
• APs: end-user controlled
• Backhaul/roaming: community (municipal networking)
• IoT and lots of stuff that is (can be) mostly “local”
Benefits?
• Uncork last-mile bottleneck: response to NN concerns…
• End-user autonomy/freedom: choice, “have it your way”
• Edge-based innovation: decoupled, local, viral, “let a 1000 flowers
bloom”
Problems?
• Source-based routing: unbundle ISP offers/optimization?
• End-to-end QoS/Reliability: fault assessment?
• Coordination? Local assets easier with small cells, roaming harder…
• Interoperability, Connectivity suffer?
• Open standards (WiFi and LTE) as a response.
© Lehr, 2014
21
Spectrum policy
Small
•
•
•
•
cells could operate in either, but balance tilted toward unlicensed (?)
WiFi wins, fills sails of unlicensed…
Small cells local (weaker justification for wide-area exclusivity)
Shift to DSA makes spectrum coordination more granular/local
Spectrum smaller share of total value per AP for small cell (siting,
install, power, etc.
© Lehr, 2014
22
Spectrum policy: future is shared spectrum!
• Lots of ways to share: Frequency/Geo/time/code/angle/beamforming… etc.
• Coordinated/Uncoordinated: licensee (band manager), contract,
protocol
• Licensed/unlicensed: end points on continuum interference protection
rights
• All are property rights, all have imperfect (costly) interference protection
• Legal rights only have relevance in context of larger ecosystem
• Goal: more granular/dynamic/local resource management
• Dynamic Spectrum Access (DSA): smart radios share in all ways
• Share across users/uses (LTE already), and NETWORKS
• More commercial spectrum for mobile BB: licensed, unlicensed and
new regimes (TVWS, 3.5GHz, 5GHz, etc.)
• Flexible/adaptive: future-proof regulatory process
© Lehr, 2014
23
Spectrum Policy: paradigm shift…
DSA : more granular spectrum management
•
•
•
White space: identify additional sharing opportunities
Better able to provision for on-demand needs (bursty wireless)
Frequency (waveform) agile radios: seat in theater, not specific seat..
Interference protection: expanded rights tiering
•
•
Harmful interference: rights assignment, improved propagation models
Rx standards: protection tied to Rx quality (Lightsquared issue)
Spectrum Access System (SAS)
•
•
•
•
Mechanism for coordinating access by band/geo/time
Integrating/coordinating regulatory policy/markets/technology
Static (one-time dbase, open loop)  Real-time (sensing also, closed loop)
e.g., TVWS, 3.5GHz (small cells), 5GHz
• Q: Who owns/manages SAS? How dynamic? (Role for sensing?)
• Q: SAS access privileges? (security/privacy concerns: IDENTITY MGMT!)
• Q: SAS innovation? “Race to the top”  interoperability…
© Lehr, 2014
24
Small cells and broadband/mobile costs
“$1/GB for mobile, $0.10/GB for fixed … 10x difference”
•
What costs included?
• Marginal costs: spectrum, power, (externalities – congestion)
• Incemental (fixed) costs: infrastructure, (spectrum)
• CPE, Backhaul, Interconnection (peer/transit)
• Fixed: Modem/DSLAM; Mobile: Handset/Base station
•
•
• Last-mile – fixed (dedicated, ROW), mobile (shared)
• Life of capital (economic life): legacy plant?
Why? (assume estimates true…) and how changing?
• Spectrum scarcity  but much less for high frequency, LOS
• Congestion  growth makes worse, but DSA eases
• Backhaul, Handset  CAPEX/OPEX shifted from mobile to user/fixed
• Maturity/Cost  Fixed mature/mobile new (Moore’s law still working)
Comparison flawed
• Subsidies: legacy, USF favors fixed. Either/both too high/low.
• Missing costs with fixed
• Capacity is for peak data rate ($/Gbps), $/GB makes no sense
© Lehr, 2014
25
Back-up and additional material
© Lehr, 2014
26
DSA: lots of radio tech to expand apps/capacity
© Lehr, 2014
Source: http://groups.winnforum.org/d/do/3839
27
Spectrum Access System: from static to dynamic…
© Lehr, 2014
28
SAS: a more dynamic model (US version…)
© Lehr, 2014
29
SAS: a more dynamic model (UK version) …
© Lehr, 2014
Source: http://www.unwiredinsight.com/2013/tv-white-space
30
TVWS Database
• Integrate information from multiple sources: rules by band,
registration, physical terrain, technical parameters, etc.
• Rules differ by jurisdiction, location, time, user, etc.
