Multi-level standardization of cognitive radio: the case of the Cognitive Pilot Channel

Simon Delaere IBBT-SMIT, Vrije Universiteit Brussel

IBBT-MIT Joint Workshop on CRSM Brussels, 11 May 2009

Outline

 Why following standardization is important  Standardization process has evolved

 From linear process in SDOs  To complex, multi-level process

 Case: Cognitive Pilot Channel   Concept  Regulation and standardization trajectories  Multi-level aspects

 Conclusions

S. Delaere & P. Ballon (2008). Multi-level standardization and business models for cognitive radio: the case of the Cognitive Pilot Channel. Paper presented at the DySPAN 2008 Conference, Chicago, 14-17 October 2008

Why following standardization is important

 Technical design (= standardization) co-determines cognitive radio (CR) business models

 Standardization influences companies and regulators

 Different dynamics at play: within a firm/between firms (e.g. consortium), within a standardization forum, between different fora

3

The advent of standardization

 Standardization has always existed  Process as we know it: 19th century

 Centralized production of goods, Fordism and Taylorism

 Products and machines: uniform, replicable and interchangeable

 Objective: speed up & simplify production, lower maintenance and inventory holding costs, stimulate specialization

 Standardization needed   Informal formal process  Standards Development Organisations (SDOs)

Linear standardization in telecoms

 Coordination more crucial in telecoms than other sectors: ITU (°1865) arguably oldest sectoral SDO

 Essentially intergovernmental: ensuring interconnection of national monopolies

 Tight integration between  Operators  Regulators  Manufacturers  Standardizers

 Consequence: relatively simple, linear process, at least until end of 1960s

Transformation 1: increased systems complexity

  Technical complexity   1970: three standardized, E2E compatible telecoms services   Increase in mass production drive towards variety and cost

reduction   Increased amount of data, more and new types of risks   Increased demand for health, safety and environmental protection

  Convergence: brings together separated interest groups with different focus, infrastructure etc.

  Globalization (Brunsson)   more actors   more international and transnational organisations   communication over vast distances possible   people more receptive to what happens in another region

Transformation 2: liberalization of markets

  Europe: free market rationale and large corporate users alliance since 1970s first actions in 1979

  Coincided with national tendencies, e.g. Thatcher calls for liberalization (1978), AT&T divestiture (1974-1982), Carterfone Decision (1968)

  EU 1988 equipment market liberalized   EU 1990 value added services   EU 1997 Open Network Provision Directive: competition in public

network services, separation between regulation and operation   Consequences:

  Less influence of PTOs in SDOs pressure   New operators with new systems and standards   New manufacturers proliferation of systems

Pressure on formal SDOs

  Criticisms – eg. Van Wegberg: less responsive to market needs, too slow, too bureaucratic, participants with antagonistic views, blockages because of different views, submarine companies.

  E.g. Wehnert: lack of support, focus, funding & mgt., no user involvement, lack of willingness to compromise, incompatible working methodologies, cultural differences and administrative constraints (enquiry, balloting procedures, translation requirements)

  Doubts on ‘democratic’ advantage of SDOs (Egyedi)   David & Shurmer: Potential bias towards less innovative solutions

due to the need of consensus, convergence causes uncertainty with regard to the ‘jurisdiction’ of SDOs in closely related areas.

Reactions

  First reaction: proliferation of standardization consortia  De facto standardization by non-cooperative,

competitive industrial players   Formation of private standardization criteria  Sometimes, cooperation with SDOs, but often

bypassed  Many perceived advantages, but also disadvantages

 Second reaction: reform of formal SDOs (1980s onwards) – David and Schurmer  Procedures  Coordination  Conflict resolution

The transition to multi-level standardization

 Companies want speed and flexibility, quality and acceptance, IPR protection and openness, cover several aspects, sectors and regions

 Moving towards multi-level standardization  # regions, bodies, phases of product cycle, partners  Combining merits of # types of SDOs

 Complex and uncertain process  Technologies standardized very early  Little known about impact of design choices,

interests to defend  Composition of groups might be different

Context of CPC development

 Current regulatory system of exclusive, long-term spectrum licensing: inefficiency and high entry barriers  Spectrum underused   Innovation stifled  Customers locked-in

  Increasing heterogeneity of access technologies  Digital dividend incites debate  Moves towards more flexible forms of spectrum

management  Dynamic Spectrum Allocation  Spectrum pooling  Secondary markets and change of use

Cognitive Pilot Channel concept

Operator 1 UMTS

?

