oulu 2017 actajultika.oulu.fi/files/isbn9789526214993.pdf · publications editor kirsti nurkkala...
TRANSCRIPT
UNIVERSITY OF OULU P .O. Box 8000 F I -90014 UNIVERSITY OF OULU FINLAND
A C T A U N I V E R S I T A T I S O U L U E N S I S
Professor Esa Hohtola
University Lecturer Santeri Palviainen
Postdoctoral research fellow Sanna Taskila
Professor Olli Vuolteenaho
University Lecturer Veli-Matti Ulvinen
Director Sinikka Eskelinen
Professor Jari Juga
University Lecturer Anu Soikkeli
Professor Olli Vuolteenaho
Publications Editor Kirsti Nurkkala
ISBN 978-952-62-1498-6 (Paperback)ISBN 978-952-62-1499-3 (PDF)ISSN 0355-3213 (Print)ISSN 1796-2226 (Online)
U N I V E R S I TAT I S O U L U E N S I SACTAC
TECHNICA
U N I V E R S I TAT I S O U L U E N S I SACTAC
TECHNICA
OULU 2017
C 605
Seppo Yrjölä
ANALYSIS OF TECHNOLOGY AND BUSINESS ANTECEDENTS FOR SPECTRUM SHARINGIN MOBILE BROADBAND NETWORKS
UNIVERSITY OF OULU GRADUATE SCHOOL;UNIVERSITY OF OULU,FACULTY OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING
C 605
ACTA
Seppo Yrjölä
C605etukansi.kesken.fm Page 1 Monday, February 6, 2017 3:40 PM
A C T A U N I V E R S I T A T I S O U L U E N S I SC Te c h n i c a 6 0 5
SEPPO YRJÖLÄ
ANALYSIS OF TECHNOLOGY AND BUSINESS ANTECEDENTS FOR SPECTRUM SHARING IN MOBILE BROADBAND NETWORKS
Academic dissertation to be presented with the assent ofthe Doctoral Training Committee of Technology andNatural Sciences of the University of Oulu for publicdefence in the OP auditorium (L10), Linnanmaa, on 31March 2017, at 12 noon
UNIVERSITY OF OULU, OULU 2017
Copyright © 2017Acta Univ. Oul. C 605, 2017
Supervised byProfessor Matti Latva-aho
Reviewed byProfessor Jens ZanderDocent Markus Mück
ISBN 978-952-62-1498-6 (Paperback)ISBN 978-952-62-1499-3 (PDF)
ISSN 0355-3213 (Printed)ISSN 1796-2226 (Online)
Cover DesignRaimo Ahonen
JUVENES PRINTTAMPERE 2017
OpponentProfessor Heikki Hämmäinen
Yrjölä, Seppo, Analysis of technology and business antecedents for spectrumsharing in mobile broadband networks. University of Oulu Graduate School; University of Oulu, Faculty of Information Technologyand Electrical EngineeringActa Univ. Oul. C 605, 2017University of Oulu, P.O. Box 8000, FI-90014 University of Oulu, Finland
Abstract
Sharing is emerging as one of the megatrends influencing future business opportunities, andwireless communications is no exception to this development. Future mobile broadband networkswill operate on different types of spectrum bands including shared spectrum, which calls forchanges in the operation and management of the networks. The creation and capture of value bythe different players in the mobile broadband ecosystem is expected to change due to regulation,technology, and business landscape related drivers that concern not only spectrum sharing, butalso sharing of other resources such as infrastructure, technologies, or data. This thesis examinesthe key business and technology enablers needed to exploit spectrum sharing in mobile broadbandnetworks, and presents the business model characteristics and strategic choices that spectrumsharing concepts support. Action research and integral scenarios methodologies were applied forstrategic and business analysis utilizing the capacity and expertise of the policy, business andtechnology research communities. The thesis introduces a new approach to analyze the scalabilityof the spectrum sharing concepts and their business model elements utilizing sharing economyantecedent factors. The results indicate that all analyzed sharing concepts meet basic requirementsto scale. The Licensed Shared Access (LSA) leverages existing assets and capabilities of themobile network operator domain, the Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) extends thebusiness model dynamics from connectivity to content, context and commerce, and the hybridusage of Ultra High Frequency (UHF) band by Digital Terrestrial TV (DTT) and downlink LongTerm Evolution (LTE) (HUHF) enables new collaborative opportunities between convergingcommunication, Internet and media domains. The thesis validates the feasibility of spectrumsharing between mobile broadband networks and other types of incumbent spectrum usersutilizing Finnish cognitive radio field trial environment (CORE), and expands the notion ofspectrum sharing beyond the mobile broadband domain to be applied to other wireless systemsincluding the media and broadcasting. The presented results can be used in developing the futuremobile broadband systems enhanced with innovative spectrum sharing enabled business modelsto cope with the growing demand for capacity and new services by humans and machines.
Keywords: 5G, business model, citizens broadband radio service, coexistencesimulations, cognitive radio, digital terrestrial TV, field trial, future research, licensedshared access, LTE, mobile communication, sharing economy, strategic management,UHF
Yrjölä, Seppo, Teknologia- ja liiketoimintaedellytykset taajuuksien yhteiskäytöllematkapuhelinverkoissa. Oulun yliopiston tutkijakoulu; Oulun yliopisto, Tieto- ja sähkötekniikan tiedekuntaActa Univ. Oul. C 605, 2017Oulun yliopisto, PL 8000, 90014 Oulun yliopisto
Tiivistelmä
Jakamistalous on yksi suurista tulevaisuuden liiketoimintamahdollisuuksiin vaikuttavista tren-deistä, eikä langaton tietoliikenne ole tässä poikkeus. Tulevaisuuden laajakaistaiset matkapuhe-linverkot tulevat hyödyntämään erityyppisiä radiotaajuuksia, kuten jaettuja taajuuskaistoja, mikävaatii muutoksia verkkojen toimintoihin ja hallintaan. Eri toimijoiden arvonluonti- ja ansainta-mahdollisuuksien odotetaan muuttuvan näissä liikkuvan laajakaistan ekosysteemeissä regulaati-on, teknologian ja liiketoimintaympäristön kehittyessä, ei vain taajuuksien jakamisessa, vaanmyös kun kyseessä on muiden resurssien kuten infrastruktuurin, teknologioiden tai tiedon jaka-minen. Väitöskirja tutkii teknologia- ja liiketoimintaedellytyksiä taajuusjakomenetelmille mat-kapuhelinverkoissa, sekä esittelee ja analysoi menetelmien mahdollistamia liiketoimintamallejaja strategisia valintoja. Strategia- ja liiketoiminta-analyyseissä käytettiin toimintatutkimus- jaskenaariomenetelmiä poikkitieteellisissä tutkimusprojekteissa yhteistyössä reguloinnin, liiketoi-minnan ja tekniikan tutkimusyhteisöjen kanssa. Tutkimus esittelee uuden lähestymistavan taa-juusjakotekniikoiden liiketoimintamallien skaalautuvuuden analysointiin jakamistalouden määri-telmiä hyödyntäen. Tulokset osoittavat, että kaikki tutkitut tekniikat täyttävät perusedellytyksetskaalautuvuudelle; Licensed Shared Access (LSA) hyödyntäen matkapuhelinoperaattorin ole-massa olevia resursseja ja kyvykkyyksiä, Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) laajentaenliiketoimintamalleja tietoliikenteestä sisältöön, kontekstiin ja kaupankäyntialustoihin, sekä digi-taalitelevision ja langattoman LTE-tekniikan hybridikäyttö UHF-taajuuskaistalla (HUHF) mah-dollistaen uusia liiketoimintamahdollisuuksia lähentyvien tietoliikenne-, Internet- jamediaekosysteemien välillä. Väitöskirja tulokset vahvistivat taajuuden jakamisen soveltuvuu-den liikkuvan laajakaistaverkon ja saman taajuusalueen eri teollisuudenalan haltijan välillä suo-malaisessa CORE kenttätestausympäristössä, ja laajensivat taajuusjakotekniikan sovellettavuut-ta myös muihin langattomiin järjestelmiin sisältö- ja mediajakelussa. Esitettyjä tuloksia voidaanhyödyntää tulevaisuuden langattomien laajakaistaverkkojen kehitystyössä vastaamaan ihmistenja koneiden kasvaviin tietoliikennepalveluiden ja -kapasiteetin tarpeisiin hyödyntäen tehokkaitataajuusjakotekniikoita ja niiden mahdollistamia innovatiivisia liiketoimintamalleja.
Asiasanat: 5G, citizens broadband radio service, digitaalinen televisio, jakamistalous,kenttäkoe, kognitiivinen radio, licensed shared access, liiketoimintamalli, liikkuvatietoliikenne, LTE, simulaatio, strateginen johtaminen, tulevaisuudentutkimus, UHF
To share
8
9
Acknowledgements
The results of research in this thesis have been carried out at Nokia Innovation
Steering in Oulu, Finland, in the years 2013–2016. Foremost, I would like to
express my gratitude to Mr. Pertti Lukander and Mr. Markku Rauhamaa for
providing me the opportunity to do the research and lead a number of future radio
innovation projects at Nokia over the years. They have given me an empowerment
and freedom to pursue novel directions in innovation and research. I feel privileged
that I was able to spend this time in their team. Research for this thesis was done in
the Cognitive Radio to Business (CRB), the Local Area Spectrum Sharing (LASS),
the Future of UHF (FUHF) and Cognitive Radio Trial Environment (CORE)
projects funded by the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation,
Tekes, in 2013–2016. I am grateful to Dr. Nils Heldt and Mrs. Kirsi Leppä for
taking care of the financial administration of the projects, allowing me to focus on
the innovation and research work fully.
I wish to show my deepest gratitude to my supervisors Professor Matti Latva-
aho and Dr. Petri Ahokangas. Thank you for teaching me the essence of both the
telecommunications and the business research. Without your continuous support,
guidance and encouragement, my original publications and this thesis could not
have been completed. I would also like to thank my distinguished follow-up group,
Docent Harri Saarnisaari, Professor Marcos Katz and Professor Veikko Seppänen,
for immense knowledge and motivational discussions during my doctoral journey.
I am very grateful to my pre-examiners Professor Jens Zander, and Adjunct
Professor, Dr. Markus Mueck. Your insights and contribution towards the end of
this research have further improved the overall composition, presentation,
argumentation, and the clarity of this study. I am looking forward to co-operating
with both of you in future business and research initiatives. Furthermore, my
sincerest thanks to all the 36 anonymous reviewers contributing time and effort to
comment and review all the original articles. I acknowledge that the comments
were highly relevant and responding to them has significantly increased the value
of the papers.
My heartfelt thanks to the people that have been part of my doctoral journey
from the start. Without you, my co-authors (Petri Ahokangas, Vesa Hartikainen,
Eero Heikkinen, Esko Huuhka, Tero Kippola, Arto Kivinen, Jarkko Paavola, Marko
Palola, Jaakko Ojaniemi, Timo Knuutila, Marja Matinmikko, Miia Mustonen,
Pekka Talmola and Lucia Tudose), there would be no publications and no thesis.
Thank you!
10
I wish to thank my Nokia colleagues who generously shared their time, insights
and foresights and without whom this thesis would not be possible. Colleagues in
alphabetical order: Anatoly Andrianov, Oleg Andrejew, Kamil Bechta, Dario
Boggio, Milind Buddhikot, Mara Cortelazzo, Mike Dolan, Karl Josef Friederichs,
Michael Gundlach, Nils Heldt, Alex Hirsbrunner, Juergen Hofmann, Kari
Horneman, Jari Hulkkonen, Charles Immendorf, Osmo Keskitalo, Mohammad
Khawer, Al Jette, Ekkehard Lang, Anne Leino, Christian Markwart, Risto
Martikkala, Juergen Merkel, Peter Merz, Eiman Mohyeldin, Prakash Moorut, Asko
Nykanen, Janne Parantainen, Michael Peeters, Joseph Pedziwiatr, Eva Perez,
Juhani Pykäläinen, Pekka Rahkonen, Ulrich Rehfuess, Francesca Sartori, Helmut
Schink, Risto Saukkonen, Jukka-Pekka Siberg, Anne Siira, Pekka Tuuttila, Mikko
Uusitalo, Lidia Varukina, Sakari Vikamaa and Antti Vuorinen.
I would like to thank and express my gratitude to Tekes personnel for enabling
the end-to-end research consortia building and funding of the CRB, LASS, CORE
and FUHF projects. I have been fortunate to be able to conduct this research in a
very cross disciplinary, cross domain and international context surrounded by an
inspiring group of people who really rolled up their sleeves to make things happen.
Particularly I would like to thank all the research and industry partners who have
taken part in the projects, contributed their time and effort on research, running
common trials and contributing through numerous workshops. Research colleagues
in alphabetical order: Pekka Aho, Fabrizio Amerighi, Luigi Ardito, Irina Atkova,
Jani Auranen, James Bishop, Claudia Carciofi, Thomas Casey, Pravir Chawdhry,
Tao Chen, Alberto Corradetti, Jose Costa, Jan Engelberg, Reijo Ekman, Vesa
Erkkilä, Heli Frosterus, Massimiliano Gianesin, Vânia Gonçalves, Fausto Grazioli,
Doriana Guiducci, Juhani Hallio, Marjo Heikkilä, Kari Heiska, Kari Helminen,
Janne Holopainen, Marko Höyhtyä, Ari Hulkkonen, Risto Huoso, Tuomo Hänninen,
Marko Höyhtyä, Mikko Jakobsson, Markku Jokinen, Satya Joshi, Juha Kalliovaara,
Manosha Kapuruhamy, Tero Jokela, Jukka Kemppainen, Anri Kivimäki, Heikki
Kokkinen, William Lehr, Johanna Lindström, Esko Luttinen, Kalle Lähetkangas,
Leo Fulvio Minervini, Pierre-Jean Muller, Jenni Myllykoski, Marko Mäkeläinen,
Airi Mölsa, Anna-Greta Nyström, Hanna Okkonen, Juha Okkonen, Marko Palola,
Jarno Pinola, Pekka Pirinen, Vadim Poskakukhin, Jarmo Prokkola, Harri Posti,
Pekka Pussinen, Heikki Rantanen, Teemu Rautio, Dennis Roberson, Päivi Ruuska,
Harri Saarnisaari, Seppo Salonen and Topi Tuukkanen.
Thank you, Stephen Thompson, for proofreading my work.
My lovely family and friends, without your continuous and encouraging
support this chapter of my life would never have happened. Please forgive me for
11
the selfish time spent with books, articles and writing away from you. My lovely
children Alvar, Roosa and Sade have not just cheered me when meeting in the
corridors of the university but as digi-natives have shown me what the future user
stories are made of. Warm thanks to my brother Petri for continuously reminding
me of the power of arts, and how to remain creative once we grow up. My dear old
scouting friends, please continue to take me away from my desk into the wild, and
Jykä for our breakaways into the mountains. Zina, so many ideas have been found
from our daily walks.
Most important, I would like to express deepest gratitude and appreciation to
my wife Terhi who has enriched my life since early years at the university. Your
support, commitment and patience have made this possible.
Oulu, March 2017 Seppo Yrjölä
12
13
List of abbreviations and symbols
σw Standard deviation of location variation for the wanted signal
σi Standard deviation of location variation for the interfering signal
Ah Antenna height
Corr Correction for fixed reception,
Ddir DVB-T receiving antenna discrimination
Emed Minimum median field strength of DVB-T station
f/b Antenna front-to-back ratio
MI Multiple Interference margin
N Channel offset
PR Protection Ration
q Distribution factor
3GPP Third Generation Partnership Project
3GPP SA5 3GPP Service and System Aspects telecom management working
group
5G 5th Generation wireless systems
5G PPP 5G Infrastructure Public Private Partnership
AAL Anticipatory Action Learning
AAS Active Antenna System
API Application Programming Interface
AR Action Research
ARPU Average Revenue Per User
BC Broadcasting
BNO Broadcast Network Operator
BS Base Station
CA Carrier Aggregation
CBRS Citizens Broadband Radio Service
CBSD Citizens Broadband Service Device
CCC Cognitive Control Channel
CDN Content Delivery Network
CEM Customer Experience Management
CEPT European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications
Administrations
Ch Channel
CLA Causal Layered Analysis
CM Configuration Manager
14
cmWave centimeter Wave spectrum band
CN Core Network
CoPSS Co-Primary Spectrum Sharing
CORE Finnish cognitive radio field trial environment
CPC Cognitive Pilot Channel
CR Cognitive Radio
C-RAN Cloud Radio Access Network
CRB Cognitive Radio to Business
CSP Connectivity Service Provider
DAS Distributed Antenna System
DC Dynamic Capability
DD Digital Dividend
DFS Dynamic Frequency Selection
DL Downlink
DoD Department of Defense
DP Domain Proxy
DPD Digital Pre-Distortion
DSA Dynamic Spectrum Sharing
DTMB Digital Terrestrial Multimedia Broadcast
DTT Digital Terrestrial TV
DVB Digital Video Broadcasting
DVB-T Digital Video Broadcasting - Terrestrial
EC European Commission
ECC Electronic Communications Committee
EdenNET Nokia Self Organizing Network platform
eICIC enhanced Inter-Cell Interference Coordination
EIRP Effective Isotropic Radiated Power
eMBMS evolved Multimedia Broadcast Multicast Service
eNB Evolved Node B
enTV Enhancements for TV video services
EPC Evolved Packet Core
ESC Environmental Sensing Capability
ETSI European Telecommunications Standards Institute
EUD End User Device
EZ Exclusion Zone
FCC Federal Communications Commission
FDD Frequency Division Duplex
15
FICORA Finnish Communication Regulatory Authority
FNPRM Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
FS Fixed Service
FSS Fixed Satellite Service
FUHF Future of UHF
GAA General Authorized Access
GE06 Geneva 2006 agreement in the World Administrative Radio
Conference. Radio communication sector of the ITU
GWCN Gateway Core Network sharing
HetNet Heterogeneous Network
HLR High Level Group
HO Handover
HSS Home Subscriber Server
HTTP Hypertext Transfer Protocol
HUHF Hybrid usage of the UHF band by DVB and/or downlink LTE
IA Incumbent Access
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
IM Incumbent Manager
IMT International Mobile Telecommunications
IoT Internet of Things
IP Internet Protocol
ISP Internet Service Provider
iSON Nokia Self Organizing Network platform
IT Information Technology
ITU-R Radio communication sector of the International
Telecommunication Union
JSON JavaScript Object Notation
LASS Local Area Spectrum Sharing
LC Licensed Shared Access Controller
LR Licensed Shared Access Repository
LSA Licensed Shared Access
LSA1 Interface between LSA Repository and LSA Controller
LSR LSA Spectrum Resource
LSRAI LSA Spectrum Resource Availability Information
LTE Long Term Evolution
LTE-A LTE-Advanced
LTE-LAA LTE-License Assisted Access
16
LTE-U LTE-Unlicensed
MBB Mobile Broadband
MBC Mobile and Broadcast Convergence
MEC Mobile Edge Computing
METIS Mobile and wireless communications Enablers for Twenty-twenty
(2020) Information Society
MFCN Mobile/Fixed Communications Networks
MIMO Multiple-Input and Multiple-Output
MME Mobility Management Entity
mmWave millimeter Wave spectrum band
MN Mobile Broadband Network
MNO Mobile Network Operator
MOCN Multi-Operator Core Network sharing
MORAN Multi-Operator Radio Access Networks sharing
MSD Minimum Separation Distance algorithm
MUX Multiplexer
MVNO Mobile Virtual Network Operator
NaaS Network-as-a-Service
NetAct Nokia NMS platform
NFV Network Function Virtualization
NGMN Next Generation Mobile Networks alliance
NMLS Network Management Layer Service
NMS Network Management System
NRA National Regulatory Authority
NTIA National Telecommunication and Information Administration
OAM Operation, Administration and Management
Ofcom Office of Communications
OSS Operational Support System
OSSii Interoperability initiative between different vendor’s OSS
equipment
OTT Over the Top services
PAL Priority Access License
PAWS Protocol to Access White Space
PBS Public Broadcast Service
PCAST President’s Council of Advanced Science & Technology
PCC Primary Component Carrier
PMSE Program Making and Special Events
17
PPA PAL Protection Area
PRACH Physical Random Access Channel
PSM Public Service Media
PTASS Protocol for Tiered Access to Shared Spectrum
PWR Power control optimization algorithm
PZ Protection Zone
PZO Protection Zone Optimization algorithm
QoE Quality of Experience
QoS Quality of Service
RACCLI Real Application Clusters Command-Line Interface
RAN Radio Access Network
RF Radio Frequency
RLF Radio Link Failure
RSPG Radio Spectrum Policy Group
RX Receiver
RZ Restriction Zone
SAE-GW System Architecture Evolution Gateway
SAS Spectrum Access System
SCaaS Small Cell as a Service
SCC Secondary Component Carrier
SDL Supplemental Downlink
SDN Software Defined Networking
SON Self Organizing Network
SSC Spectrum Sharing Committee of the Wireless Innovation Forum
TD Time Division Duplex
TVWS TV White Space
TX Transmitter
UAS Unmanned Aircraft Systems
UE User Equipment
UHF Ultra High Frequency
UI User Interface
UL Uplink
WARC World Administrative Radio Conference
WBS Wireless Broadband Service
Wi-Fi Wireless local access network technologies according IEEE 802.11
specifications and certified by the Wi-Fi Alliance
WInnF Wireless Innovation Forum
18
WRC World Radio Conference
XaaS Anything as a Service
19
Original publications
This thesis is based on the following publications, which are referred to throughout
the text by their Roman numerals:
I Yrjola S & Heikkinen E (2014) Active antenna system enhancement for supporting Licensed Shared Access (LSA) concept. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Cognitive Radio Oriented Wireless Networks and Communications. Oulu, IEEE: 291–298.
II Yrjölä S, Ahokangas P, Matinmikko M & Talmola P (2014) Incentives for the key stakeholders in the hybrid use of the UHF broadcasting spectrum utilizing Supplemental Downlink: A dynamic capabilities view. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on 5G for Ubiquitous Connectivity (5GU). Levi, IEEE: 215–221.
III Yrjölä S, Ahokangas P & Matinmikko M (2015) Evaluation of recent spectrum sharing concepts from business model scalability point of view. Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks. Stockholm, IEEE: 241–250.
IV Yrjölä S, Matinmikko M, Mustonen M & Ahokangas P (2017) Analysis of dynamic capabilities for spectrum sharing in the citizens broadband radio service. Springer Journal Special Issue, Analog Integrated Circuits & Signal Processing: 1–15.
V Yrjölä S, Matinmikko M & Ahokangas P (2016) Licensed Shared Access to spectrum. In: Matyjas JD et al. (ed.) Spectrum Sharing in Wireless Networks: Fairness, Efficiency, and Security. Taylor & Francis LLC, CRC Press: 139–164.
VI Yrjölä S, Hartikainen V, Tudose L, Ojaniemi J, Kivinen A & Kippola T (2016) Field trial of Licensed Shared Access with enhanced spectrum controller power control algorithms and LTE enablers. The Springer Journal of Signal Processing Systems: 1–14.
VII Yrjölä S, Mustonen M, Matinmikko M & Talmola P (2016) LTE broadcast and supplemental downlink enablers for exploiting novel service and business opportunities in the flexible use of the UHF broadcasting spectrum. IEEE Communication Magazine. 54(7):76–83.
VIII Yrjölä S, Ahokangas P, Paavola J & Talmola P (2015) Strategic choices for mobile network operators in future flexible UHF spectrum concepts? In: Weichold M et al. (ed.) Cognitive Radio Oriented Wireless Networks, Springer: 573–584.
IX Yrjölä S, Huuhka E, Talmola P & Knuutila T (2016) Coexistence of Digital Terrestrial Television and 4G LTE Mobile Network utilizing Supplemental Downlink concept: A Real Case Study. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology PP(99): 1–1.
X Yrjola S (2016) Citizens Broadband Radio Service Spectrum Sharing Framework – A New Strategic Option for Mobile Network Operators? International Journal On Advances in Telecommunications, Iaria, 9(3&4): 77–86.
XI Yrjölä S, Ahokangas P & Talmola P (2016) Scenarios and business models for mobile network operators utilizing the hybrid use concept of the UHF broadcasting spectrum. EAI Endorsed Transactions on Cognitive Communications 16(7): e5.
20
The author has been the primary author in all of the original publications. The
researcher has been responsible for developing the original idea, collecting the
literature, analyzing the material and drawing conclusions and finally has had the
main responsibility of writing Papers I–XI. The arrangement of the workshops and
collection of empirical research material were done together with the CORE
(CORE 2016) and the Future of UHF spectrum band (FUHF) (FUHF 2016) projects.
In Papers II and IV, the author continued the work done in the research group and
extended the dynamic capability analysis from the LSA to the CBRS and the hybrid
usage of UHF concepts. Similarly, in Papers VIII and X, the simple rules strategy
framework was widened to definition and analysis of the hybrid usage of UHF and
the CBRS concepts, respectively. In Paper III, the author has proposed a novel
approach to the scalability analysis of business models together with Ahokangas P.
In V and XI, the author adopted the business model approach and conceptualization
presented by Ahokangas P. Interference mitigation algorithms deployed in the field
trials in VI were developed by Ojaniemi J, and implemented by Tudose L and
Hartikainen V. Simulations in IX were done by Huuhka E.
21
Contents
Abstract
Tiivistelmä
Acknowledgements 9 List of abbreviations and symbols 13 Original publications 19 Contents 21 1 Introduction 23
1.1 Overview of the spectrum-sharing concepts ........................................... 25 1.2 Research questions and scope ................................................................. 27 1.3 Contributions of the thesis ...................................................................... 29 1.4 Outline of the thesis ................................................................................ 31
2 Spectrum-sharing systems and technologies 33 2.1 Cognitive radio system and spectrum-sharing in mobile
broadband networks ................................................................................ 33 2.2 Licensed Shared Access (LSA) ............................................................... 36 2.3 Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) ............................................ 40 2.4 Hybrid usage of the UHF band by DVB and/or downlink LTE
terrestrial networks (HUHF) ................................................................... 47 2.5 Mobile broadband ecosystem .................................................................. 51
3 Theoretical foundations of the business research 53 3.1 Strategic management concepts .............................................................. 54
3.1.1 Dynamic capabilities .................................................................... 55 3.1.2 Simple rules strategic framework ................................................. 56
3.2 Business model concepts ........................................................................ 56 3.2.1 Business model typology .............................................................. 58 3.2.2 Business model scalability ........................................................... 59
4 Methods 61 4.1 Research strategy and research process .................................................. 61 4.2 Action research and anticipatory action learning .................................... 65 4.3 Integral scenarios methodology .............................................................. 66 4.4 Empirical research and validations of the spectrum-sharing
concepts ................................................................................................... 67 5 Summary of original publications 71
5.1 Technical studies ..................................................................................... 71 5.1.1 System architecture ...................................................................... 71
22
5.1.2 System validation ......................................................................... 78 5.1.3 System simulation ........................................................................ 83 5.1.4 Summary of the technology antecedents ...................................... 88
5.2 Business studies ...................................................................................... 91 5.2.1 Antecedents for business model scalability .................................. 91 5.2.2 Business model characteristics and strategic choices ................... 93 5.2.3 Summary of the business antecedents .......................................... 99
6 Discussion 107 6.1 Theoretical contributions....................................................................... 107 6.2 Practical implications for spectrum-sharing .......................................... 110 6.3 Reliability and validity of the research.................................................. 112 6.4 Future research ...................................................................................... 114
References 117 Original publications 137
23
1 Introduction
Over the past decade, we have witnessed the exponential growth of wireless
communications with a vast range of diverse devices, applications, and services
requiring connectivity. In particular, the number of mobile broadband (MBB)
subscribers and the amount of data used per user is set to grow significantly over
the coming years leading to increasing spectrum demand (Cisco 2016). At the same
time, in the media industry the importance of DTT platform providing audiovisual
media and traditional free-to-air services have been challenged by competing
delivery platforms, Over the Top (OTT) media delivery over the Internet, and
higher general regulatory UHF spectrum fees (Lewin 2013). As the downstream
media content, video in particular, is the biggest and fastest growing part of the
traffic, asymmetry in mobile broadband networks is increasing with average
downlink to uplink ratio in the new fourth generation LTE networks being
approximately 8–11:1 (Erman et al. 2011, Yang et al. 2016) and growing (ITU-R
2015b). The latest changes in consumption characteristics with ubiquitous high
data speed demand by humans, and increasingly machines, have put mobile
network operators up against a disruptive change.
In order to increase the network capacity to meet the demand while maintaining
sustainable cost structure (Zander 1997, Giles et al. 2004), a mobile network
operator (MNO) needs in general either to increase effective reuse via more
efficient physical layer techniques, lower the cost per base station (BS), reduce the
coverage area with a more dense base station grid, or allocate more spectrum
(Zander & Mähönen 2013). In his law of spectral efficiency, Cooper (2011)
compared the number of voice or data conversations that can be conducted over a
given area in all of the useful radio spectrum. Cooper’s law argue that wireless
capacity will double every 30 months. As increases in physical layer efficiency are
already approaching the Shannon’s capacity with increasing complexity and energy
consumption, at present the capacity increase is mainly happening through
densification. On the other hand, in the dense urban environments where the
capacity demand is highest, further densification of radios is becoming
progressively inefficient, as we approach one user per cell or beam (Yang & Sung
2015). This calls for additional spectrum to meet high capacity need, and larger
continuous bandwidth to benefit with regard to complexity, signaling overhead, co-
existence and interference (METIS 2015a, METIS II 2016a).
Where to find more of this scarce natural resource, the radio spectrum? The
exclusive spectrum availability through global regulation and auctioning process
24
has been limited, and even the largest MNOs face the risk of running out of
spectrum in the near future provided that the predicted data rate growth continues
as estimated. The total amount of spectrum identified globally for mobile
communications rose only eight times in 23 years from the World Administrative
Radio Conference WARC-92 (ITU-R 1992) to the recent World Radio Conference
WRC-15 (ITU-R 2015a). Furthermore, making new exclusive spectrum available
for MBB networks is becoming increasingly difficult due to the costly and lengthy
traditional ‘command & control’ spectrum auctioning & re-allocation process
(Noam 1998, ITU-R 2014a). The traditional MBB spectrum below 3 GHz and new
cmWave spectrum above 3 GHz are critical to cope with the MBB traffic in urban
and suburban hotspots. Spectrum above 6 GHz, in particular at mmWave band will
become essential in serving customers in high-density hotspots, in extreme MBB
usage scenarios, and for backhauling ultra dense small cell networks. Identified
new spectrum resources, in particular on the planned cmWave and mmWave bands,
however, are in frequencies that are already allocated to and widely used by
incumbent services that may not move away, e.g., fixed links, satellite
communication, earth exploration, and radiolocation.
On the other hand, at the same time multiple spectrum occupancy measurement
campaigns worldwide have shown that many licensed spectrum bands in
commercial and governmental domains are currently only lightly occupied in time
and space (McHenry et al. 2006, Olaffson et al. 2007, Wellens & Mähönen 2010,
Höyhtyä et al. 2016). More flexible ways of allocating spectrum through cognitive
radio (CR) and spectrum-sharing techniques have lately received growing interest
among regulators (White House 2012, RSPG 2013) considering new ways of
fulfilling the different spectrum demands to meet the mobile traffic growth while
maintaining the rights of the original incumbent systems operating in the bands.
