Lecture Series in Mobile Telecommunications and Networks (1583KB)

More documents

Recommendations

Info

To the edge of chaos? The complexity and the promise of a technology and service-neutral future referring to this 50:50 notion, where broadcasters would have 50 per cent dividend from the digital dividend and 50 per cent would go to the wider public. Once again, there was great emphasis on harmonisation, which has given enormous benefit. However, I have to say that I cannot agree with that tightening down of things that she is suggesting, or the fact that everything has to be harmonised in this way. There is space for this, although the issues you mentioned are very real. I do not mean that as a cop-out, because it is the reality. Dr David Cleevely (CRFS Ltd): I am on the Ofcom Spectrum Advisory Board and I was wondering whether I have perhaps spent a little too much time with Stephen because my question is very similar to his in its fundamentals, although it is a little more theoretical than that. It is about your point on the edge of chaos and the complexity which you are advocating. To reach any optima, you have to have a search space or a cost function, or whatever we are referring to, that is reasonably smooth and continuous. I am not clear that your Rubik’s cube satisfies any of those conditions. It looks like a highly serrated landscape to me. When you look at the combinatorial auctions, the amount of chuntering through of calculations that you need to do - simply because actually searching that space is very difficult - is an indicator of something perhaps a little worrying. It is not only that it is rather difficult to find where the optima might lie but, secondly, the system itself might actually exhibit some pretty pathological behaviours. That is where we link to the banking system because we can see for ourselves a truly pathological behaviour that this developed, as a result of precisely – precisely – that inherent property of the system. What is your gut feeling about this? Otherwise, Viviane Reding’s 50:50 is actually quite a good, pragmatic approach. If you tie the system down enough, so that it can’t wander off in some state space fashion, into some really nasty state, then perhaps that is a better way of handling things. Linda Doyle: Here, I am not talking about no regulation, for a start - I just want to clear that up - but it is the light touch of regulation that I am advocating. In the last week, I admit that I have been thinking that this is a very strange time to be advocating the kind of things I am, given everything that has happened in the world. The banking system, as you point out, is a very good example of that. However, the banking system is also an example of being completely unregulated, with no rules, and people turning a blind eye and not policing it, and not checking up on the rules that did exist. In that sense, it is also an unfair comparison. My gut reaction is that I agree with you, that there need to be anchor points. Things need to be tied down, or things need to be eliminated. I believe that the best way to do that is to push out the boundaries in imagining, and then pull them back in, rather than going the other way – and, for me, the system goes the other way. It starts with all the good things and the flaws and it incrementally tries to think out from there, and that is why I think we should go the other way. I do not think you will get out to the edge of chaos, if you want to accept that as a scientific term of where it is. I do not think you will get near there, but you need to think about being there and come back in. Matthew Postgate (BBC): I have a comment and a question – perhaps a softer question than some of the engineering-focused ones. I thought your talk was fascinating and I really support these kinds of ideas. We have a long way to go, but perhaps we are closer than we may have realised. Having the privilege of working for the BBC means that I work with arts graduates and science graduates, across that particular spectrum. Having had that experience, my observation is that where you promote competition at one end of the value chain, you tend to restrict it somewhere else. Some people feel that multiple distribution technologies are a good thing but, if you are there trying to create editorial propositions on multiple systems, you end up with lowest common denominator approaches which are suboptimal, and vice versa with reality issues. Coming from the research institute that you do, this might be something you have already considered. The Royal Academy of Engineering 39
The second aspect of my comment is that, when we made the transition with Ofcom from the very ‘command and control’ approach to the ‘let the market decide’ approach, my understanding from the presentation that I attended about that was that there was a third way. The one thing that has not happened is that there has not been any more unlicensed spectrum, but I think there is a role for that as well. I am not sure where that ended up – in the bin, probably. My question is that, if the future should pan out – and hopefully soon – in the way that you have described, I would say that in terms of the social ends of these technologies, what I have learned at the BBC is that there are often many different ways to skin a cat. Society, for whatever reason, no longer feels that it is capable of delivering cathedrals that take 200 years to build and