© Lehr, 2014
31
Real-time spectrum usage
-- Over time, by band, by use
-- History & current
-- Coverage?
* Open source code
* Looking for partners…
-- Part of the SAS???
© Lehr, 2014
32
Microsoft Spectrum Observatory (May 2014) : 11 sites live
-- CSAIL
-- Antenna: 50MHz-4.4GHz
-- Live since April 2014
Power spectral density
-- -20/-180 dB/Hz
-- 5/7/2014, 12am snap shot
© Lehr, 2014
33
Microsoft Spectrum Observatory – Average Power Density
(Cambridge, May 2014)
© Lehr, 2014
34
Small Cell Options
• Equipment makers have full spectrum of solutions for cellular and WiFi
small cells, indoor/outdoor applications
• E.g., Alcatel-Lucent – slides presented at FCC 3.5Ghz Workshop
(Jan2014)
© Lehr, 2014
35
© Lehr, 2014
36
© Lehr, 2014
37
© Lehr, 2014
38
© Lehr, 2014
39
Alcatel-Lucent view: Small cell band sharing….
© Lehr, 2014
40
Spectrum scarcity is matter of perspective
User/Use …
Transaction
Costs
(relative to value)
Interference Protection Needed
Weak
Strong
High
Unlicensed
C&C, subsidized licensed
Low
Licensed/Unlicensed ??
Licensed
Smart radio systems:
Market success:
Greater interference robustness
More sharing options
More congestion
Fast innovation
Off-diagonal cases more common? Weak/low or Strong/high
 Dynamic shared spectrum options
 Multiple, complementary regulatory options
© Lehr, 2014
41
Future is shared spectrum
decoupling of spectrum frequencies
from applications (& infrastructure)
Domain
Trend is towards
Drivers and Enablers
Technology
(capabilities)
Frequency agility
Improved capability for
spectrum sharing
Smart radio systems
OFDM and spread spectrum
Growth of fast data networks
Policy
Reduction of artificial
scarcity
Technology neutrality
Market-based licensing
Unlicensed spectrum mgmt
Lower costs per byte
Intermodal competition
Bursty traffic, Multimedia
services, Fat-tailed usage profiles,
Mergers & Acquisitions
24/7 availability
Simplicity of use
Seamless mobility
Heterogeneous networks
3G+WiFi, wireless+wired
global roaming
(spectrum reform)
Costs
(provisioning)
Revenue
(customer experience)
© Lehr, 2014
42
Spectrum Management and DSA
Agenda: future is shared spectrum. Need commercialize DSA tech,
business models and policy to support novel ways to share
spectrum.
• PCAST report : government spectrum sharing
•
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast_spectrum_report_final_july_20_2012.pdf)
• WSRD planning : research agenda
•
(https://connect.nitrd.gov/nitrdgroups/index.php?title=Wireless_Spectrum_Research_and_Development_(WSRD)#title)
• Wireless@MIT : technologies to enable 1000+ fold efficiency
•
(http://wireless.csail.mit.edu/)
• NSN-MIT LSA/ASA CFP Spectrum WG
• Other stuff…
• Public safety (FirstNet, 700MHz, testbeds…)
• TVWS
• Small Cells (DAS sharing, network MIMO, shared infrastructure)
© Lehr, 2014
43
Spectrum/Wireless related research…
Weiss, M., W. Lehr, L. Cui, and M. Altamini (2012), "Enforcement in Dynamic Spectrum Access Systems," TPRC2012, Alexandria, VA,
September 2012
Lehr,W. and R. Yates (2012), "MobilityFirst, LTE and the Evolution of Mobile Networks," IEEE DySPAN2012, Bellevue, Washington, October
2012
Weiss, M., W. Lehr, and S. Delaere (2010), "Sensing as a Service: An Exploration into Practical Implementations of DSA," Proceedings of
IEEE DySPAN2010, Singapore
Chapin, J. and W. Lehr (2011) "Mobile Broadband Growth, Spectrum Scarcity, and Sustainable Competition," 39th Research Conference on
Communications, Information and Internet Policy (www.tprcweb.com), Alexandria, VA, September 2011.
Lehr, W. and J. Chapin (2010), "On the convergence of wired and wireless access network architectures," Internet Economics and Policy, 22
(2010) 33-41.
Chapin, J. and W. Lehr (2010) "SCADA for the Rest of Us: Unlicensed Bands Supporting Long-Range Communications," paper prepared for
the 38th Research Conference on Communication, Information and Internet Policy (www.tprcweb.com), Alexandria, VA, October 1-2,
2010.
