Managing shared access to a spectrum commons

By W. Lehr, J. Crowcroft. First IEEE International Symposium on New Frontiers in Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks, 2005. DySPAN 2005., 2005

164 citations recorded by the source corpus.

The open access, unlicensed or spectrum commons approach to managing shared access to RF spectrum offers many attractive benefits, especially when implemented in conjunction with and as a complement to a regime of market-based, flexible use, tradable licensed spectrum ([Benkler02], [Lehr04], [Werbach03]). However, as a number of critics have pointed out, implementing the unlicensed model poses difficult challenges that have not been well-addressed yet by commons advocates ([Benjam03], [Faulhab05], [Goodman04], [Hazlett01]). A successful spectrum commons will not be unregulated, but it also needs not be command & control by another name. This paper seeks to address some of the implementation challenges associated with managing a spectrum commons. We focus on the minimal set of features that we believe a suitable management protocol, etiquette, or framework for a spectrum commons will need to incorporate. This includes: (1) No transmit only devices; (2) Power restrictions; (3) Common channel signaling; (4) Mechanism for handling congestion and allocating resources among users/uses in times of congestion; (5) Mechanism to support enforcement (e.g., established procedures to verify protocol is in conformance); (6) Mechanism to support reversibility of policy; and (7) Protection for privacy and security. We explain why each is necessary, examine their implications for current policy, and suggest ways in which they might be implemented. We present a framework that suggests a set of design principles for the protocols that will govern a successful commons management regime. Our design rules lead us to conclude that the appropriate Protocols for a Commons will need to be more liquid ([Reed05]) than in the past: (1) Market-based instead of C&C; (2) Decentralized/distributed; and, (3) Adaptive and flexible (Anonymous, distributed, decentralized, and locally responsive)

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3c15df1d10c569eb32942263f53c522480bf3c21

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Dynamic Spectrum Access: Signal Processing, Networking, and Regulatory Policy (2006, unknown): “2) Open Sharing Model Also referred to as spectrum commons [6], [7], this model employs open sharing among peer users as the basis for managing a spectral region.”
Cognitive radio networking and communications: an overview (2011, background): “We note that some authors also refer to this model as spectrum overlay in [9] and [10] and interweave paradigm in [11].”
A Survey of Dynamic Spectrum Access (2007, unknown): “Also referred to as spectrum commons [5], [6], this model employs open sharing among peer users as the basis for managing a spectral region.”
Game Theory in Wireless and Communication Networks (2008, methodology): “This model is already in use in the ISM band [287], e.”
Understanding Dynamic Spectrum Access: Models,Taxonomy and Challenges (2007, background): “Lehr et al.[24] also propose some basic rules to realize a managed commons with distributed control.”
Cyclostationary Signatures in Practical Cognitive Radio Applications (2008, background): “Many approaches to dynamic spectrum access exist, extending from opportunistic usage regimes [3], [4], to commons models [5], [6], to exclusive usage-rights schemes [7], [8].”