yet we still provide social ends associated with those kinds of constructs. What would happen in this world to the actual applications, that people might actually use? Are there any trends? Is it a trend away from broadcasting to more point-to-point applications? Is it a trend towards social applications or broadcast applications? I am interested in your views on that. Linda Doyle: You have made a range of very interesting comments. Starting with your last point, there is a trend away from broadcasting as we know it anyway, and I think everyone sees that. The whole idea of you having an entity that radiates out a signal, and a thing that just receives – those days are gone, in the sense that everything is a two-way thing now. I have to say that I completely object to the term ‘broadcast spectrum’, because spectrum is spectrum, and labelling it in an ownership way like that would go against my views of that. How general applications will go – I have to say that there is a whole variety of things. There is more disruption tolerant networking ideas, and all the social networking. However, I am not the best person to pick the applications and this is what this is saying – that you do not have to pick them in advance. You mentioned the licence-exempt approaches and it is very true that that is the way of going about things. A number of the things I spoke about could be implemented, like the dynamic spectrum access, for example, at the beginning. There are models where you can have dynamic spectrum access in an unlicensed way and some of the technologies that are being suggested for the TV – the interleaved spectrum, the TV white spaces – would be an unlicensed approached, but there are licensed approaches that you can take to it as well. In terms of general, common type approaches, Ofcom – according to their figures – say that there is really very little need to increase the amount of spectrum hugely that is devoted to that. There might be other people who would disagree with that approach and think that it should be completely freed up but the figures that they would report on the basis of research and evidence that they have show that there is only about six per cent of the spectrum here in the common space, and that will only grow to seven per cent in the future. That is the kind of demand that they foresee. They have some very interesting work on suggestions for licensing frameworks, in which you take different approaches to having different kinds of these regions, with different applications working under different rules and different etiquettes as they call it. Professor Jonathan Chambers (Loughborough University): My question is technology orientated. You mentioned briefly about interference and that will be a major issue in terms of dynamic spectrum allocation. There is much concern about the so-called ‘hidden terminal’ problem. Could you offer a little more insight into where you feel solutions might come from, in terms of handling such interference? Linda Doyle: The common belief, with regard to dynamic spectrum access and hidden terminal is that you need to collaborate, so nodes in a network have to collaborate in some way in order to overcome the interference. There is interesting research in collaboration on sensing and the fusing of information, and the sharing of that information. That seems to be a sensible way to progress in that. There are challenges, too, in the sense that to have the right level of collaboration, you need the right distribution of devices, but I do not think I expressed this very well earlier. I put up the slide about spectrum monitoring, but there are also people who are also thinking in external services that exist, and those external services would provide information 40 The Royal Academy of Engineering
Page 1 and 2: Lecture Series in Mobile Telecommun
Page 3 and 4: Foreword This compilation brings to
Page 5 and 6: From wireless networks to sensor ne
Page 7 and 8: From wireless networks to sensor ne
Page 9 and 10: As far as the routing of packets is
Page 11 and 12: easons. In the internet, one never
Page 13 and 14: Implementation with laser pointers,
Page 15 and 16: here of laptops, and all these lapt
Page 17 and 18: adds a great deal of discrete compl
Page 19 and 20: Questions & Answers Mike Walker: Th
Page 21 and 22: Human beings will also evolve and w
Page 23 and 24: Welcome and introduction Professor
Page 25 and 26: ComReg Collection - Start 16/Apr/20
Page 27 and 28: evidence that people give in favour
Page 29 and 30: chunks of spectrum where you are in
Page 31 and 32: As an aside, I was reading a few of
Page 33 and 34: Of course, it is not just one mask,
Page 35 and 36: I apologise for hopping between top
Page 37 and 38: Questions & Answers Michael Walker:
Page 39: Nobody - believe you me, it came ou
Page 43 and 44: want to call it - that sits there a
Page 45 and 46: From plain old Telephony to flawles
Page 47 and 48: From plain old Telephony to flawles
Page 49 and 50: You can see that there is much room
Page 51 and 52: 1024, we transmit 10 bits, so to sp
Page 53 and 54: Bandwidth extension with hidden sid
Page 55 and 56: 4 Vision: ambience audio communicat
Page 57 and 58: Questions & Answers Michael Walker:
Page 59 and 60: I said five years ago and what I he
Page 61 and 62: them and perhaps leave out some of

Lecture Series in Mobile Telecommunications and Networks (1583KB)

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?