wireless communications

Spectrum
Management
Cognitive radio technoiogies offer new metiiods for spectrum
rnpnagement beyond simple coiiision avoidance.
I
by Bruce Fette, Chief Scientist, Communication Networks Division,
General Dynamics C4 Systems
spectrum management
immediate interest to regulators in fielding
cognitive radios is to provide new capabilities
that support new methods and Eiiechanisms for
trum access and utilization now under con-
;ider;ilion by intemational spectrum regulatory
bodies, riiese new meihodologies recognize
fixed assignment of a frequency to one
purpose <icrn<;s huge geographic regions {often
across L'liliic Lounlries) is quite ineflicient. To-
day, this type of frequency assignment results
in severe underutilization of the precious and
bounded spectrum resource. The Federal Com-
munications Commission (FCC; for commer-
cial applications) and the National Telecom-
munications and Information Administration
(NTIA; for federal applications) in the United
States, as well as corresponding regulatory
bodies of many other countries, are exploring
the question of whether better spectrum utiliza-
tion could be achieved given some intelligence
in the radio and in the network infrastructure.
This interest also has led to developing new
methods to manage spectrum access in which
the regulator is not required to micromanage
every application, every power level, antenna
height and waveform design. Indeed, the goal
of minimizing interference with other systems
with other purposes may he reasonably auto-
mated by the cognitive radio. With a cognitive
radio, the regulator could define policies at a
higher level, and expect the equipment and the
infrastructure to resolve the details within well-
defined practical boundary conditions such as
available frequency, power, waveform, geogra-
phy and equipment capabilities. In addition, the
radio is expected to utilize whatever etiquette
or protocol delines cooperative performance
for network membership.
In the United States, which has several broad
classes of service, the FCC has held meetings
with license holders, who have various ob-
jectives. There are license holders who retain
their specific spectrum for public safety and
for other public purposes such as broadcast
of AM. FM and TV. There are license holders
who purchased spectrum specifically for com-
mercial telecommunications purposes. There
are license holders for industrial applications,
as well as those for special interests.
Many frequencies are allocated to more than
one purpose. An example of this is frequency
allocated for remote control purposesmany
garage door opener companies and automobile
door lock companies have developed and de-
2 0 PORTABLE DESIGN
(A
C
O
'M
(O
o
c
E
o
u
tf)
tf)
0)
ployed large quantities of products using these
remote control frequencies. In addition, there
are broad chunks of spectrutn for which NTIA
has defined frequency and waveform usage,
and how the defense community will use spec-
trum in a process similar to that used by the
FCC for commercial purposes.
Finally, there are spectrum commons and
unlicensed blocks. In these frequencies, there
is overlapping purpose among multiple users,
waveforms and geography. An example of
speetrum commons is the 2.4 GHz band. The
Ge t Con n e ct e d
I with companies mentioned in this article.
.-,iX/www.portabledesign,coni/gc;tcc)nnected
following sections touch on new methods for
spectrum management, and how they lead to
spectrum efticiency.
Managing Unlicensed Spectrum
The 2.4 and 5 GHz band are popularly used
for wireless computer networking. These
bands, and others, are known as the industrial,
scientihc, medical (ISM) bands. Energy from
microwave ovens falls in the 2.4 GHz band.
Consequently, it is impractical to license that
band for a particulai" purpose. However. Wi-Fi
(802.11 ) and Bluetooth applications are speeili-
cally designed to coexist witb a variety of in-
terference waveforms commonly found in this
band as well as with each other. Various types
of equipment utilize a protocol to determine
whieh frequencies or time slots to use and keep
trying until they find a usable channel. They
also acknowledge correct receipt of transmis-
sions, retransmitting data packets when colli-
sions cause uncorrectable hit errors.
Although radio communication equipment
and applications defined in these bands may
he unlicensed, they are restricted to specific
guidelines about what frequencies are used and
whai effective isotropie radiated power (EIRP)
is allowed. Furthermore, they must accept any
existing interference (such as that from micro-
wave ovens and diathermy machines), and they
must not interfere with any applications outside
this band,
Bluetooth and 802.11 both use waveforms
and carrier frequencies that keep their emis-
sions inside the 2.4 GHz band. Boih use meth-
ods of hopping to frequencies ihal successfully
communicate and to error correct bits or pack-
ets that are corrupted by interference. Details o
Bluetooth and S()2.l 1 waveform properties are
shown in Table I.
The S()2.11 waveform can successfully avoid
interference from microwave ovens because
each packet is of sufficiently short duration that
a packet can bc delivered at ii frequency or dur-
ing a time period wliilc ihe interference is mini-
mal. Bluetooth waveforms are designed to hop
to many different frequencies very rapidly, anil
consequently the probability of collision wiili a
strong 802.11 or microwave is relatively small
and correctable with error correcting codes.
The regulation of the 2.4 and 5 GHz bands
consi.sts of setting the spectrum boundaries,
defining specific carrier frequencies ihat all
equipment is to use, and limiting the EIRP. As
shown in Table 1, the maximum EIRP is 1W or
less for most of the wireless network products.
except lor the metropolitiui WiMAX service.
and the FCC-type acceptance is based on the
manufaeturer demonstrating EIRP and fre-
quency compliance.