2 Ghz Operator 2 WiFi 2.5 Ghz

CPC

Operator 1 WiMAX 2 Ghz

Operator 3 WiFi 2.5 Ghz

O1-GSM-1500 O2-WiMAX-2000 O3-WiFi-2500

Connect CPC 450 Mhz

O1-GSM-1500

O2-WiMAX-2000

O3-WiFi-2500

Connect O3 WiFi 2.5 Ghz

Operator 1 GSM 1800 Mhz Operator 1 GSM 1800 Mhz Operator 1 GSM 1800 Mhz Operator 1 GSM 1500 Mhz

1

2

3

4

 FSM may invoke a particular information deficit  E2RII/E3 proposes Cognitive Pilot Channel as a solution

CPC regulation tracks

CPC in IEEE

  IEEE SCC41 1900.4   Established February 2007 (decision 12/06) as WG 1900.4   Objective: to standardize the architecture and protocols enabling a

network-device distribution of decision-making in order to optimize radio resource usage.

  Functional requirements, functional architecture, information model, scenario examples

  CPC included as a crucial enabler for communication between terminals and networks

  Chicago meeting October 2008: ballot successfull   27 February 2009: 1900.4 baseline document published   Work continues in two subgroups (4.1: interfaces/protocols, 4a

DSA in White Space frequencies)

CPC in ETSI  ETSI TC RRS

 Established January 2008  Objectives

 to study the feasibility of RRS standardization activities  collect and define the RRS requirements  identify gaps in current ETSI standards and suggest

further standardization activities   Five meetings held, WG FA & CPC with WI CPC

established, report underway but some delay  Contains CPC definition, advantages, functionalities,

procedures, information conveyed, # architectures (in-band, out-band, application layer variant, hierarchical model

Development overview

CPC in multi-level standardization

  IEEE and ETSI are different in  Timing  Geographical location  Type of standardization organization  Composition  Procedure/Cost  Aspect of CPC standardized

 Yet they are closely intertwined  Similar companies  EU objectives in US SG, Japanese involvement in

ETSI  Overlapping objectives

CPC in multi-level standardization ETSI RRS PART EU US JAP

1 36 11 3 2 33 9 2 3 28 3 4 4 28 1 5 5 31 3 6

ETSI RRS3 PART 1 8 0 2 2 13 0 4 3 9 1 5 4 7 0 3 5 13 1 5

ETSI RRS3 CONT 1 7 0 0 2 9 0 2 3 10 0 2 4 6 1 4 5 8 1 1

18

 IEEE SCC41 1900.4, dd. July 2008: 21 voting members, of which 8 Japanese

 IEEE SCC41 1900.4 continuation: 4 original EU driving partners active

CPC in multi-level standardization

  Pre-market, uncertain process   CPC is one of several options: database, collaborative sensing

are others   For some, CPC is still in study phase and should be treated as

such others want to standardize and regulate   Not everyone promotes the CPC

 E.g. WRC debates on CR/SDR agenda item, discussions on whether they should be in the RR at all, potential dangers

  Within Europe: some regulators and industries more sceptic than others, CEPT/ECC ask for more arguments

  Impact unknown, strategies vary   Strain on companies involved: composition changes

19

Conclusions

 CPC could be important enabler for Cognitive Radio Systems

 Is currently in a regulatory process as well as multi-level standardization

 Standardization comes very early, strategies and outcomes unclear, one of many options, different dynamics

 Definite impact on business models