Under pressure: tackling railway connectivity in 2016 (downloadable guide)

Railway connectivityWireless connectivity on trains is set to become a key area of focus for the wireless industry over the coming years. On-board connectivity remains a significant technical challenge; providing connectivity to people within a fast-moving object that often encounters mobile blackspots is inherently difficult. However, pressure is rising from governments and passengers to improve the current levels of wireless service available on trains.

Currently, enhanced on-board wireless solutions face two major barriers. The first is how to enable cellular connectivity. The second is how to secure sufficient capacity for on-train usage and the necessary backhaul where on-train Wi-Fi is installed. While the technologies are available today to solve these challenges, the business case for moving connectivity along remains largely elusive.

rail-connectivityNow though we are seeing some interesting moves in the market that may help to break the commercial deadlock we have seen in recent years. In particular governments around the world are now attempting to ease some of the pressure by investing in connectivity for trains. The UK government is investing £50m to ensure passengers benefit from free Wi-Fi by 2017. The state government of Victoria, Australia, has committed $40m to tackle mobile coverage blackspots across the region’s Geelong, Ballarat, Bendigo, Seymour and Traralgon lines.

Although these developments are welcome, ultimately the ‘right’ solution needs to work for train operators, mobile network operators and rail passengers alike. All industry stakeholders now need to work together to produce business cases that can benefit every party involved.

At this time of shifting market dynamics Real Wireless has put together a short guide assessing the current situation with regards to wireless on trains along with our independent expert recommendations for ensuring connectivity remains on track.

The impact of Brexit on UK use of harmonised spectrum

Logo_brexit_new_size2Later this week, voters across the United Kingdom will decide whether they wish to remain a member of the European Union. For better or worse, the result could have a major impact on many areas of UK governance that have been bound by EU legislation.

I was recently approached by Dugie Standeford of Policy Tracker to provide my opinion on what the impact of leaving the EU could be on the UK’s use of harmonised spectrum (once any negotiation period had passed and withdrawal had been agreed).

It is this: whilst the UK may be able to take a different approach to spectrum decisions to the rest of the EU, I can’t think of any where it would want to do so.

Taking the example of Decision 2007/98/EC, which harmonises the use of spectrum in the 2GHz bands for mobile satellite services that have yet to emerge, there are already plans in motion in the UK for operators to implement such services.

But more importantly, satellite services by their very nature must be regulated at an international level, therefore I doubt the UK would change direction even when it is not formally bound by the EU Decisions.

Going it alone in our allocation and use of spectrum would also ultimately lead to equipment becoming more expensive to implement, raise the risk of cross-border interference, and reduce the long-term certainty around allocations. At most we’ll see some minor relaxation of certain restrictions on the use of spectrum, or in implementation timelines.

Finally, the UK will likely remain a member of — and play an active role in — CEPT. This is the body that is responsible for much of the detailed spectrum harmonisation efforts we see in European countries, but it is not restricted to EU countries alone. As such, the UK’s involvement in these discussions will not disappear — and there’s no reason to think the government or regulators would change that.

Therefore, whilst it remains one of the most important political choices the country has been presented with in a long time, the outcome of this week’s referendum is unlikely to significantly impact the UKs of harmonised spectrum.

The full article is available to read here.

Real Wireless plays crucial role in TalkTalk spectrum variation request to Ofcom

Screen Shot 2016-05-27 at 13.53.05You may have seen the recent news that Ofcom has recommended to change the licence conditions in the “DECT guard band” after TalkTalk submitted a variation request. TalkTalk submitted the request because the company wants to deploy low-powered 4G technology in the UK in the 1781.7–1785 MHz frequencies, paired with 1876.7–1880 MHz.

This band is already allocated for mobile operators to provide 4G services within the EU, however, in the UK, this spectrum forms part of a ‘guard band’ between spectrum used by mobile networks and that used by cordless home phones. Within the UK this has been left unused to prevent interference between the two groups of users.

This variation would permit TalkTalk to deploy compliant 4G apparatus in the band, which it has owned for a number of years now, enabling it to deploy new broadband routers that feature a 4G mobile femtocell — without the need for (expensive) additional filtering.

Earlier this month, Ofcom consulted on plans to vary concurrent spectrum access licences in this band, and expressing its preliminary view that allowing low power 4G devices in this band would be acceptable and the benefits of this use would outweigh any small additional interference impact. Ofcom’s preliminary view cited three Real Wireless reports that were commissioned by TalkTalk to conduct an independent technical study into the potential interference with uses in adjacent bands.