Chapin & Lehr (2007) and Ballon & Delaere (2009) have examined general
business architectures for the flexible spectrum use. This work was extended by
Zander et al. (2013a) to economic viability analysis of the different secondary
spectrum access use cases concluding that opportunities arise particularly indoors
and related to short-range access. Furthermore, Zander & Mähönen (2013) predict
fragmentation for the dense urban wireless access market with a large number of
operators and wireless infrastructure owners. This opens up strategic alternatives
to licensed spectrum-sharing through indoors unlicensed spectrum utilizing
infrastructure sharing instead of spectrum-sharing. The research complements
earlier studies by utilizing in a cross-disciplinary way both the qualitative business
research strategies and the experimental field trial validation and system simulation.
25
1.1 Overview of the spectrum-sharing concepts
The US President’s Council of Advanced Science & Technology (PCAST) report
(White House 2012) highlighted the need for new thinking in spectrum allocation,
utilization and management to meet the growing spectrum crisis and proposed the
novel three-tier spectrum-sharing model. The importance of spectrum-sharing and
dynamic spectrum access were highlighted to find a balance between the different
systems and services with different spectrum needs and dynamics. At the same time,
in Europe, the European Commission (EC) launched communication based on an
industry initiative promoting spectrum-sharing across the wireless industry and
different types of incumbents (EC 2012). In 2013, the EC’s Radio Spectrum Policy
Group (RSPG) defined Licensed Shared Access concept as (RSPG 2013):
A regulatory approach aiming to facilitate the introduction of radio
communication systems operated by a limited number of licensees under an
individual licensing regime in a frequency band already assigned or expected
to be assigned to one or more incumbent users. Under the LSA framework, the
additional users are allowed to use the spectrum (or part of the spectrum) in
accordance with sharing rules included in their rights of use of spectrum,
thereby allowing all the authorized users, including incumbents, to provide a
certain QoS.
In order for any spectrum-sharing framework to become feasible and attractive,
close co-operation between technology, regulatory and business stakeholders is
essential. In the technology domain, the collaboration between industry and
research plays a central role in innovating and validating the applicability of the
enabling technologies and new system concepts. Second, spectrum regulation and
policy are on the one hand enabling, and on the other hand setting boundary
conditions for spectrum wireless ecosystem innovations. The spectrum policy has
played a central role in enabling current multibillion business ecosystems: for
mobile telecommunications via exclusive spectrum usage rights, and at the same
time for unlicensed Wi-Fi ecosystem drawing from the public spurring innovations.
Nevertheless, without close attachment to the business stakeholders, these concepts
will not be deployed. Industry-generated user stories, requirements and sound
business models and incentives for all in the ecosystem are critical success factors
for any concept to scale and succeed. Hence, only the few of the research executed
has gained the policy domain, as for example, cognitive radio (Mitola & Maguire
1999) early studies on intelligent radios that search out ways to deliver the services
26
the users autonomously, and sensing as the general interference mitigation
technique (Cabric 2008). Furthermore, there are sharing concepts extensively
researched, supported by regulators, and standardized, but which to date have not
scaled up in the wireless services market. Recent examples are the early Dynamic
Spectrum Sharing (DSA) non-collaborative concept in the US with the radar
detection function of Dynamic Frequency Selection (DFS) (FCC 2004) or the TV
White Space (TVWS) (FCC 2016a, Ofcom 2016).
After a decade of comprehensive TVWS research, validation and early
commercial trials in the US and Europe with their key learning, database-based
sharing models have recently emerged in the licensed spectrum policy discussion.
The most prominent spectrum-sharing concepts under research in the technology,
regulation and business are the three-tier Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS)
(FCC 2015) from the US, Europe initiated Licensed Shared Access (LSA) (ECC
2014a), and the hybrid usage of the UHF spectrum (HUHF) (ECC 2014b). The
common guiding principle of these concepts is to improve the efficiency of the
spectrum use by allowing new users to access a spectrum in space or time when not
being used by the incumbent system(s) with current spectrum usage rights. The
status of the LSA and the CBRS system concepts under continuous revision can be
found, for example, in Matinmikko et al. (2014a), Mustonen et al. (2014a), and
FCC (2015), WInnF (2016e), respectively. A long-term vision and strategy on the
future use of the UHF band (470–790 MHz), in particular the HUHF in the EU
states is discussed in RSPG (2015).
Although several underlying technical enablers like novel LTE-Advanced
(LTE-A) features, e.g., Carrier Aggregation (CA), evolved Multimedia Broadcast
Multicast Service (eMBMS), and Self Organizing Network (SON) solutions are
known and have been standardized in 3GPP (3GPP 2012, 3GPP 2014, Hämäläinen
et al. 2012), technical spectrum-sharing system validation in research has just
started, and there is little prior work in particular on their system performance and
business model design analysis. An initial evaluation of the general spectrum-
sharing concept from the business modeling point of view can be found in Chapin
& Lehr (2007) and the LSA focused analysis from Ahokangas et al. (2013) and
Markendahl et al. (2013). Previous works on business analysis for UHF spectrum
hybrid usage or sharing were limited as focus has been on the preceding TVWS
concept (Mwangoka et al. 2011, Luo et al. 2015) with only a limited amount of
business model elements discussed. Business enablers for the most recent CBRS
concept with regulation (FCC 2016b) and initial standards (WInnF 2016e) only in
place since 2016 have not been studied before. On the other hand, in regulation and
27
policy research, several studies have been conducted around valuations or spectrum
and generic business models, e.g., Mölleryd & Markendahl (2011), Ballon &
Delaere (2009). Earlier technology enabler studies have been based on general
enabling cognitive radio technologies, e.g., Patil & Patil (2016), De Domenico et
al. (2012), and the applicability of the mobile broadband network technologies has
not, to the author’s knowledge, been covered. The Finnish cognitive radio field trial
environment research group (CORE) (CORE 2016) wherein this thesis was done,
was the first to start system-level validation of the concepts through end-to-end
field trials (Matinmikko et al. 2013, Yrjola et al. 2015, Guiducci et al. 2016,
Matinmikko et al. 2015b). The research carried out on the novel hybrid UHF usage
concept with LTE Supplemental Downlink (SDL) and sharing concepts has been
exiguous as the focus has been on the preceding TVWS (FCC 2012, Ofcom 2010)
sharing concept, and on DTT-MBB coexistence issues triggered by the launch of
the digital dividend UHF spectrum, see, e.g., Ofcom (2011), Ofcom (2012), Kim
(2012), Polak et al. (2016).
1.2 Research questions and scope
The literature research on the recent spectrum-sharing concepts in mobile
broadband networks has revealed several gaps. For example, the feasibility and
attractiveness of the recent spectrum-sharing concepts applying business strategy
and business model design theory frameworks have only been addressed in a
general level without thorough analysis or comparison of the individual sharing
concepts and frameworks (Chapin & Lehr 2007, Ballon & Delaere 2009, Barrie et
al. 2010, Zander et al. 2013a, Markendahl et al. 2013). Second, the applicability
and validation of the mobile broadband network technology enablers and the
overall system performance has received very little attention as the focus has been
on more general and future oriented cognitive radio techniques (De Domenico et
al. 2012, Patil & Patil 2016). Theoretical foundation of business model scalability
(Franke et al. 2008, Stampfl et al. 2013) has not been studied before in the context
of CR or spectrum-sharing. In Chapter 5, the contents and contributions of the
eleven original papers are summarized with respect to the prevailing gaps in the
research literature. This thesis aims to answer the following research questions:
RQ1. What are the key technology enablers needed to exploit spectrum-sharing in
mobile broadband networks?
28
RQ2. How do these sharing concepts support the antecedents for business model
scalability?
RQ3. What strategic choices and business model characteristics do recent
spectrum-sharing concepts support?
The focus of the research is on the recent spectrum-sharing concepts relevant to
mobile broadband networks and mobile network operators, in particular the
Licensed Shared Access (LSA), the Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) and
the Hybrid usage of the band by Digital Terrestrial TV and/or downlink LTE
(HUHF). In the strategy and business model analysis, the research is mostly
focused on the wireless connectivity provisioning and related services, and does
not study other parts of the value system in detail. Furthermore, in terms of
technology enabler analysis and validation, the scope is limited to the mobile
broadband technologies, i.e., telecommunications and evolution of the 3rd
Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) family technologies. Strategic alternatives
and related technology paths not widely utilized in the wireless MBB
communications to date, like the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
(IEEE) family of Internet technologies based on unlicensed spectrum, are not
studied. Furthermore, business models for the indoors unlicensed spectrum and
infrastructure sharing instead of spectrum-sharing are only covered as
complementary to spectrum-sharing concepts analyzed, not as alternatives.
The business theoretical foundation of this thesis is based on the strategic
business management (Hambrick & Schecter 1983, Prahalad & Hamel 1990, Porter
2008) utilizing business model (Osterwalder & Pigneur 2010, Onetti et al. 2012,
Ahokangas et al. 2014d), business model scalability (Chrisman et al. 1988, Stampfl
et al. 2013), 4C business model typology (Wirtz et al. 2010), dynamic capabilities
(Wang & Ahmed 2007, Zahra et al. 2006, Teece et al. 2009) and simple rules
strategy (Eisenhardt & Sull 2001) theoretical frameworks. This study used mixed
method design in which the business research was conducted using the qualitative
research strategy (Bryman & Bell 2011) utilizing the Anticipatory Action Learning
(AAL) (Stevenson 2002, Inayatullah 2006) Action Research (AR) (Lewin 1946)
methodologies, and the technology validation utilizing quantitative field trial
validation and system simulations.
In this cross-disciplinary research, the same above discussed systematic
methods were used in multiple case study research methods covering all three
sharing concepts from technology and business perspectives in two different
research consortia, the CORE (CORE 2016) and the FUHF (FUHF 2016). The
29
chosen approach also helped to reduce the subjectivity of both the researcher and
the teams, and contributed to increasing construct and external validity of the
research (Yin 2003, Yin 2009, Reason 2006). The relation of the original
publications to the spectrum-sharing concepts and antecedents in the technology
and business domains are depicted in Fig. 1. The first research question focusing
on the key technology enablers needed to exploit spectrum-sharing in mobile
broadband networks is addressed in Papers I, IV, V, VI, VII and IX. Papers II, III,
V, VII, VIII, X and XI cover the business enablers for spectrum-sharing. The
second research question dealing with the antecedents for business model
scalability is discussed in Papers III and VII. Business model characteristics and
strategic choices, and the answer to research question three are studied in Papers II,
V, VIII, X and XI.
Fig. 1. Relation of the original publications to the spectrum-sharing concepts and
research question themes.
1.3 Contributions of the thesis
The main contributions of the author and original publications are summarized
below, and are elaborated on in detail in concluding Chapter 6.
– Analysis of the technology enablers for the CBRS (IV), the LSA (V) and the
HUHF (VII) system concepts. The research results of these studies described,
analyzed and compared the key enabling technologies of the sharing concepts,
highlighting the importance of scale and harmonization, and further how the
3GPP family of technologies could provide a solid scalable technology
platform for spectrum-sharing concept deployments.
30
– System architecture enhancement and implementation definitions for
spectrum-sharing concepts that provide exclusion zone reductions and
interference detection by using active antenna system (I). In this study, the
author introduces a novel patented architecture definition and RF front-end
design for utilizing active an antenna beam forming in interference reduction
in spectrum-sharing (Yrjölä & Heikkinen 2015a).
– Validation of the spectrum-sharing concept through end-to-end system field
trials (VI). This study was the first one to present e2e LSA field trial validation
results based on commercial Radio Access Network (RAN), Core Network
(CN) and Operational Support System (OSS) SON based LSA controller
indicating the feasibility of the system in typical LSA use cases in Europe. The
author contributed to an overall system design, integration and validation,
implementation architecture definitions and technology selection, particularly
in NMS, iSON/EdenNET based spectrum controllers.
– System level coexistence analysis and simulations of DTT and 4G LTE Mobile
Network utilizing the HUHF concept (VII, IX). This research was, to the
author’s knowledge, the first to simulate the HUHF concept in macro level
deploying real life network data indicating the availability of UHF spectrum
availability in a hybrid SDL LTE usage scenario. The author contributed to an
overall system design, implementation architecture definitions, simulation
parameter definition and results analysis.
– Dynamic capability definitions and analysis of the HUHF (II) and the CBRS
(IV) concepts in the MBB networks. The findings of these papers complement
earlier research by emphasizing the importance of organizational and
operational level analysis in systemic change. The papers were the first to
utilize a dynamic capability approach to study HUHF and CBRS systems.
– Definition and analysis of strategic options for a MNO utilizing the HUHF
(VIII) and the CBRS (X) spectrum-sharing concepts. In the research, a simple
rules strategic framework was for the first time applied to HUHF and CBRS
concepts proposing practical strategic steps for an MNO exploring novel
sharing concepts.
– Business model definition, analysis, scalability assessment and comparison of
the LSA (III, V), the CBRS (III), and the HUHF (VII, XI) concepts. These
papers complement earlier business model studies by proposing novel business
model scalability factors, and analysing and comparing the scalability of the
recent sharing economy concept enabled business models.
31
1.4 Outline of the thesis
The thesis consists of this overview and eleven publications, which are summarized
in Chapter 5 and enclosed as appendices. Other supplementary publications of the
author related to spectrum-sharing, extending the scope of the research to other
sharing concepts, technologies, and stakeholders include Ahokangas et al. (2013),
Ahokangas et al. (2014a), Ahokangas et al. (2014b), Ahokangas et al. (2014c),
Ahokangas et al. (2014d), Ahokangas et al. (2014e), Ahokangas et al. (2016a),
Ahokangas et al. (2016b), Ahokangas al. (2016c), Hänninen et al. (2016), Lehr et
al. (2014), Luttinen et al. (2014), Matinmikko et al. (2013), Matinmikko et al.
(2014a), Matinmikko et al. (2014b), Matinmikko et al. (2015a), Matinmikko et al.
(2015b), Matinmikko et al. (2015c), Mustonen et al. (2014a), Mustonen et al.
(2014b), Mustonen et al. (2014c), Mustonen et al. (2015a), Mustonen et al. (2015b),
Matinmikko et al. (2016), Ojaniemi et al. (2016), Palola et al. (2014a), Palola et al.
(2014b), Palola et al. (2014c), Yrjölä et al. (2015b), Yrjölä (2016a), Yrjölä (2016b),
and Yrjölä et al. (2016c).
The outline of the thesis is as follows. Chapter 2 reviews the relevant literature
on CR systems, spectrum-sharing with a focus on the LSA, the CBRS and the
HUHF concepts, and the related mobile broadband ecosystem. Sharing concepts
are presented from regulatory, technology and business perspectives. In Chapter 3,
the theoretical foundation, and in Chapter 4, the research methods used in this thesis
are introduced. Chapter 5 presents a summary of the original publications. Finally,
Chapter 6 provides a summary of the results, discusses their significance, reliability
and validity, and proposes future work.
32
33
2 Spectrum-sharing systems and technologies
This Chapter reviews the main concepts on which the thesis is based. First, a
general overview of the Cognitive Radio system is outlined. Then, recent spectrum-
sharing concepts in mobile broadband are described from policy, technology and
business perspectives with a focus on the recent LSA, CBRS and HUHF concepts.
Finally, a mobile broadband business ecosystem deploying spectrum-sharing is
described as used in the study.
2.1 Cognitive radio system and spectrum-sharing in mobile
broadband networks
Mitola (1999) extended a software radio concept capable of supporting multiple
frequency bands, air interfaces and protocols through the use of wideband antennas,
RF and converters by introducing the term Cognitive Radio, which employs model-
based reasoning about users, content and context. Mitola’s CR definition focuses
on radio node capabilities and sees CR as a way to transform radios executing
predefined protocols to intelligent radio environment aware agents that search out
ways to deliver the services to the users autonomously. A CR workflow consists of
observations, orienteering, planning, decision-making, execution and learning
(Mitola & Maguire 1999), and is based on the two new functionalities: radio scene
analyser and the dynamic spectrum manager (Haykin 2012). Haykin (2005) defined
CR benefits as delivering reliable communication whenever and wherever needed
while improving the efficient utilization of the electromagnetic spectrum. Followed
by the extensive research since CR introduction, the concept has in parallel seen
growing interest from the spectrum regulators. The Radio communication sector of
the International Telecommunication Union (ITU-R) defines CR system through
cognitive cycle of the capabilities in three phases: obtaining knowledge, learning,
and decision and adjustment (ITU-R 2009, ITU-R 2011a). The ITU-R sees
additional benefits in flexibility of the use and in enabling novel mobile
communication applications.
Wide-ranging CR research has been outlined in a large number of overview
papers, e.g., Akyildiz et al. (2008), Feng et al. (2013), Pawelczak et al. (2011).
Policy and standardization activities are summarized in Yoshino (2012) and Filin
et al. (2011), and different sharing scenarios analysed in Peha (2009). Spectrum
architectural evolution was coved by Mitola (1999), and management approaches
are considered in Akyildiz et al. (2008). Furthermore, CR system building block
34
and key enablers have been researched extensively. Spectral efficiency has been
seen as an important metric for a point of departure (Hatfield 1977, Hong et al.
2014), followed by the occupancy of the spectrum (ITU-R 2011b), and related
world side measurements campaigns (McHenry et al. 2006, Olaffson et al. 2007,
Wellens & Mähönen 2010, Höyhtyä 2016). The ITU-R (ITU-R 2011a) and the EC
RSPG (2010) categorized active and passive methods (Höyhtyä et al. 2007) into
three main classes: control channels, databases, and sensing. Control channel
Cognitive Pilot Channel (CPC) and Cognitive Control Channel (CCC)
implementation options were reviewed in (ETSI 2009, ETSI 2010, ETSI 2012).
Database approach has been widely covered in various Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) and the Office of Communications (Ofcom) TVWS studies and
trials, e.g., FCC (2012), Ofcom (2010), IETF PAWS, and recently studied in
connection to the LSA and the CBRS concepts to be discussed in detail in the
following Sections 2.2 and 2.3. On the contrary to control channel and database
approaches, spectrum-sensing method does not rely on the intervention with other
spectrum users, but can directly provide availability information to CRs through
extracting radio spectrum samples from noise, and making a decision of the
presence of the signal. Sensing techniques are a widely researched topic in several
radio engineering domains, see, e.g., Cabric (2008), Yucek & Arslan (2009), Wang
& Liu (2011), Patil & Patil (2016) for overviews. Challenges of the technique,
particularly the hidden node problem, are summarized in ITU-R (2011a). Sensing
techniques have lately gained growing research interest due to the CBRS
Environmental Sensing Capability (ESC) requirements (FCC 2015).
After knowledge about the availability of the CR spectrum is obtained, the
spectrum channel should be selected and assigned. Channel assignment research
focuses on the methods for assigning channels among users in the optimized way
(De Domenico et al. 2012). Centralized and distributed approaches are outlined and
compared in Salami et al. (2011), ITU-R (2011a) and different cooperative
strategies, e.g., in Nie & Comaniciu (2006, Ji & Liu (2007). In the learning phase
of the cognitive cycle, the CR system goes beyond the traditional adaptive system
(Claasen & Mecklenbräuker 1985) via its capabilities of learning from the results
it has obtained (ITU-R 2011a). According to Mitola & Maguire (1999), CR learning
application is about defining autonomously the structure of the alternating radio
environment.
Policy and regulatory aspects of the CR spectrum management have been
reviewed, e.g., in Falch & Tadayoni (2004), Olafsson et al. (2007), Mueck et al.
(2010), Basaure et al. (2012). Latest studies on spectrum management highlight the
35
valuation methodologies of spectrum (Bazalon & McHenry 2013), transition
economics in designing and evaluating different spectrum assignment and
allocation strategies (Minervini 2014), and benefits of an optimal spectrum
assignment in order to reduce transaction costs (Basaure et al. 2015). An overview
and comparison of recent spectrum-sharing approaches in regulation and research
are outlined in Matinmikko et al. (2014a), Mustonen et al. (2014b).
Markendahl & Mäkitalo (2007) have examined business architectures for
wireless local area access in general, and Chapin & Lehr (2007) and Ballon &
Delaere (2009) for the flexible spectrum use. The scenarios and economic viability
analysis of the different secondary spectrum access use cases were analysed in
Zander et al. (2013a) concluding that opportunities arise particularly indoors and
related to short-range access. Furthermore, Zander & Mähönen (2013) predict
fragmentation for the dense urban wireless access market with a large number of
operators and wireless infrastructure owners. More detailed business opportunities
using the TVWS spectrum and CR for mobile broadband services can be found in,
e.g., Markendahl & Mäkitalo (2011), Markendahl & Casey (2012). In valuation of
spectrum based on a techno-economic analysis in mobile broadband networks, the
estimated engineering value was found much higher than willingness to pay at
spectrum auctions (Mölleryd & Markendahl 2011). Techno-economic studies
analysing the impact of deployment costs and spectrum prices highlight the
advantage of established mobile network operators having the installed base
(Markendahl et al. 2012b).
CR transformation has the potential to shift the market towards an open
structure enabling many new entrants and a wide range of service applications
(Chapin & Lehr 2007). Ballon & Dalaere (2009) and Barrie et al. (2010) have
discussed the impact of a new actor introduction in the terms of novel business
models. Value system dynamics and future scenarios for local area industry
structure and access fragmentation in general was presented by Smura & Sorri
(2009). Casey (2009) focuses the research on system dynamics model of forces for
flexible spectrum, analysis of radio spectrum market evolution possibilities, and
further on analysis of CR market dynamics, radio resources and technologies
(Casey & Ali-Vehmas 2012).
Techno-economic analysis of high capacity indoor and hotspot systems in
shared spectrum in Kang et al. (2013) introduced local operator actors and
scenarios for inter-operator sharing. Inter-operator sharing as a Co-Primary
Spectrum Sharing (CoPSS) was defined (Singh et al. 2015) and business
opportunities for a MNO analysed in Ahokangas et al. (2014a, Ahokangas et al.
36
(2016a). Bennis’s (2009) study shows that CoPSS is beneficial in bursty and
fluctuating conditions, and particularly in a small cell environment, where
interference can be easily managed (Alsohaily & Sousa 2013). Furthermore,
Gangula et al. (2013) found that the sharing gains are highly dependent on the user
locations within the cells. It is also possible to complement spectrum-sharing with
various network infrastructure sharing methods and techniques, depending on
national policies and regulation. Network sharing describes methods to share
network infrastructure from radio sites and radios up to parts of the core network.
Gateway Core Network (GWCN) and Multi-Operator Core Network (MOCN) are
examples for standardized methods, while Multi-Operator Radio Access Networks
(MORAN) is an example for a non-standardized approach. Markendahl (2011)
outlines a comprehensive techno-economic overview of infrastructure sharing,
dynamic roaming and small cells. With Ghanbari he extended research through
analysing small cell network indoor deployments, and discusses multi-operators
and local operator business model implications in different network-sharing
scenarios (Markendahl & Ghanbari 2013). Kibilda et al. (2015) continued through
assessing the fundamental trade-offs between spectrum and radio access
infrastructure sharing. The evolution of transaction costs in the operator centric
sharing, and how sharing accelerates horizontalization and competition, was
studied by Suomi et al. (2013).
In the Mobile and wireless communications Enablers for Twenty-twenty (2020)
Information Society II (METIS II) project (2016b), spectrum-sharing ecosystem
evolution analysis was extended towards 5th Generation (5G), emphasizing
potential changes in the roles, positions and relationships of the key stakeholders
in service delivery. Based on the new 5G business model scenarios identified in the
Next Generation Mobile Networks (NGMN) 5G white paper (NGMN 2015), five
key business roles were identified: service provider, Connectivity Service Provider
(CSP), asset providers, resources broker and managed service providers. The
viability of the CR and spectrum-sharing enabled spectrum trading market has been
studied, e.g., in Caicedo & Weiss (2010), Tonmukayakul & Weiss (2008) and Yoon
et al. (2010).
2.2 Licensed Shared Access (LSA)
The European Commission communication based on an industry initiative
promoted spectrum-sharing across the wireless industry and different types of
incumbents (EC 2012). In 2013, the RSPG of the EC defined LSA as (RSPG 2013)
37
A regulatory approach aiming to facilitate the introduction of radio
communication systems operated by a limited number of licensees under an
individual licensing regime in a frequency band already assigned or expected
to be assigned to one or more incumbent users. Under the LSA framework, the
additional users are allowed to use the spectrum (or part of the spectrum) in
accordance with sharing rules included in their rights of use of spectrum,
thereby allowing all the authorized users, including incumbents, to provide a
certain QoS.
The recent development in regulation, standardization and system studies has
applied the LSA concept to leverage scale and harmonization of the 3GPP
ecosystem. This would enable Mobile/Fixed Communication Networks (MFCN)
broadband services and MNOs to gain access on a shared basis to complement a
harmonized spectrum at present not available on an exclusive basis. Regulation has
focused on the 3GPP band 40 (2.3–2.4 GHz) as defined by the European
Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT), Electronic
Communications Committee (ECC) (2014b). The current incumbent use cases in
the CEPT countries include: Program Making and Special Events commercial
video links (PMSE), terrestrial and aeronautical telemetry, fixed service (FS),
governmental use, e.g., Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), and amateur radios as
a secondary service (CEPT 2015a). The emerging second sharing use case currently
being considered in European regulation is the application of the LSA to the 3.6–
3.8 GHz band. For this band, the existing Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) and Fixed
Service (FS) incumbent usage is static and the LSA band availability is guaranteed
in the license area for a known period. This case with higher frequency paves the
way to more innovative small cell scenarios, such as local networks using small
cells, as there is no need for additional frequency resource or existing infrastructure
to support dynamic handover (HO) (ECC 2016). In the RSPG opinion on spectrum-
related aspects for 5G, the 3.4–3.8 GHz band is considered to be the primary band
for the 5G introduction in Europe already before 2020 (RSPG 2016). Furthermore,
Mueck et al. (2014) propose mmWave spectrum as a potential next LSA candidate
band towards 5G (METIS 2015b).
The EC mandated (EC 2014) the CEPT to develop harmonized technical
conditions and guidelines for the sharing framework at the 2.3 GHz band in 2014,
and published a report in 2015 discussing incumbent usage cases on the band and
related trial implementation examples (CEPT 2015a). This was followed by the
PMSE incumbent use case focused study on sharing framework guidelines for
38
National Regulator Authorities (NRAs) (CEPT 2015b). Global spectrum
harmonization is an essential antecedent for any radio innovation to scale, and so it
sets a high level guideline to national spectrum-sharing policies. The ITU-R works
on international agreements and recommendations defining allocation of spectrum
to different services. In 2014, the ITU-R published a series of studies that
recognized the LSA as a possible cognitive radio solution for the vertical sharing
(ITU-R 2014b), a future trend for the International Mobile Telecommunications
(IMT) systems (ITU-R 2014c), and as the best practice and innovative regulatory
tool for the shared use of spectrum (ITU-R 2014d). Nicita & Rossi (2013) found
the LSA framework as a prominent tool for spectrum management, to be fully
exploited in order to cope with the predicted spectrum crunch. They consider the
greatest benefit of LSA, as compared to the other models, to be vested in the
harmonization and followed positive feedback effects. Buckwitz et al. (2014)
summarized the regulatory background particularly from the NRA perspectives.
The standardization of the LSA concept has been done in the European
Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). The ETSI has finalized stages 1,
2 and 3 standardization and published related system references (ETSI 2013),
requirements (ETSI 2014), architecture (ETSI 2015) documents, and the
information elements and protocols for the interface between the LSA Controller
(LC) and the LSA Repository (LR) (ETSI 2016a). In the LSA concept, the
incumbent spectrum user is able to share the spectrum assigned to it with one or
several LSA licensee users according to a negotiated sharing framework and
sharing agreement as depicted in Fig. 2. In the early phases of implementation, a
more global sharing framework should be beneficial, defining the protection to
neighboured NRAs and basic sharing rules to guarantee fairness between sharing
partners including multiple LSA licensees. The global sharing framework is quite
stable and limits the need for sharing rule updates. A further advantage is that
information related to the sharing framework is typically not transferred via the
LC-LR interface (LSA1), except the pre-defined LSA Spectrum Resource
Availability Information (LSRAI) required covering the dynamic usage of the LSA
Spectrum Resource (LSR). For example, a static definition of incumbent
protections and percentage of LSRAI may be defined in the sharing framework,
while exact time dependencies of the incumbent protections and the dynamic
modifications of incumbent protections should be defined in the respective sharing
agreement. The LSA model guarantees protection from harmful interference with
predictable Quality of Service (QoS) for both the incumbent and the LSA licensee.
39
The LSA architecture introduces two new elements – LSA Repository and LSA
Controller – to the LTE RAN to protect the rights of the incumbent, and for
managing the dynamics of the LSA spectrum availability (Mustonen et al. 2015a)
shown in Fig. 2. The LR supports the entry and storage of the information about
the availability, protection requirements and usage of spectrum together with
sharing framework and sharing agreement rules and conditions. The LC belonging
to the licensee’s domain grants permissions within the mobile network to access
the spectrum based on the LSRAI from the LR (ETSI 2016a). Mustonen et al.
(2015b) analysed the requirements from standardization perspectives for LSA
system implementation. The LC interacts with the licensee’s Operation,
Administration and Management (OAM) Network Management System (NMS) in
order to support the mapping of LSRAI (ETSI 2016a) into appropriate radio
transmitter configurations, and to receive the respective confirmations and status
information (Mustonen et al. 2014c, Matinmikko et al. 2014b).
Fig. 2. The LSA architecture reference model and key functions (V, published by
permission of Taylor & Francis LLC, CRC Press).
The 3GPP Service and System Aspects Telecom Management working group (SA5)
has recently finalized a work item study on OAM support for the LSA (3GPP
2016a). The study proposed three deployment scenarios for the LSA IRP interface
(3GPP 2016c):
1. LC communicates the LSRAI to the NMS system, and all planning and
configuration decisions are performed within the NMS,
2. LC is part of the NMS, and
40
3. LC performs some or all of the planning decisions internally and communicates
the constraints on configuration attributes (max Transmitter (TX) power,
allowed downtilt range, allowed azimuth range, maximum antenna height, etc.)
to the NMS.
To date, the LSA system concept for the 2.3–2.4 GHz band has been validated in
field trials in Finland, Italy and France. Architecture, implementation and field trial
results are presented, e.g., by Matinmikko et al. (2013), Yrjola et al. (2015), Italy
(2016), RED technologies (2016a), and related interference measurements for the
LSA between LTE and PMSE wireless cameras in 2.3 GHz by Kalliovaara et al.
(2015). Interference mitigation logic and algorithms were studied by Ojaniemi et
al. (2016) and validated by Yrjölä et al. (2015b). Overall system level benefits of
the LSA, considering different methods to optimize the resources in the LTE
network were simulated by Perez et al. (2014).
Pogorel and Bohlin (2014) studied valuation and pricing of the LSA spectrum.
