History and Opportunities

of 3.5 GHz, Three Tier

Spectrum

March 22, 2016

Dr. Preston Marshall

Principal Wireless Architect, Google Access
Chair, Wireless Innovation Forum
Spectrum Sharing Committee
pres@google.com
 History of the 3.5 GHz Band
PCAST Report Release
FCC
WH
PCAST DoD • White House PCAST Study proposes sharing federal
OSTP spectrum through 3 Tier, automated management
• Support (in principle) expressed by OSTP, FCC chairman,
CTIA-T
NEC DoC director of NTIA, NEC/CEA, and DoD
h DoC
Statem e Wireless As
Spectru
ent on
PC sociatio
n
Advanc
ed Sear
ch • PCAST proposals initially met severe resistance from
m Repo AST Governm ® the cellular industry
rt e nt
• Concerned that it will divert focus from clearing and
y 20 , 2012

SHING
TO
sed its re N, D.C. – Aft
po
-The W rt “Realizing
ir
er the Pr
th
esident’
sC
auctioning exclusive use spectrum
llowing eless Associatio e Full Potentia ouncil of Adv
isors on

• House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on

statemen n® Vic l of Gov
t: e Presid er Sc
ent of R nment-Held Sp ience and Tec
ank the egulator ectrum hnology
y Affai
y assign
Adminis
tration rs Chris to Spur Econo (PCAST)
Guttman mic
ed and
approach to federal gove PCAST for fo -McCab Growth,”
ment of es for making rnment users.
ectrum
certain
sharing
federal
go
cusing
As the
PC
on the ne
ed to m
capabilit vernment spec AST report no e more effici
ak
e releas
ed
Communications and Technology held hearing on
legislat
leared sp

pectrum
ion, ies.
rd for de
trum
e,
t of ubiq
tes,
ectrum. the gold standa At the same tim commercially it is sensible to e of spectrum
av
ploymen and as Congr ailable, includ
ess reco
House Committee
en t us
investig
ing the
ate
recommendations
an uitous m gn iz
obile br ed in the recent
• FCC initiated proceeding to share Government 3.55 to
of dolla d an exclusiv

Federal
rs, depl
oying w
e-use ap
orld-lea
proach
ding
has enab
led the
U.S. wir
oadban
Hearing
d networ ly-
ks
Commun eless in

Federal Befo
ications
Commiss
ion
FCC 12-1
48
du st ry to in
vest hu
ndreds 3.70 GHz band along principles of the PCAST report
Commun re the
Washing ications Commiss
ton, D.C.
20554
ion
• Presidential Memorandum established many of the
Federal Co

les  with  
the 3550- )
)
mm unications
Commission
FCC 05-56
PCAST principles on June 14, 2013
Federal Co Before the
GN Dock

• FCC approves 3.5 sharing

et No. 12
) -354 mmunica
Washington tions Commission
, D.C. 2055
In the Matte 4
r of
ROPOSE

• WinnForum forms multi-stakeholder group to create

D RULEM Wireless Op )
AKING erations in
AND OR the 3650-37 )
DER Ru 00 MHz Ba
nd )
les for Wirel
3650-3700 ess Broadban ET Docket
MHz Band d Services ) No. 04-151

industry wide standards

in the
Released: )
DeAd
cem
ditbe
WT Docke
ionr al
12Sp
, 2012rum ) t No. 05-96
Below 900 ect for Unlicens
ed Devices )
wski and MHz and in
the 3 GHz )
•
Co
statemen mmissioners McD Band
ts. owell, Cl Amendme
yburn,Re
Rogar
nt of the Co
d toorthe 36
senw cel, an50
mmission’s
Ru les With )
)
ET Docket
No. 02-380
Support by US Carriers, and LTE industry players
BLE OF Tra nsf d -3700 MH
)
CONTEN er Band z Government