Evidence of the impact of a potential interference was based on a measurement campaign and co-existence analysis based on Real Wireless’s extensive modelling capability. The test scenarios also spanned from small cell spectrum emissions; to impact on voice quality, dropped call rate and call hold times comparisons of a dense DECT network; and interference with a DECT-based baby monitor.

Based on these results, Real Wireless was able to propose to TalkTalk the changes to the licence conditions that were likely to be considered acceptable to Ofcom, and formed the basis of Ofcom’s recommendation.

MoD spectrum auction — business as usual or time for new entrants?

1280px-Tropo_Scatter_Microwave_System_AntennaThe recently announced MoD spectrum auction is the culmination of 10 years’ work, numerous reports and even more consultations — some of which I’ve been fortunate enough to be involved with.

It’s taken a lot of effort to get to this point and, as one of the first countries to auction off public spectrum assets, it’s a process that is being closely watched both at home and abroad.

The details of the auction have already been covered in good detail here and here and — while what’s on offer clearly isn’t going to result in a new, nationwide mobile network — we’re likely to see it being used to add capacity to existing networks in busy city centres.

The spectrum to be auctioned has some associated and additional complexities for operators to contend with, including coordination with RAF and naval bases and a much smaller device ecosystem compared to 800 MHz and 2.6 GHz.

The 2.3 GHz spectrum will be adjacent to other MOD services. As a result, new mobile services will need to both protect these existing services and also manage potential incoming interference from MOD deployments, all without impacting the QoS for users.

The mobile operators will almost certainly put in bids nonetheless. Having invested hundreds of millions in purchasing 4G licenses just over two years ago that they are yet to recoup, investment in further spectrum rather than network rollout may be challenging for some mobile operators.

But if operators didn’t bid how else could it be used?

One potential model might be the ‘small cells as a service’ approach that has been discussed for some time, but as of yet has never really got off the ground. This would allow someone, potentially a provider with existing fibre assets, to offer a small cell network over a city centre or business district and charge operators for access. Given the challenges holding back urban small cell deployments, it’s a model that many are pushing for and the FCC’s move to promote shared access for small cells in 3.5 GHz may end up driving this model in the UK.

Businesses involved in smart city or vertical applications could also be interested, particularly in the 3.4 GHz band given the issues with mobile device compatibility. The 3.5 GHz spectrum could encourage new entrants or new services from existing fixed line players, however the business case for these models is not straightforward, as existing owners of spectrum in this band can testify.

With no coverage obligations and no focus on encouraging new entrants, it is difficult to predict how this auction will develop. The varied block sizes in each band of spectrum and a number of issues with coexistence may put off one or two of the established players that have other higher priorities, instead encouraging new entrants or business models from fixed-line operators. Regardless of the outcome it’s an exciting time for the industry and great to see the spectrum finally being released to the market after many years of hard work.

How indefinite spectrum licences will encourage innovation and investment

hammer-719068_1920Back in November 2000, Ofcom held a spectrum auction of 28 GHz Broadband Fixed Wireless Access (BFWA) licences, which were sold on a 15-year fixed-term basis. During the first few years of these licence terms, some operators invested heavily into 28 GHz hardware and networks, leading to higher levels of innovation by both manufacturers and operators in this band. But operator’s investment levels have a tendency to drop when the licences get closer to the end of their term. This is due to the operator’s business plan (related to the spectrum asset) no longer yielding the required margins and return on investment (ROI).

In a more recent Ofcom spectrum auction in February 2008, 10 GHz, more 28 GHz, 32 GHz and 40 GHz spectrum access licences were auctioned on an “indefinite term”. Following this auction, the majority of licences auctioned in November 2000 have been varied to “indefinite term” too, subject to payment of fees from January 2016. In December this year, the licences awarded in November 2000 will come to the end of their initial term and Ofcom has announced proposals that will allow operators to hold spectrum indefinitely, subject to the payment of fees. This is proposed to be calculated using comparable licence costs of fixed-link in similar frequency bands. The proposal of indefinite licences based on fees will go a long way, allowing operators to sweat deployed infrastructure based on their 28 GHz licence and means that they don’t have to stop operating or replace their 28 GHz infrastructure with costly alternatives. Especially smaller operators, where a substantial amount of revenue is based on their 28 GHz infrastructure, have peace of mind that their investment is not tied to a single fixed period and will continue to grow their RoI. As a result of indefinite licensing, the spectrum value does not decrease over time in the same way as before. In contrary, more recently, the 28 GHz bands gained much more global attention as it is seen as a potential contender to be included in harmonised 5G spectrum. This would have major impact on the value of 28 GHz spectrum and support the growth of the ecosystem.