They proposed that a mitigation coefficient to be used in the process of valuation
and pricing of shared spectrum consists of the following factors: availability, QoS,
duration, predictability, certainty, flexibility, harmonization, scale, complexity, and
specific costs. Matinmikko et al. (2015a) studied general business benefits of the
LSA for the key stakeholders highlighting the importance of incentives for all the
stakeholders to trigger the market. More detailed analysis of incumbent incentives
and business scenarios is discussed by Ahokangas et al. (2014b), Ahokangas et al.
(2014c). Strategic choices and business model for a MNO has been developed by
Ahokangas et al. (2013), Ahokangas et al. (2014d). In Markendahl et al. (2013)
and Widaa et al. (2013) studies were extended to analyze different types of
operators that can make use of the LSA license. The authors found business
opportunities for traditional MNOs in the macro network complementary scenario
and for new alternative operators in new indoor networks. He et al. (2014)
simulated the LSA system performance in Distributed Antenna System (DAS) and
Cloud Radio Access Network (C-RAN) virtualized network architecture, and found
a merit for using LSA in the context of network virtualization.
2.3 Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS)
The PCAST report (White House 2012) in 2012 put forward a spectrum-sharing
discussion in the US started from the report of the spectrum efficiency working
group (FCC 2002) and the national broadband plan (FCC 2010). In the Presidential
41
Memorandum in 2013 (White House 2013), sharing was foreseen as a new policy
tool to meet the growing crisis in spectrum allocation, utilization and management.
We must make available even more spectrum and create new avenues for
wireless innovation. One means of doing so is by allowing and encouraging
shared access to spectrum that is currently allocated exclusively for Federal
use. Where technically and economically feasible, sharing can and should be
used to enhance efficiency among all users and expedite commercial access to
additional spectrum bands, subject to adequate interference protection for
Federal users, ... we should also seek to eliminate restrictions on commercial
carriers' ability to negotiate sharing arrangements with agencies. To further
these efforts, while still safeguarding protected incumbent systems that are vital
to Federal interests and economic growth, this memorandum directs agencies
and offices to take a number of additional actions to accelerate shared access
to spectrum.
The FCC started disquisition and consultation with the ecosystem and released
rules and a notice of proposed rulemaking for shared use of the 3550–3700 MHz
band in 2015 (FCC 2015). The framework aims to create a contiguous 150 MHz
block at the National Telecommunication and Information Administration (NTIA)
identified ‘fast track’ band (NTIA 2010) 3550–3700 MHz for MBB that FCC calls
Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS). The White House aims to expand
wireless innovation in spectrum-sharing further through identifying an additional 2
GHz of federal owned spectrum below 6 GHz for future commercial sharing (White
House 2013, FCC 2014). The success of the CBRS is critical to future federal–
commercial spectrum-sharing. Moreover, the FCC has already proposed the use of
the three-tier model and the SAS for 5G in several cmWave and mmWave bands.
In their latest consultation (FCC 2016d), the 70 GHz and 80 GHz spectrum bands
have been identified in the Spectrum Frontiers Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (FNPRM) as potential bands for 5G services. Existing terrestrial
licensees have used the spectrum band solely for fixed services, including backhaul.
The existing Incumbent Access (IA) users on the CBRS band are the US
Department of Defense (DoD) ship-borne and ground-based radar systems, the FSS
receive-only earth stations, and the grandfathered commercial wireless broadband
service (WBS) on the sub-band 3650–3700 MHz as depicted in Fig. 3. The intended
use case in this FCC called ‘innovation band’ is to assign spectrum to commercial
MBB systems like the 3GPP LTE on a shared basis with incumbent systems, and
to promote a diversity of Heterogonous Network (HetNet) technologies,
42
particularly small cells. The FCC’s vision is to repeat Wi-Fi’s success through
lowering the entry barrier to QoS spectrum for new entrants and verticals, e.g.,
enterprises, smart cities, wellness, eHealth, and safety.
The CBRS regulation is technology neutral (FCC 2016b), which will play a
role especially in the opportunistic license-by-rule General Authorized Access
(GAA) layer. This may introduce new opportunities for the 3GPP and the IEEE Wi-
Fi ecosystem co-existence (Abinader et al. 2014), and moreover for the novel
unlicensed LTE technologies, e.g., LAA (3GPP 2015b), LTE-U (LTE-U Forum
2016) and MulteFire (MulteFire 2016). The CBRS framework is optimized for
small cell use case, but at the same time rules accommodate point-to-point and
point-to-multipoint use case in the rural environment (FCC 2016b). The CBRS 3-
tier authorization framework with the FCC’s spectrum access models for 3550–
3650MHz and 3650–3700MHz spectrum segments consists of three tiers:
Incumbent Access, Priority Access Licenses (PAL) and GAA as depicted in Fig. 3.
Fig. 3. The US 3-tier authorization framework with the FCC’s spectrum access models
for 3550–3650MHz and 3650–3700MHz spectrum segments (Yrjölä 2016c, published by
permission of Wireless Innovation Forum).
The FCC licenses for the PAL layer users will be assigned via competitive bidding,
and allowed to operate up to a total of 70 MHz of the 3550–3650 MHz spectrum
segment enjoying interference protection from the GAA operations. A PAL non-
renewable authorization is for a 10 MHz channel in a single census track for three
43
years, with the ability to aggregate up to six years up-front. In order to ensure
availability of PAL spectrum to at least two licensed users in the highest demand
areas, licenses will be permitted to hold no more than four PALs in one census track
at once, and no licenses are granted if there is only one applicant, except in rural
areas. The PAL layer may cover critical access users like utilities, Internet of Things
(IoT) verticals, governmental users, and non-critical users, e.g., MNOs and WBS
after a final five-year term on the 3650–3700 MHz band. PALs are auctioned to the
licensee within their service area on a census track basis but the specific channels
are assigned, re-assigned and terminated at the end of the term by the Spectrum
Access System (SAS). The PAL will be opened for the third GAA tier users when
unused and further automatically terminated and may not be renewed at the end of
its term. The ‘use’ status of PALs in the CBRS ‘use it or share’ approach is
determined using two engineering approaches. First, a PAL licensee should report
their PAL protection areas (PPAs) on the basis of actual network deployments, and
second, to maximize an objective protection area, the SAS must not authorize other
CBSDs on the same channel in geographic areas and at maximum power levels that
will cause aggregate interference in excess of -80 dBm/10 MHz channel within a
PPA (FCC 2016b).
The FCC revisited rules for CBRS (FCC 2016b, OFR 2016) in 2016, and
introduced the light-touch leasing process to enable secondary markets for the
spectrum use rights held by PAL licensees. Under the framework, no FCC oversight
is required for partitioning and disaggregation, and PAL licensees are free to lease
any portion of their spectrum or license outside of their PPA. The PPA can be self
reported by the PAL owner or calculated by the SAS. The PAL Radio Frequency
(RF) channel can be re-allocated beyond the PPA, but within the census tract.
Introduced low additional administrative burden with a minimum availability of 80
MHz GAA spectrum in each license area will provide the increased flexibility to
serve targeted services to geographic areas or quantities of spectrum. Furthermore,
the FCC will permit stand-alone or an SAS-managed spectrum exchange and let
market forces determine the role of the SAS value added services.
The opportunistic GAA, which will operate under a licensed-by-rule
framework, is subject to incumbent and PAL activity, and though having no
interference protection from other CBRS users, it must protect incumbents and
PALs. Compared to the LSA concept this dynamic third layer aims to facilitate the
rapid deployment of compliant small cell devices while minimizing administrative
costs and burdens on the public, licensees, and the FCC. Furthermore, the GAA is
planned to spur innovation as a low-cost entry point for a wide choice of services,
44
e.g., small and local businesses, venues and local hot spots. For established MNOs
and PAL licensees the GAA offers, e.g., PAL offload during IA interruption, Wi-Fi
type capacity offload, backhauling and WBS. Furthermore, the three-tier model
offers network operators unprecedented flexibility and scalability through the
ability to move between the PA and GAA tiers. This allows for the use of much
shorter leasing periods, without requiring a lessee to forgo their investment if their
lease does not renew via simply converting from PA to GAA tier. For a new market
entrant this enables them to try out their new service utilizing the GAA tier without
having to invest in spectrum with a future option to choose to buy a PA license
when/where needed, depending on the market and interference protection needs.
The CBRS devices (CBSDs) are fixed or portable base stations or access points,
or networks of such, and can only operate under the authority and management of
a centralized SAS, which could be multiple as shown in Fig. 4. Both the PA and the
GAA users are obligated to use only certified the FCC approved CBSDs, which
must register with a SAS with information required by the rules, e.g., operator
identifier, device identification and parameters, and location information. In a
typical MNO deployment scenario, the CBSD is a managed network comprising of
the Domain Proxy (DP) and NMS functionality. The DP may be a bidirectional
information routing engine or a more intelligent mediation function enabling
flexible self-control and interference optimizations in such a network. In addition
to larger MNO-operated MBB networks, DP enables combining, e.g., the small
cells of a shopping mall or sports venue to a virtual BS entity that covers the
complete venue. The DP can also provide a translational capability to interface
legacy radio equipment in the 3650–3700 MHz band with an SAS to ensure
compliance with the FCC rules. A MNO could utilize a DP and/or operator-specific
SAS in protecting commercially sensitive details of their network deployment data.
45
Fig. 4. The CBRS functional architecture scenarios (Yrjölä 2016c, published by
permission of Wireless Innovation Forum).
In addition to discussed spectrum assignment, the SAS controls the interference
environment, and enforces protection criteria and exclusion zones to protect higher
priority users, and dynamically determines and enforces CBSDs’ maximum power
levels in space and time (FCC 2015). In the recent FCC rules (FCC 2016b), the
FCC requires all SAS’s to have consistent models for interference calculations in
order to avoid different SAS’s using different calculation models, e.g., the SAS1
prohibits use of spectrum at the defined location while the SAS2 from other vendor
approves the use of spectrum at the location. Furthermore, the SAS takes care of
registration, authentication and identification of user information and performs
other functions as set forth in the FCC rules (Sohul et al. 2015). All the CBSDs and
End User Devices (EUDs) must be capable of two-way communication across the
entire 3.5 GHz band, and discontinuing operation or changing frequencies at the
direction of the SAS to protect the IA users having primary spectrum rights at all
times and in all areas. In order to meet the mission critical requirements of the DoD
IAs, the FCC adopted rules to require Environmental Sensing Capabilities (ESC)
46
in and adjacent to the 3.5 GHz band to detect incumbent radar activity in coastal
areas and near inland military bases. The confidentiality of the sensitive military
incumbent information will be ensured through strict operational security
requirements and corresponding certification for the ESC elements and operator
authorization (NTIA 2016a). Once IA activity is detected, the ESC communicates
that information to the SAS for processing. In the event that needed, a SAS orders
commercial tier users to vacate an interfering channel within 300 s in frequency,
location, power or time (FCC 2016b).
Federal DoD incumbent protection will be introduced, first utilizing static
exclusion zones (EZ) in a large area of the country. In the second phase, the ESC
system enables the rest of the country, including major coastal areas, to become
available, as the exclusion zones will be converted into protection zones (PZ). An
ESC deployment near the exclusion zones consists of one or more commercially
operated networks of sensing devices that would be used to detect signals from
federal radar systems in the vicinity of the exclusion zones. Additionally, a CBSD
infrastructure based sensing could be considered under the strict operational
security requirements. Prospective ESC operators must have their systems
approved through the similar process as SASs and SAS administrators. An SAS
would obtain the FCC maintained information, about registered or licensed
commercial users from the FCC databases, and exclusion zone information
maintained by the NTIA. Functional architecture depicted in Fig. 4 has the option
for informing the incumbent in case the federal IA wants to inform the SAS ahead
of plans to use the spectrum in some area, e.g., related to planned use of the
spectrum (WInnF 2015a). The CBRS market introduction is planned to start with
the opportunistic GAA layer and EZs only (WInnF 2016a) to provide a low-cost
entry point into the band. The PAL system operations may have to wait for the
auction process, which could possibly only start after the conclusion of ongoing US
600 MHz incentive auction process (FCC 2016c).
The Spectrum Sharing Committee (SSC) of the Wireless Innovation Forum
(WInnF) (WInnF 2016a) consisting of governmental, mobile broadband, wireless,
Internet and defense ecosystems representatives serve as a standardization forum
to support the development and advancement of CBRS spectrum-sharing
technologies with initial focus on 3.5 GHz. The SSC has finalized the first stage
standardization work, and defined operational and functional requirements (WInnF
2016e), protocols for data and communications across the various open interfaces
within the system to enable early trial implementations of interoperable systems
47
(WInnF 2016b–d). Furthermore, the 3GPP finalized the CBRS 3.5 GHz band 48
definition for LTE in the United States in December 2016 (3GPP 2016d).
The first validation of a live 3.5 GHz CBRS system was demonstrated in Bell
Labs in 2015 based on pre-WInnF Tiered Access to Shared Spectrum (PTASS)
protocol (Kim et al. 2015) followed by WInnF standard based trials (Matinmikko
et al. 2015c) and demos (RED Technologies 2016b). Multiple large-scale field
trials are under deployment in the US (Hamblen 2016). The thesis LASS project
with the CORE research consortia showed the world first WInnF standard
compliant field trial with commercial network management system and SON
Domain Proxy in 2016 (Hämäläinen et al. 2016, Aho et al. 2016a, Aho et al. 2016b,
Yrjölä et al. IV,). Reed et al.’s (2016) first experimental study on the co-existence
between radar and LTE systems in the 3.5 GHz band reported favourable results
for the CBRS concept at the close proximity of the test sites to the radar.
2.4 Hybrid usage of the UHF band by DVB and/or downlink LTE
terrestrial networks (HUHF)
The media, broadcasting (BC) and MBB industry clusters have recently conducted
several studies on the future media distribution concepts comprising traditional
cable and satellite BC platforms, fixed Internet Protocol (IP) networks and mobile
communications from policy, business and technology standpoints (EBU 2014a,
EBU 2014b, Digital Europe 2015). The EC engaged in this spectrum policy
discussion through a High Level Group (HLG) (Lamy 2013) consisting of mobile
and broadcast sectors set up to provide strategic directions for the future use of the
UHF spectrum. UHF spectrum has a great value for both industries for establishing
effective coverage and indoor penetration in a cost-efficient way (ITU-R 2011c).
Based on the CEPT Task Group 6 study Long-term vision for the UHF
broadcasting band (ECC 2014c), the RSPG published opinion on the long-term
strategy on the future use of the UHF band (RSPG 2015). The CEPT study
concludes four future scenarios for the band 470–694 MHz accommodating the
terrestrial delivery of TV content and the additional capacity for MBB (ECC 2014c):
A: Primary usage of the band by existing and future Digital Video Broadcasting
(DVB)
B: Hybrid usage of the band by DVB and/or downlink LTE
C: Hybrid usage of the band by DVB and/or LTE including uplink
48
D: Future communication technologies
Furthermore, the EC released a decision proposal in 2016 to limit the terrestrial use
other than BC on the band to downlink-only (EC 2016). Scenario B introduces
flexibility into the way the unused TV channels could be transferred into mobile
broadband use, while maintaining conventional DVB delivery to living rooms.
Furthermore, the downlink only scenario B is consistent with the regulatory
objectives of protecting multimedia services and maintaining the regional
agreement in the 174–230 MHz and 470–862 MHz bands in the Geneva 2006
agreement in the ITU-R WARC (GE06) (ITU-R 2006). National regulators are
globally considering to extend the Digital Dividend (DD) process by gradually
compressing and withdrawing some DTT licenses of lower demand, and
repurposing the spectrum for usage with MBB, e.g., (FCC 2016c) as depicted in
Fig. 5.
Fig. 5. Evolution of UHF band usage with flexible use scenarios in Europe (VII,
published by permission of IEEE).
At the same time, the national Public Broadcast Service (PBS) licenses will
continue to fulfill the Public Service Media (PSM) obligations for the foreseeable
future. This calls for complementary and collaborative action between media
broadcasting and MBB domains, and particularly regulatory flexibility to consider
difference pace across nations, and within specific broadcast regions or their
borders. In June 2016, the ETSI set up a new Mobile and Broadcast Convergence
(MBC) working group aiming to explore and produce a comprehensive report on
the deployment and business models of converged networks from the broadcasters’,
49
terrestrial Broadcast Network Operators’ (BNO), MNOs’ and consumers’
perspectives (ETSI 2016b). At the same time in Europe, the 5G Infrastructure
Public Private Partnership (5G PPP) consortium is studying the integration of
different network technologies – including unicast, multicast and broadcast, and
capabilities to cover both use cases (5G-PPP 2016).
As the spectrum transition period and utilization level will vary across borders
and different DTT areas, in Scenario B freed channels could be re-assigned first for
the MBB downlink use only. Furthermore in the scenario, as both the DTT and the
MBB systems transmit downlink only at fixed known locations, the interference
between systems could be controlled by traditional network planning, and if needed
leveraging spectrum-sharing functionalities like the earlier discussed LSA concept
(ECC 2014), which ensures predictable QoS and protects incumbent’s rights. The
LSA semi-static sharing concept allows available TV channel spectrum resources
to be taken flexibly into the MBB use across different regions and countries over a
transitional period. The LTE Carrier Aggregation (CA) (3GPP 2012) Supplemental
Downlink (SDL) concept (Iwamura et al. 2010) enables both MBB unicast
downlink and LTE eMBMS (3GPP 2014) broadcast usage in a flexible way based
on the demand as depicted in Fig. 6. Furthermore, the LTE broadcast provides tools
for cell capacity optimization, e.g., to cope with growing mobile data asymmetry
related downlink dominated media services. The standardization path of the
eMBMS, called Enhancements for TV video services (enTV) in the 3GPP, has
studied use cases and potential requirements for TV services, e.g., in linear TV,
video on demand, and OTT content (3GPP 2015a). An impeding problem of the
DD band deployment is the potential interferences that appear nationally and across
borders between the LTE and the co-existing DTT services. At present, the SDL
concept could speed up the deployment of the Digital Dividend 2 (DD2) at 700MHz
spectrum in Europe through managing co-existence characteristics of the TV
transmitters across the borders.
50
Fig. 6. Supplemental Downlink on the UHF broadcasting spectrum band 470–694 MHz (VII,
published by permission of IEEE).
The MBB–DTT co-existence on DD bands has been extensively researched and
discussed on regulation and standardization fora. Ofcom (2011, 2012) has
conducted large studies on the DD1 800 MHz case and interleaved UHF spectrum
concept with the performance of the Digital Video Broadcasting–Terrestrial (DVB-
T) receiver in the presence of interference from real LTE signals as an important
aspect. Kim et al. (2012) made system simulations and analysed co-existence of
the DTT and the LTE in the 700 MHz, which Ribadeneira-Ramírez et al. (2016)
extended to cover the interference between the Digital Terrestrial Multimedia
Broadcast (DTMB) and the LTE below 698 MHz. Polak et al. (2015) verified
simulations through laboratory measurements and link budget analysis. The LTE
femtocell and outdoor-to-indoor DVB-T2 lite reception interference cases were
analysed by Li et al. (2012). The results of the ITU-R (2013b) system level Monte
Carlo simulations summarized requirements for the DVB-T/T2 and LTE co-
existence in the fixed outdoor and the portable indoor DTT reception use cases.
Polak (2014) and Polak et al. (2016) continued research focusing on the physical
layer level coexistence simulations and laboratory measurements resulting to co-
existence scenarios. One of the key learnings from the early interference problems
with DD1at the 800 MHz band was to utilize RF-filtering between antenna and
receiver, e.g., Fuentes (2012) and De Vita (2014). This could be leveraged in further
improving the SDL interference situation. The HUHF concept was for the first time
validated in the field trial in Russia by the thesis FUHF project in 2016 (Vedomosti
2016). The trial was enhanced with CA technology in Finland (Nokia 2016b).
51
2.5 Mobile broadband ecosystem
The mobile broadband business ecosystem is at a turning point with the advent of
5G (Basole 2009, Al-Debei et al. 2013) and novel spectrum regulation. The
convergence of telecommunication, internet and media domains and changes in
spectrum policy towards flexible sharing concepts is disrupting the traditional
connectivity and MNO-centric mobile communication business (Ahokangas et al.
2013). The business perspective of the change is related to logic and relationships
of the players participating in value creation and capture, and is often characterized
with ecosystems, value chains and business models. Traditional stakeholder roles
are changing, new roles are emerging and the entry barrier for new entrants is
significantly lowered particularly in local indoor deployments (METIS II 2016b).
The business ecosystem is expected to change from the current MNO-dominated
model to a compilation of specialized service companies along the value chain
providing services to different verticals with versatile local requirements (5G PPP
2016). This calls for complementary business models to enable timely and scalable
introduction of digitalized services. In the dense urban deployments, the role of
venue owners, service companies and enterprise users is expected to become
central in the network implementation and operations (Markendahl & Ghanbari
2013). It is essential that the venue owner have incentives in deploying and
operating the network as well as creating context related content and services.
Furthermore, the introduced change will extend the business models and services
from connectivity to content, context and commerce with strong local
differentiation.
This study identified the following key roles for business in the future mobile
broadband ecosystem utilizing spectrum-sharing concepts: regulator, spectrum
broker, end user device vendors, infrastructure vendor, venue owner, content
providers, network operator, and vertical/end users. An example of the ecosystem
is depicted in Fig. 7. The NRA defines the regulatory regime and issues local shared
spectrum licenses for the operator. Spectrum-sharing introduces a new spectrum
broker role in the mobile connectivity market. Brokers could manage spectrum
resources on behalf of the regulator and/or an MNO in order to allow dynamic
management of the spectrum resources. End user device vendors in collaboration
with chip set manufacturers provide various devices that connect to the network to
provide and use data. Infrastructure vendors provide scalable heterogeneous radio
access networks connected to core network and OSS services on-demand.
Connectivity could be provided as a managed service possibly combined with value
52
added services, e.g., premium content delivery and telco data brokering. Venue
owners and enterprise users permit the operator to deploy the indoor networks and
collaborate with facility asset managers and operators in local services and content.
Content providers and OTT players with content aggregators and Content Delivery
Network (CDN) providers provide locally tailored service and content to end user
customers in collaboration with the connectivity service provider. Connectivity
service to end users and verticals could be offered by traditional MNOs and Mobile
Virtual Network Operators (MVNOs), Internet Service Provider (ISPs), cable
operators or a novel local operator, e.g., by hosting local network and potentially
utilizing MNO’s coverage network through national local roaming.
Fig. 7. Mobile broadband ecosystem roles in spectrum-sharing.
53
3 Theoretical foundations of the business research
This Chapter reviews the theoretical foundation for the purpose of this thesis. First,
a general overview of the strategic management and business model concepts are
outlined. Then, dynamic capabilities and simple rules strategic frameworks are
described. Finally, a business model concept is discussed as defined by its elements,
typology and scalability factors.
Business research has recently increasingly focused on the creation of new
businesses or business models instead of focusing on the efficient planning and
strategic management of existing firms, e.g., (Porter 1985, Christensen 1997,
Hamel 1998, McGahan 2004). Challenges introduced by digitalization and internet
economy at large are considered far too systemic, dynamic, blurred and
multiformity to achieve a competitive equilibrium position and to be kept under
control (Hamel 1999). Instead, this calls companies and businesses for breaking
equilibriums and exploring new opportunities in a disequilibrium (Carlsson &
Eliasson 2003). Business research provides several examples of business strategy
frameworks and strategic elements deployed (Porter 2008, Prahalad & Hamel
1990). Complex multidisciplinary problems like spectrum-sharing are likely to
benefit from insights obtained from several frameworks and approaches in business
strategy. Arising from this development, in this study several theoretical
frameworks were chosen covering the key elements of the Hambrick & Schecter
(1983) business strategy definition:
– Economic logic describes how to obtain returns, and what are the key elements
of activities that enable sustainable growth and profitability,
– Arenas define where to be active in geographic areas, market segments, product
categories, value creation stages and core technologies,
– Stages set base for pace and sequence of moves and initiatives, e.g., in
expansion,
– Vehicles define how to get there. Means include internal development and
organization, structure and processes, co-operation and joint ventures,
licensing and acquisitions, and
– Differentiators address how to win, e.g., through pricing, productization,
customization, quality, image and brand, and positioning.
Building on this business strategy framework, a simple rules approach was chosen
to put the strategy into practice, and to analyze strategic choices from a practical
54
perspective answering the question: how should we pursue opportunities and
proceed? This approach was complemented with dynamic capabilities analysis to
characterize the use of resources and capabilities in order to create and capture
value in a rapidly changing industry environment. In the research, DC analysis
provided a link between business antecedents and technology enablers in spectrum-
sharing. Business model was chosen as a boundary-spanning unit of analysis. A
business model provides a communication means as a practical implementation of
the abstract strategies. 4C business model typology was used to help to structure
different types of the introduced novel spectrum-sharing triggered business models,
and analyze how, and to what extent, they should be adapted in practice. The
scalability analysis of the business model used in the venture financing was
deployed to assess the practical feasibility and attractiveness of the developed
models and elements in the study. Scalability factors proposed and used in this
study were based on the sharing economy concept with focus on the efficiency of
the resource utilization and enabling platform. Fig. 8 depicts the constructed
business analysis framework used in the thesis.
Fig. 8. Business analysis framework.
3.1 Strategic management concepts
Companies across wireless industries share the same challenge: how to prepare for
an unknown future with increasing speed of change in the business environment
where firms and industries are more than ever networked with each other, co-
creating and co-capturing value by employing hybrid business models. To a certain
55
degree, firms and industries as a whole can influence their own future. Reshaping
the environment is possible for example through the development of new
technologies, business models, policies and other innovations (Kagermann et al.
2010).
3.1.1 Dynamic capabilities
Dynamic Capabilities (DCs) employment in the strategic management literature is
to characterize the use of company resources in order to create and capture value
in a rapidly changing industry environment. The DC methodology is commonly
used in identifying company or industry processes that are critical to the evolution
of the specific company in identifying new opportunities, organizing effectively
and embracing efficiently (Wang & Ahmed 2007). Zahra et al. (2006) separate the
DC concept into three domains that facilitates the practical use:
– the antecedents as internal and external factors,
– the elements consisting of contents, knowledge and processes, and
– the outcomes of DCs with linkage to economic performance and competitive
advantage
Wang & Ahmed (2007) categorized resources and capabilities into hierarchical
constructs. At the bottom of the hierarchy are resources as inputs for activities.
Higher in the hierarchy are the first-order operative capabilities, skills required for
performing activities (Cepeda & Vera 2007) followed by the second-order elements,
core capabilities that are critical for competitiveness (Prahalad & Hamel 1990).
Building on the resources, operative and core capabilities, the third order dynamic
capabilities (Teece 2009) are needed to be able to create new ways of performing
business and renewal systematically containing patterned elements and involving
learning (Winter 2003). Furthermore, the development and the rate of change of
operational and core capabilities is governed by the employed DCs (Teece 2009).
The DC research scope has recently been widened to capabilities to access and
to utilize partners’ complementary resources and capabilities as an alternative to
internal development or acquisitions (Blomqvist & Levy 2006). In the inter-
organizational collaborative DC context, Eriksson (2013) pointed out the
importance for stakeholders to continuously observe and assess partner activities
and the value of the collaborative arrangement, e.g., in compatibility and
integrability with those of the focal firm.
56
3.1.2 Simple rules strategic framework
Business research provides several examples of business strategy frameworks and
strategic elements deployed. Porter’s (2008) traditional strategic logic is centred on
answering the question: where should we be based? Approach identifies an
attractive market segment and sustainable position in it, and then focuses on
establishing, strengthening and defending it. Another widely used framework,
particularly used in well-defined and structured businesses, is built around
leveraging resources and core competences and resources, and finding answers to
the question: What to achieve sustained long-term market dominance (Prahalad &
Hamel 1990)?
Traditional approaches have confronted a number of limitations in an emerging
and dynamic business environment: they focus on resources rather than activities,
do not build around business processes, have only weak linkages to the business
opportunities, and lack the flexibility and scalability needed to seize disruptive
opportunities. This study adopted the strategic Simple Rules approach (Eisenhardt
& Sull 2001) that partly addresses the discussed shortcomings and concerns. The
novel framework sight strategies are built around the business opportunities and
are the main processes needed to exploit them flexibly and timely. In addition to
theoretical framework, the Simple Rules provides a practical approach and
guidelines within which opportunities could be seized with designated processes.
The five rules are categorized as follows:
1. How to conduct business and processes in an unique, differentiating way,
2. Boundary rules for determining which opportunities to pursue and which are
outside of the boundaries of the stakeholders,
3. Priority rules that help to rank the accepted opportunities for decision making,
4. Timing rules that help in synchronizing and pacing emerging opportunities and
other parts of the company, and
5. Exit rules that help in identifying when to pull out of initiatives.
3.2 Business model concepts
Business model concepts and particularly their compact illustration tools, business
model canvases (Osterwalder 1998, Maurya 2011), have become widely used tools
in developing and analyzing the value creation and capture logic of a firm or
business (Teece 2010). A business model provides a communication means as a
57
practical implementation of the abstract strategies (Morris et al. 2006), and can be
used as an ex ante illustration of a firm’s value proposition and the attractiveness
of a business or innovation (Baden-Fuller & Morgan 2010). Furthermore, a
business model helps to analyze how competitive advantage through combining
elements in a unique way (Baden-Fuller & Morgan 2010). Chesbrough &
Rosenbloom (2002) found a business model to time a firm’s operations, value chain
structure and its position in the wider value network. From the future research
perspectives, a business model helps firms to prepare for the alternative futures in
changing environments through identifying potentially needed modifications to a
current model or via a portfolio business model approach to test in parallel different
operations based on the same capabilities (Baden-Fuller & Morgan 2010). Sabatier
et al. (2010) found this approach valuable in planning market extension or
expansion and related dynamic capabilities.
Business literature provides us with numerous examples of business model
elements. Osterwalder & Pigneur (2010) represent business models in their canvas
utilizing nine elements: key partners, key activities, value proposition, customer
relationships, customer segment, key resource, distribution channel, cost structure
and revenue streams. Richardson’s (2008) alternative widely used framework,
particularly in analysing new ventures, consists of strategic choices, value
proposition, value creation and delivery system and value capture. The traditional
frameworks have limitations in dealing with business opportunities, systemic
complexities, dynamics of activities, and the element of locations. Onetti et al.
(2012) addressed these concerns in their framework built across three analytical
building blocks: focus of the business describing activities that provide the basis
for value proposition, locus of the business representing the locations of resources
and value-adding activities, and modus of business demonstrating internal
organization and network design. In this thesis, we adopt the conceptualization
based on Onetti and proposed in (Ahokangas et al. 2014c), consisting of four
elements:
– What element represents offer, value proposition, customer segmentation and
differentiation,
– How element describes key operations, basis of competitive advantage, mode
of delivery, selling and marketing,
– Why element sets base of pricing, way of charging, cost elements and cost
drivers,
58
– Where defines location of all the preceding elements items and divides
activities between internal and external involving partners.
