FCC POISED TO TAKE UP PROPOSAL ON COGNITIVE RADIO DEVELOPMENT
The FCC is poised to take up a proposal and order at today’s (Wed.) agenda meeting on cognitive radios in a move that some developers hope ultimately will create more incentives to deploy the technology. One helpful outcome would be for the items to more clearly define what cognitive radio technology was vs. software-defined radios, said Mike Chartier, Intel Corporate Technology Group dir.-regulatory policy and regulatory chmn. of the Software Defined Radio Forum.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
The FCC in 2001 approved rules that focused, in part, on streamlining equipment approval processes for software- defined radio (SDR) technology. With SDR technology, wireless devices receive intelligence from software, instead of from hardware, so radios can be changed quickly to transmit on different frequencies and in different formats. That means functions previously performed only by hardware, such as generating a transmission signal, can be carried out by software that can be programmed to operate across different frequencies. A cognitive radio is designed to detect intelligently whether a particular swath of spectrum is in use and to move in and out of available spectrum quickly, without causing interference to other users, Chartier said. He said that while the terms “cognitive radios” and “SDR technology” often were used interchangeably, cognitive radios could operate without the software abilities of SDR and SDR technology didn’t necessarily have the detection capability of cognitive radio systems.
IEEE-USA, at its board meeting last month, urged the FCC to continue to encourage the development of cognitive radio (CR) technology, particularly given the increasing demand for spectrum and the potential for that technology to facilitate the sharing of otherwise unused spectrum. It urged the Commission to: (1) Determine, through industry/govt. sharing studies, in which bands CRs could be used with confidence and validate the results of those sharing studies with field trials. (2) Confirm the technical reliability and “practicality” of CR by resolving technical issues, such as the minimal technical restrictions needed to ensure that technology would operate without causing harmful interference to licensed users. Other technical issues cited by IEEE include how a licensed spectrum user could determine that any interference received actually was the result of a cognitive radio operation, rather than another source. It also cited the cumulative effect of very large numbers of CR users. (3) Create a regulatory environment that allowed CR technology implementation “while providing a method of redress and resolution for instances where interference might occur.”
The IEEE-USA committee on communications and information policy developed a statement that said CRs represented intelligent technology that could “learn” about current spectrum use in a particular operating area, reacting to immediate changes in spectrum use by authorized or other CR users. While that technology provides the opportunity for efficient use of underutilized or unused spectrum, the group said it also raised a question of primary users’ rights, including spectrum that licensees purchased at auction. IEEE-USA stressed that initial CR trials shouldn’t be implemented in spectrum that the Defense Dept., law enforcement agencies or fire departments used. “In such cases, the spectrum is often used only a small amount of time on average, but sometimes when it is needed, it is vitally important that it be available, without interference,” the committee said. “After significant trials and experience, perhaps CRs could even be used in those spectrum ranges; but surely not in its initial technology trials.” While unlicensed bands might be a good candidate for CR trials, IEEE-USA urged the FCC to consider the number of consumer and industrial devices that used that spectrum. Bands should be decided on for initial CR trials based on “sound and equitable sharing studies” conducted by the govt. and private sector, the group said.
“What the FCC is doing with this proceeding is they want to try to create incentives so people will deploy this technology,” Chartier said. “They are looking at how the technology can facilitate efficient and reliable spectrum use.” The definition of cognitive radio isn’t as well defined as SDR technology, he said: “Hopefully this proceeding will help define that.” In addition to being explored in the FCC’s Spectrum Policy Task Force report, cognitive radio technology was covered in a recent FCC order to make more spectrum for unlicensed devices available at 5 GHz. It also came up in the FCC’s order and further notice on secondary markets, issued in Oct. The notice said the Commission planned to open a proceeding this year on cognitive radio technologies, including those that would allow “interruptible spectrum leasing.” Among the questions raised in the notice was whether the FCC should allow public safety licensees to lease spectrum to other entities through approaches that would allow such “interruptible” spectrum use if a public safety entity needed the spectrum in an emergency.
SDR developer Vanu, which plans to participate in the development of cognitive radios, told the FCC in a recent filing it had concerns about part of the Commission’s SDR rules, which stipulate “manufacturers must take steps” to ensure that only software approved with an SDR can be loaded into such a radio. “It is unclear exactly what obligations the ‘must take steps’ language imposes on a manufacturer. Vanu Inc. fears the vagueness inherent in this wording might effectively require manufacturers to play it safe by taking unnecessarily extreme security measures, which in turn would create an undesirable economic burden on a nascent industry,” it told the FCC. Vanu agreed manufacturers should be obligated to take “commercially reasonable” steps toward security, but asked the FCC to clarify that its intent didn’t go beyond that. “A manufacturer should not be required to provide absolute assurance that even a highly motivated and knowledgeable individual with great resources can never modify a device to take it out of compliance,” Vanu said. It asked the FCC to seek comment on what standard of care should apply to manufacturers of SDRs on security measures that governed the software that might be loaded into those radios.
Also at the meeting, the FCC is expected to: (1) Make final its rules for operating the e-rate program, including the scope of its ability to bar participants. (2) Set new rules for Dedicated Short-Range Communications at 5.9 GHz used for Intelligent Transportation Systems.