Ofcom has been aware of how important it is to keep investment levels high in spectrum related infrastructure and therefore the change to “indefinite term” should help to stimulate the industry. Further to the above, Ofcom introduced permitted spectrum trading in 2004 as a way of promoting innovation and competition in the supply of wireless services. But it is also as a way to enable entities with demand to acquire a licence from those in the market either not using, or planning to stop using the spectrum or looking to dispose of their licence and therefore ensures the spectrum is actively being used.

A recent high profile and high value spectrum trade is Qualcomm’s sale of the 1.4 GHz band, which it had acquired in 2008 for £8.3m, to both Vodafone (1452-1472MHz) and Three (1472-1492MHz). This sale was rumoured to have cost the MNOs almost £100m due to growing demand for data and the increasingly sparse quantity of sub-6 GHz spectrum available.

We have even seen many more spectrum trades as a result. I actually orchestrated the very first post-auction spectrum trade between companies in the UK in January 2009 between Broadnet UK Ltd and Luminet (formerly Urban Wimax), where I was CTO at the time. We acquired a 28 GHz Fixed Wireless Access licence (2 x 128 MHz) which contributed considerably to Luminet’s revenue stream since 2009 where we used 28 GHz Point-to-Multipoint kit to provide connectivity to businesses in London.

The introduction of indefinite licences means this will be an interesting time for network operators, a situation that many will be watching closely. It remains to be seen just how much these Ofcom licence fee proposals will impact the value of spectrum licences, but I for one am glad to see these new changes come into effect.

EU roaming charges are being abolished — and the consequences for network providers are worrying

Percentage of population in rural environments in selected countries (data from Geohive)

Fig. 1 Percentage of population in rural environments in selected countries (data from Geohive)

Earlier this month, the European Commission announced that roaming charges and poor mobile internet connections for EU customers are set to become a thing of the past.

From 2017, consumers will be able to travel within the EU and pay the same price as they get at home for voice, texts and data. That means no more nasty shocks when the phone bill comes in after travelling abroad.

While the change is great news for consumers, it does pose a number of challenges for network providers.

Can a uniform law be effective in such a varied marketplace?
The EU may be a common marketplace for goods and services, but we know from our modeling work at Real Wireless that the cost for providing network services in different EU countries varies greatly from one country to the next.

Indeed the cost varies even within countries themselves because of differences in population density, availability of real estate for base stations, availability of backhaul services, and many other factors.

One measure value that a regulator may ascribe to a quantity of spectrum is calculated by comparing the value of this section of spectrum, against the costs incurred by rolling out the additional infrastructure required to support the services that use it.

Operators will either pay spectrum fees set by regulators or bid for spectrum. But in either case, they would not rationally pay more for spectrum than the value of the potential profitability of the business the spectrum would support.

Typically it costs a lot more to support services in less populace areas. For example rural areas often cost more than cities. In cities, the infrastructure typically enjoys much higher levels of utilisation, which brings in more income from users. Conversely, some rural areas face high fixed costs to roll out infrastructure, but then see much lower levels of utilisation as a result of the lower subscriber density in the area.

Figure 1 demonstrates just how variable population distributions are within some major European countries.

Most governments find it desirable that a large percentage of their population can access mobile communications services — and they often provide economic benefits to encourage rollout to the more remote, ‘last to be served’ population areas. Government regulators will also typically stipulate conditions for rollout, encouraging more people to be served. Both the fees and rollout conditions are set on a national basis, which has an impact on the cost of providing the minimum infrastructure required.

This new EU legislation will seek to establish a common price to be paid for service irrespective of where that service is being consumed. We therefore have the potential for highly asymmetric costs and services that could cause market distortion.

After all, there’s nothing to prevent users taking SIMs from a country where services can be provided at low cost and using them in a country with a high rollout cost (whether the result of topography, nationally imposed rollout conditions, or low population density). Excess demand for these SIMs would tend to push costs higher than otherwise expected.

