(link) CrownCom09 has a call for papers up. It’s a big enough CR conference that I don’t think I have to sell it, so the key information (follow the link for more info):
Conference Site: Hannover, Germany, June 22-24, 2009
- Paper Submission Due: 23rd February 2009
- Tutorial Proposals Due: 23rd February 2009
- Special Session Proposals Due: 3rd November 2008
- Acceptance Notification: 20th April 2009
- Final Papers Due: 4th May 2009
(link) iTNews (Aussie mag) interviewed Dr Bostian of VT about cognitive radio. Microsoft is also mentioned.
(link) SlashDot also notes the article, where as always, the comments are the most interesting part (particularly if you want a public perspective), e.g.,
“Cognitive radios!?? Oh no you don’t! (Starts adding layers to tin foil hat.)”
(link) The National Cable & Telecommunications Association issued a letter on white space noting potential interference at head ends. They are not arguing against unlicensed white space devices, but would like the following provisions:
- Restrict the operation of portable devices to a maximum of 10 mW and prohibit transmissions in the VHF channels given the high probability of direct pickup interference to TV receivers.
- Prohibit operations, at a minimum, on channels 2- 4.
- Restrict the operation of fixed devices to at least 400 feet from the external walls of residential buildings.
- Prohibit operation of fixed devices in VHF channels.
- Require spectrum coordination before operation of portable devices on channels adjacent to those being received at headends.
Of the suggested methods by which fixed and portable devices might automatically determine channel availability, it appears that auto-location (GPS or equivalent), combined with regular access to a reliable database containing geographically-indexed lists of available channels, has the potential to provide the flexibility and reliability required to protect headend reception.
(link) CSIRO PhD position on Cognitive Radio in Multi-hop Wireless Networks
(link) AccessNets (Oct 15-19, Las Vegas) will have a panel session on the “Successes of Dynamic Spectrum Management”
(link) The Communication Networks and Services Research Conference has issues a call for papers. Topics include cognitve radio, software radio, ad-hoc networks, Details
- Dec 5: Submission deadline
- Feb 9: Acceptance Date
- May 11-13 Moncton, New Brunswick Conference
(link) Overview of VT’s historical research efforts. Jeff and cognitive radio gets discussed some.
According to the WaPo, new rules for Block D have been issued:
Under the new proposal, the network would be auctioned as one national block of radio spectrum or, alternatively, as 58 separate regional airwaves licenses. The agency said that it prefers to sell the spectrum as a whole and that it would give priority to such a bid. But if no one meets the minimum reserve price for the national block, the commission would close the auction with a minimum of half of the 58 regional licenses sold.
To attract bidders in a new auction, Martin said yesterday that the minimum price to bid on the network would drop by nearly half, to $750 million. The deadline to build the network would extend to 15 years from 10 years, and any lease charges from public safety officials would be capped at $5 million a year.
I’m coming to the conclusion that white spaces will ultimately be licensed. Sure, it’s a late entrant solution, but consider the following from different parties’ perspectives.
1: FCC (ultimately the only opinion that matters)
Their dual missions (more or less) is to increase public utility from spectrum and to maximize revenues for the government . If white spaces are licensed, they will get used (which increases efficiency over current usage, though likely less than unlicensed) and the government should make a bit of money (not easily done with unlicened devices). Further, licensing should provide better mechanisms for addressing interference (via punishment and after-the-fact management ala Nextel) than if the public has it (see Marines + garage door opener); plus these mechanisms would be ones the FCC is used to.
2: Service providers
Selling services over licensed spectrum is a model they know well, so they’ll be quite comfortable with it. Assuming fixed site equipment (ala 802.22), the networks should look a lot like femtocell networks which the service providers should be comfortable with. Now there will clearly be more spectrum in rural environments than urban environments, but rural broadband that’s the rationale for 802.22 and the ostensible rationale for the White Space Alliance.
3: Equipment vendors
They would still get to sell equipment, but now to customers with a clear business model. Plus any equipment sold would be more likely to conform to 802.22 which is virtually complete now, which means they’ll get to start making sales sooner than a yet to be defined standard for “WiFi on steroids”.
4. White space opponents (broadcasters / wireless mic users)
I think a key argument for them against unlicensed use was: “Who do we sue?”. With licensed service provisions, it should be readily apparent who is responsible for interference in different areas and they’ll have deep enough pockets (the service providers) to make it worth while to go after them (which then gives the service providers incentive to not interfere).
5. White space coalition (Google, Microsoft)
Except for perhaps Adaptrum, most of the White space coalition (or alliance or whatever they want to be called these days) are primarily interested in increasing available data bandwidth. They’ll get it with licensing. Motorola and Phillips should still be more than happy by the opportunity to sell femtocell-like white space equipment in a licensed environment.
6. End users
They’ll still get more data than if white space use is disallowed (though perhaps less than unlicensed), plus there will be an easier mechanism to provide for more than just hot-spot coverage (via the service provider infrastructure), which means more coverage than unlicensed.
Thoughts on licensed white spaces
- This would make 802.22 a winning technology as it provides an immediate mechanism for implementing licensed white space access. Heretofore, I thought it might be DoA.
- This should open up a transition to a mobile 802.22 standard.
- Would still be good to not specify exactly what standard (or family of standards) has to be used in the spectrum to allow for usage to evolve.
- Explicit permissions for resale, leasing and subdivision of licenses would be good.
- I would still like to see some additional unlicensed spectrum opened up to let smaller markets bloom.
- It would still be a significant step forward for cognitive radio, just a smaller one.