3.2.1 Business model typology
Wirtz et al. (2010) developed coherent 4C business model typology to help
managers in business transformations to structure different types of the Internet era
business models, and analyse how, and to what extent, they should be adapted. The
typology introduces four prototypical models, each with varying value propositions
and revenue models:
– Commerce initiates, negotiates, and/or fulfils online transactions, and enables
low transaction costs for buyers and sellers of goods and services; direct sales
revenues and indirect streams as commissions,
– Context sorts and/or aggregates available online information, and provides
structure and navigation for Internet users to increase transparency and reduce
complexity; typically based on transaction independent online advertisement
revenues,
– Content collects, selects, compiles, distributes, and/or presents various types
of personalized content; mainly indirect revenue streams like online
advertising, premium content increasingly with subscription or usage pricing,
– Connection offers virtual and/or physical network infrastructure and related
services needed to exchange information and users’ participation having both
the direct and indirect revenue stream models.
The 4C typology can be interpreted as a layered model where antecedent layer
business models are required as value levers for higher layers (Messerschmitt &
Szyperski 2003). In their logic, Messerschmitt & Szyperski (2003) emphasized the
value creation, while Wirtz et al. (2010) took also into account value capture.
Introduced prototypical business models can exist alone or as a hybrid deployed by
different stakeholders of the ecosystem. The business potential of the whole
ecosystem depends on the ecosystem players’ synergies when providing their
services, which is an important aspect in relation to sharing.
59
3.2.2 Business model scalability
As discussed, business models in general are exploiting a business opportunity
(Zott & Amit 2010), in connection with the company and its external business
environment (Teece 2010). In order to attain sustainable competitive advantage
(Porter 1985), companies need to adapt or reinvent one or more aspects of their
business model designs. The scalability of the business model has been shown to
be one of the key drivers for the venture growth (Berry et al. 2006) and the attractor
towards venture capital (Franke et al. 2008). Stampfl et al. (2013) categorized the
antecedents of business model scalability into five mutually exclusive factors based
on Chrisman et al. (1988). Furthermore, Stampfl’s study highlights the importance
of scalability analysis already in the phase of business model conceptualization.
The explorative business model scalability model factors are:
– Technology: scalability of technology enablers and platform and automation of
processes,
– Cost structure: low initial costs that deliver superior value proposition,
– Revenue structure: generate continuous revenue early sustainably,
– Adaptability to different legal and regulatory regimes,
– Network externalities: to create positive network effect, and
– User orientation: User driven ‘need pull’. Simplicity of the offer solving real
problem leveraging user knowledge.
The sharing economy concept can be seen built on these scalability factors with
focus on the efficiency of the resource utilization (Sundararajan 2016) and platform
(van Alstyne 2016). Through studying early adopters and recent use cases of this
concept, Stephany (2015) defined the sharing economy as
The value in taking the underutilized assets and making them accessible online
to a community, leading to a reduced need for ownership of those assets.
The framework that has its roots in collaborative peer-to-peer community
consumption, has lately advanced to companies and governments acting as buyers,
sellers or lenders in the ecosystem (Sundararajan 2013). The sharing economy
antecedent factors used in the thesis for analysing value adding business model
characteristics of the spectrum-sharing concepts based on Stephany (2015) are:
– online, on-demand accessibility platform,
– reduced need for the ownership,
– exploitation of underutilized assets,
60
– adaptability to different legal and policy regimes,
– communities and trust, and
– value creation and user orientation.
61
4 Methods
This Chapter reviews the research strategy and research methods for the purpose of
this thesis. First, overall research strategy and process are discussed, and how
different theory frameworks and methods are utilized in original papers. Second,
the Anticipatory Action Learning (AAL) action business research method used to
create scenarios, business strategies and business models analysed in this paper is
presented. Next, integral scenarios methodology, a foresight technique commonly
used in future research for strategic analysis and business planning, is reviewed.
Finally, the field trial environment used for the empirical validation of spectrum-
sharing concepts is described.
4.1 Research strategy and research process
This Chapter discusses research philosophy entailing epistemological and
ontological orientation and deductive vs. inductive theories commonly used in
exploring the distinction between quantitative and qualitative research strategies,
and how these are utilized in this study. Table 1 outlines the differences between
research strategies in terms of three orientations.
Table 1. Quantitative and qualitative research strategies.
Orientation Quantitative Qualitative
Principal research strategy Deductive Inductive
Epistemological Positivism Interpretivism
Ontological Objectivism Constructionism
In a deductive (analysis) approach, theory guides the research, while in an inductive
(synthesis) approach theory is an outcome. Epistemology, is concerned about what
is the acceptable knowledge about the social world, and the issue whether the social
world should be studied according to the same principles as the natural science
(Saunders et al. 2012). In Positivism, according to principle of phenomenalism,
only phenomena and knowledge firmed by the senses can be genuinely warranted
as knowledge (Bryman & Bell 2011). Interpretivism, on the other hand, is based on
the view that the subject matter of the social science, people and institutions is
fundamentally different from that of the natural sciences, requiring different logic
reflecting distinctiveness of humans. The central question of Ontology is whether
social entities should be considered as something external to social actors or as
62
something that humans are in the process of constructing. In Objectivism, position
social phenomena confront us as external facts that are independent of social actors.
An alternative ontological position, Constructionism, sees social phenomena and
their meanings continuously accomplished by social actors. To summarize,
Quantitative research strategy emphasizes the quantification of the data collection
and analysis, testing of theories, incorporating natural scientific practices and
norms, and a view of social reality as an external objective reality. In a qualitative
research strategy approach, emphasis is on the generation of theories, the ways in
which humans interpret their social world, and how the social reality is
continuously shifting human creation (Bryman & Bell 2011).
This study used mixed method design in which the business research was
conducted using the qualitative research strategy utilizing theoretical foundation
discussed in Chapter 3, and the action research and integral scenarios
methodologies discussed in the following sub Chapters. The technology validation
through field trials and system simulations utilized quantitative research strategy
commonly used in the engineering sciences. The substance area, theoretical
foundation, research method and research question addressed in the original
publications are summarized in Table 2. The first research question (RQ1) focusing
on the key technology enablers needed to exploit spectrum-sharing in mobile
broadband networks is addressed in Papers I, IV, V, VI, VII and IX. Papers II, III,
V, VII, VIII, X and XI cover the business enablers for spectrum-sharing. The second
research question (RQ2), dealing with the antecedents for business model
scalability, is discussed in Papers III and VII. Business model characteristics and
strategic choices, and answers to research question three (RQ3) are studied in
Papers II, V, VIII, X and XI.
63
Table 2. Theories and research methods used in the original publications.
Publication Substance area Theoretical foundation Research method Research question
I LSA, CBRS, HUHF System and
architecture design
Quantitative RQ1
II HUHF Dynamic Capability Qualitative RQ3
III LSA, CBRS Business model, 4C
typology, scalability
Qualitative RQ2
IV CBRS Dynamic Capability Qualitative RQ1
V LSA Business model, 4C
typology, scalability
Qualitative RQ1, RQ3
VI LSA System design,
integration and
validation
Quantitative RQ1
VII HUHF Simulations,
Scalability
Quantitative,
Qualitative
RQ1, RQ2
VIII HUHF Simple rules strategic
framework
Qualitative RQ3
IX HUHF Simulations Quantitative RQ1
X CBRS Simple rules strategic
framework
Qualitative RQ3
XI HUHF Scenarios, business
model
Qualitative RQ3
The results of research in this thesis have been carried out at the Nokia Innovation
Steering in Oulu, Finland, in the years 2013–2016. Research for this thesis was
done in the Cognitive Radio to Business (CRB), the Local Area Spectrum Sharing
(LASS), and the Future of UHF (FUHF) projects in collaboration with the National
Cognitive Radio Trial Environment (CORE) and the Future of UHF (FUHF)
research consortiums, all funded by Tekes, the Finnish Funding Agency for
Technology and Innovation. Table 3 summarizes research projects and consortiums
related to this research.
64
Table 3. Research projects and consortiums.
Project Term Scope related to thesis Consortium
Cognitive Radio
Trial Environment +
(CORE+)
2013–2014 LSA research in
regulation,
standardization, business,
and technology domains,
and field trials in Tekes
Trial Environment for
Cognitive Radio and
Network (TRIAL) program.
National research center of Finland (VTT),
University of Oulu (UO) Center for
Wireless Communications (CWC),
University of Oulu Oulu Business School
(OBS), Centria University of Applied
Sciences, Anite, Elektrobit, Elisa/PPO,
EXFO, Nokia, PehuTec, Renesas Mobile,
Rugged Tooling, Finnish Communications
Regulatory Authority (FICORA), Finnish
Defence Forces, Finnish Funding Agency
for Technology and Innovation (Tekes).
Cognitive Radio to
Business (CRB)
2013–2014 LSA research in business,
regulation, standardization
and technology domains.
Tekes TRIAL program
Nokia research project in CORE+
consortium
Cognitive Radio
Trial Environment
++ (CORE++)
2015–2016 LSA and CBRS research
in regulation,
standardization, business,
and technology domains,
and field trials in Tekes
5thGEAR 5G research
program
VTT, UO CWC, UO OBS, Centria, Turku
University of Applied Sciences (TUAS),
Anite, Bittium, Fairspectrum, Nokia,
PehuTec, FICORA, Finnish Defense
Forces, Tekes.
Local Area
Spectrum Sharing
(LASS)
2015–2016 LSA and CBRS research
in business, regulation,
standardization and
technology domains.
Tekes 5thGEAR program
Nokia research project in CORE++
consortium
Future of UHF
(FUHF)
2015–2016 HUHF research in
regulation,
standardization, business,
and technology domains,
and field trials.
Tekes 5thGEAR program
TUAS, University of Turku, VTT, Åbo
Akademi University, Digita Networks,
Elisa, Fairspectrum, RF-tuote, Schneider
Finland, Sony Europe, Telia Sonera, YLE
Finnish public service broadcasting
company, FICORA, Tekes.
Nokia Future of UHF
(FUHF)
2015–2016 HUHF research in
regulation,
standardization, business,
and technology domains,
and field trials.
Tekes 5thGEAR program
Nokia research project in FUHF
consortium
65
4.2 Action research and anticipatory action learning
The future business strategies and business models for the key stakeholders of the
MBB analysed in this study were created using the AAL approach that is a
particular action research method (Lewin 1946) conducted in a future-oriented
mode (Stevenson 2002, Inayatullah 2006). Action research is an iterative,
participatory and collaborative approach developed to address the management of
change utilizing cross-disciplinary knowledge, involving practitioners and
researchers, and which impacts participants and organizations beyond the research
project (Coghlan & Brannick 2010). Moreover, action research promotes
organizational learning in addressing worthwhile practical purposes and
determining real organizational problems (Reason 2006). The AAL method
provides systematic methodology to develop foresight (Tsoukas & Shepherd 2004).
The method is applicable to research rapidly changing business environments as it
uses business model as the unit of analysis, and represents a unique style of
questioning the future from a transformational point of view. Furthermore, Ramos
(2006) has studied the AAL from interactivity and collaboration perspectives and
found the conversation and dialog among cross-disciplinary participants, from
multiple domains concerned, essential.
The scenarios, strategies and business models discussed and analysed in the
thesis were developed in a series of future-oriented workshops organized within the
CORE (CORE 2016) and the FUHF (FUHF 2016) research projects in 2014–2016.
In these workshops, we utilized the effort and knowledge coming from both the
research community and the industry, representing policy, business and technology
disciplines. The research process adapted was, for example, comprised of the
following phases:
1. The past, present and future are mapped through the futures triangle that weight
of the past, push of the present and pull of the future to ensure plausibility of
the results (Inayatullah 2006),
2. The business model framework is used for identifying the emerging issues for
analysis anticipating the future,
3. The Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) (Inayatullah 1998) and four-quadrant
method within the business model framework is applied for
lengthening/deepening the foresight, and
4. The futures is backcasted against the past and present experience and
knowledge of the participants of the research through discussing alternatives
66
and transforming the futures. In the backcasting (Robinson 1990) planning
method, a desirable future is first defining and then working backwards to
identify elements in policies, business model elements and technologies that
will connect the future to the present.
Future research, by definition, is foresight focused, thereby making the reliability
and validity of the scenario-based research difficult to control. According to
Inayatullah (2006), attention needs to be paid to the qualitative focus of research,
in particular how likely, probable, and desirable the outcomes appear. The way in
which the scenarios is created deploying collaborative and conversation-based
method has been regarded as a way to ensure the quality of the research (Floyd
2012). Furthermore, in (Stevenson 2002, Inayatullah 2006) the causal layered
analysis and the integral futures four-quadrant approaches within the business
model concept were found as means to ensure the quality of the research.
4.3 Integral scenarios methodology
It is essential to explore and anticipate the issues likely to change in the future; what
are the drivers for the changes, characteristics of those changes and what impact do
they have on future choices regarding technologies, policies and business. Playing
with different future scenarios can be a useful approach to anticipate change and
therefore scenarios have been widely utilized in communication businesses.
Planning of integral scenarios is a foresight technique commonly used in future
research for strategic analysis and business planning. The integral scenario
approach considers multiple alternative futures (Bishop et al. 2007, Stewart 2008)
that focus around a business case with a specific purpose. In the process, it is
essential to recognize critical change factors, and to experiment with future
alternatives at the industry and single company levels. First, at the industry level,
impacts of the technology, industrial environment, or the dynamics of the
ecosystem should be addressed. Second, scenario process can be used to explore
and recognize business opportunities and risks at the company level, so that the
business model may be designed on a charted ground. The change factors explored
in the scenario’s method are the ones that have the greatest potential impact on the
industry or company’s future, but the consequences of which are linear to predict.
A common convention is to prepare and illustrate scenarios as a matrix, where axes
are orthogonal to each other, and the outcomes radically differ and spread out (Van
67
Der Hejden 2007). Furthermore, Van Der Hejden (2007) emphasizes the
importance of the scenario process itself as a tool for strategic conversation:
Scenarios are the best possible language for the strategic conversation, as they
allows both differentiation in views, but also bring people together towards a
shared understanding of the situation, making decision making possible when
the time has arrived to take action
The scenario research methodology builds around an interactive, collaborative
approach that relies strongly on conversation among a variety of participants, from
different disciplines and perspectives, concerned with the research project. Voros
(2007) found scenario process to allow meaning from a range of different
perspectives to be shared and negotiated for studying, theorizing and otherwise
engaging the future for helping to create it. The challenge for the methodology is
how to engage the team fully and innovatively, in extending perspective to future
business with potential disruption as important aspects to persuade (Mason &
Herman 2003).
4.4 Empirical research and validations of the spectrum-sharing
concepts
The validations of the spectrum-sharing concepts deployed the CORE (CORE 2016)
cognitive radio field trial environment, and workflows (V) and system models (VI)
developed in this study and discussed in Sections 2 and 5.1.1. The field trial
environment for the empirical research part of the study is comprised of the
following elements as shown in Fig. 9 (VI):
– PMSE & simulated radar incumbents,
– ESC demo system,
– LR, SAS and Incumbent Manager tool (IM),
– LC and DP utilizing commercially available NMS, SON platforms and
interfaces with incumbent protection algorithms,
– heterogeneous LTE network of commercial Time Division Duplex (TD) and
Frequency Division Duplex (FDD) LTE macro and small cell evolved Node
Bs (eNBs),
– Evolved Packet Core (EPC) network consisting of System Architecture
Evolution Gateway (SAE-GW), Mobility Management Entity (MME) and
Home Subscriber Server (HSS), and
68
– User Equipment (UE).
Fig. 9. The spectrum-sharing system validation architecture (VI, published by
permission of Springer).
The LTE trial network environment consists of the commercially available 3GPP
LTE-A compliant Flexi Multiradio macro and FlexiZone small cell BSs. The eNBs
operating at 3GPP FDD-LTE band 1 (2.1 GHz) and TD-LTE bands 40 (2.3 GHz)
and band 42 (3.5 GHz) are located in the vicinity of the Centria University of
Applied Sciences campus area in the city of Ylivieska, Finland. The FDD LTE
provides a coverage layer in the Ylivieska area and remains available as a back-up
layer, should the shared spectrum resource become temporarily unavailable.
Furthermore, it provides an additional HetNet layer to validate advanced network
features like the carrier aggregation, load balancing and traffic steering. All the
LTE BSs are connected to LTE EPC core network at Nokia Oulu and are managed
from a single point by the multi-technology, multi-vendor Nokia NetAct NMS
platform located in Tampere. The SON based spectrum controllers, LC and DP, are
in Nokia Espoo and connected to NMS in order to exchange network information
and to execute configuration management operations. Commercial LTE multi-
mode (FDD and TD) multi-band (band 1 and 40) UEs supporting seamless TD-
FDD handover and CA are used. The CORE trial environment used in the LSA
validations is illustrated in Fig. 10. The incumbent use case selected for the LSA
69
system performance validation was Program Making and Special Events
commercial video links.
The developed spectrum controllers, LC and DP, utilize commercially
available NMS solutions and SON platform, interfaces and software development
environment (Nokia 2015). The SON platform controls end-to-end SON processes
for MNO’s network operations, and provides SON modules with self-configuration,
self-optimization and self-healing (Hämäläinen et al. 2012).
In the LSA and the HUHF trials, the LSA1 interface between the LR and the
LC is utilizing Protocol to Access White-Space (PAWS) protocol (IETF 2012) and
the JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) data Websocket connection interface as
shown in Fig. 9. The LSA IRP use of type-7 interface for interaction at the NM
level (3GPP 2016b). The LC is a kind of Network Management Layer Service
(NMLS), where the LC is the service provider and the NMS is the service consumer.
The LC is part of the LSA licensee's domain as defined in (3GPP 2016a). It is
assumed that the LSA related NMS operations towards the BSs are performed using
the existing IRPs already defined by 3GPP SA5 (2016a). In the trial, interface uses
available Nokia proprietary Configurator Manager (CM) Open Application
programming Interface (API) based on Web Services within the OSSii
interoperability initiative between different vendor’s equipment (OSSii 2016). In
the CBRS trials, WInnF (2015b, 2016b) standard interfaces and protocols are used.
Compared to LSA, Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is used instead of
Websocet, and Real Application Clusters Command-Line Interface (RACCLI)
instead of OpenAPI in the CBRS field validations. Furthermore, Nokia iSON
manager is replaced by the Nokia Eden-NET SON platform (Nokia 2016a, VI).
70
Fig. 10. LSA validation set up in the CORE field trial environment.
71
5 Summary of original publications
This Chapter summarizes the contents and key results of the eleven original
publications with respect to the prevailing gaps in the literature research. The
content of original articles can be divided into two categories studying spectrum-
sharing concepts from the technical and business perspectives. The first technical
part investigates the spectrum-sharing concept architectures (I, V), system level
performance validations (VI), simulations (IX), and key enabling technologies (IV,
VII).
The second part of the thesis deals with the business enablers for spectrum-
sharing. The antecedents for business model scalability are discussed in III and VII,
and business model characteristics and strategic choices in II, V, VIII, X and XI.
5.1 Technical studies
5.1.1 System architecture
This section reviews the contents of the original publications related to the system
architecture and technology enablers focusing on value added elements for
spectrum-sharing concepts in mobile broadband networks.
Paper V reviews the LSA system concept in detail from the regulatory and
standardization perspectives, proposes a process workflow illustrated in Fig. 11 and
architecture concept depicted in Fig. 12, and analyzes related key network level
technology enablers for practical implementation in MBB networks. The proposed
workflow and architecture captures the key elements provided in the proposed LSA
architecture model in Fig. 2. The study summarizes that, apart from the new logical
elements, the LR and the LC and their interfaces, no change is needed to the
existing LTE network platform consisting of UEs, eNBs, EPC and OAM. Moreover,
several existing 3GPP family technologies could be leveraged in the
implementation of the additional features required for the workflow optimization
in activation, operation and deactivation phases. The paper highlights the
importance of SON in enhancing the HetNet integration, interworking and mobility
of shared spectrum deployments through automated configuration and optimization
features. The proposed integration scenario of the LC with the MNO’s NMS in Fig.
12 was used in the system validation as illustrated earlier in Fig. 9.
72
Fig. 11. Proposed LSA workflow with related LTE-Advanced features and SON functions
(V, published by permission of Taylor & Francis LLC, CRC Press).
Fig. 12. Proposed LSA controller integration with network management system (V,
published by permission of Taylor & Francis LLC, CRC Press).
The study finds load balancing, traffic steering and mobility management as key
SON functions related to the LSA reference implementation. The Load balancing
(3GPP 2013) is an LTE SON self-optimizations feature, allowing monitored and
controlled terminals to switch between, e.g., the FDD-LTE and the LSA TD-LTE
networks on demand. Paper V further analyzed the nature of LSA spectrum
availability leading to considerations on which user segments can be best served
and or are least affected by possible spectrum evacuation. Traffic steering
distributes traffic and customers across HetNet technologies, network layers and
spectrum to enable operators to optimize their resources, improve the QoE services,
73
and additionally minimize power consumption. LSA system analysis shows that
consistent QoS and QoE is the key requirement for any practical implementation
of the LSA in the MBB systems. The users connected to interfering cells will
experience a Radio Link Failure (RLF) if the cells are locked abruptly via hard
shutdown. The paper proposes a graceful control approach in which the shutdown
or the modification of the transmitting power and or the antenna beam is deployed
during a certain period, allowing users to be handed over to other cells. In a typical
MNO HetNet implementation scenario, the LTE-A Carrier Aggregation feature
(3GPP 2012) could be utilized proactively to combine a shared carrier, like LSA,
to a carrier on another licensed band at the device side to increase the end user data
rates, and to smooth potential transitions. In this way, the MNO can use LSA
resources to provide additional capacity to its users, without the risk of connection
break caused by changing LSA resource availability. Furthermore, in case the
shared band utilizes TD LTE technology, the study finds additional benefits as
uplink could use the lower FDD carrier for coverage while the downlink utilizes
TDD and FDD carriers for high data rates. Supplemental Downlink, as a special
case of the CA, allows leveraging the shared resource to boost down link capacity
in order to cope with increasing downlink–uplink asymmetry in MBB networks.
Paper I further enhances the spectrum-sharing architecture through proposing
an enhanced RAN BS architecture that provides spectrum exclusion zone reduction
and interference detection for spectrum-sharing by using the Active Antenna
System (AAS). The study proposes a novel beam-steering architecture, workflow
and an implementation scenario that reduced the needed evacuation area while
enabling easy integration into an existing network architecture based on
standardized interfaces. Instead of locking down or reducing power of the BS or
cell, the AAS controlled by the LC modifies the radiation pattern per cell to prevent
interference to the incumbent, while maximizing the spectrum resource availability
to the licensee as shown in Fig. 16. The system with the support of SON can
automatically adjust the sizes and positions of the cells to better utilize the shared
spectrum to serve non-uniform demand from users across the license area.
Furthermore, carrier and system-specific beam forming can be used to optimize the
use of different carriers according to shared spectrum availability, and technologies
to enable the continuous QoS in the case of LSA band evacuation. The paper
proposes a LSA use case for the novel implementation architecture in which the
RAN is shared by the incumbent and the licensee, and different operators traffic
can be beam steered and resources allocated independently to meet the needs of
each operator according to sharing agreement as illustrated in Fig. 13.
74
Fig. 13. Illustration of Active Antenna System enabled RAN system level usage
scenarios that could be utilized to enhance spectrum-sharing systems (I, published by
permission of IEEE).
Second, Paper I proposes smart antenna integrated sensing architecture and
implementation scenario that provides an extra protection toward interference,
improves accuracy, and reduces calculated restriction zone areas. The measured
exact spectrum occupancy data related to incumbent could be used for restriction
zone calculation in addition to the static exclusion zone tables or equation in the
repository and controller. For uplink direction, by combining the phase and
amplitude adjusted signals from each radio (R) per carrier the AAS can calculate
the exact direction of an incumbent or an interferer as illustrated in Fig. 14. If the
expected LSA interferer is in AAS Receiver (RX) band, then interference can be
collected using RX radios and accurate direction of the interferer can be calculated
in common module. If the expected interferer is in AAS TX band in the FDD case
or if the interferer is out of band, then AAS can use an RF filter by-pass coupler to
detect the interferer which cannot normally detected at all. If there are as many TX
Digital Pre-distortion (DPD) feedback radios or separate radios as there are
antennas then common module can calculate accurate direction of arrival for
interfering signal. In the other architecture implementation option, there are as
many “extra” receiver radios as there are transmitters. This configuration enables
synchronized, concurrent sampling of spectrum. With concurrent measurements of
the phase difference between detected signals it is possible to accurately calculate
direction of received spectrum in common module.
75
Fig. 14. Active Antenna System integrated sensing concept (I, published by permission
of IEEE).
Paper VII introduces and defines the HUHF system concept, reviews key
technology enablers, and summarizes a compatibility study done for the German
use case in the 700 MHz DD2 band. The co-existence simulations used the
principles and propagation prediction methods agreed in the regional Geneva 2006
(GE06) agreement (ITU 2006) described in Section 5.1.3 and the site information
of real broadcasting network in analyzing the interference to LTE caused by
neighboring countries’ DVB-T. Simulation results show that the HUHF concept
could initially speed up deployment of the 700 MHz band for MBB through better
co-existence characteristics with potential cross-border TV transmitters as
illustrated in Fig. 15. On the left, the area where LTE uplink, e.g., in traditional
FDD use, would be free from co-channel interference caused by neighboring
countries’ broadcast transmitters is colored green. On the right, the area in which
LTE terminals could receive in the SDL mode without interference in similar
circumstances is likewise colored green.
76
Fig. 15. FDD LTE - DVB-T compatibility simulation for the German case based on the
ITU- and the 3GPP-specified methods and parameters (VII, published by permission of
IEEE).
The research shows that the hybrid usage scenario increases the efficiency and
flexibility of spectrum utilization by taking advantage of regional differences in
DTT spectrum use. It allows future changes in DTT spectrum use due to new
technology introduction, and enables an early adoption of DTT channels one by
one as there is no change in the availability of interleaved spectrum used, e.g., by
PMSE. The HUHF concept is utilizing the CA SDL technology depicted in Fig. 6
that delivers media over a large SDL channel operated as a Secondary Component
Carrier (SCC) while a smaller licensed FDD band provides the Primary Component
Carrier (PCC) for authentication, management functionalities, and enhancing
broadcasting services via an interactive uplink path. The paper further proposes a
long-term integrated UHF multimedia network scenario that enables full migration
to a converged LTE platform to deliver TV media content, and as an option to
completely replace current DTT technologies. This evolution scenario exploits the
eMBMS standard, and particularly the dynamic multiplexing of the MBMS and the
unicast, which enables novel interactive and hybrid broadcast/unicast services in a
spectrum efficient way. The third key technology enabler, Mobile Edge Computing
(MEC), is currently being standardized in the ETSI (ETSI 2016c, Hu 2015). The
MEC offers Information Technology (IT) cloud computing capabilities within the
RAN and in close proximity to mobile users. The aim is to reduce latency, ensure
highly efficient QoS delivery, and offer an improved Quality of Experience (QoE).
The MEC is a natural part of the evolution of BSs in converging
telecommunications, IT and media service delivery in enhancing value added
services and performance, e.g., local recording, orchestration and production of
video, and in the future augmented reality streams.
Paper IV extends the analysis of the LSA and the HUHF spectrum-sharing
technology antecedents to the CBRS technology that introduces more dynamics in
77
to the system and resulted in new functionalities. The technology enablers were
assessed for the key processes: spectrum provisioning, operations and its
management in the five functional architecture domains: IA, NRA, SAS, CBSD
and EUD. The study proposes that NRA auction mechanisms and tools for the
initial PA licensing should be further developed to facilitate the PAL secondary
leasing and real-time authorization of both PAL and GAA users done by a SAS.
One considered technology enabler could be emerging blockchain that could offer
a novel way for the SAS to perform policy management in a way that is secure,
transparent, highly resistant to outages, auditable, and efficient. Furthermore,
blockchains have potential to reduce transaction costs related to search, contracting,
enforcement, and payments. The key underlying technologies for the SAS were
found to be the scalable and high availability platform for CBRS databases, big
data, analytics and future machine learning, all having synergies with Internet
domain technology platforms. On the other hand, the advanced 3D radio
propagation map, spectrum analytics tools and information on the operators’ NMS
and SON network data could be leveraged in SAS operators’ value added services.
In the managed CBSD network use case, operators can utilize their deep HetNet
RAN knowledge, history and status already existing within the NMS and SON, e.g.,
in initialization and optimization of cell parameters, dynamic network adaptation,
cells border optimization, and special events operations optimization. Furthermore,
the closed-loop SON operations platform maintains a database of all the cells and
their relationships, which was found essential for the automated optimization of
neighbor lists, layer management strategy enforcement, network border area
management, handover parameters, reuse codes, antenna settings, Physical
Random Access Channel (PRACH) parameters and enhanced Inter-Cell
Interference Coordination (eICIC). Dynamism requirements for the CBSD radio
access system set by the FCC vacation rules are critical for the implementation
scenarios and under validation in the first CBRS field trials. Could the requirements
be met with existing NMS SON based solution or will this require NMS bypass,
e.g., implementing the SAS-CBSD interfacing protocols and element management
functionalities into the CBSD base stations. For the third license-by-rule GAA layer
and stand-alone deployments, recent LTE unlicensed evolution is offering new
technology options like LTE-U, LAA and MF. Further, LTE functionalities to be
developed include a method for achieving time sync between CBSDs in the same
and across different census tracks, and a mechanism to align TDD configuration
parameter across different deployments to minimize guard band requirement.
Technology harmonization in spectrum and radios with dominant ecosystems will
78
be essential to ensure economies of scale and fast time to market. Therefore, all the
CBSDs and EUDs must be capable of operating across the entire band, and
optimally have multi-band multi-mode support to enable continuous QoS provision.
5.1.2 System validation
Specific contribution of this thesis was to present the first system performance field
trial validations of the LSA concept based on commercial RAN and OAM to prove
that the end-to-end system works in realistic scenarios with real live networks and
fulfils requirements of the defined incumbent use cases. In Paper VI, the LSA
system concept proposed in Paper V was validated in the end-to-end field trials.
The developed trial environment for the system validation is described in Section
4.4, and depicted in Fig. 9 and Fig. 10.
A criterion that guarantees an interference free operation of the LSA licensee
and the incumbent transmissions is fundamental for allowing the coexistence
between the LSA network and the incumbent. The LC implementation steps and
evacuation modes developed and validated in the study are illustrated in Fig. 16.
Fig. 16. LC implementation steps and evacuation modes in the operational phase.
In the validation set up, the use of LSA spectrum resource was based on three
algorithms as depicted in Fig. 16. The Minimum Separation Distance (MSD)
protection algorithm calculates the minimum required distance between the
incumbent and the LSA BS transmitter taking into account both the incumbent and
licensee radio transmission parameters, such as transmission power and antenna
79
directivity to calculate the MSDs to specific geographical directions as depicted in
Fig. 17. Required path loss can be translated into a separation distance between
interfering transmitter and victim receiver using the Modified Hata Propagation
model (ERC 2002) under the assumption of the propagation environment given at
ECC 172 (ECC 2012). The antenna radiation pattern was modeled according to the
guidelines given in ITU-R recommendation (ITU-R 2014e). The Incumbent
protection MSDs corresponds to the worst-case scenarios leading to high margins,
and suboptimal reconfiguration of the LSA cells with deactivation only.
