Subject: [gaia] Today's plenary presentations & spectrum

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 20:29:50 +0000

Steve (+ Leandro and Jonathan),

Many thanks for tonight's very interesting plenary presentations. 
Much new information to all of us, and food for thought.

I had a comment on the spectrum allocations topic. I agree that 
unnecessary pricing of spectrum ends up costing, in the end, to 
the citizens and society. And I loved your analogy of the glass
jar with stones. There’d be so much more to share with fine
grained allocation policy.

But were you also trying to indicate that mobile networks
are eating up too much spectrum? I’m not entirely sure
I agree with you there. First off, on a global scale they provide
a large fraction of Internet connectivity, so it would seem
fair to allocate spectrum where it delivers value for
the end users. Also, I think we are in a relatively
fortunate situation that as technology develops to
5G or even beyond, cell sizes are decreasing and
frequencies are increasing. Other things being equal,
this should accommodate quite a bit more simultaneous 
use of spectrum resources, which is obviously good.
Of course, we also have a large demand for bandwidth
by consumers and others, which I think means that
the spectrum that is actually allocated does get to
use.

Thoughts?

Jari

---

From: Steve Song <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 09:58:24 +0000

Hi Jari,

> the spectrum that is actually allocated does get to
Thanks for your feedback, particularly about glass jar analogy which I was
not sure would communicate well or not.

In answer to your question, I don't think mobile networks are eating up too
much spectrum.  I think there is enough for everyone.  It is definitely a
"yes and" as opposed to an "either or" situation. I should have made that
clearer in my talk and will do so in future.

What I do think is happening is that mobile network operators are taking a
lot of the air in the room when it comes to spectrum regulation.  Not
nearly enough regulatory attention is given to unlicensed and dynamic
spectrum approaches to regulation.  Here in the UK for example, TVWS
(dynamic spectrum) regulation and the expansion of the unlicensed bands in
5GHz have taken a back seat to pressure from operators to make 5G spectrum
available.  There is not enough lobbying going on at regulatory agencies
for spectrum and rules to enable the "smaller stones" in the jar.

I think there is also an opportunity for a middle ground where operators
are assigned spectrum (perhaps through auction) on a "use it or share it"
basis that would allow rural connectivity initiatives access on a secondary
basis to spectrum "owned" by mobile operators in areas where they have no
coverage.  This might be in exchange for a reduction in universal services
fees for the operator.  I think there are lots of opportunities for win-win
scenarios like this.

Cheers... Steve

-- 
+1 902 529 0046
[email-masked]
http://nsrc.org

---

From: Rohan Mahy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 07:14:54 -0700

Hi,
I would like to emphasize what Steve said about “use it or share it” with
an anecdote from the US. Less than one hour from San Francisco and San
Jose, California, the towns on the coast have several pockets with no
mobile phone reception at all. I have friends and colleagues who live in
the Santa Cruz Mountains, thirty minutes drive from San Jose who are using
dialup modems because they have neither mobile reception nor terrestrial
broadband. When spectrum is assigned on a nationwide basis, there is little
incentive for the spectrum owners to serve areas with relatively lower
population density and/or more difficult topography. Requiring operators to
share spectrum, or pricing spectrum dynamically at a granular geographic
level, makes it feasible for other entities, including cooperatives and
municipalities, to fill these gaps.
Thanks,
-rohan

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 2:58 AM, Steve Song <[email-masked]> wrote:

> In answer to your question, I don't think mobile networks are eating up
> too much spectrum.  I think there is enough for everyone.  It is definitely
> a "yes and" as opposed to an "either or" situation. I should have made that
> +1 902 529 0046 <(902)%20529-0046>
> [email-masked]
> http://nsrc.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gaia mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
>
>

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 19:58:06 +0000

Ok, thanks for the explanation. I also like the “use it or share it” model, and other dynamic allocation schemes.

Jari