The issues this new legislation presents are not only compounded by the asymmetrical nature of spectrum — particularly in terms of supply, availability and regulation — but also by the inability of network operators to differentiate their pricing whilst roaming, despite the reality being that each will still face different costs for terminating calls. The market will ultimately end up distorted as a result of separating the cost of goods from the cost of provision.

Who is going to take responsibility for service quality?
Cost aside, the question remains of who is going to be responsible for ensuring that quality of service remains consistently high across the entire continent. Unless the EU makes responsibility clear through law, Europe is faced with a messy blurring of responsibilities between the EU and its nation states.

The next two years before the changes become reality will prove to be vital in terms of planning and clarifying how the new market will work. Mobile operators will need to approach the European Commission directly to ensure the law provides clarity on these issues, in order to ensure that they are in a position to manage the responsibilities they will face come 2017.

Auctions and preparation for WRC ’15 key topics at European Spectrum Management Conference 2015

forum-hrb100-132

Real Wireless attended the 10th annual European Spectrum Management Conference last week in Brussels, which is a key event on the spectrum management calendar. The well-attended conference covers the most relevant topics in spectrum management with representation from across the industry including regulators, vendors, operators and industry associations. The conference is worthwhile to gain a sector status update from a broad cross sector of the industry. The two-day event is divided into a number of sessions in which a particular relevant topic is discussed by a panel of industry representatives that varied depending on the discussion.

Day 1

In the first sessions, the panel discussed the future of the 700 MHz band and considered the development of a blueprint for the benefit of users and consumers in Europe. Keynote speeches about the impact of this on spectrum policy at the European Commission, RSPG and BEREC was highlighted. Talks from both the broadcast industry and mobile industry presented their respective cases for using the band, which demonstrated how key stakeholders would be affected by the transition. It was clear in some countries such as Italy, which is a heavy user of the 700 MHz band for DTT viewers and broadcasters, will be affected. In contrast other countries such as the Netherlands would not be so affected and could benefit from a swift move to mobile services.

A session on offloading discussed how Wi-Fi and small cells have helped and will continue to help to ease congestion on macro networks, which now includes LTE-LAA. The session provided an overview of how different methods including satellite can contribute to easing network congestion. However, there was no mention of the difference in costs for these solutions, which would have helped demonstrate which solutions would likely offer the most cost-effective solution.

The second half of the afternoon included breakout sessions on auctions and spectrum awards best practice — which I was allocated — and backhaul. These sessions were interactive and lively particularly the spectrum auction session given that the German multi band spectrum auction was going on in parallel.

Day 2

The second day commenced with a session on WRC ’15 common ground, areas of disagreement and likely outcomes. Presentations from Africa, Europe and China provided a broad overview of the impact each of the key agenda items would have on these regions. Notably there was common agreement and support for 700 MHz allocation for mobile services and some disagreement between sectors in relation to coexistence with mobile and satellite in C-Band amongst others.

The second session on delivering a world-leading mobile ecosystem in Europe was interesting because it covered current issues facing the mobile industry today — namely how mobile operators can overcome declining revenues from subscribers and limited funding for network investment at a time when Europe plans to lead in 5G. There were comparisons with the model used in the US and Canada in which auction proceeds and revenues are still increasing.

The third session discussed innovative technologies and policies to improve spectrum efficiency, which included presentations from regulators, operators and advisors. It covered the different innovative methods currently used for licensing and releasing spectrum. For example in Sweden they no longer apportion spectrum via exclusive licensing, instead focusing on better management and sharing. In the US the FCC described its approach to sharing the 3.5 GHz spectrum for low-power access. Other talks mentioned the challenges and complexities of sharing for PPDR and the satellite/fixed links in the C-Band.

The final session addressed the changing face of spectrum management between 2005 and 2025. A panel responded to statements and questions about where spectrum management we will be in 10 years’ time. This session required audience participation by voting against a set of predetermined questions. The key questions sought to address the issues include the largest influencers in spectrum management and what methodologies will be in place to continue the development of spectrum management. Overall it was felt that in 10 years. the European Commission would have the largest influence and that we would be in a similar position to where we are now but with some changes in approach.