The MBB network (MN) is an interference-limited system where multiple
spatially separated BS cells have radio frequency transmissions simultaneously on
the same frequency band, and the aggregated field strength created by the MN at
the incumbent receiver can result in unbearable interference conditions. The second
protection algorithm, the Protection Zone Optimization (PZO) method tackles this
through computing the aggregate cumulative interference created by all the cells in
the MN as shown in Fig. 17. Even if the MSDs of all individual BSs are satisfied,
the interference created by the MN can be higher than allowed, resulting in MSD
longer than MSD of any single LSA transmitter, that is, the aggregate interference
from all BSs of the network can exceed the protection zone limit even if none of
the BSs exceed it alone. This limit is defined by the incumbent receiver sensitivity,
noise floor, and additional interference margin. In the PZO method, linear
optimization and accurate propagation modeling is used to determine the individual
cells which are required to be switched off so that the resulting aggregate field
strength at the incumbent receiver remains below the protection zone limit.
Fig. 17. Illustration of the MSD and the PZO algorithms (VI, published by permission of
Springer).
The third algorithm is the power control optimization (PWR), a novel incumbent
protection method developed for the LSA validation platform presented in this
study, and which is not previously studied in the context of LSA (Ojaniemi et al.
80
2016). Instead of maximizing the number of transmitting BS cells as in the PZO,
the optimization objective can be formulated as a function of the cell transmit power.
An advantage of this procedure in contrast to the PZO is that adjusting the transmit
power level does not result in abrupt changes in the received signal quality,
therefore it is possible to reach better overall capacity, coverage and to avoid radio
link failures for the end users. Particularly, the objective is to maximize, for
example, the average received signal power in the MNO network located outside
the PZ given the constraint on the allowed interference level inside the incumbent’s
PZ, and the constraints on the feasible values of the transmit power levels. The
optimization is performed to all MNO BSs, which are effectively contributing to
the aggregate interference field, and where the adjustment of the transmit power
levels are practicable. Once the optimal values are found, the power control
algorithm forwards these parameters through the LC to the NMS, which modifies
the BS cell transmit power levels accordingly, in order to protect the simultaneous
incumbent transmission. The PWR allows the LSA licensee to operate its network
at full viable capacity while satisfying the criteria for interference-free operation of
the co-existing incumbent. Examples of the calculated aggregate field strength of
the trial network when cells are transmitting first at the maximum power level and
second after applying the power control algorithm are shown in the heat maps in
Fig. 18. Fig. 19 illustrates the situation in the LC User Interface (UI) view showing
the reduced power of the cell pointing towards the incumbent.
Fig. 18. Calculated aggregate field strength of the trial network when cells are
transmitting first at the maximum power level and second after applying the power
control algorithm (VI, published by permission of Springer).
81
Fig. 19. LSA incumbent power control protection in the LC UI map view (VI, published
by permission of Springer).
The LC PWR algorithm outputs four lists:
1. BS cells that cause interference and should be evacuated if sectors are active,
2. BS cells that cause interference with current transmit power but could continue
operation with lower power level,
3. the respective optimal transmission power levels for the BS cells, and
4. cells that are not interfering with at least one of the incumbent users and are
possible candidates for activation.
However, a cell can be activated only if the same cell is not included to the other
incumbents’ lists and the cell is currently off air. The most important performance
indicator is the evacuation time from the incumbent deactivation request to the time
the affected LSA BS cells are off-the-air or reconfigured. Additionally important is
the increased delay caused by introduced power control algorithm and needed NMS
operations. The LSA procedures and functions of the system elements can be
presented as the different phases of the LSA spectrum resource deactivation and
BS cell reconfiguration process for the trial performance validation measurements
as follows:
1. The LSA process starts as the incumbent spectrum user makes a deactivation
request to the LSA IM. The IM submits the information to the LR, which
forwards the information to the LC,
2. The LC receives incumbent information from the LR. Based on the incumbent
user information, the LC calculates which BSs or cells on the LSA network are
82
impacted and submits deactivation or power reconfiguration commands to the
NMS accordingly,
3. The NMS receives the deactivation and or reconfiguration commands from the
LC and executes new radio plans for the affected BS cells on the LSA network.
Two radio plans are used. In the emergency plan, the MBB network locks, i.e.,
turns off transmitters of the impacted BS cells and UEs will automatically start
a cell reselection procedure. Alternatively, when evacuation is known in
advance, the graceful shutdown feature could be utilized,
4. BS or cell in the LSA network is deactivated or reconfigured with no or reduced
LTE signal detectable in the LSA spectrum. The NMS finishes the radio plan
execution, begins the LSA cell status check and sends cell off-the-air or
reduced power level status update to the LC,
5. As soon as all needed LSA cells have reached updated status confirmation from
the NMS, the LC ends evacuation or reconfiguration and submits completed
status information to LR, and
6. The incumbent user receives a confirmation on the new state to the LSA IM.
The validation results show that an LSA licensee could take the 2.3 GHz band into
LSA use and vacate it when requested by the incumbent spectrum user, and that the
load between the FDD LTE and the TD LTE LSA bands were balanced utilizing a
load balancing method. Furthermore, in the case of evacuation, end users
proactively did hand over to the FDD LTE networks to maintain their connection,
enabled by a graceful shutdown feature. The validation demonstrated that the
dynamic availability of the LSA spectrum resource could be managed with
commercially available network elements complemented with the LSA specific
functional elements, the LR and the LC. Furthermore, the study was the first one to
introduce the LC developed as an integrated SON module. The study validates
advanced protection algorithms developed to maximize LSA spectrum resource
availability for a licensee while ensuring incumbent protection. The results show
that the developed end-to-end system works in realistic scenarios with real live
network. Measurement results summarized in Table 4 show that the average
evacuation time of 24 seconds and the graceful power reconfiguration time of 58
seconds to no interference is an acceptable result for the PMSE incumbent use case
and wider in intended static and semi-static use cases in the LSA regulation and
standardization.
83
Table 4. Summary of the LSA band reconfiguration measurement results.
Meas. point MSD (s) PZO (s) PWR (s)
Time SD Time SD Time SD
1. Incumbent makes
request via LSA IM
LSA IM 0 0 0
2. LC receives incumbent
information from LR
LC 0.27 0.03 0.32 0.03 0.41 0.03
3. NMS starts re-
configuration command
NMS 0.98 0.08 4.10 0.75 4.48 0.92
4. BS / cell on LSA band is
reconfigured
LSA band 20.75 1.56 23.48 1.30 58.02 1.49
5. NMS starts PWR conf. NMS 64.82 0.89
6. NMS notify LC plan
commission completed
LC 34.47 1.08 37.72 1.25 95.26 1.71
7. Incumbent user receives
confirmation to LSA IM
LSA IM 35.49 1.02 38.64 1.22 96.19 1.48
8. eNB reboot eNB 463.9 0.46
5.1.3 System simulation
Paper IX extends the earlier co-existence simulations for the German case
presented in Paper VII, through the detailed real case modeling and simulation of
the HUHF LTE and the DTT systems co-existence in Finland, one of the early
adopters of the UHF DD2 spectrum. This study investigates the availability of the
470–694 MHz spectrum for sharing, using simulations based on the standardized
ITU and the 3GPP methods and assumption.
Fig. 20 depicts proposed frequency allocation example in the Region 1 used in
Finland after the WRC-15 and DD2, in which band 698–790 MHz, DVB-T
channels 49–60 will be removed and consequently the lower UHF channels 22–48
at the 470–694 MHz band are re-planned after the coordination with neighboring
countries Estonia (EST), Norway (NOR), Russia (RUS) and Sweden (S). The real
case study assumptions and parameters are based on the recent regulation from the
Finnish Communication Regulatory Authority (FICORA) on the use of frequencies
intended for television and radio operations describing allotments in the channels
22–48 beginning 1.1.2017 (FICORA 2015). The allotment or assignment plans for
EST, NOR, RUS and S are according to the GE06 (ITU-R 2006).
84
Fig. 20. Harmonized LTE frequency arrangement for ITU Region 1 used in Finland (top)
and sample channelization in the lower UHF DTT band illustrating assignment of DVB-
T multiplexes (MUX) A-F in “Tammela” allotment area starting 1.1.2017 (bottom) (IX,
published by permission of IEEE).
In the HUHF SDL co-existence scenario, the LTE DL is the interfering link and the
worst-case scenario encounters when LTE SDL eNB is in the vicinity of the DTT
rooftop antenna with antennas oriented towards each other as illustrated in Fig. 21.
Propagation simulations were based on the ITU defined protection ratios (ITU-R
2015c) and propagation prediction methodology (ITU-R 2013b) used in the GE06
agreement (ITU-R 2006) interference calculations, and agreed to be used in the
LTE - DVB-T coexistence studies between neighboring countries in the WRC -15
(ITU-R 2015a). In this study, the interference to the neighboring allotment area
DVB-T reception caused by the LTE SDL was simulated. A channel is considered
for possible HUHF SDL use based on the following criteria as illustrated in Fig. 21:
1. LTE SDL channel is not co-channel or adjacent channel with the same
allotment area DVB-T channels, and
2. LTE SDL channel is not co-channel with neighboring allotment are DVB-T
channel.
85
Fig. 21. Worstcase coexistence scenario for LTE-A SDL and fixed outdoor DTT
reception (left) and LTE SDL and neighboring DTT allotment area compatibility concept
(right) used in the simulations (IX, published by permission of IEEE).
In compatibility analyses, the calculated field strength of each LTE SDL BS test
point is compared to the maximum LTE field strength. The equation used in
calculating the maximum LTE field strength at the DVB-T coverage area is given
by:
, (1)
where Emed is the minimum median field strength of DVB-T station (56
dBμV/m + Corr for fixed reception, Corr = 20Log10(Freq/650), Ddir is the DVB-T
receiving antenna discrimination (16 dB for 180°) according to (ITU-R 2002). The
MI, the multiple interference margin taking into account the cumulative
interference from multiple co-channel LTE SDL stations, and PR is the protection
ratio, which can be derived from:
(2)
where PR(N) is the protection ratio for channel offset N and is the
combined location correction factor, in dB, related to the variation in the difference
between the interfering signal (MBB) and the wanted signal (DTT). In the location
correction, the q is distribution factor being 0.52 for 70% of locations, 1.64 for 95%
of locations and 2.33 for 99%. σw is the standard deviation of location variation for
the wanted signal, in dB, and the σi is the standard deviation of location variation
for the interfering signal in dB. The use of standard deviation 5.5 dB and the
location correction for 95% of places as agreed in GE06 (ITU-R 2006) was used.
Table 5 summarizes parameters used in the simulations.
86
Table 5. Parameters used in the simulations.
Parameter Value
DVB-T minimum median field strength 56 dBµV/m + 20Log10(Freq/650)
Maximum SDL field strength 74–96 dBµV/m
Maximum BS antenna height 60 m
SDL BS Effective Isotropic Radiated Power (EIRP) 60 dBm
DVB-T reception antenna height 10 m
DVB-T reception antenna discrimination 16 db
Location correction 13 dB
Propagation calculation time percentages 50%
Multiple SDL interference, grid 10 km 10 dB
Simulation results showed that there would be the LTE SDL compatible spectrum
available in the frequency band 470–698 MHz after the modified DVB-T DD2 plan
becomes effective in Finland in 2017. Furthermore, this study predicts that at least
one SDL frequency channel will be available in most of the allotment areas, and in
three areas only, one SDL channel will not be able to cover the whole area due to
one of the neighboring allotment area’s SDL being co-channel with DVB-T as
illustrated in Fig. 22. In the map, the green color area represents SDL BS
compatibility with neighboring area DVB-T transmission, and red color area
harmful interference to DVB-T reception near the allotment areas border from SDL
BSs.
Fig. 22. Illustration of the LTE SDL coexistence possibilities in Finland after 2017. (a)
SDL coverage, areas Iisalmi (ch 45), Jyväskylä (ch 48) and Tammela (ch 34) have co-
channel DVB-T in one neighbouring area (left), (b) SDL coverage, areas Iisalmi (ch 47),
Jyväskylä (ch 45) and Tammela (ch 48) have co-channel DVB-T in one neighbouring
87
area (middle), and (c) SDL coverage, areas Iisalmi (ch’s 34 and 47), Jyväskylä (ch’s 45
and 48) and Tammela (ch’s 45 and 48) two channels are used for SDL (right) (IX,
published by permission of IEEE).
In a scenario where one DVB-T multiplex is made available for the SDL, our results
show that the availability of the spectrum is increased, and in all allotment areas at
least one SDL frequency could be used. However, in all multiplexes there are
several allotment areas where the adjacent channel is used by one of the five other
multiplexes and cannot be used for the SDL as depicted in Fig. 23.
Fig. 23. SDL coverage area simulation results in scenario where one MUX allocated to
HUHF (IX, published by permission of IEEE).
Furthermore, the simulations resulted that the maximum distance where LTE BS
causes harmful interference is 3.8–5 km when the SDL channel is ±2 channels from
DVB-T assuming ELTE max with a location correction of 13 dB (95% of locations)
for 80 m antenna height. The distance becomes shorter when the reception point is
not in the border of the service area and DVB-T signals are stronger than the
minimum values required for good reception.
The simulations done for the Finnish case representing one of the early
adopters of the UHF band after DD2 can be generalized in other European countries
taking into account their deployment of DVB-T and DVB-T2 networks. Especially
the scenario where a whole DVB-T multiplex available across the country is
allocated to the SDL is very similar in other countries, e.g., Germany. This is
because the SDL deployment is using the DVB-T frequency plan, which has no
interference within the used frequencies at co-sited SDL base stations. In this case,
the possible interference to DTT reception is coming from non-co-sited SDL base
88
stations. How SDL and DTT networks differ in topology is depending on the
construction of the DTT network. In the Nordic countries, a rather sparse high
power and high tower network is used, as in Central Europe more dense networks
are common where several SDL base stations could be co-sited. Furthermore, the
relevancy of the case B will increase as it is likely that the demand of the DTT
multiplexes is decreasing as media consumptions habits are changing and other
distribution methods, like the MBB, are becoming more popular.
5.1.4 Summary of the technology antecedents
This section summarizes the results of the original publications I, IV, V, VI, VII and
IX with respect to the first research question focusing on the key technology
antecedents needed to exploit spectrum-sharing in mobile broadband networks.
Technology enablers were assessed for the key processes: spectrum provisioning,
operations and its management in the five functional architecture domains:
incumbent access, national regulation authority, spectrum management, access
network and user devices summarized in Table 6.
These studies summarize that apart from the new logical elements, repository
and controller and their interfaces, no change is needed to the existing MBB
network consisting of UEs, eNBs, EPC and OAM in static and semi-static
spectrum-sharing use cases in the HUHF and the LSA concepts. In all the concepts,
introduced dynamism will increase system complexity, and requires novel
technology enablers in building trust and ensuring pragmatic predictability in the
spectrum management platform. In the HUHF and the LSA, basic repository
functionality was found sufficient, whereas dynamic CBRS sharing with
interference management and future brokering functionalities will introduce the
need for new underlying technologies for the SAS, like the scalable and high
availability platform for databases, big data, analytics and future machine learning.
The Blockchain technology has the potential to reduce transaction costs related to
search, contracting, enforcement and payments. The system should address
operations (OPSEC), data and communication (COMSEC) security towards all
involved stakeholders for authentication, authorization and encryption of interfaces.
This thesis highlighted the importance of existing 3GPP family technologies in
the implementation of the shared spectrum workflow optimization in activation,
operation and deactivation phases. The results of the analysis and validation
emphasize the significance of deep HetNet RAN knowledge, history and status
existing within the OAM and SON, e.g., in initialization and optimization of cell
89
parameters, dynamic network adaptation, cells border optimization, and special
events operations optimization. Furthermore, the closed-loop SON operations
platform that maintains a database of all the cells and their relationships was found
essential for the automated optimization of neighbor lists, layer management
strategy enforcement, network border area management, handover parameters,
reuse codes, antenna settings, PRACH parameters and eICIC.
In a typical MNO HetNet implementation scenario, the LTE-A Carrier
Aggregation feature was shown valuable to proactively combine shared spectrum
carriers to a carrier on another licensed band at the device side to increase the end
user data rates and to smooth potential transitions. In the HUHF concept, this
technology is utilized in delivering media over an SDL channel while a licensed
FDD band provides the primary component carrier for authentication, management
functionalities, and enhancing broadcasting services via an interactive uplink path.
The Mobile Edge Computing was a found enabler to enhance value added
converging services particularly in the HUHF and to perform, e.g., local recording,
orchestration and production of video and in the future augmented reality streams,
with smaller delays and a true real-time experience. Dynamic beam-forming that
provides exclusion zone reductions and interference detection could be steered by
the LC and NMS SON in the LSA and the HUHF, and by the SAS and DP NMS in
the CBRS. Furthermore, proposed AAS system enhancement could be utilized in
sensing and locating the interferer and or the incumbent.
Beside the radio platforms, this research also contributes to the overall
architecture for spectrum-sharing concepts. Network functions virtualization,
software-defined networking and network slicing were found to be essential for
keeping the system versatile. These enablers allows operators to use a single
physical network for a variety of applications with diverse requirements by creating
virtual sub-networks assembled from existing resources in radio, core, transport,
application servers, edge clouds and central clouds. Furthermore, these
technologies are able to configure resources dynamically on demand, supporting
centralized and distributed cloud architectures, enabling hosted and stand-alone
deployment ensuring resources are optimally utilized all the time.
90
Table 6. Summary of the technology enablers for the key domains of spectrum-sharing:
incumbent access, regulator, spectrum management, access network and user devices.
Domain Technology enabler HUHF LSA CBRS
Incumbent
Access
Interference measurements x x x
Own operational parameter database x x x
Protection requirements x x x
Future enhancements of own technologies x x x
National
regulator
Databases on spectrum assignments and usage x x x
Auction mechanisms and tools for licensing and real
time authorization
(x) x x
Methods and tools for inter-operability x x x
Verification, certification and handling complaints x x x
Spectrum
manager
Standardization of interfaces and data to be exchanged x x x
Operational, data and communication security x x x
Interference measurements x
Spectrum analytics x x
Scalable algorithms for interference calculations (x) x x
Dynamic channel allocation algorithms x
Big data and analytics (x) x
Brokering functionality x
Access
network
Full-band base station in standalone mode (x) x
Base stations with Domain proxy x
Power control x x x
Smart antenna beam-forming x x
Handovers x x x
Carrier aggregation x x x
Load balancing x x x
Traffic steering x x x
Spectrum measurements (x) (x) x
LTE unlicensed technologies x
Spectrum analytics x x
Interference tolerant receivers x x
Interference mitigation (x) x x
SON modules for network provisioning and operations (x) x x
Network Functions Virtualization (NFV) x x
Software-Defined Networking (SDN) x x
Network slicing (x) x x
Mobile Edge Computing (MEC) x x x
User device Support for new harmonized frequency band x x x
Interference tolerant receiver x x
Multimode, multiband support for continuous service x x x
91
5.2 Business studies
5.2.1 Antecedents for business model scalability
This section summarizes the contents of the original publications with respect to
the antecedents for business model scalability of the three spectrum-sharing
concepts studied: the LSA, the CBRS and the HUHF.
Paper III uses the theoretical foundation of the business model 4C typology
and the business model scalability to evaluate the LSA and the CBRS concepts with
respect to these criteria. The study indicates that the LSA is a straightforward
approach that provides high predictability and certainty for both the incumbent and
the licensee while preserving existing ecosystem and business models. Furthermore,
the LSA leverages key existing assets and capability base of MNOs and thus has
the potential to further strengthen the position of the established connection players
through additional capacity and differentiation opportunities with QoS and QoE.
On the other hand, the research found that the more dynamic and complex CBRS
sharing model is likely to promote competition and foster innovation in the forms
of new enabling technologies, novel ecosystem roles and business model designs
with the Internet domain.
The study indicates trust to be the key trigger of collaborative shared
consumption that makes a system grow and scale. The database is the technology
enabler to accomplish trust in both models. Trust in predictability of QoS and
pragmatic incumbent protection is built on the LSA sharing framework and binary
sharing agreements, and implemented in the repository. In the CBRS, the database
approach is complemented by ESC sensing for defence incumbents. An additional
challenge for the CBRS is the protection of MNOs business critical information
assets in the SAS. This study introduces for the first time new spectrum broker and
aggregator roles in the 4C business model typology. The creation of positive
network effects was found to be important for all approaches with new business
model designs representing a co-opetitive situation between mobile broadband,
wireless Internet and Internet domains comprising context model-based spectrum
administrator and broker roles. The LR in the LSA concept acts as a basic database
supporting the entry and storage of information and conveys availability
information to the LCs creating value for the whole ecosystem but with limited
value capture opportunities. Whereas the CBRS SAS and database could
additionally offer value added interference mitigation services in particular towards
the GAA layer users, and furthermore, aggregate and facilitate spectrum
92
marketplace enabling new roles with higher value creation and value capture
potential, similarly, the higher frequency small cell use cases of the LSA envisage
more flexible and scalable opportunities for new entrants, and novel business model
designs.
The implementation of business model designs will ultimately be spectrum
band and location specific tasks likely to require different national implementations
because the regulatory approaches and the incumbent spectrum uses are unique in
different countries. LSA and CBRS licensees with existing infrastructure assets can
utilize their connectivity scale and customer base to achieve instant critical mass,
and use existing consumer ownership on connectivity for lock-in. New entrants, on
the other hand, could build their critical mass and lock-ins using Internet innovation
ecosystems and customer data ownership on apps and services. The research
indicates that shared spectrum local area deployments can scale out ecosystems
from regulatory, legal and real estate aspects to radio planning and site installations,
as small cells will attach to structures and building assets not owned by a traditional
MNO. This extends sharing economy opportunities between communication
service providers and various service companies like infrastructure owners and
providers, real estate and street furniture owners, utility service companies and
backhaul providers.
The results of the study show that in general both concepts address all the key
business model scalability antecedents. New entrants and MVNOs are the type of
players that can have obvious gains from concepts lowering the entry barrier.
Sharing concepts will be of benefit to the equipment providers through the growing
need for additional radio infrastructure, related OSS and spectrum controller, and
as a real option via extending managed service offering to hosted small cell as a
service model with shared spectrum. The study summarizes that adaptability to
different legal regimes, platforms, automation of processes and differentiation
regarding sharing economy based business models are becoming of critical
importance in the context of spectrum-sharing broadband for the 4G evolution and
novel 5G architectures.
Paper VII complements the research of Paper III and analyzes business model
scalability of the HUHF concept. The paper was the first one to analyze and
compare potential services in order to identify similarities and differences in
possible business model designs and scaling factors for developing successfully
deployable services and regulatory concepts. Scenarios, user stories and service
business opportunities with related business model design elements were created
utilizing the future-oriented anticipatory action learning methodology in a series of
93
workshops. The study summarizes and defines the following service opportunities:
mobile broadband, public service media, event and venue casting, live TV/radio
broadcasting, media on demand, off-peak media & software, and IoT. For these
identified services, the study shows the following platform antecedents to be
essential: decoupling transport, service and content, enabling of shared broadcast
services with multiple MNOs, and simultaneous use of any LTE services and TV
services from different networks. Future spectrum allocation models, spectrum
framework, licensing and operating options will lead to several system architecture
and business model design options. In the mobile broadband-driven scenarios, a
‘must carry’ channel obligation could also be leveraged in shared networks through
receiving incentives from PSM taxes contributing positively to investment in the
network and unbundling regulatory processes for media service and network
operations. The study shows that fragmented regulatory and market structure
deprives economies of scale and scope, raises costs and hampers innovation, and
could create a strong barrier in terms of scalability. In particular, the politically
sensitive PSM service case could retard the spectrum policy decisions and so
further limit all the others service opportunities. Furthermore, the study indicates
that the introduction of hybrid usage and sharing models may impact the current
spectrum-licensing model and affect the future availability of exclusive spectrum
for mobile and broadcast network operators. The study summarizes that while none
of the discussed service scenarios may on their own meet the scalability antecedents,
multiple service opportunities built on a common technology platform could, as a
whole, add significant new value for an MNO and the whole ecosystem.
5.2.2 Business model characteristics and strategic choices
This section reviews the contents of the original publications with respect to the
business model characteristics and strategic choices spectrum-sharing concepts
enable in mobile broadband networks.
Paper II defined the HUHF concept for MBB and used the Dynamic Capability
framework for analyzing the incentives for key stakeholders: BNO incumbent,
NRA and MNO. As a point of departure, the regulatory framework is the incentive
in itself and particularly how an incumbent’s incentives are enabled. Through
dynamic capabilities view of the sharing concept, this paper showed how shared
use of the band could lead to higher efficiency in delivering media content to meet
changing consumer needs. On one hand, this could be beneficial for the BNO
incumbent by preserving the spectrum, by providing additional revenue, by
94
lowering costs of the spectrum, and by utilizing the LTE ecosystem. On the other
hand, for the MNOs the HUHF opens access to a new potentially lower cost,
licensed, below 1GHz spectrum to cope with booming data traffic. As a
collaborative benefit, the concept opens up new business opportunities in
delivering TV content using MBB network with means to introduce this flexibly.
Moreover, the HUHF concept with its incentives could contribute to the
introduction of market-based spectrum management in the broadcasting spectrum
bands where market mechanisms are less developed, compared with their
commercial counterparts.
Paper VIII extends the research of Paper II through identifying business
opportunities and strategic choices for established MNOs deploying the HUHF
concept. The study utilizes the Simple rules strategic framework and the AAL
methodology. The paper summarizes the following simple rules. MNOs’ key
strategic element of How is to reinforce customer retention and acquisition while
further strengthening market position. Central means to achieve these is to gain
available exclusive spectrum, and to manage and optimize it across all spectrum
assets in order to best match the personalized user demand with the network
capacity supply. Collaborating with the media domain could enhance the utilization
of the dominant market position in MBB as well as to explore growth pockets in
broadcasting. Exploitation of existing infrastructure assets and the 3GPP ecosystem
with available LTE technologies to ensure early use and the economies of scale
forms MNOs opportunity boundaries. Furthermore, active policy and regulation
lobbying is needed to educate the regulator about converging technology and
business opportunities and the long-term investment nature of MBB business.
MNOs prioritize strategic opportunities through retaining control over spectrum
and the network while enhancing QoS and QoE for the already existing mobile
services, e.g., video streaming with new revenue opportunities. At an early phase,
MNOs could value Average Revenue Per User (ARPU) over operational efficiency
to utilize their customer base. As a future option leveraging potential convergence,
MNOs could consider acquiring BC network assets to gain access to spectrum and
infra in full. Timing rules are needed to synchronize opportunities across the
company. At first, extra HUHF capacity could be utilized to optimize the use of the
spectrum assets through efficient scalable data offload. Second, improved capacity
and QoS enables personalization of mobile broadband data services to different
customer segments. Next, MNOs could explore broadcasting and media business
opportunities in confined areas, e.g., live events. Finally, in a collaborative set-up
with media domain, complementary content delivery could be considered with
95
evolution to potential future wide area TV distribution replacement by LTE
broadcast technologies. As a mandatory go/no-go opportunity, exit rules MNOs
defend their “bloodline” exclusive spectrum. Other sources of competitive
advantage in offering more personalized new converged services and the service
level differentiations are the detailed network, subscriber information and the
customer billing relationship.
Dynamic Capabilities for the CBRS concept are studied in Paper IV. This study
defines five domains in the functional architecture where key stakeholders face the
need for DCs, considering spectrum provisioning, utilization and its management:
IA, NRA, SAS, CBSD and EUD. Using the dynamic capability approach, the
antecedents, processes, and outcomes of the CBRS in these five domains were
identified. The DC analysis indicated the key role of the regulator in creating a
sharing framework with incentives for all the key stakeholders having different
operational requirements, business exigencies and ecosystem scales. In particular,
realizing and fine-tuning incumbent spectrum users’ incentives could be very
helpful for timely implementation. Incentives could consist of responding to
governmental pressure on defense expenditure, continuation of critical operations,
avoiding high cost re-allocations of technologies with long life cycles, additional
revenues or lowering spectrum fees, and a real option for using civil spectrum.
Increased system dynamics in spectrum-sharing with SAS spectrum brokering
functionalities introduce needs to extent and scale data analytic capabilities from
spectrum analytics and network management capabilities to management of
market-based spectrum transactions. On the CBSD access network side, new
capabilities are needed in order to enable novel standalone and hosted small cell
networks particularly utilizing the GAA spectrum, e.g., through utilizing Network
Function Virtualization (NFV) and Software Defined Networking (SDN)
technologies (Nguyen VG et al. 2016) and building new business models like Small
Cell as a Service (SCaaS) or Micro Operator (Ahokangas et al. 2016b). The paper
indicates that technology harmonization in spectrum and full band radios covering
both the PA and GAA layers will be essential to ensure economies of scale and fast
time to market.
Paper V showed that the LSA framework offers scalable business opportunities
in MBB utilizing sharing economy antecedents with novel oblique business model
designs. An introduced novel oblique business model framework combines the
traditional vertical “value creation economy” model employed, for example, by
most infrastructure and technology providers and the horizontal “value capture
economy” model employed by most service-oriented and consumer business
96
companies. The oblique business model framework was found to be helpful in
analyzing the emerging sharing economy concepts, where resource efficiency plays
a crucial role and companies turn an ecosystem’s underutilized assets to a more
efficient or better use – thus generating themselves revenue by that means. The
number of oblique business models is increasing fast, transforming and converging
whole industries, winning market share, and jeopardizing the established
companies' horizontal and vertical business models. In spectrum-sharing, shared
spectrum assets are no longer being sought after only by the established MNOs,
and furthermore, the 4C business model typology is becoming equivocal at the firm
level, as companies seek hybrid business models that combine or aggregate services
from different layers. The unbundling investment in spectrum resource, network
infrastructure and services by the sharing concepts was found to be essential in
creating new opportunities related to context and commerce of the spectrum asset.
Moreover, the introduction of more dynamic and particularly localized higher
frequency sharing approaches could trigger nontraditional players like utilities,
railways, private enterprises, OTT players and service companies to enter the
spectrum fora, considering hybrid business models and ecosystem roles to
strengthen the core of their business model. The paper highlights the
transformational change to MNOs with a vast increase in radios and locations,
which are sited in spaces traditionally not owned or controlled by the operator.
Utilizing ‘as-a-service’ business models investment can be efficiently shared across
multiple providers, avoiding a long-term high upfront parallel network
infrastructure investment and wasteful duplication. To date, early deployments of
the hosted SCaaS model have focused only on particular parts of the existing value
chain and their combinations leveraging existing asset ownership in order to deliver
cost savings. The results of the paper show that shared spectrum resource
complements these models and enables them to scale by better utilize sharing
economy business model innovations. Novel SCaaS operators could emerge from
different angles: a venue owner or a third-party utility service provider, e.g.,
companies with attachment rights, fixed & cable ISPs, tower companies,
advertising agencies or MVNOs. Small cell suppliers from MBB or enterprise
domains could enter building on their expertise in system integration and managed
services. Telecom vendors could take advantage of their complete e2e HetNet
product and service portfolio and customer intimacy build on outsourced managed
services to provide operations, management, and maintenance services for the stand
alone or hosted SCaaS model.