Lehr, W. and N. Jesuale (2008), “Spectrum Pooling for Next Generation Public Safety Radio Systems,” Proceedings of the IEEE Dynamic
Spectrum Access Networks (DySPAN08) Conference, Chicago, October 14-17, 2008.
Chapin, J. and W. Lehr (2007), "The path to market success for dynamic spectrum access technologies," IEEE Communications Magazine,
May 2007 (pdf=http://people.csail.mit.edu/wlehr/Lehr-Papers_files/chapin_lehr_IEEE_communications_submitted.pdf)
Chapin, J. and W. Lehr (2007), "Time-limited Leases for Innovative Radios," with John Chapin, IEEE Communications Magazine, June 2007.
Lehr, W., M. Sirbu, and S. Gillett (2006), "Wireless is Changing the Policy Calculus for Municipal Broadband," Government Information
Quarterly, 23 (2006) 435-453
© Lehr, 2014
44
FCC 5GHz Proceeding
• Revision of Part 15 rules for U-NII Devices in the 5 GHz Band
• ET Docket No. 13-49, released April 1, 2014.
• Impacts virtually entire 5Ghz band (~600MHz for unlicensed use).
• 5Ghz (802.11a) v. 2.4GHz (802.11b): reduced coverage, less congested
• Since 1997, but carve outs for satellite/government (radar) users, now to
be shared…
• Significantly enhances attractiveness of 100MHz
• Higher power limits for indoor (802.11ac!).
• Still higher for Point-to-Point (backhaul) use (WISPs)
• 5GHz potential
• Expands Wi-Fi (commodity) hardware option
• Unlicensed access
• Bigger bands (better performance) (e.g., vs. LTE…)
© Lehr, 2014
45
FCC 3.5GHz proceeding
• New Citizens Band Radio Service (CBRS), part 96
•
FNPRM (April 23, 2014, GN Docket #12-354)
• Small cells
•
•
•
(but also, rural and other sharing models)
3.5Ghz not great for LOS, cannot be cleared of Federal incumbents
High-power sharing (e.g., WiMAX) leaves too little for sharing
• Tiered model of usage:
•
•
•
Incumbents: shared with Federal users (naval radar)
Priority Access Licensee (PAL), like LSA/ASA
General Authorized Access (GAA), like unlicensed
• SAS and PALs
•
•
•
•
•
Census Block license areas, 10MHz blocks, 1 year
Aggregatable, Tradable
Seats-in-a-theater (not specific frequencies)
(Lightweight) auction if contention
Reserve minimum for GAA
© Lehr, 2014
46
Other FCC proceedings
600 MHz incentive band auction
AWS-3 spectrum auction
(and lots more….)
© Lehr, 2014
47
Not used/Back-up Slides
© Lehr, 2014
48
Small Cells and the Future of Mobile Broadband
Vision of the Mobile BB Future
Implications for Spectrum Management
Why Small Cells are part of this?
Issues/challenges
• LTE/WiFi
• End-user control
• Spectrum management
© Lehr, 2014
49
Mobile Broadband Future
•
•
•
•
•
•
(a vision…)
Pervasive computing  always/everywhere connected
(Internet) Cloud  computing/storage in-network, fat/thin clients
IoT (M2M)  sensing/real-time decision-making, on-demand video
FTTx  lots of dense neighborhood fiber
Mobility  all dimensions/scales… geo, time, context (network)
Wireless everywhere  everyone wants more Spectrum!
• All uses: communication & sensing
• All users: Feds & commercial, planned & ad hoc
• All kinds: long/short range, high/low power, new/legacy
© Lehr, 2014
50
Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/cio/2013/09/30/wireless-spectrum-is-the-auto-fuel-of-the-future/
© Lehr, 2014
51
© Lehr, 2014
52
Economic/policy desiderata?
• Efficient : max value, min resources
• System, not component; Social, not private
• Dynamic, in face of increasing uncertainty (flexibility)
• Competition : where viable
• Where not viable? Market power, coordination failure.
• Decentralized control/ownership/asymmetric information.
• Innovation friendly : adaptive
• New replaces old gracefully (minimal adjustment costs)
• Evolutionary, not revolutionary. Viral, not flag days.
• End-user : choice/customization, autonomy (freedom), safety
• Regulation : minimalist (service/tech neutrality)
• A second-best necessity…
© Lehr, 2014
53
Spectrum Management Future : Shared spectrum
Lots of ways to share
• Geo/time/code/angle/beam-forming… etc.
