Spectrum “sharing”: the convenient ambiguity of an English verb

I realized while writing Spectrum Sharing: Not really sharing, and not just spectrum that my confusion over the meaning of spectrum sharing derives from two meanings of the English verb "to share":

(1) to divide and distribute in shares, to apportion;

(2) to use, experience or occupy with others, to have in common.

For example, the first is sharing a bag of peanuts, and the second is sharing a kitchen or an MP3 file. Cellular operators and economists tend to use the word with the first meaning, and Open Spectrum advocates with the second.

But that raises the question: is the double meaning inherent in the concept, or is it just an accident of English vocabulary?

I asked some friends about the regulatory terminology in other languages; so far I have information about Arabic, Chinese and German. If you could shed light on regulatory terminology in other languages, for example French, Japanese or Spanish, please get in touch.

Time limiting unlicensed authorizations

I’m coming around to Tom Hazlett’s view that unlicensed devices in the TV whitespaces are a bad idea because they preclude alternative future uses for the channels now being used for TV. (For his main objections, see “Shooting Blanks on Wireless Policy,” FT.com October 5, 2010 PDF) It’s a figure-ground problem; defining whitespace operating rules on the basis of TV operations reciprocally defines viable operations in the TV “blackspace”.

One could get around the problem and still have unlicensed use, though, by time limiting the unlicensed authorization. [1] Just like build-out conditions on licenses, there would be a fixed time window within which widespread deployment should occur. If it doesn’t, the authorization is revoked.

This approach seems particularly relevant when an authorization holds great promise, but that promise is very uncertain, e.g. when the technology or the market is changing rapidly. “Sunsets” on rules are important since the passage of time invariably invalidates the premises of regulation, even as it entrenches the interests that coalesce around those regulations. [2]

Licensing radio receivers as a way to facilitate negotiation about interference

It’s a curious fact that, while receivers are just as much responsible for breakdowns in radio operations as transmitters [a], regulation is aimed pretty much exclusively at transmitters [b].

Since one can’t ignore the receivers in practice, arguments over interference almost invariably turn to receiver standards. Even if receiver standards were a good idea (and I don’t think they are - see my post Receiver protection limits: a better way to manage interference than receiver standards), the ability to adjust receiver performance by fiat or negotiation is limited when receivers are operated independently of transmitters.

I suspect that receiver licenses may be necessary to reach the optimum outcome in at least some cases. This post is going to take that idea out for a first test drive.

Regulators evidently have managed without receiver licenses (beyond their use as a way to fund traditional broadcasting) so far. Why introduce them now? I’ll give my usual answer: the dramatically increased demand for wireless is squeezing radio operators of widely varying kinds together to an unprecedented extent, and we no longer have the luxury of the wide gaps that allowed regulators to ignore receiver performance, and ways of managing it.

Follow-up post

• Stamps and stampholders: a third way to regulate radio operation

The dark side of whitespace databases

Back in May 2009 I drafted a blog about the unintended side-effects of regulating unlicensed radios using databases. I was in the thick of TV whitespace proceeding (on the side of the proponents), and decided not to post it since it might have muddied the waters for my client.

Databases have become the Great White Hope of “dynamic spectrum access” over the last two-plus years. They are seen not only as a way to compensate for the weaknesses of “spectrum sensing” solutions, but as a way for regulators to change the rules quickly, and for unlicensed devices to work together more efficiently. For a quick background, see: FCC names nine white-space database providers, FierceWireless, Jan 2011; Michael Calabrese, “Ending Spectrum Scarcity: Building on the TV Bands Database to Access Unused Public Airwaves,” New America Foundation, Wireless Future Working Paper #25 (June 2009).

Looking back at my note, I think it's still valid. Rather than rewrite it, I’ve decided simply to repost it here as originally drafted (omitting a couple of introductory paragraphs).

No Common Authority: Why spectrum sharing across the Fed/non-Fed boundary is a bad idea

The ISART conference this year was about sharing in the radar bands, in line with the Administration’s efforts to encourage frequency sharing between Federal and non-Federal (e.g. commercial and civilian) users (NTIA Fast Track Evaluation PDF, FCC proceeding ET docket 10-123).

While it’s true that the NTIA has studied the feasibility of reallocating Federal Government spectrum, or relocating Federal Government systems, the current political focus is on “spectrum sharing” (cf. my post Spectrum Sharing: Not really sharing, and not just spectrum) – and Federal/non-Federal sharing is the hardest possible problem.

Federal/non-Federal sharing is hard for many reasons, notably the chasm between the goals and incentives between the two groups, and thus a profound lack of trust. I’m going to focus here, though, on a seemingly technical but profound problem: the lack of a common authority that can resolve conflicts.

Follow-up post

• Partition, not sharing: An alternative approach to the Fed/non-Fed spectrum divide

Spectrum Sharing: Not really sharing, and not just spectrum

There was endless talk about spectrum sharing at ISART in Boulder last week. I’ve become increasingly confused about what those words mean, since wireless has been about more than one radio system is operating at the same time and place pretty much since the beginning.
For example, whitespace devices are said to share the UHF band with television, but the operating rules have been drawn up to ensure that whitespace devices never interfere with TV, i.e. never operate in the same place, channel and time. What’s “sharing” about that? The purpose of radio allocation from the start has been to avoid harmful interference between different radio operations, which has always been done by ensuring that two systems don’t operate in the same place, channel and time – such as two TV stations not interfering with each other.

It seems that the “new sharing” has three characteristics: (1) more boundaries (in geography, frequency and particularly time) than ever before; (2) the juxtaposition of different kinds of services that differ more from each other than they used to; and (3) sharing without central control. It’s a difference in degree, not in kind.

It’s not about sharing, since the goal is to avoid interference, i.e. to avoid sharing. It’s not about spectrum, i.e. radio frequencies, since non-interference is achieved not only by partitioning frequencies but also by dividing space, time, transmit power and the right to operate.