UNIVERSITATIS OULUENSIS ACTA C TECHNICA OULU 2017 C 605 Seppo Yrjölä ANALYSIS OF TECHNOLOGY AND BUSINESS ANTECEDENTS FOR SPECTRUM SHARING IN MOBILE BROADBAND NETWORKS UNIVERSITY OF OULU GRADUATE SCHOOL; UNIVERSITY OF OULU, FACULTY OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING C 605 ACTA Seppo Yrjölä
142
Embed
OULU 2017 ACTAjultika.oulu.fi/files/isbn9789526214993.pdf · Publications Editor Kirsti Nurkkala ISBN 978-952-62-1498-6 (Paperback) ISBN 978-952-62-1499-3 (PDF) ISSN 0355-3213 (Print)
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
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
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.
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
3 Theoretical foundations of the business research 53 3.1 Strategic management concepts .............................................................. 54
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
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–
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 (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 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.
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 (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 (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:
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.
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 (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
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