Spectrum Policy – IEEE ComSoc Technology Blog

According to the mmWave Coalition, most 5G and 6G discussions to date are focused on lower frequencies. “A key reason for this is that it is hard to justify a business case for sub-THZ mobile spectrum use at present as there are now basic technical questions, technological hurdles, and cost issues, yet these are fertile and active areas of research which may eventually lead to compelling opportunities for mobile use in this spectrum.”

Policymakers shouldn’t forget the potential of very high frequency spectrum [1.], the Coalition said last week in response to the National Science Foundation’s request for information (RFI) on the national spectrum research and development plan, which is part of the U.S. national spectrum strategy. The Coalition wrote:

“5G and 6G in US policy deliberations addresses both fixed and mobile users, and the 5G and 6G mobile uses are dependent on fronthaul and backhaul which are essentially fixed services. While these fixed links are often implemented in non-spectrum fiber optic links, there is a vast, growing need for wireless backhaul, especially in rural, underserved areas often where fixed wireless access is vital for rural households, and often backhaul requirements cannot always be implemented in fiber technology, due to installation urgency requirements, local terrain features that delay or block installation, cost, or short term requirements that make fiber optic installation uneconomical”

Note 1. ITU-R Report R M.2376 contains studies of frequency ranges (6-100 GHz) for International Mobile Telecommunications (IMT) technologies. It is envisioned that future IMT systems will need to support very high throughput data links to cope with the growth of the data traffic, new extremely bandwidth demanding use cases, as well as new capabilities of integrated sensing and communication (ISAC). There has been academic and industry research and development ongoing related to suitability of mobile broadband systems in frequency bands above 92 GHz to enable services requiring tera-bit per second speeds. This has prompted researchers to consider the technical feasibility of higher frequency bands in IMT.

An ITU-R preliminary draft new report in progress provides information on the technical feasibility of IMT in bands between 92 GHz and 400 GHz. This draft report complements the studies carried in Report ITU-R M.2376.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

The Dynamic Spectrum Alliance (DSA) said the RFI is on target in the areas it suggests for research. “Efficiency, dynamic spectrum access and management, automated interference mitigation, and coexistence modeling are all areas in which the DSA and our members have keen interest and extensive experience. We also fully support efforts to study the economic-, market-, social-, and human-centric aspects of increasing spectrum access.”

DSA called on the NSF to take into account innovative licensing frameworks that are already working, including the citizens broadband radio service band and 6 GHz. “Given the historical success of the variety of spectrum sharing techniques in different bands designed to protect different incumbents … there is no one size fits all solution to spectrum sharing,” DSA said.

One term of interest is ‘‘Dynamic Spectrum Sharing’’ which is a focus of the National Spectrum Strategy but was not defined. The DSA defines Dynamic Spectrum Sharing as the use of both innovative licensing frameworks, such as those that enable opportunistic access, and automated dynamic spectrum management tools to coordinate spectrum assignments, increase spectrum efficiency, and expand spectrum access for a wide range of new users while also protecting incumbent operations.

Dynamic Spectrum Sharing between 4G and 5G Networks

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

AT&T urged the administration to more clearly define the term dynamic spectrum sharing. The definition should include an “examination of full-power licensed use” and “development of a basis for predictable times and/or geographies in which dynamically shared spectrum can be used,” AT&T said.

The U.S. carrier urged more work on interference mitigation techniques and not restricting research to “mere ‘on/off’ spectrum access controls.” The definition should seek “to define co-channel and adjacent channel interference environments to incorporate into network design and operation.”

References:

https://communicationsdaily.com/article/view?search_id=838690&id=1914125

https://s3.amazonaws.com/warren-news.com/pdf/916759

https://dynamicspectrumalliance.org/2024/DSACommentstoNSFonSpectrumRnDPlanRFI.pdf