• FCC finishing the final rules, anticipated 2Q2016

TS ET Docket
) No. 98-237
)
SUMMAR REPORT
Y Paragrap
................ ............................ h# AND ORDE
R
.... .... ............
................ ....... .................... .... AND
. ................ ............ .... ................ ........ ME
Report .... ....
................ ................ ............ ........ ................ 1
... MORAND
.... .... Ad opted: Ma .. 14 UM OPINION
.......... .... AND ORDE
................ ........ .................... ................ ........ rch 10, 2005
... 14 R
......... ........ ............ .... ............ ....
.... ........ ........
................ .................... ........ .................... ........ ..... 17 Released:
................ ................ By the Co ........ 19 March 16,
m Bands mm ion:
................ ............................ ........ ................iss19 Chairman Po 2005
GHz Band ................ .... ............ well, Comm
. . ..
New Concepts Introduced by
PCAST and 3.5 GHz
Federal Spectrum Sharing +
 3.5 GHz Band Framework
• PCAST proposed, and FCC acted to Create “Innovation
Band” in Federal spectrum at 3.55 GHz, shared with Naval
radars
– Only several dozen radars in existence, and all on carriers, LHA’s
– EIRP limits to support high spectrum reuse/density – focused on
femto/small cells
• FCC has acted to establish the overall rules for the band
– Some details deferred to a follow-on rulemaking
• WinnForum formed Multi-stakeholder group to establish
interfaces for the unique spectrum sharing required in the
band
– Includes all four major US carriers, major equipment suppliers, and
likely service providers (Google and others)
Radical Ideas Created Opposition, but
Opportunity Recognized
• Initial PCAST and FCC 3.5 Proposals generated almost
universal opposition by carrier and LTE community
• However, opportunity to have:
– Spectrum without massive capital investment
– Create/sell private networks using carrier-grade technology
– Balance licensed and unlicensed spectrum strategies
– Superior user experience to densely used Wi-Fi offload
• Led to industry participation and support to efforts to
create ecosystem
• Success in US may lead to other countries and bands
being managed by this framework

Message: Initial Opposition to Shared Spectrum Does

Not Preclude Eventual (and Rapid) Success!
 Three Tiers

• Protected Tier Has absolute protection from

interference
– Navy Radars, Extended C-Band Satellite Sites,
and Part 90 devices for 5 years
• Priority Access License (PAL) provides
protection from lower level
– Purchased at auction, with limited renewal rights
• General Authorized Access (GAA) can use
any spectrum that would not cause
interference to higher levels
 3.5 GHz Provides Two
Levels of Secondary Sharing
Primary to Secondary (PAL) Secondary (PAL) to Tertiary (GAA)
High QoS Service Carrier Offload
Carrier Offload
Personal Use
Enterprises
Defers to Defers to Enterprises
MVNOs
Wholesalers
Wholesalers
MVNOs
Primary Tier Two (Protected) Tier Three (Unprotected)
Users Devices by PAL Auction Devices

Registration Reject/Shutdown/Move
for Primary Prot.

Spectrum Registration
Spectrum Sensing
of Uncooperative
Access
Primary System Reject/Shutdown/Move for
Primary or Secondary Prot.
 Some Key 3.5 Principles
• All Spectrum should be usable by someone
– No exclusivity in any tier
– Same spectrum may be used simultaneously by multiple carriers in a city,
within buildings by an enterprise, and in homes in suburbs
• 2nd Tier (PAL) Licenses provide protection, but not the right to exclude
other users – No warehousing!
• Management through cloud-based micro-transactions to reduce
“Viscosity”, costs, delays and provide certainty of access
– Spectrum Access System (SAS) to “Hide” Complexity of Spectrum Sharing
Regime
• Everybody competes, and forever!
– Census Block level annual auctions, limited license periods with no
renewal expectation, multiple SAS suppliers, …
• Same Operating Limits for protected (Priority) users and unprotected
(GAA) – no viscosity to move between
• 50% of spectrum guaranteed to unprotected use to reduce the risk to
deploying in this model
 Practical Implications
• In large venues, or with no PALS, users have access
to 150 MHz at most times
– With clutter losses, interior spaces may be isolated from
outdoor PAL usage, and may have 150 MHz available
– FCC has not addressed use of 3.5 GHz clutter data
collected by Google
– Regardless of FCC, Effective isolation for interior for all GAA
spectrum (80 MHz)
• Worst case, 80 MHz available inside or outside
• Industry working to establish co-existence
methodology across users
– LTE has rich set of coexistence features that can be used to
manage the interference
 Real World Deployments can
Achieve Great Density
• We have collected
over 1,500,000
propagation points in
dense/semi-dense
environments
– Arlington Va/DC Area
– Mountain View, CA
• Data shown is for
benign environment
with low buildings in
MTV
• Even there, path loss
at 500 meters is
always 30 dB+ above
FSL/L-R

From Google Ex-Parte filing on Feb 16, 2016

 Buying Spectrum Protection is an
Economic Decision, not Existential
• Same Devices can be GAA (free) or PA (by auction)
• Both have same rights (power, elev., bandwidth)
• No Need to “Buy” spectrum in order to operate
• Decision to “Buy” driven by
– Your Use/Revenue from the Device/Location
– Degree of Congestion
– Interference Tolerance of Your Technology
– Your Risk Tolerance
• Can Reevaluate Periodically and Enter Auction if Needed
• Spectrum “Ownership” is not a Perpetual Right, you can
get it later

