Cognitive radios in the TV whitespaces : challenges and opportunities

In the past decade, wireless devices have become increasingly popular which in turn makes spectrum more valuable and more scarce. In an effort to help alleviate the current spectrum shortage crisis in the United States, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has ruled that starting in 2008 unlicensed devices are allowed to transmit wirelessly in the television bands [1, 2]. This permits unlicensed devices such as a wireless router or cordless phone to transmit in the “unused” portions of the TV bands, also known as the TV whitespaces. The TV whitespaces are generally regarded as a great opportunity for unlicensed devices (also known as secondaries) to expand beyond the crowded Industrial, Scientific and Medical (ISM) bands. We explore the magnitude of this opportunity as well as the challenges it presents. This thesis first quantifies the opportunity to secondaries in terms of available spectrum and achievable data rates via simulations involving real-world TV assignment [3] and population data [4, 5]. Prior studies for the United States [40, 41] and the United Kingdom [43] have bounded the amount of available spectrum but fail to account for significant effects such as an increased noise level and self-interference among secondaries. These effects mean that the traditional bandwidth metric is inadequate since spectrum users are not interested purely in spectrum but rather in what they can do with it, which can be characterized by the achievable data rate. Our work incorporates this metric in order to better quantify the impact of the TV towers and associated regulatory decisions on the utility of whitespaces to secondaries. We also develop models for both point-to-point and cellular systems in order to quantify the impact of self-interference among secondaries in the TV whitespaces. Second, using these models, we compare simple spectrum reallocation to the use of whitespaces and conclude that the latter is better if we do not wish to experience drastic changes in TV availability. This improves the work done by Mishra, et al. in [40] by more accurately modeling secondary utility. Third, we find that the current FCC regulations [2] may be inadequate to protect TV viewers from the harmful effects of aggregate interference because the rules are made implicitly with only a single transmitter in mind. The authors of [37] reach the same conclusion regarding the safety of both FCC and ECC rules in Finland but they do not suggest a remedy. We suggest setting a maximum power density for secondaries rather than a per-device power limit to avoid this problem. Such an approach might seem difficult with sensing-only technologies, but we believe that the existence of TV whitespace databases enables this necessary fine-grain control. Given that enforcing a power density is necessary for TV receiver protection, we then explore how this solution can be employed to improve utility as well as freedom for secondary users. The current FCC rules implicitly favor certain applications. We offer a principled way to help mitigate the tensions between two types of users, rural and urban, using an approximately-optimal algorithm to choose a power density. Finally, we provide a toolkit which is publicly available at [6]. This Matlab-based toolkit uses real-world data [3, 4, 5] to produce all results herein and can easily be modified to extend these results. Details of the toolkit can be found in Appendix A and its limitations are examined in Appendix B. Additional resources can be found online at [6].

[1]  Erik Barnouw A Tower in Babel , 1966 .

[2]  A. D. Vany,et al.  A Property System for Market Allocation of the Electromagnetic Spectrum: A Legal-Economic-Engineering Study , 1969 .

[3]  B. Caron,et al.  Comparison of terrestrial DTV transmission systems: the ATSC 8-VSB, the DVB-T COFDM, and the ISDB-T BST-OFDM , 2000 .

[4]  Michael Gastpar On Capacity Under Received-Signal Constraints , 2004 .

[5]  David Tse,et al.  Fundamentals of Wireless Communication , 2005 .

[6]  Abbas Jamalipour,et al.  Wireless communications , 2005, GLOBECOM '05. IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference, 2005..

[7]  Niels Kang Hoven On the feasibility of cognitive radio , 2005 .

[8]  Michael J. Marcus,et al.  Unlicensed cognitive sharing of TV spectrum: the controversy at the Federal Communications Commission , 2005, IEEE Communications Magazine.

[9]  N. Hoven,et al.  Power scaling for cognitive radio , 2005, 2005 International Conference on Wireless Networks, Communications and Mobile Computing.

[10]  Sang Joon Kim,et al.  A Mathematical Theory of Communication , 2006 .

[11]  Ben Y. Zhao,et al.  Utilization and fairness in spectrum assignment for opportunistic spectrum access , 2006, Mob. Networks Appl..