It is of particular interest to note that each
country sets its own spectral anil FIRP rules
wiih regard to these bands. Japan and Europe
2 2 PORTABLE DESIGN
each have regulatory rules fur Ihesc bands that
are different from those of the United States.
Consequently, manufacturers may either (a)
make Ihree models, (bt make one model with
a switch to select to which country the product
will lie sold, (c) make a model that is common-
ly compliant to all regional requirements, or (d)
make a model that is capable of determining its
current ItKation and implement the krcal appli-
cable rules. Meihod (d) is an early application
of CDgniiive techniques.
Noise Aggregation
Communication planners worry that the com-
bined noise from many transmitters may add
together and thereby increase the noise floor at
the receiver of an iniptirtaiil message, perhaps
an emergency message, It is well understtxtd
that noise power sums together at a receiver. If
a receiver antenna is able to see the emissions
of many transmitters on the same desired fre-
quency and time slot, increasing the noise iiotir
will reduce the quality of the signal at the de-
modulator, in tum increasing the bit error rate.
and possibly rendering (he signal useless. If the
interfering transmitters are all located on the
ground in an tirban area, the interference power
from ihcsc transmitters decays approximately
as the reciprocal of r'".
The total noise received is the sum of the
powers of all such interfering transmitters.
Even iransmitters whose received power level
is below the noise floor also add to the noise
tloor. However, signals whose power level is
extremely small compared to the noise floor
have little impact on the noise floor. If there are
UK) signals each 20 dB below the noise, then
that noise power will sum equal to the noise,
and raise the total noise oor by 3 dB. Simi-
larly, if ihere are HHK) transmitters, each 30 dB
helow the noise tloor. they can raise the noise
floor by 30 dB. However, the additional noise
is usually domiciled by the one or two interfer-
ing transmltter.s that are closest to the receiver.
In addition, we must consider the signifi-
cant effect of personal communication devices,
which are becoming ubiquitous. In fact, one
person may have several devices all at close
range to each other. Cognitive radios will be
Ihe solution to ihis spectral noise and spec-
tral crowding, and will evolve to the point of
deployed science just in time to help with the
aggregated noise problems of many personal
devices all attempting to communicate in prox-
imity to each oilier.
Aggregating Spectrum Demand
and Use of Subleasing Methods
Many applications for wireless service oper-
ate with their own individual licensed spectra.
It is rare that each service is fully consuming its
available spectrum. Studies show that spectrum
occupancy seems to peak at about 14 percent,
except under emergency conditions, where oc-
cupancy can reach 10(1 percent for brief periods
of time. Each of these services does noi wish
to separately invest in their own unique infra-
structure. Consequently, it is very practical to
aggregate these spectral assignments to serve a
user community with a combined system.
The industry refers to a collection of services
of this type as a trunked radio. Trunked radio
base stations have the ability to listen to many
input frequencies. When ii user begins lo trans-
mit, the base station assigns an input and an
output frequency for the message and noiifies
all meinbers ofthe community lo listen on the
repeater downlink frequency for the message.
Trunking aggregates the available spectrum of
multiple users and is therefore able to deliver a
higher quality of service while reducing infra-
structure cosis to each set of users and reducing
the total amount of spectrum required to serve
the community.
Both public safety and public telephony ser-
vices benetit from aggregating spectrum and
experience fluctuating demands, so each could
benelit from the ahilily to borrow spectrum
from the other. This is a much more complex
situation, however. Public safety system op-
erators must be absolutely certain ihat they can
get all the spectrum capacity they need if an
emergency arises. Similarly, they might be able
to appreciate the revenue stream from selling
access to their spectrum to commercial users
who have need of access during times when no
emergency conditions exist.
Priority Access^
If agreements can be negotiated between
spectrum license holders and spectrum users
who have occasional peak capacity needs, it
is possible to deline protocols to request ac-
cess, grant aecess. and withdraw access. Thus,
an emergency public service can temporarily
grant access to its spectrum in exchange for
monetary compensation. Should an emergency
arise, the emergency public service can with-
draw its grant to access, thereby taking over
priority service.
In a similar fashion, various classes of us-
ers can each contend for spectrum access, with
higher-priority users being granted access be-
fore other u.sers. This might be relevant, for ex-
ample, if police, lire, or military users need to
use the cellular infrastructure during an emer-
gency. Their communications equipment can
indicale Ihcir priority to Ihe comintmicalions
infrastructure, which may in turn grant access
for the.se highest-priority users first.-
By extension, a wide variety of grades of ser-
vice for eommercial users may also prioritize
sharing of commercially licensed spectrum.
Users who are willing to pay the most may get
high priority for higher dala raies for their data
packets. The users who pay the least would get
service only when no other grades of service
are consuming the available bandwidth.
General Dynamics C4 Systems. Scottsdale, AZ.
480) 441-3033. [www.gdc4s.com|.
[1] Cellular systems already support priority
access; however, there is reported to be little
control over the allocation of priority or the
enforcement process.
[2] This technique is implemented in code divi-
sion muitipie access (CDMA) cellular communi-
cations.
The material in this article originally appeared
in Cognitive Radio Technology. Bruce A. Fette.
ed. Newnes/Elsevier: Burlington, tVfA, 2006.
Reprinted by permission.
ARPIL 2009 2 3