97
Paper X uses the principles of co-opetitive business opportunity framework for
understanding mobile network operator’s enablers and opportunities and how they
are framed from policy, technology, business perspectives, and, in the future, CBRS
shared spectrum networks. Opportunity analysis was used in creating and
discussing 4C business model typology and strategic options as simple rules. How-
to rules continue to be based on dominant market position and lock-ins through
Customer data and Experience Management (CEM). New shared CBRS spectrum
assets combined with exclusive spectrum resources enable delivery of premium
connectivity service on a large scale and locally. Becoming a Mobile Edge
Computing and Network as a Service (NaaS) platform provider for new customer
segments, e.g., in the content domain, could enhance utilization of the dominant
market position. In the context driven business model case, MNOs could create and
capture value from their big data platforms, analytic skills and CEM capabilities in
brokering telco data and co-creating value by combining it with vertical data.
Existing infrastructure investments in radio, core, OSS, as well as in the fixed
network assets build on harmonized and scaled up technology families form early
boundaries of the business opportunities. MNOs could also try to utilize novel
virtualization technologies and Anything as a Service (XaaS) service models to turn
alternative and new local operators into co-opetitive partners. External boundaries
for MBB business are set by the regulators, though it is essential for an MNO to
have direct contact with the national regulator, e.g., in order to protect own entry to
new local area collaborative business opportunities, to keep entry barrier for new
non-MNO entrants. For MNOs, the key decision priority is to retain control over
the spectrum. Having spectrum control integrated with the OSS NMS enables
utilization of its advanced HetNet SON features, and ensures protection of critical
network information. From the regulatory perspectives, it is central to keep sharing
voluntary and if possible binary with the incumbent. The nature of spectrum-
sharing businesses will shift from early phase operational efficiency and premium
services to value co-capture opportunities with verticals and other industry domains.
In timing rules, in-house HetNet intersystem spectrum-sharing could be
implemented first in order to develop needed dynamic capabilities to optimize
utilization of spectrum resources across layers. Second, QoS guaranteed and
predictable PAL sharing could be exploited with existing business models,
complement with offloading, and local sharing at GAA layers. Finally, with a full
set of spectrum assets an MNO could explore opportunities with local operators
and verticals utilizing wholesale, XaaS, MEC and data brokering platforms.
Regarding the exit criteria, exclusive spectrum will remain a paramount strategic
98
asset keeping the entry barrier for new entrants high and protecting high
investments in spectrum and infrastructure. MNOs should never give up spectrum,
even if not fully utilized and try to avoid co-primary horizontal sharing concepts
between MNOs, which may impact their competitive positioning, and the
availability of the exclusive spectrum in the future. Furthermore, entering co-
opetitive business with other industries with content and context based business
models network and customer data will become critical assets, and create
competitive advantage when optimally combined with the use case specific vertical
data or internet company’s customer data assets.
Paper XI applies the principles of integral scenarios, business models with
action research AAL method for creating scenarios and business models for an
MNO accessing new spectrum bands based on the HUHF concept. Developed
media usage scenarios along consumption and delivery axis were traditional free-
to-air at home, any screen TV, TV theater from the cloud and my personalized
mobile services as depicted in Fig. 24. The results of the paper show that the HUHF
concept can be positioned in the middle of the extreme scenarios, the Trad and the
My personalized, as it uses both the BC and unicast technologies in a flexible
manner, depending on the type of content to be delivered. Moreover, in the future
with common LTE platform it has natural evolution path to the Any screen scenario
with converged delivery platform. A hybrid of the broadcast eMBMS and unicast
with the SDL CA technologies was found to be a very efficient and flexibly
integrated common platform for delivering personalized media content as well as
traditional broadband services to mobile users. In order to address the potential
convergence and transformation coming with the concept, business models were
first developed for the current situation with separate exclusive spectrum bands,
and then compared to scenarios developed for the HUHF concept. The created
business model indicates that the MNOs could benefit significantly from the new
UHF bands, which would enable them to cope with increasing data traffic downlink
asymmetry, and to offer differentiation through personalized broadcasting and new
media services. Moreover, it could significantly re-shape the business ecosystem
around media, BC and MBB by introducing new convergence opportunities in
business and technology. The subscriber data management and CEM will be unique
assets in the design of new services and service levels. In order to expand offering
to media distribution in collaboration with content providers such as national TV
broadcasters and content aggregators, distribution channels should be expanded
from still valid direct sales and distributors to broadcasters and content providers.
Furthermore, converged media distribution services will introduce new
99
opportunities for revenue sharing, e.g., with venue owners, event organizers,
content and service providers and advertisement partners. These distribution
services could be further expanded to applications, firmware, software and IoT
updates. The paper indicates that an additional wider regulatory benefit of the
HUHF concept is in the avoidance of the lengthy spectrum re-farming, clearing and
cross-border optimization process, which provides faster access to new spectrum
on a harmonized basis.
Fig. 24. UHF scenarios based on media consumption and delivery technology (VII,
published by permission of IEEE).
5.2.3 Summary of the business antecedents
This section summarizes the results of the original publications with respect to the
business related research questions 2 and 3. The second research question dealing
with the antecedents for business model scalability of the spectrum-sharing
concepts is answered in Papers III and VII, and summarized in Table 7.
The results of the study show that in general all analyzed concepts meet basic
requirements to scale. The LSA and the HUHF leverage existing assets and
capability base of MNOs, and thus has the potential to strengthen further the
position of the established connection players thru additional capacity and
differentiation opportunities with QoS and QoE. On the other hand, the more
dynamic and complex CBRS concept was found likely to promote competition and
foster innovation in the forms of new enabling technologies, novel ecosystem roles
100
and business model designs with the Internet domain. The implementation of
business model designs will initially be spectrum band and location-specific,
requiring adaptation to the national regulatory approaches and the incumbent use
cases. The results indicated that fragmented regulatory and market structure may
deprive economies of scale and scope, raise costs and hamper innovation, and could
create a strong barrier in terms of scalability. Particularly the politically sensitive
HUHF PSM use case could retard the spectrum policy decisions and limit service
opportunities. Furthermore, the research indicates that the introduction of any
sharing concept may distress the current spectrum-licensing model and affect the
future availability of exclusive spectrum for mobile and broadcast network
operators. The study finds the trust and pragmatic predictability of the spectrum
management concept to be the trigger of collaborative shared consumption. In
analyzed concepts, this is built on sharing framework and binary sharing
agreements, and implemented in the repository. In the CBRS, the database
approach is complemented by ESC sensing for defense incumbents. A challenge
for the CBRS is the protection of MNOs critical information assets as spectrum
control is moved from the operator domain to an external SAS. The creation of
positive network effects is important for all three approaches with new business
model designs representing a co-opetitive situation between mobile broadband,
Internet and media domains comprising context model based spectrum
administrator and broker roles. Licensees with existing infrastructure assets can
utilize their connectivity scale and customer base to achieve instant critical mass,
and use existing consumer ownership on connectivity for lock-in. The CBRS with
its fine-grained granularity of spectrum grants and an opportunistic third tier is a
game changer for new alternative operators, scales out ecosystem with new roles
and fosters service innovation particularly. New entrants, on the other hand, could
build their critical mass and lock-ins using Internet ‘innovation’ ecosystems and
customer data ownership on apps and services. Shared-spectrum local area
deployments scale out ecosystems from regulatory, legal and real estate aspects to
radio planning and site installations, as small cells will attach to structures and
building assets not owned by a traditional MNO. This extends sharing economy
opportunities between communication service providers and various service
companies like infrastructure owners and providers, real estate and street furniture
owners, utility service companies and backhaul providers. The analysis of
developed HUHF business models summarizes that while none of the discussed
service scenarios may on their own meet the scalability antecedents, multiple
101
service opportunities built on common technology platform could, as a whole, add
significant new value for an MNO and the whole ecosystem.
102
Table 7. Summary of the antecedent for business model scalability.
Factor HUHF LSA CBRS
Technology:
on-demand
accessibility
platform and
automation
- LTE scale: SDL CA,
eMBMS, MEC
- infra sharing
- MEC
- simple repository function
- new low spectrum band
- 3GPP ecosystem and scale
- MNOs infrastructure
- NMS and SON
- simple repository function
- existing spectrum band
- SAS and sensing functions.
- big data analytics
- new spectrum band
- new CBSD – SAS interface
- unlicensed and standalone
- infra asset sharing
Cost
structure:
reduced
need for the
ownership
- radio infra upgrade
- low spectrum coverage and
efficiency
- flexible unicast/broadcast
- faster access to spectrum
- no coverage obligations
- exclusive licensing model
- protects MNO investment
- radio infra upgrade only
- unbundles investment in
spectrum, network and
services
- low initial annuity payments
- local spectrum access
- expands sharing into other
local assets
Revenue
structure:
Exploitation
of
underutilized
assets
- QoS, QoE differentiation
- wholesale models
- sharing with media content
providers, BCs, venue,
service,
- connectivity model as is
- differentiation through extra
data capacity and high speed
- capacity wholesale service
- low cost offloading
- nomadic Internet access
- hosted small cell solution
- new vertical segments: IoT
- transaction costs increase in
early development
Adaptability
to different
legal and
regulatory
regimes
- digital dividend first
- uncertainty with timing
- PSM obligations and
political sensitivities
- LTE-B standardization
enhancement
- net neutrality
- regulatory framework exist
- need national regulation
with incumbent ecosystem
- initial European 2.3 GHz
focus
- impact on exclusive
spectrum availability
- regulation with incumbent
ecosystem
- low entry barrier on GAA
- uncertainty with short
license term and
opportunistic GAA
- initially US specific
Network
externalities,
communities
and trust
- extend to mobile users
- known channels and offer
- billing relationship
- media partnership
- BC prominence concerns
- predictability of QoS
- pragmatic incumbent
protection
- spectrum control in MNO
domain
- subscriber ownership
- small cell with shared asset
opportunities
- SAS + sensing
- uncertainty with MNO
information assets
- Incumbent OPSEC concern
- Internet ecosystem
- customer data ownership
- small cell ecosystem
introduces new players and
shared asset opportunities
Value
creations
and user
orientation
- converging MBB and media
user needs
- reach digital natives
- CEM data and analytics
- local media services
- clear business model as is
- improved QoS and CEM for
value differentiation
- local business models
- new customer segments
- new CBRS system roles
SAS admin., broker and
sensing
103
This thesis has further highlighted the importance of the selection of business model
characteristics and strategic choices. Answers related to the third research question
were studied in Papers II, V, VIII, X and XI, and summarized respectively in Tables
8. and 9. The research results of this study highlight the importance and impact of
new actor introduction in terms of novel business models. Furthermore, this
research indicates that the 4C business model typology is becoming equivocal at
the firm level, as companies seek hybrid business models that combine or aggregate
services from different layers. The thesis found the unbundling investment in
spectrum resource, network infrastructure and services by the sharing concepts to
be essential in creating new opportunities related to context and commerce of the
spectrum asset. Moreover, the introduction of more dynamic and particularly
localized higher frequency sharing approaches could trigger nontraditional players
like utilities, railways, private enterprises, OTTs and service companies to enter the
spectrum fora, considering hybrid business models and ecosystem roles to
strengthen the core of their business model. On the other hand, at lower UHF
frequencies the more static HUHF concept would enable MNOs to timely cope
with increasing data traffic downlink asymmetry, and to offer differentiation
through personalized broadcasting and new media services. The study showed that
converged media distribution services will introduce new opportunities for revenue
sharing, e.g., with venue owners, event organizers, content and service providers
and advertisement partners, and that services could be further expanded to
applications, firmware software and IoT updates.
The results further highlight the transformational change to MNOs with a vast
increase in radios at dense urban locations, which are sited in spaces traditionally
not owned or controlled by the operator. Utilizing XaaS business models
investments can be efficiently shared across multiple providers, avoiding a long-
term high upfront parallel network infrastructure investments and wasteful
duplication. To date, early deployments of the hosted SCaaS model have focused
only on particular parts of the existing value chain and their combinations
leveraging existing asset ownership in order to deliver cost savings. The results
show that shared spectrum resources complement these models and enable them to
scale by better utilizing sharing economy business model innovations. Novel
operator types could emerge from different angles: a venue owner or a third-party
utility service provider, e.g., companies with attachment rights, fixed & cable ISPs,
tower companies, advertising agencies or MVNOs. Increased system dynamics in
spectrum-sharing with needs to manage market-based spectrum transactions
introduce new roles in spectrum aggregation and brokering.
104
Table 8. Summary of the spectrum-sharing concept enabled business model types
using the 4C business model typology.
Factor HUHF LSA CBRS
Commerce - SAS spectrum broker
Context - Telco data brokering - LC as spectrum manager
- Telco data brokering
- SAS spectrum aggregator
- Telco data brokering
Content - premium mobile edge
computing services
- content delivery
- local content delivery
Connectivity - connecting mobile digital
natives
- extra downlink capacity
- premium connection
- extra capacity
- local micro operators
- MBB offloading
- hosted networks
- SCaaS with NFV and
slicing
The study utilizes the Simple rules strategic framework in order to identify
business opportunities and strategic choices for an MNO deploying spectrum-
sharing concepts. Strategic choices as simple rules are summarized in Table 9. The
study found that How-to rules continue to be based on dominant market position
and lock-ins through customer data and CEM. New shared spectrum assets
combined with exclusive spectrum resources enable a delivery of premium
connectivity service on a large scale and locally. Becoming an MEC and NaaS
platform provider for new customer segments, e.g., in the content domain, could
enhance utilization of the dominant market position. In the context driven business
model case, MNOs could create and capture value from their big data platforms,
analytical skills and CEM capabilities in brokering telco data and co-creating value
by combining it with vertical data. Collaborating with the media domain could
enhance the utilization of the dominant market position in MBB as well as to
explore growth pockets in broadcasting.
The results of the study show that existing infrastructure investments in radio,
core, OSS, as well as in the fixed network assets build on harmonized and scaled
up technology families form early boundaries of the business opportunities. MNOs
could also try to utilize novel virtualization technologies and XaaS service models
to turn alternative and new local operators into co-opetitive partners. External
boundaries for MBB business are set by the regulators, though it is essential for an
MNO to have direct contact with the national regulator, e.g., in order to protect own
105
entry to new local area collaborative business opportunities, to keep entry barrier
for new entrants.
For MNOs, a key decision priority was found to be to retain control over the
spectrum and network while enhancing QoS and QoE for the already existing
mobile services, e.g., video streaming with new revenue opportunities. Having
spectrum control integrated with the OSS NMS enables utilization of its advanced
HetNet SON features, and ensures protection of critical network information. From
the regulatory perspective, it is central to keep sharing voluntary and if possible
binary with the incumbent. The nature of spectrum-sharing businesses will shift
from early phase operational efficiency and premium services to value co-capture
opportunities with verticals and other industry domains. As a future option
leveraging potential convergence, MNOs could consider acquiring BC network
assets to gain access to spectrum and infra in full.
In timing rules, the study proposes that in-house HetNet intersystem spectrum-
sharing can be implemented first in order to develop needed dynamic capabilities
to optimize utilization of spectrum resources across layers. Second, QoS
guaranteed and predictable LSA or PAL sharing can be exploited with existing
business models, complement with offloading, and local sharing at GAA layers.
Finally, with full set of spectrum assets, an MNO could explore opportunities with
local operators and verticals utilizing wholesale, XaaS, MEC and data brokering
platforms. Furthermore, MNOs could explore BC and media business opportunities
in confined areas, e.g., live events. Finally, in collaborative set up with media
domain, complementary content delivery could be considered with evolution to
potential future wide area TV distribution replacement by LTE broadcast
technologies.
Regarding the exit criteria, exclusive spectrum was found to remain a
paramount strategic asset keeping the entry barrier for new entrants high and
protecting high investments in spectrum and infrastructure. MNOs should never
give up spectrum, even if not fully utilized and try to avoid co-primary horizontal
sharing concepts between MNOs, which may affect their competitive positioning,
and the availability of the exclusive spectrum in the future. Furthermore, entering
co-opetitive business with other industries with content and context based business
models, network and customer data will become critical assets, and create
competitive advantage when optimally combined with the use case specific vertical
data or internet company’s customer data assets.
106
Table 9. Summary of the strategic choices as simple rules for a mobile network operator.
Simple rule MNO rules
Nature of
opportunity
- premium connectivity service to existing customers with growing and changing demand
- personalized MBB data and “ubicast” media delivery services for differentiation
- wholesale and NaaS offering to focused market demand based on access to local lower-
cost spectrum
- telco data monetization with verticals locally
How-to rules
to conduct
business in a
unique way
- Invest in scale and to maintain dominant market position
- gain access to available exclusive spectrum
- advance customer retention and acquisition
- optimize usage of all spectrum assets to deliver premium and localized services
- become edge computing and XaaS platform provider for new customer segments
- broker telco data to enter verticals with context
- partner with the broadcasting and media industry in the future
Boundary
rules
for
determining
which
opportunities
to pursue
- leverage existing infrastructure assets
- utilize scale and harmonization of 3GPP evolution to ensure timely entry
- active lobbying and contribution to policy and regulation processes
- delay the introduction of horizontal sharing for differentiation
- delay neutral host technologies to keep entry barrier
- turn alternative operators to co-opetitive partners through virtualization and XaaS
- build new competitive advantage on Telco - media convergence
Priority rules
that help to
rank the
accepted
opportunities
- retain control over spectrum and network
- protect operation critical network information
- prioritize sharing with other domains
- keep sharing voluntary and binary with the incumbent
- enhance QoS and QoE for the current mobile services and video first
- appreciate premium ARPU services
- actively look for value capture opportunities in verticals and other industry domains
- consider BC network assets to gain spectrum and infra
Timing rules
that help in
synchronizing
and pacing
opportunities
- base sharing with others on in-house HetNet dynamic capabilities (inter-system sharing
and optimization first)
- high efficiency scalable data offloading first
- QoS guaranteed and predictable sharing for personalized MBB data
- explore opportunities with local alternative operators
- complement TV and media broadcast content delivery
- future wide area TV and media distribution replacement
Exit rules
that help in
identifying
when to pull
out
- exclusive spectrum is first priority
- avoid co-primary sharing concepts between MNOs
- protect critical operational network data
- monetize customer and telco data
107
6 Discussion
Spectrum-sharing research has continued the cognitive radio momentum since
Mitola’s introduction. Recent interests from regulators driven by growing
commercial needs have extended the research from theoretical technology and
business enablers to more specific ones deployable to standards, practical
implementations and sound business models for key stakeholders. Thus, this
research makes several contributions to literature. This Chapter summarizes the
theoretical contributions, summarizes answers and the ‘overall message’ to
research questions, discusses reliability and validity of the research presented, and
proposes directions for future research in the area.
6.1 Theoretical contributions
RQ1. What are the key technology enablers needed to exploit spectrum-sharing in mobile broadband networks?
Earlier research introduced general CR architectures, functional elements (Mitola
1999, Haykin 2012) and their implementations technologies (Patil & Patil 2016,
De Domenico et al. 2012). The findings of this research complement earlier
research by emphasizing the applicability of the mobile broadband network
technologies. The technology enablers were defined and assessed for the key
processes: spectrum provisioning, operations and its management in the five
functional architecture domains: incumbent access, national regulation authority,
spectrum management, access network and user devices. These studies summarize
that apart from the new logical elements, repository and controller and their
interfaces, no change is needed to the existing MBB network consisting of UEs,
eNBs, EPC and OAM in static and semi-static spectrum-sharing use cases in the
HUHF and the LSA concepts. In all the concepts, introduced dynamism will
increase system complexity, and requires novel technology enablers in building
trust and ensuring pragmatic predictability in the spectrum management platform.
In the HUHF and the LSA, basic repository functionality was found sufficient,
whereas the dynamic CBRS sharing with interference management and brokering
functionalities will introduce need for new underlying technologies for the SAS,
like the scalable and high availability platform for databases, big data, spectrum
analytics and future machine learning.
108
For discussed sharing systems, the study proposes an enhanced RAN BS beam-
steering architecture, work flow and implementation that reduce the needed
evacuation area while enabling easy integration into an existing network
architecture based on standardized interfaces. On the network level, network
functions virtualization, software-defined networking and network slicing were
found to be essential to keeping the system versatile particularly for the new
entrants.
Previous research has lacked contribution on field validation of the mobile
broadband spectrum-sharing as the focus has been on the earlier TVWS concept
(FCC 2012, Ofcom 2010, IETF PAWS). The specific contribution of this thesis was
to create system architecture, and to present the first end-to-end system
performance field trials of the LSA concept based on commercial RAN and OAM.
The results of the validation proved that the system works in realistic scenarios with
real live networks and fulfils requirements of the defined incumbent use cases.
Furthermore, the study complemented the previous UHF co-existence literature (Li
et al. 2012, Kim et al. 2012, Ribadeneira-Ramírez et al. 2016, Polak et al. 2016)
through novel HUHF system architecture design, and system level performance
and co-existence analysis by means of simualtions. The results of the simulations
show that the HUHF concept could initially speed up deployment of the DD bands
for MBB through better co-existence characteristics with potential cross-border TV
transmitters, and second that the full HUHF SDL coverage could be gained by
freeing a spectrum band from DVB-T use.
RQ2. How do these sharing concepts support the antecedents for business model scalability?
Previous research has lacked a contribution on sharing concept specific business
modeling (Chapin & Lehr 2007, Ballon & Dalaere 2009, Barrie et al. 2010), and
there has also been a cavity in knowledge on how to characterize these models and
their elements (Markendahl & Mäkitalo 2011, Markendahl & Casey 2012a). This
research addresses this by presenting the first studies that analyze and compare the
scalability of the business models in order to predict the feasibility and
attractiveness of the recent spectrum-sharing concepts. Moreover, the specific
contribution of this study was to deploy the novel sharing economy framework in
the business model analysis. The results of the study show that in general all
analyzed concepts meet basic requirements to scale. The LSA and the HUHF
leverage existing asset and capability base of MNOs, and thus have the potential to
109
strengthen further the position of the established connection players through
additional capacity and differentiation opportunities with QoS and QoE. On the
other hand, the more dynamic and complex CBRS concept was found likely to
promote competition and foster innovation in the forms of new enabling
technologies, novel ecosystem roles and Internet era business model designs. The
results indicated that fragmented regulatory and market structure may deprive
economies of scale and scope, raise costs and hamper innovation, and could create
a strong barrier in terms of scalability.
RQ3. What strategic choices and business model characteristics do recent spectrum-sharing concepts support?
This thesis has further highlighted the importance of the selection of business
model characteristics and strategic choices. This thesis contributes to the existing
literature by introducing a novel oblique business model framework concept, and
applying it for the first time with the 4C business model typology to assess the
business models characteristics regarding spectrum-sharing. The previous research
has lacked a contribution on the stakeholder-specific strategies as the focus has
been on value system dynamics (Smura & Sorri 2009, Casey 2009) and techno-
economic analysis (Mölleryd & Markendahl 2011, Markendahl et al. 2012b). This
research was the first to define the strategic choices as simple rules for an MNO
exploring identified spectrum-sharing opportunities seized with designated
technology enablers and dynamic capabilities. The research results highlight the
impact of spectrum-sharing in enabling the unbundling investment in spectrum
resource, network infrastructure and services. These findings are supported also by
the previous literature (Ballon & Dalaere 2009, Barrie et al. 2010, Zanders &
Mähönen 2013, Kang et al. 2013, Markendahl et al. 2013, Widaa et al. 2013).
Furthermore, this research indicates that the 4C business model typology is
becoming equivocal at the firm level, as companies seek hybrid business models
that combine or aggregate services from different layers. The results further
highlight the transformational change to MNOs with a vast densification of
networks in dense urban locations, located in spaces traditionally not owned or
controlled by the operator. Utilizing XaaS business models, investments can be
efficiently shared across multiple providers, avoiding long-term high upfront
parallel network infrastructure investments and wasteful duplication.
The study found that MNOs’ strategic How-to rules continue to be based on
dominant market position, leveraging existing infrastructure and lock-ins through
110
customer data and CEM. In the content and context driven business model cases,
MNOs could create and capture value from their big data platforms, analytical skills
and CEM capabilities in brokering telco data, and co-creating value by combining
it with the use case specific vertical data or media & Internet companies’ customer
data assets. Novel virtualization technologies and XaaS service models can be
utilized in expanding to new customer segments, and to turn alternative and new
local operators into co-opetitive partners. Furthermore, MNOs could explore BC
and media business opportunities first in confined areas, e.g., live events, next to
complement TV and media content delivery, and in the future as regulation permits
to replace DTT services. It was found to be essential for an MNO to have direct
contact with the national regulator in order to protect own entry to new local area
collaborative business opportunities, and to keep entry barrier for new entrants. A
strategic priority for MNOs was found to be retaining control over the spectrum
and network, and to keep sharing voluntary and if possible binary with the
incumbent.
The concepts of simple rules and dynamic capabilities were found to be useful
to provide a dynamic framework for developing practical sharing-based business
models, and in analyzing the sources of competitive advantage for the key
stakeholders. Furthermore, the 4C business model typology was valuable in
defining and analysing novel ecosystem roles and their business models. The
sharing economy framework provided a useful framework for developing the
spectrum-sharing business models and analyzing their feasibility and attractiveness
on the basis of scalability factors.
6.2 Practical implications for spectrum-sharing
The rapid growth in the number of mobile and wireless communication systems’
users with diverse services, applications and devices will require significantly more
spectrum to make 5G visions happen. Although 5G standards are planned to be
completed for the first commercial deployment in 2020, many operators in the US,
Korea and Japan are working on pilots and planning to launch the first commercial
solutions already from 2017 onwards. Even though large blocks of 5G spectrum
are emerging in high frequency bands offering extreme capacities, the physics of
propagation limits range, incumbent band user, and regulatory uncertainty of the
band harmonization and access models may delay commercial availability.
Furthermore, as mobile broadband competes with other industries and applications
for spectrum, smart blending of licensed, unlicensed and shared spectrum may be
111
the only way to provide the needed 5G capacity timely while preserving QoE and
total cost of ownership for various use cases. In 5G, the main spectrum-related
challenges seen are: how to capture value from new spectrum opportunities
particularly at cmWave and mmWave bands, how to combine different traditional
and new spectrum assets to meet use case requirements capacity, coverage, mobility
and QoS, and how to implement efficient spectrum-sharing with incumbent users.
The intention of this study was to provide insight and foresight on how cognitive
radio with new managed shared-spectrum concepts could become a third
mainstream way of licensing spectrum to commercial users complementing
traditional exclusive licensing and unlicensed spectrum access from technology
and business perspectives.
The research has highlighted the practical importance of a collaborative effort
from the government, industry and academia to build dynamic capabilities needed
to incubate and accelerate the development of the sharing concepts. Field trial
validations and action research in the study were done in collaboration with end-
to-end ecosystems in order to ensure that the results will be grounded in action. The
key results of the thesis projects LASS and FUHF were world-first field trial
validations of the HUHF, the LSA and the CBRS concepts with CORE and FUHF
research consortia (Matinmikko et al. 2013, Hämäläinen et al. 2016, Vedomosti
2016, Nokia 2016b). Validation of the sharing concepts was implemented using
commercial technologies-based experimental design set-ups wherever possible to
provide practical knowledge for the selection of technology components for 5G
needs while carefully considering the scalability and the total cost of ownership.
Improvements in the efficiency of the spectrum usage stem from exploitation of
fluctuation in the spectrum resource availability that may happen in frequency, time,
space and power. The results of this study have already been utilized by regulation
and standardization forums not only for studying the sharing concepts themselves,
but the future of spectrum management, and the LTE evolution towards 5G.
For MNOs, the targeted stakeholders of this study, research could be of help in
exploring and assessing business opportunities and needed dynamic capabilities
and technologies in novel spectrum-sharing. Moreover, proposed simple rules
strategy provides one potential marching order for deployment. Technology
vendors could utilize results in getting better insight of their customer needs,
exploring ways to support customers to win in technology and business
transformations while protecting the common business, and creating new control
points. At the same time, providers could utilize the study in planning customer
base expansion to alternative network providers, e.g., Internet and OTT players,
112
local operators, enterprises and verticals, and extending to new business models,
e.g., through proving a platform or running themselves local networks as a service.
The foundations and even some walls are available for the future of spectrum-
sharing. The broad interested industry is yet to fully imagine all the possibilities of
what these new concepts will deliver or what they will create for each stakeholder
and user, humans and machines.
6.3 Reliability and validity of the research
The objective of this study was to generate new knowledge and understanding
concerning recent spectrum-sharing concepts from both business and technology
perspectives. Objectives, philosophical underpinnings and methodology are the key
evaluation criteria for a scientific research (Eriksson & Kovalainen 2008). In the
business part of the study, the business model acts as a boundary spanning unit of
analysis, qualitative research strategies and methods were applied, and action
research perspective adopted. Bryman and Bell (2011) listed subjectivity,
repeatability, generalization and transparency as common issues raised related to
the reliability and the validity of the qualitative research. According to Yin (2009),
the intention of reliability is to minimize errors and bias of a study. The reliability
and trustworthiness of qualitative research in general can be improved through
providing the reader with transparency of research process (Yin 2009), evaluated
through the documentation of the process from objectives to conclusions (Creswell
1998). Eriksson & Kovalainen (2008) define the validity of research as to what
extent accurate explanations of what occurred can be drawn from conclusions. In
evaluating the validity, three perspectives should be taken into account (Yin 2009):
construct validity referring to applying appropriate operational measures for the
concepts; internal validity addressing warranty of causal conclusion; and external
validity indicating generalization and applicability of the research results.
In qualitative foresight-focused future research, particularly external validity is
challenging to control (Yin 2009). In this study, the scenarios were created
deploying collaborative and conversation based method with special attention paid
on assessing how likely, probable, and desirable the outcomes appear. Business
models were created and data analyzed based on three criteria: probability that is
based on looking at business trends, plausibility that is based on events that could
be seen to take place in the future, and preferability that is based on choices of the
research process participants regarding the business models. Furthermore, as
suggested by Stevenson (2002) and Inayatullah (2006), the causal layered analysis
113
and the integral futures four-quadrant approaches within the business model
concept were used as means to ensure the quality of the research. Since there cannot
be facts about the future, drawing conclusions inevitably requires making some
assumptions. The research methodologies used build around an interactive,
collaborative workshop that relies strongly on conversation among a variety of
participants, from different disciplines and perspectives, concerned with the
research. Transparency and repeatability of the research was ensured by
systematically achieving the workshop raw data as well as their outputs in forms of
scenarios, strategies and business models. Internal validity was improved through
cautious evaluation and analysis of data. Furthermore, the same systematic and
well-documented methods were used in multiple case study research methods
covering all three sharing concepts in two different research consortia, which also
helped to reduce the subjectivity of both the researcher and the teams, and
contributed to increasing construct and external validity of the research.
