This contribution addresses the impact of cognitive radio on the regime of radio spectrum governance. To avoid harmful interference the current paradigm of spectrum governance uses the principle of separation. Thereby each application and user or user group is being assigned a specific part of the spectrum for a specific location. Cognitive radio defies this principle because cognitive radios monitor the spectrum and select an unused part for their transmission. This capability provides a new solution in addressing the issue of spectrum scarcity. However, its dynamic operating principle to access spectrum runs counter to the prevailing static spectrum management method.
The focus of this contribution is on the implications of dynamic spectrum access for national and international spectrum policy in the light of the current practice of assignments based on (exclusive) usage rights and prescribed applications.
BauerJ.M. (2002) “A Comparitive Analysis of Spectrum Management Regimes”, Quello Working Papers.
2.
BaumolW.J. and RobynD. (2006) Toward an Evolutionary Regime for Spectrum Governance – Licensing or Unrestricted Policy. AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies.
3.
BenklerY. (1998) “Overcoming Agoraphobia: Building the Commons of the Digitally Networked Environment”, Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 11 (2): 287–400.
4.
BenklerY. (2002) “Some Economics of Wireless Communications”, Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 16 (1): 25–83.
CaveM.DoyleC. (2007) Essentials of Modern Spectrum Management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8.
CoaseR. (1959) “The Federal Communications Commission”, Journal of Law and Economics, 2 (October): 1–40.
9.
CoaseR. (1960) “The Problem of Social Cost”, Journal of Law and Economics, 3 (1): 1–44.
10.
BourseD.AgustiR. (2007) The E2R II Flexible Spectrum Management (FSM) Framework and Cognitive Pilot Channel (CPC) Concept – Technical and Business Analysis and Recommendations. E2R II White Paper.
11.
EC (1999) “Directive 1999/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity”, Official Journal, L 091 (07/04/1999): 0010–0028.
12.
ECC (2008) CEPT Report 24: A preliminary assessment of the feasibility of fitting new/future applications/services into non-harmonised spectrum of the digital dividend (namely the so-called “white spaces” between allotments). Electronic Communications Committee (ECC) within the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT).
13.
EtkinR.ParekhA. (2005) “Spectrum Sharing for Unlicensed Bands”, New Frontiers in Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks, 2005. DySPAN 2005.1st IEEE Symposium on.
14.
FaulhaberG.R. (2005) The Question of Spectrum: Technology, Management, and Regime Change (05–15). AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies.
15.
FaulhaberG.R. and FarberD.J. (2003) “Spectrum Management: Property rights, markets and the commons”, In CravenF. and WildemanS. (eds), Rethinking rights and Regulations: Institutional Response to New Communications Technologies. MIT Press.
16.
FCC (2004) FCC 04–113 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, in the Matter of Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands (ET Docket no. 04-186) and Additional Spectrum for Unlicensed Devices below 900 MHz and in the 3 GHz Band (ET Docket no. 02-380). Washington: Federal Communications Commission.
17.
FCC (2006) FCC 06–156 First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making In the Matter of Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands (ET Docket No. 04-186) and Additional Spectrum for Unlicensed Devices Below 900 MHz and in the 3 GHz Band (ET Docket No. 02-380). Washington: Federal Communications Commission.
18.
FCC (2008) FCC 08–260 Second Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order in the Matter of Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands. Washington: Federal Communications Commission.
19.
FeenyD.BerkesF. (1990) “The Tragedy of the Commons: Twenty-two years later”, Human Ecology, 18 (1): 1–19.
20.
HardinG. (1968) “The tragedy of the commons”, Science, 162: 1243–1248.
21.
HaykinS. (2005) “Cognitive radio: Brain-empowered wireless communications”, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 23 (2): 201–220.
22.
HazlettT. (2001) The Wireless Craze, The Unlimited Bandwidth Myth, The Spectrum Auction Faux Pas, and the Punchline to Ronald Coase's ‘Big Joke’: An Essay on Airwave Allocation Policy. AEI-Brookings Joint Center Working Paper No. 01-2. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=286932.
23.
HerzelL. (1951) “Public Interest and the Market in Color Television Regulation”, University of Chicago Law Review, 18: 802–816.
24.
ITU-R (2009) SG-1 Document 1/65-E: DRAFT NEW REPORT ITU-R SM.[SDR-CRS] – Definitions of Software Defined Radio (SDR) and Cognitive Radio System (CRS). Geneva.
25.
ITU (2004) “Radio Spectrum Management for a Converging World”, Workshop on Radio Spectrum Management for a Converging World. Geneva, 16–18 February.
26.
KirbyR.C. (1995) “History and Trends in International Radio Regulations”, IEE International Conference on 100 Years of Radio.
27.
KwerelE. and WilliamsJ. (2002) A Proposal for a Rapid Transition to Market Allocation of Spectrum.
28.
LehrW. and JesualeN. (2008) “Spectrum Pooling for Next Generation Public Safety Radio Systems”, New Frontiers in Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks, 2008. DySPAN 2008. 3rd IEEE Symposium on.
29.
LibecapG.D. (2005) “State Regulation of Open Access, Common-Pool Resources”, In MenardC. and ShirleyM.M. (eds), Handbook of New Insitutional Economics. Springer.
30.
MitolaJ. and MaguireG.Q. (1999) “Cognitive radio: Making software radios more personal”, IEEE Personal Communications Magazine, 6 (4): 13–18.
31.
MuellerM. (1993) “New Zealand's revolution in spectrum management”, Information Economics and Policy, 5 (2): 159–177.
NoamE. (1998) “Spectrum Auctions: Yesterday's Heresy, Today's Orthodoxy, Tomorrow's Anachronism. Taking the Next Step to Open Spectrum Access.”, Journal of Law and Economics, XLI: 765–790.
OstromE. (1990) Governing the commons. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
36.
OstromE.BurgerJ. (1999) “Revisiting the commons: Local lessons, global challenges”, Science, 284 (5412): 278–282.
37.
OstromE.GardnerR. (1994) Rules, Games and Common-Pool Resources. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
38.
OstromE. and HessC. (2007) Private and Common Property Rights. Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1304699.
39.
PawelczakP.PrasadR.V. (2005) “Cognitive radio emergency networks-requirements and design”, First IEEE International Symposium on New Frontiers in Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks. DySPAN 2005. Baltimore, MD, USA.
40.
PogorelG. (2007) “Regulation and Competition – Nine Regimes of Radio Spectrum Management: A 4-Step Decision Guide”, Communications & Strategies, 65 (1st quarter): 169–183.
41.
PrasadR.V.PawelczakP. (2008) “Cognitive functionality in next generation wireless networks: Standardization efforts [cognitive radio communications]”, IEEE Communications Magazine, 46 (4): 72–78.
42.
ShuklaA. (2007) Cognitive Radio Technology: A Study for Ofcom-Volume 1. QinetiQ Ltd, Tech. Rep. QINETIC/06/00420, February 2007, available at www.macltd.com/publications.php.
43.
TietenbergT. (2002) “The Tradable Permits Approach to Protecting the Commons: What Have We Learned?”, In OstromE.DietzT.DolšaketN. al (eds), The Drama of the Commons. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
44.
TingC.WildmanS.S. (2005) “Comparing welfare for spectrum property and spectrum commons governance regimes”, Telecommunications Policy, 29: 711–730.