[12]  Kenneth N. Brown,et al.  Modelling Interference Temperature Constraints for Spectrum Access in Cognitive Radio Networks , 2007, 2007 IEEE International Conference on Communications.

[13]  Danijela Cabric,et al.  Cognitive radios: System design perspective , 2007 .

[14]  Hongyi Wu,et al.  Medium Access Control in Wireless Networks , 2008 .

[15]  Sofie Pollin,et al.  Spatial Reuse for Practical Scenarios: Iterative Power Adjustment from Distributed Contour Estimation and Propagation , 2008, 2008 IEEE International Conference on Communications.

[16]  J. Grosspietsch,et al.  Geo-Location Database Techniques for Incumbent Protection in the TV White Space , 2008, 2008 3rd IEEE Symposium on New Frontiers in Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks.

[17]  Vahid Tarokh,et al.  The Primary Exclusive Region in Cognitive Networks , 2008, 2008 5th IEEE Consumer Communications and Networking Conference.

[18]  A. Sahai,et al.  Crime and Punishment for Cognitive Radios , 2008, 2008 46th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing.

[19]  Kristen Woyach,et al.  Towards “ A Theory of Spectrum Zoning ” , 2009 .

[20]  A. Sahai,et al.  How much white space is there ? , 2009 .

[21]  Anant Sahai,et al.  What is a Spectrum Hole and What Does it Take to Recognize One? , 2009, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[22]  Jon M. Peha,et al.  Sharing Spectrum Through Spectrum Policy Reform and Cognitive Radio , 2009, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[23]  Maziar Nekovee,et al.  Quantifying the Availability of TV White Spaces for Cognitive Radio Operation in the UK , 2009, 2009 IEEE International Conference on Communications Workshops.

[24]  Kate Harrison,et al.  How Much White-Space Capacity Is There? , 2010, 2010 IEEE Symposium on New Frontiers in Dynamic Spectrum (DySPAN).

[25]  Balasubramaniam Natarajan,et al.  Modeling fairness in resource allocation for secondary users in a competitive cognitive radio network , 2010, 2010 Wireless Telecommunications Symposium (WTS).

[26]  Qianbin Chen,et al.  Power allocation with max-min fairness for cognitive radio networks , 2010, 2010 Global Mobile Congress.

[27]  B. Freyens,et al.  Opportunities for white space usage in Australia , 2011, 2011 2nd International Conference on Wireless Communication, Vehicular Technology, Information Theory and Aerospace & Electronic Systems Technology (Wireless VITAE).

[28]  Paramvir Bahl,et al.  SenseLess: A database-driven white spaces network , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks (DySPAN).

[29]  Kalle Ruttik,et al.  Aggregate interference with FCC and ECC white space usage rules: Case study in Finland , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks (DySPAN).

[30]  Hamid Reza Karimi,et al.  Geolocation databases for white space devices in the UHF TV bands: Specification of maximum permitted emission levels , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks (DySPAN).

[31]  Kristen Woyach,et al.  Why the caged cognitive radio sings , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks (DySPAN).

[32]  Sofie Pollin,et al.  The value of sensing for TV White Spaces , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks (DySPAN).

[33]  Tanim M. Taher,et al.  Long-term spectral occupancy findings in Chicago , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks (DySPAN).

[34]  Sofie Pollin,et al.  Reliable power control for secondary users based on distributed measurements , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks (DySPAN).

[35]  Andreas Achtzehn,et al.  UHF white space in Europe — A quantitative study into the potential of the 470–790 MHz band , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks (DySPAN).

[36]  Anant Sahai,et al.  Potential collapse of whitespaces and the prospect for a universal power rule , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks (DySPAN).

[37]  Kaleb A. Sieh,et al.  The Three Ps: Increasing concurrent operation by unambiguously defining and delegating radio rights , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks (DySPAN).

[38]  Anant Sahai,et al.  Near vs. Far Field: Interference Aggregation in TV Whitespaces , 2011, 2011 IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference - GLOBECOM 2011.

[39]  R. Coase,et al.  The Problem of Social Cost , 1960, The Journal of Law and Economics.