• Coordinated/Uncoordinated; Cooperative/Uncooperative
• Licensed/unlicensed continuum  interference protection rights
• All are property rights, all have imperfect (costly) interference protection
• Legal rights only have relevance in context of larger ecosystem
Challenge for spectrum management regime
• Eliminate artificial scarcity (due to outdated rights regime)
• More spectrum for Mobile BB (Natl BB Plan, 2010; Presidential Memoranda, 2010, 2013; PCAST, 2012)
• More licensed (600MHz Incentive, AWS-3 auctions)
• More sharing opportunities
© Lehr, 2014
54
Spectrum Management and DSA
Agenda: future is shared spectrum. Need commercialize DSA tech,
business models and policy to support novel ways to share
spectrum.
•
•
FCC: 600MHz (Incentive Auctions), TVWS, 3.5GHz, 5.8GHz, etc.
PCAST report : government spectrum sharing
•
•
WSRD planning : research agenda
•
•
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast_spectrum_report_final_july_20_2012.pdf)
(https://connect.nitrd.gov/nitrdgroups/index.php?title=Wireless_Spectrum_Research_and_Development_(WSRD)#title)
Wireless@MIT : technologies to enable 1000+ fold efficiency
•
(http://wireless.csail.mit.edu/)
• CFP Spectrum WG
• LSA/ASA CFP Spectrum WG (Feb2014)
• LTE-U (Mar2014+)
•
Other stuff…
•
Public safety (FirstNet, 700MHz, testbeds…)
•
TVWS
•
Small Cells (DAS sharing, network MIMO, shared infrastructure)
© Lehr, 2014
55
LSA/ASA Spectrum Sharing: Policy & business challenges
• LSA/ASA sharing model is viable option for managing spectrum
• EU: 3GPP/ETSI progress in LTE standardization
• US: TVWS dbase management progress
• Business value?
• Intermediate sharing model with predictable spectrum QoS for both
primary (incumbent) and secondary users between traditional
unlicensed (no QoS protection) and exclusive licensed (no shared
access)
• Opportunities?
•
•
•
•
Mobile operators share LTE spectrum resources among each other
Platform for enabling MVNO
Platform for sharing with government operators (e.g., 3.5GHz radar)
??
• Policy value?
• Promote novel spectrum sharing, consistent with policy in US/EU.
• Leverage regulatory flexibility to transition to market-based regulation
© Lehr, 2014
56
ASA/LSA/PA/GAA
-- 3.5 US
-- 2.3 EU
© Lehr, 2014
March 2014
57
LTE-U -- March
LTE over Unlicensed
• Can LTE-U match WiFi economics?
• LTE-U co-existence with unlicensed?
• Roadmap/barriers/opportunities/forecasts?
• Co-existence of “WiFi” (user-deployed) & “LTE” (MNO)??
• Small cells
• Spectrum access
• Service control (source-based routing, multihoming, etc.)
© Lehr, 2014
58
Spectrum Management WG : Commercializing ASA/LSA
• WG Operating Process
• Convene key stakeholders in neutral forum, network research efforts
• 5-10 Conference calls to launch. Speaker + discussion.
• Webex, Email, File sharing (Wiki?)
• Participant list: CFP opt-in + non-CFP (invite only)
• White paper
• Purpose: frame the issue, set the agenda
• Within 6-9 months, 15-20 page “position paper”
• Participants are co-signers as individuals (not as company positions)
• Strawman outline
• Motivation: what is the problem?
• Bands for deployment/trials
• Roadmap for experiment/plans for progress
© Lehr, 2014
59
Spectrum/Wireless related research…
Weiss, M., W. Lehr, L. Cui, and M. Altamini (2012), "Enforcement in Dynamic Spectrum Access Systems," TPRC2012, Alexandria, VA,
September 2012
Lehr,W. and R. Yates (2012), "MobilityFirst, LTE and the Evolution of Mobile Networks," IEEE DySPAN2012, Bellevue, Washington, October
2012
Weiss, M., W. Lehr, and S. Delaere (2010), "Sensing as a Service: An Exploration into Practical Implementations of DSA," Proceedings of
IEEE DySPAN2010, Singapore
Chapin, J. and W. Lehr (2011) "Mobile Broadband Growth, Spectrum Scarcity, and Sustainable Competition," 39th Research Conference on
Communications, Information and Internet Policy (www.tprcweb.com), Alexandria, VA, September 2011.
Lehr, W. and J. Chapin (2010), "On the convergence of wired and wireless access network architectures," Internet Economics and Policy, 22
(2010) 33-41.