Real Wireless’s view of the conference

Overall the event provided useful interaction with spectrum management colleagues within Europe and beyond. The topics and material were interesting with lively debates and reactions from industry demonstrating that spectrum management is fundamental to the continuous evolution and success of wireless technologies. We look forward to participating in at the 11th annual spectrum management conference and providing support and advice to the sector.

Calculating the future: UK spectrum usage and demand

Today saw the launch of the first in a series of reports on UK Spectrum Usage and Demand from the UK Spectrum Policy Forum, at an event in London.

UK Spectrum Usage and Demand considers the spectrum needs of different sectors, and the social and economic contributions which they are able to make based on their spectrum usage. It reflects the contradictory priorities different industries hold – including space, utilities, business radio, meteorology and mobile – with a view to fostering open discussion and mutual understanding, in order to deliver maximum benefit from the UK’s spectrum assets.

For the report, Real Wireless was commissioned to provide a snapshot of current spectrum usage for the report, as well as calculating the expected long-term future needs of the major users of spectrum in the UK.

Last year Real Wireless became a funding partner and Steering Board member for the fledgling Spectrum Policy Forum. I act as voluntary chair of the Forum’s Cluster 1, examining spectrum applications and demand.

The reason for this is simple. Spectrum is a scarce resource, one that needs proper management and support if the country is to enjoy the benefits – a recent estimate valued spectrum as contributing £52 Billion per year to the UK economy. The UK Spectrum Strategy published a year ago set a target to double this contribution by 2025. Therefore, an independent, industry-led government sounding board such as the UK Spectrum Policy Forum is crucial to making the most of this asset – and Real Wireless is proud to support this vital work.

In today’s report, we found that there are multiple industries with conflicting spectrum requirements and only careful forward planning and a high level of mutual understanding will avoid future clashes.

After all, these industries rightly consider their work as important, and Real Wireless has long been an advocate for enabling the use of wireless technologies in a way which bridges the gap between the wireless industry and business, personal and public sector usage of wireless.

What’s crucial therefore is to plan ahead and spot conflicts before they occur, taking all needs into account in future policy debates to maximise the social and economic benefits from spectrum in the long-term.

A later edition of the report will include further sectors and lead the way to the specific work items which will allow progress on these areas – watch this space!

Today’s report from Real Wireless and the UK Spectrum Policy Forum, UK Spectrum Usage and Demand, is available to download here.

Real Wireless and Tech4i2 to evaluate licence-exempt equipment across Europe

Real Wireless and Tech4i2 are undertaking a study for the European Commission, to assess the extent and range of licence-exempt equipment being sold and used in the EU between now and 2030. The study will be used to help the European Commission in its goal of making available sufficient licence-exempt spectrum, harmonised at EU level, for future wireless innovation.

Concluding in September 2015, the study will enable a clearer understanding of the use of harmonised frequency bands by different categories of radio equipment in Europe, essential information for planning current and future spectrum requirements and managing congestion. It will also examine how the condition of such equipment differs between Europe and other regions.

This report follows previous work by the European Commission in constructing an inventory of equipment operating in licensed spectrum.

The analysis will cover the full range of license-exempt equipment: from Wi-Fi to garage door openers, baby monitors, and even key fobs. It will both consider whether the use of such equipment fits into existing spectrum without excessive congestion, and identify new bands where positive action could be taken to stimulate currently dormant – but potentially valuable – markets.

“The European Commission is keen to promote the shared use of radio spectrum resources, in order to foster innovation in new and existing markets,” said Professor Simon Saunders, Director of Technology at Real Wireless. “Real Wireless brings extensive expertise in both assessing the current landscape, and providing a detailed forecast of future spectrum requirements that can be used by regulators and businesses across Europe.”

“This will be an important study for how the European Commission examines harmonised spectrum, and could impact a significant number of current and future markets,” said Professor Paul Foley, Director at Tech4i2. “At a workshop in Brussels on 10th March 2015 we will be presenting an overview of the project to interested stakeholders. As part of this, we will be seeking responses from attendees to our initial research, which will highlight current capacity, as well as potential radio equipment and spectrum requirements to 2030.  To find out more see the project’s LinkedIn group here.

The results of the Real Wireless and Tech4i2 study will support the implementation of the Article 9 “Inventory” of the Radio Spectrum Policy Programme (RSPP), developing a reliable approximation approach for assessing the medium and long-term spectrum usage densities in harmonised licence-exempt bands.   It will also compare devices and spectrum policies for licence-exempt spectrum in Europe and the US as input to discussions on achieving greater trans-Atlantic scale economies for radio equipment in the context of Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

Will cognitive radio, dynamic spectrum access come of age in 5G?

