The Potential Value of Decentralized Trunking as Regulatory Precedent for the Introduction of Dynamic Spectrum Access Technology

Hatfield, Dale N.; Tenhula, Peter A.

doi:10.1109/dyspan.2007.84

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To avoid a spectrum shortage, trunking was introduced, whereby LMR systems share channels dynamically, either in a centralized or decentralized manner. The latter can be seen as a forerunner of cognitive radio, in that systems dynamically access spectrum after sensing its availability [50]. With trunked LMR, there have been relatively few complaints about the usual problem with sharing among equalsVthat some users claim more of the shared resource than needed.…”

Section: Sharing Among Equal Regional Infrastructuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As Hatfield and Tenhula have pointed out, one of the first great success stories for dynamic spectrum sharing comes from the land mobile radio (LMR) systems used for public safety [50]. In the United States, many thousands of public safety agencies have their own communications infrastructure [38], even when coverage areas substantially overlap.…”

Section: Sharing Among Equal Regional Infrastructuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sharing Spectrum Through Spectrum Policy Reform and Cognitive Radio

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

| Traditionally, interference protection is guaranteed through a policy of spectrum licensing, whereby wireless systems get exclusive access to spectrum. This is an effective way to prevent interference, but it leads to highly inefficient use of spectrum. Cognitive radio along with software radio, spectrum sensors, mesh networks, and other emerging technologies can facilitate new forms of spectrum sharing that greatly improve spectral efficiency and alleviate scarcity, if policies are in place that support these forms of sharing. On the other hand, new technology that is inconsistent with spectrum policy will have little impact. This paper discusses policies that can enable or facilitate use of many spectrum-sharing arrangements, where the arrangements are categorized as being based on coexistence or cooperation and as sharing among equals or primary-secondary sharing. A shared spectrum band may be managed directly by the regulator, or this responsibility may be delegated in large part to a license-holder. The type of sharing arrangement and the entity that manages it have a great impact on which technical approaches are viable and effective. The most efficient and cost-effective form of spectrum sharing will depend on the type of systems involved, where systems under current consideration are as diverse as television broadcasters, cellular carriers, public safety systems, point-to-point links, and personal and local-area networks. In addition, while cognitive radio offers policy-makers the opportunity to improve spectral efficiency, cognitive radio also provides new challenges for policy enforcement. A responsible regulator will not allow a device into the marketplace that might harm other systems. Thus, designers must seek innovative ways to assure regulators that new devices will comply with policy requirements and will not cause harmful interference.

show abstract

Section: Sharing Among Equal Regional Infrastructuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Sharing Among Equal Regional Infrastructuresmentioning

confidence: 99%