Interference protection for unlicensed devices

It’s generally accepted that an unlicensed device must accept interference from any source, and may not cause harmful interference to any licensed service; for example, Weiser and Hatfield explain that Part 15 “safeguards only the rights of licensed spectrum users and provides no protection to commons access users”  in their 2005 paper Policing the Spectrum Commons.

I don’t read it that way. Unlicensed devices shouldn’t cause harmful interference to other unlicensed devices, either.

Receiver interference limits presented at FCC workshop

I made a presentation and participated in a panel at the FCC Workshop on Spectrum Efficiency and Receivers on March 12-13, 2012 (Public Notice PDF). My presentation is at http://sdrv.ms/AwoAZj. My presentation is on the day 2 video starting at time code 36:00 (there is also video for day 1); my opening comments on the subsequent panel are at 86:00, and various times subsequently.

A two page summary of the proposal is available at http://sdrv.ms/ReceiverLimits 

Placebo Legislation: Doing Good by Doing Nothing

I recently sat in on a conversation at the Silicon Flatirons Center among a group of cybersecurity experts about the need and nature of government regulation, given the vulnerability of critical infrastructure to cyber-attack, and indications that the market alone may not provide the desired degree of communal action needed for defense. I concluded that the answer was “placebo legislation”: Doing Good by Doing Nothing.

Apparently the U.S. federal government has recognized the need for action, and the Administration and leaders in Congress have proposed a number of legislative solutions. However, I ended up feeling that we’d be better off if the government pretty much did nothing given that:

A number of practitioners described how regulations too easily lead to a “compliance culture,” where statutory requirements incentivize companies to check the right boxes, rather than implement better security

White hat hackers explained that vulnerabilities and exploit strategies are evolving much, much more rapidly than any conceivable government framework

Cybersecurity is a complex and messy socio-technical system, and the unintended negative consequences of any regulation could easily outweigh the benefits

A leading computer scientist observed that the incentives for appropriate behavior were already about right – and that a process-oriented standards framework was guaranteed to drive the technical experts out of the room.

The government therefore needs to be seen to be doing something – but the less it does, the better. This is not unlike the placebo effect, where a patient given a dummy treatment experiences a true improvement in their condition – without harmful side effects.

Incremental management of reception: When protection limits are not sufficient

As the growing demand for wireless services squeezes radio operations ever closer together, we can no longer afford to ignore the costs that poor receivers and ambiguous interference standards impose on society. There’s a growing consensus that radio regulation needs to attend to reception issues as much as to transmission, which has led to a clamor for receiver standards.  As I’ve argued in the June 2011 post Receiver protection limits: a better way to manage interference than receiver standards, however, the best way to manage receivers is to specify the radio environment in which they have to operate (i.e. receiver protection limits) rather than government getting into the minutiae of setting performance requirements (i.e. receiver standards).

However, while protection limits are necessary, there may be cases where they’re not sufficient. In this post I outline a progression of increasingly interventionist steps in managing reception, starting with protection limits and adding more and more requirements until one reaches full-strength government-imposed receiver standards.

Vendor representations: a solution to the decoupled receiver problem

Requiring receiver vendors to represent to buyers that their equipment is fit for purpose is a way to avoid cheap receivers from reducing the performance of coexisting systems in the “decoupled receiver” case, i.e. when there isn't a license holder to negotiate with.

From spectrum efficiency metrics to parameter spaces

In my post FCC white paper shows that “spectrum efficiency” is meaningless I argued that spectrum efficiency metrics are not very helpful.

They won’t go away, though, because engineers and economists instinctively characterize systems numerically. Both tribes strive to separate a problem into smaller independent parts, each described quantitatively; metrics are just a symptom.  The goal is to convert a complex mess into a problem amenable to objective analysis, yielding an incontrovertible answer. No more messy politics! 

Since politicians always look for cover behind engineers and economists, simplistic metrics will always be with us – not least in radio regulation.  Given that reality, I’m going to dig into spectrum metrics a little more. I conclude that it could be more productive to define a series of axes in a parameter space than a single metric.

Stamps and Stewards: A third way to regulate radio operation

Radio operation to date has largely been regulated in two ways. The dominant approach has been licensing station operators, whether they’re amateurs, TV broadcasters, or companies operating cellular systems. In the last twenty years or so, device licensing (aka unlicensed in the US, and license exemption in Europe) has also become widely used: if a device has been certified to meet regulatory requirements, anyone can operate a “station” using it without needing a license. [1] In these two approaches, the regulation controls either the system operator (for licensed), or the device manufacturer (for unlicensed).

I’m exploring another way, where the regulator accredits a limited number of “stampholders” who can each an issue an unlimited number of “stamps.” One can see these stampholders as the designated stewards of a "spectrum commons," and the stamps as the mechanism they use for controlling access to a common pool resource. A device may only be sold if it bears the requisite stamp or seal, in addition to any other statutory requirements such as Part 15 certification. Control is exercised at the point of sale through labeling or marks.