Around 10 years ago, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)’s Next Generation Communications program constructed a prototype cognitive radio system, which utilized dynamic spectrum access for its communications. By identifying unused sections of spectrum in the area it was operating, it was hoped up to 10-times more spectrum would be available for transmissions. This highlighted a growing interest in the defense community in dynamic spectrum access techniques which had been developed with the challenges of battle-space spectrum in mind, but also apparently had applicability in commercial environments in terms of making more efficient use of valuable spectrum resources and potentially leading the way to spectrum trading. The XG program was one of the largest cognitive radio projects at the time but interest in Cognitive radio was by no means limited to the U.S.

Martin Cave’s audit of public sector bands in 2005, which highlighted just how much more efficiently U.K. defense spectrum could be utilized, provoked interest in the topic in the U.K. This was produced alongside Ofcom’s Spectrum Framework Review, which set out ambitious targets for a general move from the traditional “command and control” approach to spectrum licensing to a more dynamic approach based on “market mechanisms” with the overall ambition of realizing better value from spectrum for the U.K.

With the switchover to digital television and release of TV white space, a debate was ignited over whether DSA could be applied to these civilian bands too. The obvious example of this has been the activity around TV white space, although the Federal Communications Commission discussion on 3.5 GHz is also significant.

However, the digital TV switchover was six years ago and the commercial roll out of white space devices is still fairly limited due to the complications of deploying these devices in practice. Concerns over the so-called “hidden node” issue (interference provoked by the failure of one device to detect the presence of all other devices) and how devices with different spectral views would liaise with each other have meant that the regulation of these white space devices has taken some time to agree.

In attempting to overcome these limitations, regulators gradually shied away from a pure spectrum sensing approach, towards the introduction of beacon signals to identify usage, before settling on the use of a centralized database of white spaces in each location that is used in addition to spectrum sensing.

But even then, the practical use of TV white spaces has continued to be fairly limited. Vendors and operators have struggled to find an application that suits the availability of white spaces, as well as handling the lack of guaranteed spectrum.

This same philosophy is being proposed for 3.5 GHz in the U.S., where some locations have other users (e.g. marine radar), but the combination of database and sensing could allow this band to be used. This is especially important as 3.5 GHz is one of the few LTE bands that is supported globally, so there is a clear commercial imperative.

Enter 5G

At the recent 5G Huddle, rethinking how existing technologies make use of spectrum was a key topic of discussion, with spectrum sharing a major part of this.

There are some strong arguments for why this would be sensible:

  • We’re starting to reach the limits of what we can achieve through higher order modulation schemes, with any gains insufficient to keep pace with demand.
  • We may still be making some gains with regards to multiple-input, multiple-output and CoMP, but again, not at the same rate that demand is increasing.
  • Small cells, which are increasing in usage, and network densification, levels of which are also increasing, both lend themselves well to spectrum sharing.
  • –he last variable available to us in our attempts to increase capacity is spectrum, and (at least in theory), DSA maximizes availability and efficiency of spectrum across all operators

On that last point, this is of course only if it is deployed correctly, with polite protocols for communications.

However introducing dynamic spectrum sharing to “5G” would surely result in 5G just suffering from the same technical issues that cognitive radio has encountered before.

After all, one of the key differentiators of cellular over many other wireless technologies, such as Wi-Fi, is the guaranteed quality of service. Indeed, we have previously examined how exclusively licensed spectrum loses value as the sharing arrangements increase uncertainty for operators.

Wouldn’t 5G lose this edge if spectrum access became dynamic and without guarantees?

At present, you would be correct, but it is unlikely anyone would be satisfied introducing such a glaring problem into 5G. Rather the key difference between earlier cognitive radios and 5G is that, as demonstrated with the discussions at the 5G huddle, major commercial vendors and operators are putting significant research time and investment behind the technology.

Perhaps this time around, with the full weight of the industry behind it, and with an appropriate understanding of what operators need from spectrum sharing conditions to offer high-quality services, cognitive radio and DSA can really come of age.

This blog post originally appeared as part of RCR Wireless’s Analyst Angle, where the industry’s leading analysts discuss the hot topics in the wireless industry.