SDR, cognitive radio, and ITU-R
Saturday, 26 January 2008
I’ve been procrastinating far too long on starting this blog, so I thought I would go ahead and start putting fingers to keyboard. The issue of the day is how to get industry behind global regulatory reform to promote more efficient use of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Groups such as the SDR Forum and IEEE Standards Coordinating Committee 41 (SCC41) (Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks) are doing what they can, but to date, they still lack a focused commercial approach.
In early February, Working Party 5A of the International Telecommunication Union – Radiocommunication Sector (ITU-R) will be holding a seminar on software defined radio (SDR). It will also be examining questions on SDR and cognitive radio (CR). The SDR Forum has submitted a contribution on the CR questions, but will not have any one present to discuss its document. IEEE SCC41 has submitted an informational presentation for the seminar. Someone will be present to deliver the SCC41 presentation, but SCC41 has not identified someone to represent its interests beyond this initial meeting.
Why is industry “feet on the ground” support for ITU-R activities related to SDR/CR seemingly so weak? Is it because industry believes it can proceed without ITU-R action, perhaps focusing on the reform of national rules where necessary? Is it because firms would rather pursue their agenda through means other than industry and professional associations? Is it because these industry groups are still young and do not yet have the resources or sophistication to provide significant support?
I seek comments on what it will take to jump start a global reform agenda in this space.
Why is industry “feet on the ground” support for ITU-R activities related to SDR/CR seemingly so weak?
The value proposition is unclear. Or put another way, the costs outweighed the benefits.
If it had been a standard (like .22 or even the upcoming SCC41 policy language standard) or if it had been a proposed rule making, then there would’ve been significant potential benefit and I think businesses would’ve turned out in droves.
Personally, I contributed responses (in the SDRF response) because I wanted to do dry runs on material I intended to include in proposals I was writing at the time. However, once that was done, I perceived no further value to be gained from further participation, particularly when weighed against the cost of traveling halfway around the world.
Now if it had been possible to literally phone in a presentation of the SDRF material, the ITU probably could’ve gotten the entire SDRF CRWG to make a presentation (particularly if it overlapped with existing CRWG teleconference times).
So the lower the perceived benefits, the lower the perceived costs need to be to elicit active participation.
So if you want to jump start a global reform agenda, you need to either a) lower participation costs (via teleconferences and online forums) or b) raise benefits (via standards and proposed rules).
[...] 2 cents (spelled out more fully in the comments) is because the perceived benefit is negligible, any incurred costs make particpating a losing [...]