This notes builds on the previous posts Licensing radio receivers (Aug 2011) and Licensed Unlicensed (Sep 2011). I learned long ago that if I can think of something, someone’s already done it. However, I haven’t found good precedents yet, and I’m still looking for canonical examples or ringing metaphors. Stamps (in the sense of signet rings and seals) and Stewards is the best analogy I’ve found so far. [2]

Follow-up: In Markets for adjusting interference rights (May 2012) I explore another way of negotiating adjustments to boundaries (e.g. power levels) between unlicensed bands and their neighboring bands given of the collective action challenges faced by unlicensed operators.

Spectrum utilization and a Buddhist perspective on space

The “Spectrum as Space” metaphor implies that spectrum is a neutral container that can be filled with radio signals, leading to naïve notions of utilization such as empty and full spectrum bands. “Spectrum” is imagined a collection of axes which mark out an abstract space, such as frequency, geography, and time (e.g. Robert Matheson’s “electrospace” concept, cf. Matheson & Morris 2011, The Technical Basis for Spectrum Rights: Policies to Enhance Market Efficiency).

However, that’s not the only way to look at it. Non-spatial models such “Wireless as Trademark” work just as well (see my 2008 paper De-Situating Spectrum: Rethinking Radio Policy Using Non-Spatial Metaphors): by analogy, a trademark stands for both a part of the wireless resource (customarily, frequency band x geographic region x time slot), and signals. The wireless resource is all possible radio operations. In such an approach, one is much less likely to ignore the importance of receivers in this approach than spectrum-as-space, where only transmitters can “fill the space” with signals. Any radio operation includes the use of a receiver, and that receiver-transmitter pair influences what transmissions are possible by third parties.

Curiously, I found a relevant perspective on this problem in a book on ethics – Stephen Batchelor’s Living with the Devil. He writes:

One tends to think of space in terms of physical extension and location. A body “occupies” or “fills” a space. For there to be “no more space” means that nothing more can be fitted into a room or a vehicle or a document. Outer space is that virtually infinite expanse speckled with galaxies and stars separated by inconceivable distances. “Inner space” suggests a formless expanse of mind in which thoughts, mental images, memories, and fantasies rise and pass away. Space seems to be the relatively permanent place where temporal events happen.  

Buddhist philosophers see space differently. They define it as the “absence of resistance.” The space in a room is under stood as the absence of anything that would prevent one moving around in it. To cross from one side of the room to the other is possible because nothing gets in your way. Rather than being the place where things happen, space is the absence of what prevents things from happening. The space in the room is nothing in itself; it is just the absence of chairs or tables, glass walls or hidden tripwires that would obstruct movement within it. In encountering no such resistance, we are able to move about freely. [In the footnotes, Batchelor ascribes this approach to the Geluk school of Tibetan Buddhism.] 

The customary view that Batchelor outlines is “space as a set of dimensions” that informs the Spectrum as Space metaphor. One can transpose his summary to spectrum as “the relatively permanent place where [radio operations] happen.” The “Buddhist” view, on the other hand, would see spectrum as the absence of factors that would obstruct radio operations. Existing radio operations, including receivers, would provide resistance to new operations, even in quite distant frequency bands. And there is an interaction between the agent that wants to move about and the nature of obstructions: neither a mouse nor a monkey would have no trouble scurrying around in a restaurant, while a person would be obstructed by all the tables and chairs. Likewise, one has to first define the new operation one has in mind before deciding that spectrum is “occupied”; calculating utilization is not a straightforward matter of marking spectrum as “empty” or “full.”

FCC white paper shows that “spectrum efficiency” is meaningless

The FCC Technical Advisory Council’s (TAC) draft white paper on spectrum efficiency metrics (25 September 2011) is an excellent piece of work. It is authoritative, instructive, and demonstrates decisively that spectrum [1] efficiency metrics are a meaningless concept.

While they don’t say this in so many words, members of the Sharing Working Group perhaps intended this conclusion to be drawn; “spectrum efficiency” is a DC catchphrase that is hard to avoid, and it would probably be unwise to refute it overtly…

The following elements of the paper imply that the “spectrum efficiency” concept is useless:

1. There is no metric that can be applied across the myriad of different wireless services.
2. The metrics are incomplete, even within a service.
3. While the paper suggests metrics for specific services, the taxonomy of services is arbitrary.

Consequently

• There is no way to compare the “efficiency” of one radio service (aka one “spectrum use”) to another, denying politicians the pseudo-scientific rationale they dream of for converting a frequency band allocation from one use to another.

• Even within a given service type, there is no defensible way to rate one deployment’s performance over another; even if one scored much lower using the relevant efficiency metric, its defenders could invoke any of the long list of “additional efficiency considerations” to deny that the comparison was valid.