Reduce Spectrum “Viscosity” to New Services,

Technologies, Business Models, …
 How the Spectrum Access
System (SAS) Works
• Devices/Networks Register with SAS to obtain
Spectrum Access
– Deconflicted with Federal Users
– Deconflicted with other Protected Devices/Networks
(Satellite receivers, PALs, WISP ( 4+ years)
• Higher Tier Users can Bump Lower Tier Users
– Federal Use forces relocation of all Secondary's
– Priority (PAL) Users force GAA users to other channels
• Minimum Amount of reserved GAA spectrum to
ensure that no devices are pushed out
– Unless Feds reclaim entire band
Spectrum Access Systems
Revolutionize Spectrum Management
• Google Production SAS:
– Protects federal incumbents from secondary users and
protects for Priority Access (PA) from GAA interference.
• Uses the same technology to protect federal
incumbents and PA users.
– Accounts for aggregation effects.
– Protects from co-channel and adjacent channel
interference.
– Accounts for in-channel and device specific out-of-band
emissions.
– Supports Antenna directionality/nulling
– Support technology-specific optimizations between
spatially and spectrally adjacent users (timing , resource
block use,…)
 comparable to the level of OOBE suppression for adjac
band cases. These paths are generally not free space,
involve more complex models of propagation, clutter los

Some Key Protection Methods -- and other attentive processes.

The FCC provides a closed-form method for analyzing
path loss for in-band operation in Appendix D of its 365

PSD-Based Operation
Fig. 3. High Pass C-Band Filter Spectral Response
3700 MHz processing [3], which is stated to be derived f
propagation analysis filed by the satellite industry. This m
of propagation loss is as follows:

• SAS Processes M f x = 18.17e− 0.055✓x

each emitter’s Single Emitter, with D (km) = 150 ⇤10[M f x − G ( ✓x ) + 0.724]/ 20 ,

where ✓x = mi n(angle, 48◦ ). According to the FCC in t
entire emission Stepped OOBE Rolloff per Appendix D, the M f x term ” was created as a simplificati o

(main carrier + Wi-Max spec all the factors that account for propagation loss” other than
Adjacent band FSS High
space loss. ” It is a conservative estimation of loss based so
on the off axis discrimination angle,” according to the F
OOBE) Pass Filter Response
” This equation yields results consistent with the propaga
model used by [the Satellite Industry Association] in t
analysis” submitted in the 2005 3600–3650 MHz proceedi
• Aggregates all In the second equation above, the distance D (km) is
devices impacting a minimum separation distance between an in-band transm
and the FSS earth station such that the FSS interfere
objective is not exceeded. In the case of Appendix D,
specific location assumed transmitter EIRP is 25 W per 25 MHz, and the e
station noise temperature is 142.8 K. A SAS implementa
• For adjacent band Fig. 4. Pre-LNA Single Emitter PSD Fig. 3. High Pass C-Band Filter Spectral Response
will modify the formulas to account for power limits ado
Fig. 3. High Pass C-Band Filter Spectral Response
by the FCC for the 3.6 GHz band.
protection, VII. CO-CHA NNEL PROTECTI ON OF FSS RECEI V ER
characterizes RF The receive PSDs shown in Figure 4 are the basis
determining co-channel interference. The PSD vector is a se
filtering power density values for each increment of frequency, or
The co-channel PSD range is from f low to f high . The valu
• Computes Aggregate signals at f high includes the first C-Band transponder channel bandwi
which is the one with the highest possibility of receiving
of band emissions.
interference metrics protected receiver
Worst-case post-Filter,
The channel to be protected has a range from clow to c
For interference analysis, we use the value of the PSD be
Pre-LNA PSD
the receiver LNA, as this reflects the frequency depen
processing of antennas, paths, and front-end filters.
The (Single Emitter
co-channel energy Example)
is therefore given by:
2 Note that Appendix D as originally published in FCC 05-56 cont
errors in the equations for M f x and D (km ). The equations used her
 Emerging Ecosystem

• 3.5 Regulations technology-neutral, but

• LTE is emerging as prime use of the band
– Availability of Band 42 and 43 LTE devices
– Less spectrum than ISM, and lack of World-Wide
market for Wi-Fi
– Extensive set of coexistence features that can
scale deployments

Impact: LTE Becomes Democratized by New

Users, Suppliers, and Applications
 Why 3 Tiers is So Important!
• Same technology/equipment can be used by carriers
and traditionally unlicensed users
• Eliminates spectrum as a partition among service
models, technologies
• Enter the market without cost/delay of obtaining
perpetual, exclusive use licenses, and scale that
deployment
• Equipment is not orphaned when it “looses” an auction,
it just becomes GAA
• Together with shorter term licenses, provides flexibility
for new uses to enter, and scale

