Crsm 5 2009 Simon Delaere Vub Multi Level Standardization Of Cognitive Radio
description
Transcript of Crsm 5 2009 Simon Delaere Vub Multi Level Standardization Of Cognitive Radio
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