According to Yin (2003), researchers’ experience, competence and areas of
interest may challenge the objectiveness of the qualitative research, and this was
visible within the research groups of this research as well. On the other hand, in
action research, involving practitioners concerning issues that are of importance to
them provides an abundance of insight and foresight. Furthermore, outputs
generated from action research are ‘grounded in action’ (Eden & Huxham 1996)
overcoming some of the difficulties of relying on talk as a source of data, instead
of action or overt behaviour. Democratic, collaborative and diversified
communities of inquiry are central to the quality and trustworthiness in action
research approach (Reason 2006). Therefore, in this study it was essential to
carefully explore how the qualities of dialogue and participation can be established
and developed in each particular phase and task of the projects. In arranging
workshops, special attention was paid to engaging practioners and researchers from
the key stakeholders in the ecosystems and representing all the three domains:
regulation, business and technology. Furthermore, a mixed research strategy
approach was used, utilizing both the quantitative deductive and qualitative
inductive approaches. Generalization, the applicability and validity of the results in
another environment, was considered by studying three different spectrum-sharing
concepts in two different markets, Europe and the US.
This study is subject to some limitations. On the qualitative business part of
the study, the object was to understand how and what kind of business model
designs could emerge in mobile broadband spectrum-sharing rather than to provide
a universal explanation of the phenomenon. Therefore, even though this study
114
provides a broad contextual understanding of the phenomenon, the results are
limited to the specific context, selected license-based sharing concepts. In particular,
indoors unlicensed spectrum option with infrastructure sharing as a strategic
alternative was not studied. Moreover, the perceptions the author has gathered in
the study are dependent on the experience, competence and areas of interest of the
researcher himself. Although special attention was paid in arranging workshops to
engaging practioners and researchers along the ecosystems and representing
different research disciplines, another researcher could have interpreted the data
from a different perspective, resulting in different emphases and different elements
in creation and analysis of business models. Furthermore, as the focus of this
research was to study business models and their scalability and it has been
addressed that business models should always be calibrated to context (Teece 2010),
the focus on a business model approach can be comprehended as a limitation in
itself. In this research, ecosystem and collaboration were identified as important
elements in the success of sharing concepts. However, the study focused mainly on
the network operator stakeholder view and did not focus on how different contexts
impact on collaboration in the ecosystems, e.g., through deploying ecosystemic co-
opetitive business models approaches.
On the quantitative part of the research, the limitations are mainly results of
the scale of the field trials experimental design. Due to the emerging nature of the
sharing concepts, technology and business antecedents were mainly observed
between an incumbent and a MNO. More dynamic sharing scenarios involving
several incumbents and alternative type operators have been investigated using
future research methods, and are yet to be fully validated. While emergency
evacuation even in large commercial networks could happen in minutes,
reconfiguring may activate wide load balancing and self-optimization routines that
could take hours before mobility and cell selections are again fully optimized in the
adjacent cells. However, the aim was not to obtain exact performance values but
rather to quantify the impact on the incumbent system and validate performance
against incumbent requirements, in particular evacuation time. The limitations of
UHF simulation include detailed analysis of only the Finnish and German use case
in the European regulatory framework.
6.4 Future research
The thesis paves the way for the future research within spectrum-sharing in mobile
broadband towards 5G. Further work is needed to extend the research to cover
115
sharing concept evolution towards more dynamic horizontal sharing frameworks,
utilization of unlicensed spectrum bands, and novel business model designs
enabling new roles in the ecosystem. One possibility can be to research how the
business models of mobile network operators are influenced by multiple co-
opetitive relationships with other MNOs, new alternative type operators and
ecosystem roles in spectrum management. Particularly, local micro operator
ecosystems should be an interesting topic to research from policy, technology and
business perspectives. In this dense urban indoor environment, the research
comparing licensed spectrum-sharing to unlicensed infrastructure sharing
alternatives and their hybrids should be encouraged. From the theoretical
perspective, part of the findings indicates that while moving to more dynamic
sharing, researchers should consider expanding the analysis to cover co-opetitive
business model scenarios in the ecosystem.
In the research of CR spectrum sensing techniques, the development of reliable
sensing techniques satisfying the requirements of the governmental incumbents
with feasible complexity is the challenge and the opportunity towards more
dynamic and efficient spectrum-sharing. The methods for assigning channels
among users in the optimized way will become a challenge in practical spectrum-
sharing deployments. Future work could consider scenarios having several
operators, systems and technologies co-existing in time and space requesting the
spectrum possibly without synchronization or communication with each other.
Future research on the HUHF could consider physical layer optimization for 8
MHz channel raster for coexisting services in UHF based on the Geneva 06
frequency assignment, and how to develop wide band UE receivers, e.g., utilizing
novel filtering solutions to better tolerate TV signals next to cellular unicasting and
broadcasting. On the BS side, further research could be carried out on the spectrally
clean wideband transmitter design to limit out of carrier emissions to TV, as well
as utilizations of smart antenna and Multiple-Input and Multiple-Output (MIMO)
solutions. Future studies in the policy and regulation regime are needed to
determine how much flexibility is currently allowed under the existing regulatory
framework. More precisely, which services can be currently supported on the 470–
694 MHz band under the broadcast allocation, and particularly leveraging the SDL
for downlink transmission. From the business research perspective, future research
on the converging media, Internet and telecommunications industries, particularly
focusing on how the business models of mobile network operators are influenced
by multiple co-opetitive relationships with media and broadcasting is worthy of
additional research efforts.
116
Technology validation of the sharing concepts should be extended and scaled
up to larger-scale field trials in order to gain better understanding of the realistic
deployment scenarios and system performance in respect of cognitive cycles of the
spectrum management and network optimization. Furthermore, evolution towards
5G and convergence with IEEE family of technologies using unlicensed spectrum
particularly indoors and dense urban area will introduce new technology enablers
to study and validate, e.g., affordable mmWave technologies, dynamic 3D beam-
forming, massive MIMO concepts, and advanced interference cancelling
technologies.
Finally, the successful deployment of the spectrum-sharing framework calls for
a collaborative effort from the government, industry and academia to build dynamic
capabilities and technology enablers needed to incubate and accelerate the
development. One potential joint topic to study is the utilization of blockchain
technology to reduce transaction costs through automatization of business-to-
business complex multi-step workflows in contracting and data exchange, while
transforming spectrum regulation from administrative to more dynamic market
based approach.
117
References
Abinader FM et al. (2014) Enabling the Coexistence of LTE and Wi-Fi in Unlicensed Bands. IEEE Communications Magazine 52(11): 54–61.
Aho et al. (2016a) Field Trial of Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS). The 22nd European Wireless Conference (EW16), Oulu.
Aho et al. (2016b) Field Trial of Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS)/Spectrum Access System (SAS). The 9th International Conference on Cognitive Radio Oriented Wireless Networks and Communications. Grenoble.
Ahokangas P, Matinmikko M, Yrjölä S, Okkonen H & Casey T (2013) ”Simple rules” for mobile network operators’ strategic choices in future spectrum sharing networks. IEEE Wireless Communications 20(2): 20–26.
Ahokangas P et al. (2014a) Defining “co-primary spectrum sharing” — A new business opportunity for MNOs? Proceeding of the 9th International Conference on Cognitive Radio Oriented Wireless Networks and Communications. Oulu: 395–400.
Ahokangas P et al. (2014b) Incentives for incumbent spectrum users in Licensed Shared Access (LSA): A dynamic capabilities view. Proceedings of the European Conference on Networks and Communications. Bologna.
Ahokangas P et al. (2014c) Business scenarios for incumbent spectrum users in Licensed Shared Access (LSA). Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Cognitive Radio Oriented Wireless Networks and Communications. Oulu: 407–412.
Ahokangas P et al. (2014d) Business models for mobile network operators in Licensed Shared Access (LSA). Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks. McLean, VA: 263–270.
Ahokangas P et al. (2014e) Coopetitive Business Models in Future Mobile Broadband. Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Coopetition Strategy – Coopetition Strategy and Practice. Umeå.
Ahokangas P, Juntunen M & Myllykoski J (2014c) Cloud Computing and Transformation of International e-Business Models. In: Sanchez R & Heene A (eds.) Building competences in dynamic environments, Research in competence-based management 7: 3–28.
Ahokangas P, Horneman K, Matinmikko M, Yrjölä S & Okkonen H (2016a) Co-Primary Spectrum Sharing and its impact on MNOs’ business model scalability. Proceeding of the 10th International Conference Cognitive Radio Oriented Wireless Networks and Communications. Grenoble: 695–702.
Ahokangas P et al. (2016b) Future micro operators business models in 5G. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Restructuring of the Global Economy. Oxford.
Ahokangas P, Matinmikko M, Atkova I, Minvervini LF, Yrjola S & Mustonen M (2016c) Coopetitive Business Models in Future Mobile Broadband with Licensed Shared Access (LSA). EAI Endorsed Transactions on Cognitive Communications 16(7): e2.
Akyildiz I, Lee W, Vuran M & Mohanty S (2008) A survey on spectrum management in cognitive radio networks. IEEE Communications Magazine 46(4): 40–48.
118
Al-Debei MM, Al-Lozi E, & Fitzgerald G (2013) Engineering innovative mobile data services. Business Process Management Journal. 19(2): 336–363.
Alsohaily A & Sousa ES (2013) Spectrum sharing LTE-advanced small cell systems. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Wireless Personal Multimedia Communications. Atlantic City, NJ: 1–5.
Baden-Fuller C & Morgan MS (2010) Business models as models. Long Range Planning 43(2–3): 156–171.
Ballon P and Delaere S (2009) Flexible spectrum and future business models for the mobile industry. Telematics and Informatics 26(3): 249–258.
Barrie M. Delaere S. & Ballon P. (2010) Classification of business scenarios for spectrum sensing. Proceedings of the 21st International Symposium on Personal Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications. Istanbul: 2626–2631.
Basaure A, Casey TR & Hämmäinen H (2012) Different regulation paths towards cognitive radio technologies: Cases of Finland and Chile. Proceedings of the European Regional ITS Conference. Vienna.
Basaure A, Marianov V & Paredes R (2015). Implications of dynamic spectrum management for regulation. Telecommunications Policy 39(7): 563–579.
Basole RC (2009) Visualization of interfirm relations in a converging mobile ecosystem. Journal of Information Technology 24(2): 144–159.
Bazelon C & McHenry G (2013). Spectrum value. Telecommunications Policy 37(9): 737–747.
Bennis M (2009) Spectrum sharing for future mobile cellular systems. Ph.D. thesis, University of Oulu.
Berry L, Shankar V, Parish J, Cadwallader S & Dotzel T (2006) Creating new markets through service innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review 47(2): 56–63.
Bishop P, Hines A & Collins T (2007) The current state of scenario development: an overview of techniques. Foresight 9(1): 5–25.
Blomqvist K & Levy J (2006) Collaboration capability – a focal concept in knowledge creation and collaborative innovation in networks. International Journal of Management Concepts and Philosophy 2(1):31–48.
Bryman A & Bell E (2011) Business Research Methods. 3rd edition. New York, Oxford University Press.
Buckwitz K, Engelberg J & Rausch G (2014) Licensed Shared Access (LSA) — Regulatory background and view of Administrations. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Cognitive Radio Oriented Wireless Networks and Communications. Oulu: 413–416
Cabric D, Mishra SM & Brodersen RW (2004) Implementation issues in spectrum sensing for cognitive radios. Proceedings of the 38th Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers. Pacific Grove, CA 1: 772–776.
Caicedo CE & Weiss MBH (2010). The viability of spectrum trading markets. Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE Symposium on New Frontiers in Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks. Singapore: 1–10.
119
Carlsson B & Eliasson G (2003). Industrial dynamics and endogenous growth. Industry and Innovation 10(4): 435–455.
Casey TR (2009) Analysis of radio spectrum market evolution possibilities. Communications and Strategies 75: 109–130.
Casey TR & Ali-Vehmas T (2012) Value system evolution towards a cognitive radio era: Implications of underlying market dynamics. Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE International Symposium on New Frontiers in Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks. Bellevue: 77–88.
Cepeda G & Vera D (2007) Dynamic capabilities and operational capabilities: A knowledge management perspective. Journal of Business Research 60(5): 426–437.
CEPT (2015a) Report 56: Technological and regulatory options facilitating sharing between Wireless broadband applications (WBB) and the relevant Incumbent services/applications in the 2.3 GHz band. The European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations.
CEPT (2015b) Report 58: Technical sharing solutions for the shared use of the 2300–2400 MHz band for WBB and PMSE. The European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations.
Chapin JM & Lehr WH (2007) Cognitive radios for dynamic spectrum access – The path to market success for dynamic spectrum access technology. IEEE Communications Magazine 45(5): 96–103.
Chesbrough H & Rosenbloom RS (2002). The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: evidence from Xerox Corporation's technology spin-off companies. Industrial and Corporate Change 11(3): 529–555.
Creswell JW (1998) Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five designs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Chrisman J, Hofer C & Boulton W (1988) Toward a system for classifying business strategies. The Academy of Management Review 13(3): 413–428.
Christensen C (1997) Innovator’s Dilemma. Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press. Cisco (2016) Visual Networking Index: Global Mobile Data Traffic Forecast Update, 2015–
2020. Cisco. URL: http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/visual-networking-index-vni/mobile-white-paper-c11-520862.html. Cited 2016/04/28.
Claasen T & Mecklenbräuker W (1985) Adaptive techniques for signal processing in communications. IEEE Communications Magazine 23(11): 8–19.
Coghlan D & Brannick T (2010) Doing Action Research in your own organization. 3rd edition. London, Sage.
Cooper (2011) Cooper’s law. Arraycom Technical note. URL: http://www.arraycomm.com/technology/coopers-law/. Cited 2016/05/02.
CORE (2016) Cognitive Radio Trial Environment (CORE) project web page. URL: http://core.willab.fi. Cited 2016/05/10.
120
De Vita A, Milanesio D, Sacco B & Scotti A (2014) Assessment of Interference to the DTT Service Generated by LTE Signals on Existing Head Amplifiers of Collective Distribution Systems: A Real Case Study. IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting 60(2): 420–429.
Digital Europe (2015) Flexibility in UHF: Regulatory Options Analysis of regulatory frameworks applicable to the introduction of SDL in the UHF Band. URL: http://www.digitaleurope.org/DesktopModules/Bring2mind/DMX/Download.aspx?Command=Core_Download&EntryId=1077&PortalId=0&TabId=353. Cited 2016/05/04.
EBU (2014a) TR 26: Assessment of available option for the distribution of broadcast services. European Broadcasting Union.
EBU (2014b) TR 27: Delivery of broadcast content over LTE networks. European Broadcasting Union.
EC (2012) COM 478: Promoting the shared use of radio spectrum resources in the internal market. European Commission.
EC (2014) DG CONNECT/B4: Mandate to CEPT to develop harmonized technical conditions for the 2300-2400MHz ('2.3GHz') frequency band in the EU for the provision of wireless broadband electronic communication services. European Commission.
EC (2016) COM/2016/043: Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the use of the 470–790 MHz frequency band in the Union. European Commission.
ECC (2012) Report 172: Broadband Wireless Systems Usage in 2300–2400 MHz. European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations, Electronic Communications Committee.
ECC (2014a) Report 205 Licensed Shared Access (LSA). European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations, Electronic Communications Committee.
ECC (2014b) Decision (14)02: Harmonised technical and regulatory conditions for the use of the band 2300–2400 MHz for Mobile/Fixed Communications Networks (MFCN), European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations, Electronic Communications Committee.
ECC (2014c) Report 224: Long Term Vision for the UHF broadcasting band. On long-term vision for the UHF broadcasting band out for public consultation. European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations, Electronic Communications Committee.
ECC (2016) Report 254: Operational guidelines for spectrum sharing to support the implementation of the current ECC framework in the 3600–3800 MHz range. European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations, Electronic Communications Committee.
Eden C & Huxhan C (1996) Action research for management research. British Journal of Management 7(1): 75–86.
Eriksson P & Kovalainen P (2008) Qualitative methods in business research. London: Sage Publications.
121
ERC (2002) report 068: Monte-Carlo simulation methodology for the use in sharing and compatibility studies between different radio services or systems. European Radiocommunications Committee (ERC) within the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT).
Eriksson T (2013) Dynamic capability of value net management in technology-based international SMEs. Doctoral dissertation. Turku School of Economics.
Erman J, Gerber A, Ramakrishnan KK, Sen S & Spatscheck O (2011) Over the top video: The Gorilla in Cellular Networks. Proceedings of the 2011 ACM SIGCOMM conference on Internet measurement conference. Torinto, ACM: 127–136.
ETSI (2009) TR 102 683: Cognitive pilot channel (CPC). European Telecommunications Standards Institute, Reconfigurable Radio Systems.
ETSI (2010) TR 102 802: Cognitive radio system concept. European Telecommunications Standards Institute, Reconfigurable Radio Systems.
ETSI (2012) TR 102 684: Feasibility study on control channels for cognitive radio systems. European Telecommunications Standards Institute, Reconfigurable Radio Systems.
ETSI (2013) TR 103.113: Mobile Broadband services in the 2300–2400 MHz frequency band under Licensed Shared Access regime. European Telecommunications Standards Institute, Reconfigurable Radio Systems.
ETSI (2014) TS 103 154: System requirements for operation of Mobile Broadband Systems in the 2300 MHz–2400 MHz band under LSA. European Telecommunications Standards Institute, Reconfigurable Radio Systems.
ETSI (2015) TS 103 235: System Architecture and High Level Procedures for operation of Licensed Shared Access (LSA) in the 2300 MHz–2400 MHz band. European Telecommunications Standards Institute, Reconfigurable Radio Systems.
ETSI (2016a) TS 103 379 version 0.0.5: Information elements and protocols for the interface between LSA Controller (LC) and LSA Repository (LR) for operation of Licensed Shared Access (LSA) in the 2300 MHz–2400 MHz band. European Telecommunications Standards Institute, Reconfigurable Radio Systems.
ETSI (2016b) Terms of Reference of the Industry Specification Group on ‘Mobile and Broadcast Convergence’ (ISG MBC). European Telecommunications Standards Institute.
ETSI (2016c) GS MEC 003 V1.1.1: Mobile Edge Computing (MEC); Framework and Reference Architecture. European Telecommunications Standards Institute.
Falch M & Tadayoni R. (2004) Economic versus technical approaches to frequency management. Telecommunications Policy 28(2): 197–211.
FCC (2002) ET Docket No. 02-135: Spectrum Policy Task Force Report, Report of the Spectrum Efficiency Working Group. Federal Communications Commission.
FCC (2004) 03-287 the Commission’s Rules to Permit Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) devices in the 5 GHz band. Federal Communications Commission.
FCC (2010) The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The National Broadband Plan. Federal Communications Commission.
122
FCC (2012) 12-26: Third memorandum opinion and order. Federal Communications Commission. URL: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-36A1.pdf. Cited 2016/04/29.
FCC (2014) Sharing recommendations. Federal Communications Commission Technical Advisory Council Advanced Sharing and Enabling Wireless Technologies (EWT) WG. URL: https://transition.fcc.gov/bureaus/oet/tac/tacdocs/meeting92314/TACMeetingSummary9-23-14.pdf. Cited 2016/05/19.
FCC (2015) The 3.5 GHz report and order and second further notice of proposed rulemaking. Federal Communications Commission. URL: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0421/FCC-15-47A1.pdf. Cited 2016/04/28.
FCC (2016a) White Spaces. Federal Communications Commission. URL: http://www.fcc.gov/topic/white-space. Cited 2016/04/28.
FCC (2016b) 16–55: The Second Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration finalizes rules for innovative Citizens Broadband Radio Service in the 3.5 GHz Band (3550–3700 MHz). URL: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-55A1.pdf. Cited: 2016/05/20.
FCC (2016c) Broadcast Incentive Auction. Federal Communications Commission. URL: https://www.fcc.gov/about-fcc/fcc-initiatives/incentive-auctions. Cited: 2016/05/20.
FCC (2016d) Report: 16–89 Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services. Federal Communications Commission.
Feng D, Jiang C, Lim G, Cimini L, Feng G & Li G (2013) A survey of energy-efficient wireless communications. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials 15(1): 167 – 178.
FICORA (2015) Regulation 70C/2015 M: On the use frequencies intended for television and radio operations, the Finish Communication Regulatory Authority.
Filin S, Harada H, Murakami H & Ishizu K (2011) International standardization of cognitive radio systems. IEEE Communications Magazine 49(3): 82–89.
Floyd J (2012) Action research and integral futures studies: A path to embodied foresight. Foresight 44: 870–882.
Franke N, Gruber M, Harhoff D & Henkel J (2008) Venture capitalists’ evaluations of startup teams: trade-offs, knock-out criteria, and the impact of VC experience. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice 32(3): 459–483.
Fuentes M, Garcia-Pardo C, Garro E & Gomez-Barquero (2012) Coexistence of digital terrestrial television and next generation cellular networks in the 700 MHz band. IEEE Communivations Magazine 21(6): 63–69.
FUHF (2016) Future of UHF spectrum band (FUHF) project web page. URL: http://fuhf.turkuamk.fi/. Cited 2016/05/10.
Gangula R, Gesbert D, Lindblom J & Larsson EG (2013) On the value of spectrum sharing among operators in multicell networks. Proceedings of the 77th IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference, Dresden: 1–5.
123
Giles T et al. (2004) Cost drivers and deployment scenarios for future broadband wireless networks – key research problems and directions for research. Proceedings of the 59th IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference. Milan 59(4): 2042–2046.
Guiducci D et al. (2016) Sharing under Licensed Shared Access in a LTE real test network at 2.3–2.4 GHz. Proceedings 27th Annual IEEE International Symposium on Personal, Indoor, and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC), Workshop on “Cognitive Radio and Innovative Spectrum Sharing Paradigms for Future Networks (CRAFT 2016)”, Valencia, Spain, Sept. 4th–7th.
Hamblen M Multiple U.S. trials underway for shared 3.5 GHz wireless spectrum," Computerworld, Inc. URL: Available:http://www.computerworld.com/article/3075748/mobile-wireless/multiple-u-s-trials-underway-for-shared-3-5ghz-wireless-spectrum.html. Cited:2016/09/30.
Hamel G (1998) Strategy Innovation and the Quest for Value. Sloan Management Review 39(2): 7–14.
Hambrick DC & Schecter SM (1983) Turnaround Strategies for Mature Industrial-Product Business Units. Academy of Management Journal 26(2): 231–248.
Hatfield DN (1977) Measures of spectral efficiency in land mobile radio. IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility 19(3): 266–268.
Haykin S (2005) Cognitive radio: Brain-empowered wireless communications. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 23(2): 201–220.
Haykin S (2012) Cognitive dynamic systems. Perception-action cycle, radar, and radio. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
He Y, Dutkiewicz E, Fang G & Mueck M (2014) Licensed Shared Access in distributed antenna systems enabling network virtualization. Proceedings 1st International Conference on 5G for Ubiquitous Connectivity. Levi: 76–80.
Hong X, Wang J, Wang CX & Shi J (2014) Cognitive radio in 5G: a perspective on energy-spectral efficiency trade-off. IEEE Communications Magazine 52(7): 46–53.
Hu Y, Patel M, Sabella D, Sprecher N & Young V (2015) Mobile Edge Computing A key technology towards 5G. ETSI White Paper No. 11. European Telecommunications Standards Institute.
Hämäläinen S, Sanneck H & Sartori C (Eds.) (2012) LTE Self-Organizing Networks (SON). John & Wiley Sons, Ltd.
Hänninen T, Aho P, Heikkila M, Yrjola S, Kokkinen H & Paavola J (2016) Field Trial of Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) Spectrum Access System (SAS). International Workshop on Smart Wireless Communications. Oulu.
Höyhtyä M, Hekkala A, Katz M. & Mämmelä A (2007) Spectrum awareness: Techniques and challenges for active spectrum sensing. In: Fitzek FHP & Katz MD (ed.) Cognitive wireless networks: Concepts, methodologies and visions inspiring the age of enlightenment of wireless communications. Dordrecht, Springer: 353–372.
Höyhtyä M et al. (2016) Spectrum occupancy measurements: A survey and use of interference maps. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials 99:1–30.
124
IETF (2012) Protocol to access white space database (PAWS). The Internet Engineering Task Force. URL: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-patil-paws-problem-stmt-02). Cited 2016/04/30
Inayatullah S (1998) Causal layered analysis: Poststructuralism as method. Futures 30(8): 815-829.
Inayatullah S (2006) Anticipatory action learning: Theory and practice. Futures 38: 656–666. Italy (2016) World’s first LSA pilot in the 2.3–2.4 GHz band. Input contribution to ECC
PT1 #51, ECC PT1(16)028. ITU-R (1992) Final Acts of the WARC for Dealing with Frequency Allocation in Certain
Parts of the Spectrum (WARC-92). The World Administrative Radio Conference. Radio communication sector of the International Telecommunication Union, Malaga-Torremolinos.
ITU-R (2002) BT.419-3: Directivity and polarization discrimination of antennas in the reception of television broadcasting, Recommendation. Radio communication sector of the International Telecommunication Union.
ITU-R (2006) Regional Agreement GE06. In: Final Acts of the Regional Radiocommunication Conference for planning of the digital terrestrial broadcasting service in parts of Regions 1 and 3, in the frequency bands 174–230 MHz and 470–862 MHz. Radio communication sector of the International Telecommunication Union.
ITU-R (2009) Report SM.2152. Definitions of software defined radio (SDR) and cognitive radio system (CRS). Radio communication sector of the International Telecommunication Union.
ITU-R (2011a) Report M.2225. Introduction to cognitive radio systems in the land mobile service. Radio communication sector of the International Telecommunication Union.
ITU-R (2011b) Recommendation SM.1880. Spectrum occupancy measurement. Radio communication sector of the International Telecommunication Union.
ITU-R (2011c) Report ITU-R M.2243 Assessment of the global mobile broadband deployments and forecasts for international mobile telecommunications. Radio communication sector of the International Telecommunication Union.
ITU-R (2013a) WRC-15 Agenda Item 1.2: Lower Edge of Mobile Allocation and Adjacent Band Compatibility, CPG-PTD (13)010. Radio communication sector of the International Telecommunication Union.
ITU-R (2013b) P.1546-5: Method for point-to-area predictions for terrestrial services in the frequency range 30 MHz to 3000 MHz, Recommendation. Radio communication sector of the International Telecommunication Union.
ITU-R (2014a) Report M.2290-0 Future spectrum requirements estimate for terrestrial IMT. Radio communication sector of the International Telecommunication Union.
ITU-R (2014b) Report M.2330: Cognitive radio systems in the land mobile service. Radio communication sector of the International Telecommunication Union.
ITU-R (2014c) Report M.2320: Future technology trends of terrestrial IMT systems. Radio communication sector of the International Telecommunication Union.
125
ITU-R (2014d) Report ITU-R SM: Innovative regulatory tools to support enhanced shared use of the spectrum. Radio communication sector of the International Telecommunication Union.
ITU-R (2014e) F.1336-4: Reference radiation patterns of omnidirectional, sectoral and other antennas in point-to-multipoint systems for use in sharing studies in the frequency range from 1 GHz to about 70 GHz. Radio communication sector of the International Telecommunication Union.
ITU-R (2015a) Final Acts WRC-15. World Radiocommunication Conference, Radio communication sector of the International Telecommunication Union. Geneva.
ITU-R (2015b) Report ITU-R M.2370-0 IMT traffic estimates for the years 2020 to 2030. Radio communication sector of the International Telecommunication Union.
ITU-R (2015c) Recommendation ITU-R BT.2033-1: Planning criteria, including protection ratios, for second generation of digital terrestrial television broadcasting systems in the VHF/UHF bands. Radio communication sector of the International Telecommunication Union.
Iwamura M et al. (2010) Carrier aggregation framework in 3GPP LTE-Advanced. IEEE Communications Magazine 48(8): 60–67.
Ji Z & Liu KJR (2007) Dynamic spectrum sharing: A game theoretical overview. IEEE Communications Magazine 45(5): 88–94.
Kagermann H, Osterle H & Jordan J (2010) It-driven business models. Global case studies in transformation. New Jersey, John Wiley & Son.
Kang DH, Sung KW & Zander J (2013) High Capacity Indoor and Hotspot Wireless Systems in Shared Spectrum: A Techno-Economic Analysis. IEEE Communications Magazine 51(12): 102–109.
Kalliovaara J et al. (2015) Interference measurements for Licensed Shared Access (LSA) between LTE and wireless cameras in 2.3 GHz band. Proceedings IEEE International Symposium on Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks. Stockholm: 123–129.
Kibiłda J, Di Francesco P, Malandrino F & DaSilva LA (2015) Infrastructure and spectrum sharing trade-offs in mobile networks. Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International Symposium on Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks. Stockholm: 348–357.
Kim DH, Oh SJ & Woo JS (2012) Coexistence Analysis between IMT System and DTV System in the 700MHz band. Proceedings of the International Conference on ICT Convergence.
Kim CW, Ryoo J & Buddhikot MM (2015) Design and implementation of an end-to-end architecture for 3.5 GHz shared spectrum. Proceedings 2015 IEEE International Symposium on Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks. Stockholm: 23–34.
Lamy P (2013) Report to the European Commission: Results of the work of the high level group on the future use of the UHF band (470-790 MHz). London.
Lehr W et al. (2014) Toward more efficient spectrum management: new models for protected shared access. MIT CFP Spectrum Working Group White Paper. URL: http://cfp.mit.edu/publications/CFP_Papers/CFP%20Spectrum%20Sharing%20Paper%202014.pdf. Cited 2016/05/08.
126
Lewin D, Marks P & Nicoletti S (2013) Valuing the use of spectrum in the EU an independent assessment for GSMA. Plum Consulting. URL: http://plumconsulting.co.uk/pdfs/Plum_June2013_Economic_Value_of_spectrum_use_in_Europe.pdf, 2013. Cited 2016/04/28.
Lewin K (1946) Action Research and Minority Problems. Journal of Social Issues (2)4: 34–46.
Li W et al. (2012) Performance and Analysis on LTE System under Adjacent Channel Interference of Broadcasting System. Proceedings of the IEEE 12th International Conference on Computer and Information Technology: 290–294.
LTE-U Forum (2016) URL: http://www.lteuforum.org/index.html. Cited: 2016/05/19 Luo Y, Gao L & Huang J (2015) Business Modeling for TV White Space Networks. IEEE
Communications Magazine 53(5): 82–88. Luttinen M, Matinmikko M, Ahokangas P, Katz M & Yrjölä S (2014) Feasibility assessment
of Licensed Shared Access (LSA) concept – Case of a Finnish mobile network operator (MNO). Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on 5G for Ubiquitous Connectivity. Levi: 252–257.
Markendahl J & Mäkitalo Ö (2007) Analysis of business models and market players for local wireless internet access. Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Telecommunication Techno-Economics. Helsinki: 1–8.
Markendahl J & Mäkitalo Ö (2011) Analysis of business opportunities of secondary use of spectrum: The case of TV white space for mobile broadband access. Proceedings of the 22nd European Regional Conference of the International Telecommunications Society. Budapest.
Markendahl J. (2011) Mobile network operators and cooperation: A techno economic study of infrastructure sharing and mobile payment services. Ph.D. Thesis. KTH.
Markendahl J & Casey TR (2012a). Business opportunities using white space spectrum and cognitive radio for mobile broadband services. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Cognitive Radio Oriented Wireless Networks. Stockholm 1: 129–134.
Markendahl J, Gonzalez-Sanchez P & Mölleryd BG (2012b) Impact of deployment costs and spectrum prices on the business viability of mobile broadband using TV white space. Proceedings of the 7th International conference on cognitive radio oriented wireless networks. Washington DC: 124–128.