Scalable, Experimental, and Incremental Concepts Enabled

– Has been Key to the Venture-Driven Internet Ecosystem
 New Types of Ecosystem
Created by Three Tiers
• Enterprise -- Integrate LTE within Enterprise
Networks, replace “Desk Phones”, DAS, Wi-Fi,
and provide neutral host service
• 3rd Party Wireless-- MVNO, and 3rd Parties
can offer high density area coverage from
existing backhaul, siting and power and lower
cost than Macro bandwidth
• Consumer -- Adopt security, seamless
operation of LTE for residence

Everyone Benefits from a High Volume Market—

Carriers, Enterprises, Consumers
Why Would non-Carriers Adopt
LTE in 3.5?
• Security and authentication strength
• Automated management of coexistence (ex.
SON) vs. Hand-Tuned Enterprise
• Revenue from sell-back of bandwidth to
carriers/MVNOs/MSOs
• Alternative to building DAS/desk phone net
• Higher bandwidth density than Wi-Fi
• Assured QoS with PAL use
• ???
Some Challenges/Opportunities

• Operation over Flexible Backhaul

– Mimic Wi-Fi deployment over lower cost Layer 3
connectivity
– Perhaps -- Trade timing for deployment flexibility
• Cost compared to Wi-Fi (enterprise/personal)
– Does volume solve many/most cost issues?
• Scalable Control Infrastructure
– Scalable EPC/NMS in the cloud, as a service
– Refactor LTE control model to reflect different
backhaul, scale, hosting
– Authentication and Mobility Services
 Wireless Innovation
Forum Role
• WinnForum SSC is Venue for Establishing
Standards for 3 Tier Spectrum Operations
– Includes the 4 US Carriers, Nokia, Alcatel-Lucent,
Erickson ,Qualcomm, Huawei, Intel, Google, Federated,
Ruckus, …
– Developing implementation policies for FCC, radar
sensors, interface standards (SAS/Device and SAS/SAS)
– Highly active group, with 4 bi-weekly Working Group
calls, weekly Steering Group, every 6 week face to face
meetings
– Steady Progress on key specs, such as SAS to
Device/Proxy, SAS to SAS interfaces, certificate authority
criteria, protection, …
 WinnForum Members/Observers
Members Observers
Alcatel Lucent Bell Labs Nokia Networks DISA/DSO
Astrapi Pathfinder Wireless DMI for US DoD
AT&T Qualcomm Exelon for DoD
CableLabs RED Technologies IEEE
CTIA Rockwell Collins DySPAN-SC
Communications Research Centre Ruckus Wireless Kingfisher Systems for US DoD
Comsearch SIA MITRE
Ericsson Sony NAB
Fairspectrum Spectrum Bridge New America Foundation
Federated Wireless Google Tarana Wireless NIST
Harris Corporation T-Mobile NSWC
Huawei Verizon NTIA
Idaho National Labs Virginia Tech Roberson and Associates for DoD
Intel Vistology US Army/CIO
ITS WISPA US DoD CIO
Keybridge Global ZTE USA US Navy
MITRE Corp UTC
Motorola Solutions WiMAX Forum
NASA
 Key Designs Approved,
or Being Voted
• Overall SAS and CBSD Requirements
– Common understanding of CBSD devices, SAS’s, and
Operators/Installers
• SAS to SAS Interface
– Assure SAS operations are fully informed of each other’s
registration
• CBSD to SAS
– Common standard to assure CBSD devices can utilize any
of the approved SAS’s
• Also, Community request for reconsideration of
several of the Part 96 rules submitted and being
addressed by the FCC
– Power, timing, …
 Working Group
Structure
1. Requirements and Policy
– Further detail the FCC regulations, develop industry
best practices, and common criteria for certification
2. Security
– OPSEC for military users, and assured validation of
credentials
3. Interfaces
– Industry standards for Part 96-unique device
interfaces, and SAS coordination
4. Test and Certification
– Test criteria, test scripts, and certification inputs to
FCC
 Possible Future Thrusts
in WinnForum
• Co-existence mechanisms across LTE
management domains
– Avoid border interference, partition spectrum
access, de-conflict across operators, …
• Possible 3GPPP Collaboration to “Fine Tune”
a “Band 42.5” for use in US
– Unique OOBE, UE power management settings,
frequency coverage, filtering, ...
• Authentication across networks
– Scaleable roaming across MSO, MNO, and
Enterprise
 Summary
• 13 Years – Dynamic Spectrum Sharing has
moved from Academia to Policy (in US)
– Now hear discussion of 3 tier in EU
• New Spectrum Approaches Fundamentally
Change the Nature of Networks and Services in
all of the Wireless Ecosystems
• New challenges and markets:
– “Democratizing LTE” – New users of LTE
– “Federating LTE” – Many more LTE Net Operators
– New Topology – Intranets, LANs
– New Spectrum Options – GAA, PAL
– New Control Layer - the SAS
 Thank You

Dr. Preston Marshall

Principal Wireless Architect
Google Access
pres@google.com