The paper also misses an opportunity: It hints at the importance of cost effectiveness rather than mere efficiency, but doesn’t address this broader context.

Follow-up posts:

• From spectrum efficiency metrics to parameter spaces (December 2011)
•  Three meanings of “spectrum efficiency” (October 2012)

The extent of FCC/NTIA frequency sharing

Take a guess: What percentage of US frequencies are controlled by the Federal government (represented by the NTIA), and what percentage is shared with non-Federal [1] users, who are under FCC jurisdiction? And what’s the remainder, devoted solely to non-Federal users?

My intuition, for what it's worth, was completely wrong. I thought the Fed/non-Fed split was roughly 50/50, with a bit (say 10%) being shared. As I pointed out in my recent post about partitioning Fed and non-Fed allocations, the amount of sharing should be easy enough to establish. It turns out that Peter Tenhula of Shared Spectrum Company has done a lot of work on this [2], and he pointed me to the FCC’s spectrum dashboard where one can download an XML snapshot of the allocation database (currently the API only covers the range 225-3700 MHz).

The answer? It depends on the frequency range and how one counts [3], but very roughly 10% is Federal, 40% shared, and 50% non-Federal (i.e. FCC) only.

Here's a picture (click it to enlarge); an Excel file with my analysis is here.

Update, 21 October 2011: Perhaps the flaw didn't lie with my intuition, but with my interpretation of the data. A senior FCC person has pointed out to me that many supposedly "shared" allocations are, to all intents and purposes, controlled by Federal agencies, and non-Federal (i.e. FCC-managed) services are present only on sufferance, if at all (e.g. 220-2290 MHz); or "sharing" only occurs both Federal and non-Federal entities used the same service (e.g. air traffic or maritime radar). So the question still stands, pending further digging: how much sharing (for various values of "sharing") is really going on?

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

South Sudan. Serbia/Kosovo. India/Pakistan. Britney Spears and Kevin Federline. Sometimes a clean break is best for everyone, particularly when there are fundamental differences in mindset. Enforced coexistence is not, for many couples, the best way to live.

Sharing between Federal and non-Federal wireless users (aka Fed and non-Fed) is a favored way to realize the FCC’s dream of finding 500 MHz for commercial mobile broadband services; as reported in TheHill.com, “It is unclear where the 500 megahertz of spectrum will come from, but a large portion will likely come from government agencies that do not use the frequencies efficiently.”

Fed/non-Fed sharing can be made to work, and worthy efforts are being made. However, I doubt it’s worth the effort, given the insane difficulty of negotiating band re-allocations, let alone sharing agreements; questions over whether 500 MHz is, in fact, either needed or would make a dent on cellular companies’ problems; and fundamental concerns about jurisdiction (see my August 2011 post No Common Authority: Why spectrum sharing across the Fed/non-Fed boundary is a bad idea).

It would be a better use of time and effort to go in the opposite direction: make the partition between Federal and non-Federal as clean as possible, and let each group of figure out sharing among its own constituents.

Licensed Unlicensed: Having your Coase, and your Commons too

I lighted on the notion of issuing a handful of receiver licenses in allocations where transmitter licensees don’t control receivers (e.g. TV, GPS) to facilitate negotiations between operators in neighboring bands; details blogged here.

The same idea could be applied to unlicensed allocations, where the unbounded number of operators makes it essentially impossible for Coasian adjustments to be made: a neighbor that would like quieter unlicensed devices has nobody to make a deal with, nor do unlicensed users have an effective way to band together to make a deal if they’d like to increase their own transmit power. This approach also has the benefit, as in the receiver license case, of giving the regulator a tool for changing operating expectations over time, e.g. ratcheting down receiver protections or increasing receiver standards.

The catch-phrase “licensed unlicensed” is obviously a contradiction in terms; it’s shorthand for a regime where non-exclusive operating permissions are issued to a limited number of entities, while retaining the key characteristic that has made unlicensed successful: the ability of end users to choose for themselves what equipment to buy and deploy. These entities can use or sub-license these authorizations to build and/or sell devices to end-users.

Follow-up post

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

TV white space databases: A bad idea for developing countries

Now that TV white space rulemakings are in the can in the US and UK, proponents will be pitching the technology to any government that’ll listen, e.g. at the Internet Governance Forum meeting to be held in Nairobi on 27-30 September.

It’s understandable: the more widespread white space database rules, the larger device volumes will be, and thus the lower the equipment cost, leading to wider adoption – a positive feedback loop. However, white space database technology is unnecessary in many countries, particularly developing ones.

Yet it verges on dodgy ethics for companies to hype this technology to countries that don’t need it, particularly since there’s a better solution: dedicating part of the TV frequencies that are freed as a result of the transition to digital TV (the “Digital Dividend”) to unlicensed operation, without the white space bells and whistles.

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]