Markendahl J & Ghanbari A (2013) Shared small cell networks multi-operator or third party solutions – or both? Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Modeling & Optimization in Mobile, Ad Hoc & Wireless Networks. Tsukuba Science City: 41–48.
Markendahl J, Widaa AAW & Mölleryd BG (2013) Business models and investment options for use of licensed shared access of spectrum. Proceedings of the 24th European Regional Conference of the International Telecommunication Society. Florence.
Mason D & Herman J (2003) Scenarios and strategies: making the scenario about the business. Strategy & Leadership 31(1): 23–31.
Matinmikko M et al. (2013) Cognitive radio trial environment: First live authorized shared access-based spectrum-sharing demonstration. IEEE Vehicular Technology Magazine 8(3): 30–37.
127
Matinmikko M, Mustonen M, Roberson D, Paavola J, Höyhtyä M, Yrjola S & Roning J (2014a) Overview and comparison of recent spectrum sharing approaches in regulation and research: From opportunistic unlicensed access towards licensed shared access. Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks. McLean, VA: 92–102.
Matinmikko M et al. (2014b) Spectrum sharing using Licensed Shared Access (LSA): The concept and its work flow for LTE-Advanced networks. IEEE Wireless Communications Magazine 21(2): 72–79.
Matinmikko M et al. (2015a) Business benefits of Licensed Shared Access (LSA) for key stakeholders. In: Holland O et al. (eds.) Opportunistic Spectrum Sharing and White Space Access: The Practical Reality. Wiley.
Matinmikko M et al. (2015b) Field Trial of Licensed Shared Access (LSA) with Enhanced LTE Resource Optimization and Incumbent Protection. The IEEE International Symposium on Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks. Stockholm.
Matinmikko M et al. (2015c) Live End-to-End Ecosystem Trial of New Spectrum Sharing Concepts: European Licensed Shared Access (LSA) Evolution towards US Spectrum Access System (SAS). IEEE Globecom. San Diego, CA.
Matinmikko M, Yrjölä S, Mustonen M, Ahokangas P & Horneman K (In press) Licensed Shared Access (LSA) and three-tier sharing models: Regulation, business and technology perspectives. In: 5G Wireless Technologies. The IET – Institution of Engineering and Technology.
Maurya A (2011) Running lean. Sebastopol, USA, O’Reilly Media, Inc. McHenry M, Tenhula P, Roberson D, Hood C & McCloskey D (2006) Chicago spectrum
occupancy measurements and analysis and a long-term studies proposal. Proceedings of the first international workshop on Technology and policy for accessing spectrum. New York, ACM.
McGahan A (2004) How Industries Evolve: Principles for Achieving and Sustaining Superior Performance. Cambridge MA, Harvard Business School Press.
Messerschmitt D & Szyperski C (2003) Software Ecosystem: Understanding an Indispensable Technology and Industry. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.
METIS (2015a) Deliverable D5.3 Description of the spectrum needs and usage principles. URL: www.metis2020.com/documents/Deliverables Cited 2016/07/14.
METIS (2015b) Deliverable D5.4 Future spectrum system concept. URL: www.metis2020.com/documents/deliverables/ Cited 2016/07/14.
METIS II (2016a) D3.1 Spectrum scenarios, requirements and rationale for 5G bands above 6 GHz. Mobile and wireless communications Enablers for the Twenty-twenty Information Society-II. URL: https://metis-ii.5g-ppp.eu/wp-content/uploads/METIS-II_D3.1_V1.0.pdf. Cited 2016/06/20.
METIS II (2016b) D1.1 Refined scenarios and requirements, consolidated use cases, and qualitative techno-economic feasibility assessment. Mobile and wireless communications Enablers for the Twenty-twenty Information Society-II. URL: https://metis-ii.5g-ppp.eu/wp-content/uploads/METIS-II_D1.1_v1.0.pdf. Cited 2016/05/04.
128
Minervini LF (2014) Spectrum management reform: Rethinking practices. Telecommunications Policy 38: 136–146.
Mitola J (1999) Software Radio Architecture: A Mathematical Perspective. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 17(4): 514–538.
Mitola J & Maguire GQ (1999) Cognitive radio: making software radios more personal. IEEE Personal Communications 6(4): 13–18.
Morris M, Schindehutte M, Richardson J & Allen J (2006). Is the Business Model a useful Strategic Concept? Conceptual, Theoretical, and Empirical Insights. Journal of Small Business Strategy 17(1): 27–50.
Mueck M et al. (2010) ETSI reconfigurable radio systems: status and future directions on software defined radio and cognitive radio standards. IEEE Communications Magazine 48(9): 78–86.
Mueck M, Frascolla V & Badic B (2014) Licensed shared access — State-of-the-art and current challenges. Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Cognitive Cellular Systems. Duisburg 1: 1–5.
MulteFire (2016) MulteFire alliance. URL: http://www.multefire.org/. Cited: 2016/05/19. Mustonen M, Chen T, Saarnisaari H, Matinmikko M, Yrjola S & Palola M (2014a) Cellular
architecture enhancement for supporting the European licensed shared access concept. IEEE Wireless Communications 21(3): 37– 3.
Mustonen M, Matinmikko M, Roberson D & Yrjölä S (2014b) Evaluation of recent spectrum sharing models from the regulatory point of view. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on 5G for Ubiquitous Connectivity. Levi: 11–16.
Mustonen M et al. (2014c) Considerations on the Licensed Shared Access (LSA) architecture from the incumbent perspective. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Cognitive Radio Oriented Wireless Networks and Communications. Oulu: 150–155.
Mustonen M, Matinmikko M, Palola M, Yrjölä S & Horneman K (2015a) An Evolution Towards Cognitive Cellular Systems: Licensed Shared Access (LSA) for Network Optimization. IEEE Communication Magazine 53(5): 68–74.
Mustonen M, Yrjölä S, Matinmikko M, Palola M & Rautio T (2015b) Analysis of requirements from standardization for Licensed Shared Access (LSA) system Implementation. Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks. Stockholm 1: 71–81.
Mwangoka J, Marques P & Rodriguez J (2011) Exploiting TV White Spaces in Europe: The COGEU Approach. European Commission COGEU URL: http://www.ict-cogeu.eu/pdf/publications/Y2/IEEE%20DySPAN2011_COGEU_paper.pdf.
Mölleryd BG & Markendahl J (2012) Valuation of spectrum for mobile broadband services – The marginal value versus the willingness to pay. Proceedings of the regional ITS India Conference. New Delhi.
NGMN (2015) NGMN 5G white paper. Next Generation Mobile Network alliance. URL: https://www.ngmn.org/fileadmin/ngmn/content/downloads/Technical/2015/NGMN_5G_White_Paper_V1_0.pdf. Cited 2016/05/04.
129
Nguyen VG, Do TX & Kim Y (2016) SDN and virtualization-based LTE mobile network architectures: A comprehensive survey. Wireless Personal Communications 86(3): 1401–1438.
Nicita A & Rossi MA (2013) Spectrum crunch vs. spectrum sharing: exploring the “Authorised Shared Access” model. Communications & Strategies 90: 17–40.
Nie N & Comaniciu C (2006) Adaptive channel allocation spectrum etiquette for cognitive radio networks. Mobile Networks and Applications 11(6): 779–797.
Noam EM (1998). Spectrum Auctions: Yesterday's Heresy, Today's Orthodoxy, Tomorrow's Anachronism. Journal of Law and Economics. URL: http://www.citi.columbia.edu/elinoam/articles/SPECTRM1.htm. Cited 2016/05/24.
Nokia (2015) Whitepaper Intelligent Self Organizing Networks (iSON). URL: http://networks.nokia.com/sites/default/files/document/nokia_ison_white_paper.pdf. Cited 2016/05/03.
Nokia (2016a) Eden-NET. URL: http://networks.nokia.com/portfolio/solutions/eden-net. Cited 2016/05/24.
Nokia (2016b) Press Release World's First Demonstration of LTE Supplemental Downlink in a TV Broadcast Band. URL: http://company.nokia.com/en/news/press-releases/2016/09/02/qualcomm-nokia-and-yle-announce-worlds-first-demonstration-of-lte-supplemental-downlink-in-a-tv-broadcast-band Cited 2016/09/02.
NTIA (2010) An Assessment of the Near-Term Viability of Accommodating Wireless Broadband Systems in the 1675–1710 MHz, 1755–1780 MHz, 3500–3650 MHz, and 4200–4220 MHz, 4380–4400 MHz Bands. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
NTIA (2016) Technical Report 16-521: Using On-Shore Detected Radar Signal Power for Interference Protection of Off-Shore Radar Receivers. The US Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
Ofcom (2010) Implementing geolocation. Office of Communications. URL: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/geolocation/summary/geolocation.pdf. Cited 2016/04/29.
Ofcom (2011) 2221/PCFT/R/1.2: The co-existence of LTE and DTT services at UHF: a field trial. Office of Communications. URL: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/research/co-existenceLTEDTTservicesatUHF.pdf. Cited 2016/04/28.
Ofcom (2012) Coexistence of New Services in the 800 MHz Band with Digital Terrestrial Television—Further Modelling. Office of Communications. URL: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/949731/annexes/DTTCo-existence.pdf. Cited 2016/04/28.
Ofcom (2016) TV White Spaces. Office of Communications. URL: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/spectrum/tv-white-spaces/. Cited 2016/04/28.
OFR (2016) Title 47: Telecommunication , Part 96—Citizens Broadband Radio Service. The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) and the Government Publishing Office. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. URL: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?node=pt47.5.96&rgn=div5 Cited 2016/08/29.
130
Ojaniemi J, Perez E, Yrjölä S & Wichman R Resource (submitted) optimization and incumbent protection methods in shared spectrum access systems. IEEE Transactions in Vehicular Technology.
Olafsson S, Glover B & Nekovee M (2007) Future management of spectrum. BT Technology Journal 25(2): 52–63.
Onetti A, Zucchella A, Jones MV & McDougall-Covin PP (2012) Internationalization, innovation and entrepreneurship: business models for new technology-based firms. Journal of Management and Governance 16: 337–368.
OSSii (2016) OSS interoperability initiative. URL: http://www.ossii.net/. Cited 2016/05/03. Osterwalder A (1998) The Business Model Canvas. Nonlinear Thinking. URL:
http://nonlinearthinking.typepad.com/nonlinear_thinking/2008/07/the-business-model-canvas.html. Cited 2016/05/23
Osterwalder A & Pigneur Y (2010) Business Model Generation. John Wiley and Sons. Palola M et al. (2014a) Live field trial of Licensed Shared Access (LSA) concept using LTE
network in 2.3 GHz band. Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks. McLean, VA: 38– 47.
Palola M et al. (2014b) Description of Finnish Licensed Shared Access (LSA) field trial using TD-LTE in 2.3 GHz band. IEEE International Symposium on Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks, McLean, VA: 374–375.
Palola M et al. (2014c) Licensed Shared Access (LSA) trial demonstration using real LTE network. Proceedings of the International Conference on Cognitive Radio Oriented Wireless Networks and Communications. Oulu: 498–502.
Patil VM & Patil SR (2016) A survey on spectrum sensing algorithms for cognitive radio. Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Advances in Human Machine Interaction 1: 1–5.
Pawelczak P, Nolan K, Doyle L, Oh SW & Cabric D (2011) Cognitive radio: Ten years of experimentation and development. IEEE Communications Magazine 49(3): 90–100.
Peha JM (2009) Sharing spectrum through spectrum policy reform and cognitive radio. Proceedings of the IEEE 97(4):708–719.
Pérez E, Friederichs KJ, Viering I & Naranjo JD (2014) Optimization of Authorised/Licensed Shared Access resources. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Cognitive Radio Oriented Wireless Networks and Communications. Oulu: 241–246.
Pogorel G & Bohlin E (2014) Valuation and pricing of Licensed Shared Access: Next generation pricing for next generation spectrum access. 10th annual European Spectrum management conference. URL: https://webperso.telecom-paristech.fr/front/frontoffice.php?SP_ID=9&. Cited 2016/05/02.
Polak L, Kaller O, Klozar L, Sebesta J & Kratochvil T (2014) Mobile Communication Networks and Digital Television Broadcasting Systems in the Same Frequency Bands: Advanced Co-Existence Scenarios. Radioengineering 23(1): 375–386.
Polak L et al. (2015) Study of coexistence between indoor LTE femtocell and outdoor-to-indoor DVB-T2-Lite reception in a shared frequency band. EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking:114.
131
Polak L et al. (2016) Coexistence Between DVB-T/T2 and LTE Standards in Common Frequency Bands. Springer Wireless Personal Communications: 1–16.
Porter M (1985) Competitive Advantage. New York, Free Press. Porter M (2008) The Five Competitive Forces That Shape Strategy. Harvard business
Review 86(1): 78–93. Prahalad CK & Hamel G (1990) The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business
Review 68(3): 79–91. Ramos J (2006) Dimensions in the confluence of futures studies and action research. Futures
38: 642–655. Reason P (2006) Choice and quality in action research practice. Journal of Management
Inquiry 15(2):187–202. Reed JH et al. (2016) On the co-existence of TD-LTE and Radar over 3.5 GHz Band: An
Experimental Study. IEEE Wireless Communications Letters 99:1–1. RED Technologies (2016a) Ericsson, RED Technologies and Qualcomm Inc. conduct the
first Licensed Shared Access (LSA) pilot in France. URL: http://www.redtechnologies.fr/news/ericsson-red-technologies-and-qualcomm-inc-conduct-first-licensed-shared-access-lsa-pilot-france. Cited 2016/05/02.
RED Technologies (2016b) Live SAS demonstration in 3.5 GHz. ETSI’s Radio Virtual Machine & Security for Multi-RAT Reconfigurable Systems workshop, Rennes Cesson-Sévigné, France.
Ribadeneira-Ramírez J, Martínez G, Gómez-Barquero D & Cardona N (2016) Interference Analysis Between Digital Terrestrial Television (DTT) and 4G LTE Mobile Networks in the Digital Dividend Bands. IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting 62(1): 24–34.
Richardson J (2008) The business model: an integrative framework for strategy execution. Strategic Change 17: 133–144.
Robinson J (1990) Futures under glass: a recipe for people who hate to predict. Futures 22(8): 820–842.
RSPG (2010) 10-306: Radio Spectrum Policy Group Report on “Cognitive technologies. European Commission, Radio Spectrum Policy Group.
RSPG (2013) 13-538: Opinion on Licensed Shared Access. European Commission, Radio Spectrum Policy Group.
RSPG (2015) 15-595: Opinion on a long-term strategy on the future use of the UHF band. European Commission, Radio Spectrum Policy Group.
RSPG (2016) 16-031: Strategic roadmap towards 5G for Europe – Draft RSPG Opinion on spectrum related aspects for next-generation wireless systems (5G). European Commission, Radio Spectrum Policy Group.
Sabatier V, Mangematin V & Rousselle T (2010). From recipe to dinner: Business model portfolios in the European Biopharmaceutical industry. Long Range Planning 43(3–4): 431–447.
Saunders M, Lewis P & Thornhill A (2012) Research methods for business students. 6th edition. Harlow, Prentice Hall.
132
Singh B, Koufos K, Tirkkonen O and Berry R (2015) Co-primary inter-operator spectrum sharing over a limited spectrum pool using repeated games. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Communications, London: 1494–1499.
Smura T & Sorri A (2009). Future scenarios for local area access: Industry structure and access fragmentation. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Mobile Business. Dalian: 57–63.
Sohul M, Yao M, Yang T & Reed J (2015) Spectrum access system for the citizen broadband radio service. IEEE Communications Magazine 53(7): 18–25.
Stampfl G, Prügl R & Osterloh V (2013) An explorative model of business model scalability. International Journal of Product Development 18(3/4): 226–248.
Stephany A (2015) The Business of Sharing: Making it in the New Sharing Economy. Palgrave and Macmillan.
Stevenson T (2002). Anticipatory action learning: conversations about the future. Futures 34: 417–425.
Stewart C (2008) Integral scenarios: Reframing theory, building from practice. Futures 40: 160–172.
Sundararajan A (2013) From Zipcar to the Sharing Economy. The Harvard Business Review. URL: https://hbr.org/2013/01/from-zipcar-to-the-sharing-eco. Cited 2016/04/28. Cited 2016/04/28.
Sundararajan A (2016) The Sharing Economy: The End of Employment and the Rise of Crowd-Based Capitalism. MIT Press.
Suomi H, Basaure A & Hämmäinen H (2013) Effects of capacity sharing on mobile access competition. Proceedings of the 21st IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols. Göttingen, Germany: 1-6.
Teece D (2009) Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Teece D (2010) Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning 43(2–3): 172–194.
Tonmukayakul A & Weiss M (2008) A study of secondary spectrum use using agent-based computational economics. Netnomics 9(2): 125–151.
Tsoukas H & Shepherd J (2004). Managing the future: Foresight in the knowledge economy. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Van Alstyne M, Parker G & Choudary S (2016) Pipelines, Platforms, and the New Rules of Strategy. Harvard Business Review. April: 54–63.
Van Der Hejden K (2007) Scenarios – The art of strategic conversation, 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons.
Vedomosti (2016) Cognitive radio technology trials by MegaFon and Nokia will allow for more rational frequency usage. Vedomosti. URL: https://www.vedomosti.ru/technology/articles/2016/07/07/648263-megafonom-nokia Cited 2016/07/14.
Voros J (2007) Integral Futures: An approach to futures inquiry. Futures 40: 190–201. Wang B & Liu KJR (2011) Advances in cognitive radio networks: A survey. IEEE Journal
of Selected Topics in Signal Processing 5(1): 5–23.
133
Wang C & Ahmed P (2007) Dynamic capabilities: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews 9(1): 31–51.
Wellens M & Mähönen P (2010) Lessons Learned from an Extensive Spectrum Occupancy Measurement Campaign and a Stochastic Duty Cycle Model. Mobile Networks and Applications 15(3): 461–474.
White House (2012) President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) Report Realizing the Full Potential of Government-Held Spectrum to Spur Economic Growth. The White House.
White House (2013) Presidential Memorandum Expanding America’s Leadership in Wireless Innovation. The White House.
Widaa AA, Markendahl J & Amirhossein G (2013) Investment strategies for different actors in indoor mobile market: "In view of the emerging spectrum authorization schemes. Proceedings of the 24th European Regional Conference of the International Telecommunication Society. Florence.
WInnF (2015a) SAS Functional Architecture. Spectrum Sharing Committee of the Wireless Innovation Forum. URL: Available: http://groups.winnforum.org/d/do/8512. Cited 2016/04/28.
WInnF (2015b) WINNF-15-P-0023 Interim SAS to CBSD Protocol Technical Report-A. Spectrum Sharing Committee (SSC) of the Wireless Innovation Forum.
WInnF (2016a) Spectrum Sharing Committee (SSC) of the Wireless Innovation Forum (WInnF). URL: http://groups.winnforum.org/page/spectrum-sharing-committee. Cited 2016/04/28.
WInnF (2016b) WINNF-15-P-0062-1.0.0 SAS to CBSD Protocol Technical Report-B. Spectrum Sharing Committee (SSC) of the Wireless Innovation Forum.
WInnF (2016c) WINNF-15-P-0051-V1.0.0 SAS to SAS Interface TR-A. Spectrum Sharing Committee (SSC) of the Wireless Innovation Forum.
WInnF (2016d) WINNF-16-P-0003-1.0.0 SAS to SAS Interface TR-B. Spectrum Sharing Committee (SSC) of the Wireless Innovation Forum.
WInnF (2016e) WINNF-15-S-0112-V1.0.0 CBRS Operational and Functional Requirements. Spectrum Sharing Committee (SSC) of the Wireless Innovation Forum.
Winter S (2003) Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal 24(10): 991–995.
Wirtz B, Schilke O & Ullrich S (2010) Strategic development of business models – implications of the web 2.0 for creating value on the internet. Long Range Planning 43: 272–290.
Yang B, Guo W, Jin Y & Wang S (2016) Smartphone data usage: downlink and uplink asymmetry. IEEE Electronics Letters 52 (3): 243–245.
Yang Y and Sung KW (2015) Tradeoff between spectrum and densification for achieving target user throughput. Proceedings of the IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference, Spring, Glasgow: 1–6.
Yin RK (2009) Case Study Research: Design and Methods (4th ed.) Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
134
Yoon H, Hwang J & Weiss MBH (2010) Research on secondary spectrum trading mechanisms based on technical and market changes. Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on New Frontiers in Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks. Singapore 1:1–12.
Yoshino H (2012) ITU-R standardization activities on cognitive radio. IEICE Transactions on Communications 95(4): 1036–1043.
Yucek T & Arslan H (2009) A survey of spectrum sensing algorithms for cognitive radio applications. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials 11(1): 116–130.
Yrjölä S & Heikkinen E (2015a) Interference reduction. Patent EP 2905984 A1 Yrjölä S et al. (2015b) Licensed Shared Access (LSA) field trial using LTE network and
Self Organized Network LSA controller. Proceedings of the Wireless Innovation Forum European Conference on Communication Technologies and Software Defined Radio. Erlangen, WINNF: 16–25.
Yrjölä S (2016a) Citizens Broadband Radio Service spectrum sharing framework – A new business opportunity for Mobile Network Operators. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Advances in Cognitive Radio. Lisbon, IARIA: 39–44.
Yrjölä S (2016b) Analysis of sharing economy business antecedents for recent spectrum sharing concepts. Proceedings of the 2016 International Workshop on Smart Wireless Communications (SmartCom) conference. Oulu, IEICE.
Yrjölä S et al. (2016c) Field trial of Licensed Shared Access (LSA) with enhanced LSA controller power control concept algorithms. Proceedings of the Wireless Innovation Forum Conference on Wireless Communication Technologies and Software Defined Radio. Reston, WINNF: 68–77.
Yrjölä S, Ahokangas P & Talmola P (2016b) Business models for mobile network operators utilizing the hybrid use concept of the UHF broadcasting spectrum. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference Cognitive Radio Oriented Wireless Networks and Communications. Grenoble, EAI: 683–694.
Yrjölä S, Matinmikko M, Mustonen M & Ahokangas P (2016c) Analysis of dynamic capabilities in the citizens broadband radio service. Proceedings of Wireless Innovation Forum Conference on Wireless Communication Technologies and Software Defined Radio. Reston, VA: 58–67.
Zahra S, Sapienza H & Davidson P (2006) Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: A review, model and research agenda. The Journal of Management Studies 43(4): 917–955.
Zander J (1997) On the cost structure of future wideband wireless access. Proceedings of the IUEE Vehicular Technology Conference, Phoenix, 47(3): 1773–1776.
Zander J et al. (2013) On the scalability of cognitive radio: assessing the commercial viability of secondary spectrum access. IEEE Wireless Communications 20(2): 28–36.
Zander J & Mähönen P (2013) Riding the Data Tsunami in the Cloud – Myths and Challenges in Future Wireless Access. IEEE Communications Magazine 51(3): 145– 151.
Zott C & Amit R (2010) Business model design: An activity system perspective. Long Range Planning 43(2/3): 216–226.
135
3GPP (2012) TR 36.808 Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA); Carrier Aggregation; Base Station (BS) radio transmission and reception. 3rd Generation Partnership Project.
3GPP (2013) TS 32.522 V11.7.0 SON Policy and Optimization Function Definitions. 3rd Generation Partnership Project.
3GPP (2014) TS 25.346 Multimedia Broadcast/Multicast Service (MBMS); Protocols and Codecs. 3rd Generation Partnership Project.
3GPP (2015a) TR 22.816 Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; 3GPP Enhancement for TV Service [Rel-14]. 3rd Generation Partnership Project.
3GPP (2015b) TR 36.889: Feasibility Study on Licensed-Assisted Access to Unlicensed Spectrum. 3rd Generation Partnership Project.
3GPP (2016a) TR 32.855 Study on OAM support for Licensed Shared Access (LSA) [Rel-13]. 3rd Generation Partnership Project.
3GPP (2016b) TS 32.101: Telecommunication management; Principles and high-level requirements [Rel-13]. 3rd Generation Partnership Project.
3GPP (2016c) TS 28.301 V0.3.0: Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Telecommunication Management; Licensed Shared Access (LSA) Controller (LC) Integration Reference Point (IRP); Requirements [Rel-14]. 3rd Generation Partnership Project.
3GPP (2016d) RP-161219: Work Item Description CBRS 3.5 GHz band for LTE in the United States. The 3rd Generation Partnership Project.
5G-PPP (2016) 5G empowering vertical industries. Roadmap paper. The 5G Infrastructure Public Private Partnership. URL: https://5g-ppp.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/BROCHURE_5PPP_BAT2_PL.pdf. Cited 2016/07/14.
136
137
Original publications
I Yrjola S & Heikkinen E (2014) Active antenna system enhancement for supporting Licensed Shared Access (LSA) concept. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Cognitive Radio Oriented Wireless Networks and Communications. Oulu, IEEE: 291–298.
II Yrjölä S, Ahokangas P, Matinmikko M & Talmola P (2014) Incentives for the key stakeholders in the hybrid use of the UHF broadcasting spectrum utilizing Supplemental Downlink: A dynamic capabilities view. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on 5G for Ubiquitous Connectivity (5GU). Levi, IEEE: 215–221.
III Yrjölä S, Ahokangas P & Matinmikko M (2015) Evaluation of recent spectrum sharing concepts from business model scalability point of view. Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks. Stockholm, IEEE: 241–250.
IV Yrjölä S, Matinmikko M, Mustonen M & Ahokangas P (2017) Analysis of dynamic capabilities for spectrum sharing in the citizens broadband radio service. Springer Journal Special Issue, Analog Integrated Circuits & Signal Processing: 1–15.
V Yrjölä S, Matinmikko M & Ahokangas P (2016) Licensed Shared Access to spectrum. In: Matyjas JD et al. (ed.) Spectrum Sharing in Wireless Networks: Fairness, Efficiency, and Security. Taylor & Francis LLC, CRC Press: 139–164.
VI Yrjölä S, Hartikainen V, Tudose L, Ojaniemi J, Kivinen A & Kippola T (2016) Field trial of Licensed Shared Access with enhanced spectrum controller power control algorithms and LTE enablers. The Springer Journal of Signal Processing Systems: 1–14.
VII Yrjölä S, Mustonen M, Matinmikko M & Talmola P (2016) LTE broadcast and supplemental downlink enablers for exploiting novel service and business opportunities in the flexible use of the UHF broadcasting spectrum. IEEE Communication Magazine. 54(7):76–83.
VIII Yrjölä S, Ahokangas P, Paavola J & Talmola P (2015) Strategic choices for mobile network operators in future flexible UHF spectrum concepts? In: Weichold M et al. (ed.) Cognitive Radio Oriented Wireless Networks, Springer: 573–584.
IX Yrjölä S, Huuhka E, Talmola P & Knuutila T (2016) Coexistence of Digital Terrestrial Television and 4G LTE Mobile Network utilizing Supplemental Downlink concept: A Real Case Study. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology PP(99): 1–1.
X Yrjola S (2016) Citizens Broadband Radio Service Spectrum Sharing Framework – A New Strategic Option for Mobile Network Operators? International Journal On Advances in Telecommunications, Iaria, 9(3&4): 77–86.
XI Yrjölä S, Ahokangas P & Talmola P (2016) Scenarios and business models for mobile network operators utilizing the hybrid use concept of the UHF broadcasting spectrum. EAI Endorsed Transactions on Cognitive Communications 16(7): e5.
138
Reprinted with permission from IEEE (I, II, III, VII, IX), Springer (IV, VI, VIII),
Taylor & Francis LLC, CRC Press (V), Iaria (X) and EAI (XI).
Original publications are not included in the electronic version of the dissertation.
A C T A U N I V E R S I T A T I S O U L U E N S I S
Book orders:Granum: Virtual book storehttp://granum.uta.fi/granum/
S E R I E S C T E C H N I C A
590. Erkkilä-Häkkinen, Sirpa (2016) Rakentamisen työturvallisuuteen suhtautuminentoimijoiden kokemuksina
591. Hassani Nezhad Gashti, Ehsan (2016) Thermo-mechanical behaviour of ground-source thermo-active structures
592. Sulasalmi, Petri (2016) Modelling of slag emulsification and slag reduction in CAS-OB process
593. Liyanage, Madhusanka (2016) Enhancing security and scalability of Virtual PrivateLAN Services
594. Darif, Bouchra (2016) Synthesis and characterization of catalysts used for thecatalytic oxidation of sulfur-containing volatile organic compounds : focus onsulfur-induced deactivation
595. Juholin, Piia (2016) Hybrid membrane processes in industrial water treatment :separation and recovery of inorganic compounds
596. Augustine, Bobins (2016) Efficiency and stability studies for organic bulkheterojunction solar cells
597. Ylioinas, Juha (2016) Towards optimal local binary patterns in texture and facedescription
598. Mohammadighavam, Shahram (2017) Hydrological and hydraulic design ofpeatland drainage and water treatment systems for optimal control of diffusepollution
599. Louis, Jean-Nicolas (2016) Dynamic environmental indicators for smart homes :assessing the role of home energy management systems in achieving decarbonisationgoals in the residential sector
600. Mustamo, Pirkko (2017) Greenhouse gas fluxes from drained peat soils : acomparison of different land use types and hydrological site characteristics
601. Upola, Heikki (2017) Disintegration of packaging material : an experimental studyof approaches to lower energy consumption
602. Eskelinen, Riku (2017) Runoff generation and load estimation in drained peatlandareas
603. Kokkoniemi, Joonas (2017) Nanoscale sensor networks : the THz band as acommunication channel
604. Luoto, Petri (2017) Co-primary multi-operator resource sharing for small cellnetworks
C605etukansi.kesken.fm Page 2 Monday, February 6, 2017 3:40 PM
UNIVERSITY OF OULU P .O. Box 8000 F I -90014 UNIVERSITY OF OULU FINLAND
A C T A U N I V E R S I T A T I S O U L U E N S I S
Professor Esa Hohtola
University Lecturer Santeri Palviainen
Postdoctoral research fellow Sanna Taskila
Professor Olli Vuolteenaho
University Lecturer Veli-Matti Ulvinen
Director Sinikka Eskelinen
Professor Jari Juga
University Lecturer Anu Soikkeli
Professor Olli Vuolteenaho
Publications Editor Kirsti Nurkkala
ISBN 978-952-62-1498-6 (Paperback)ISBN 978-952-62-1499-3 (PDF)ISSN 0355-3213 (Print)ISSN 1796-2226 (Online)
U N I V E R S I TAT I S O U L U E N S I SACTAC
TECHNICA
U N I V E R S I TAT I S O U L U E N S I SACTAC
TECHNICA
OULU 2017
C 605
Seppo Yrjölä
ANALYSIS OF TECHNOLOGY AND BUSINESS ANTECEDENTS FOR SPECTRUM SHARINGIN MOBILE BROADBAND NETWORKS
UNIVERSITY OF OULU GRADUATE SCHOOL;UNIVERSITY OF OULU,FACULTY OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING
C 605
ACTA
Seppo YrjöläC605etukansi.kesken.fm Page 1 Monday, February 6, 2017 3:40 PM