Chapin, J. and W. Lehr (2010) "SCADA for the Rest of Us: Unlicensed Bands Supporting Long-Range Communications," paper prepared for
the 38th Research Conference on Communication, Information and Internet Policy (www.tprcweb.com), Alexandria, VA, October 1-2,
2010.
Lehr, W. and N. Jesuale (2008), “Spectrum Pooling for Next Generation Public Safety Radio Systems,” Proceedings of the IEEE Dynamic
Spectrum Access Networks (DySPAN08) Conference, Chicago, October 14-17, 2008.
Chapin, J. and W. Lehr (2007), "The path to market success for dynamic spectrum access technologies," IEEE Communications Magazine,
May 2007 (pdf=http://people.csail.mit.edu/wlehr/Lehr-Papers_files/chapin_lehr_IEEE_communications_submitted.pdf)
Chapin, J. and W. Lehr (2007), "Time-limited Leases for Innovative Radios," with John Chapin, IEEE Communications Magazine, June 2007.
Lehr, W., M. Sirbu, and S. Gillett (2006), "Wireless is Changing the Policy Calculus for Municipal Broadband," Government Information
Quarterly, 23 (2006) 435-453
© Lehr, 2014
60
© Lehr, 2014
61
© Lehr, 2014
62
© Lehr, 2014
63
• AP owner/management?
• Typical for end-user to own AP.
• Management of AP by end-user (WiFi), operator (femto)
• Other models possible.
• Backaul?
• Typical for end-user to provision backhaul (residential BB)
• Could be managed IP, not Internet
• Spectrum?
• WiFi: unlicensed; Femto: licensed
• Shared spectrum models, LTE-U, etc.
© Lehr, 2014
64
• Growth off-loading, dense cell coverage expands, LTE roll-outs
complete….
• Operator deployed WiFi: HotSpot2.0, Comcast Xfinity, Free, FON, etc.
• WiFi in licensed, LTE-U and other mixed models
© Lehr, 2014
65
© Lehr, 2014
66
© Lehr, 2014
67
Economics of Spectrum Usage
or, re-inventing wireless econ101
William Lehr
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
National Wireless Research Collaboration Symposium
Idaho Falls, ID
May 15-16, 2014
© Lehr, 2014
68
Economics of Spectrum Usage
Vision of the Wireless Future
Wireless Econ101 re-invented
Research Agenda
© Lehr, 2014
69
Mobile Broadband Future
(a vision…)
• Pervasive computing : always/everywhere/everything connected
• IoT (M2M), (Internet) Cloud, Big Data, etc.
• Dynamic  Mobile  Local : more granular resource allocation
• Time/space/context (anything you want)
• Wireless everywhere  all uses, users, kinds
• Legacy/new, long/short range, high/low power
• Shared Spectrum  lots of ways to share

70
Spectrum Access Ecosystem
(real-time, closed loop)
© Lehr, 2014
70
DSA: lots of smart radio technology
© Lehr, 2014
Source: http://groups.winnforum.org/d/do/3839
71
Wireless Econ 101 re-invented
Features: Unbundle spectrum + technology + service + network
• Smaller cells
• Femto v. WiFi ecosystem clash? End-user empowerment?
• Network sharing involves more than spectrum.
• Roaming/hand-off/end-to-end service coordination mgmt?
• Exclusive rights less valuable
• Elimination of artificial scarcity
• Commoditization of spectrum, Homogeneous opportunity costs
• Lower strategic value to rights
• Market Time-clock compression
• Faster innovation cycles, shorter market opportunity window
• Interoperability, flexibility, adaptability increasing challenge
© Lehr, 2014
72
WSRD Workshop IV
Efficient spectrum utilization:
the economic and policy R&D Agenda
(April 2013)
L1: spectrum scarcity is
economic reality
L2: better identification of
sharing opportunities
needed
L3: aligning stakeholder
incentives is essential
L4: multidisciplinary research
collaboration needed
© Lehr, 2014
R1: Data, models, and empirical methods
R2: Spectrum valuation and economic
analysis tools
R3: Analysis of institutional and market
structure reforms
R4: Commercialization of novel wireless
technologies
R5: Special topics (pub safety, radar, ..)
73
Economic Research Challenges
Enforcement
• Interference/co-existence conflicts more common
• Spectrum Access System (SAS) design/implementation issues?
• Identity management (privacy/security)
User Adoption
• USER is key element of system especially in wireless future
• Incentives  value proposition ($ cost/benefit)
Wireless system costs
• Spectrum , Power/Configure/Backhaul/… 
• Adjustment/adoption/uncertainty are costs
© Lehr, 2014
74
© Lehr, 2014