1

An Overview of Dynamic Spectrum Sharing:

Ongoing Initiatives, Challenges, and a Roadmap for
Future Research
Sudeep Bhattarai∗ , Jung-Min “Jerry” Park∗ , Bo Gao† , Kaigui Bian‡ , William Lehr§
∗ Bradley Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Virginia Tech
† Institute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences
‡ Institute of Network Computing and Information Systems, Peking University
§ Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Abstract—We are in the midst of a major paradigm shift in how regime is inadequately flexible, making it difficult to transi-
we manage radio spectrum. This paradigm shift is necessitated tion spectrum resources to new uses, users, and technologies
by the growth of wireless services of all types and the demand as market conditions shift further aggravating the artificial
pressure imposed on limited spectrum resources under legacy
management regimes. The shift is feasible because of advances in spectrum scarcity associated with outmoded, legacy regulatory
radio and networking technologies that make it possible to share frameworks.
spectrum dynamically in all possible dimensions—i.e., across What is needed is a paradigm shift toward a world in
frequencies, time, location, users, uses, and networks. Realizing which spectrum is shared more intensively and flexibly—or
the full potential of this shift to Dynamic Spectrum Sharing will equivalently, dynamically—among all classes of users and
require the co-evolution of wireless technologies, markets, and
regulatory policies; a process which is occurring on a global scale. uses. This includes both Incumbent Users (IUs), or those
This paper provides a current overview of major technological with legacy access rights to spectrum, and Secondary Users
and regulatory reforms that are leading the way toward a global (SUs), or those who are seeking access to additional spectrum.
paradigm shift to more flexible, dynamic, market-based ways Realizing this paradigm shift requires the co-evolution of
to manage and share radio spectrum resources. We focus on radio networks, wireless markets and business models, and the
current efforts to implement database-driven approaches for
managing the shared co-existence of users with heterogeneous regulatory rules and mechanisms—or, regimes—that govern
access and interference protection rights, and discuss open how spectrum is shared among all classes of IUs and SUs.
research challenges. Realizing that enabling Dynamic Shared Spectrum is one of
the key strategies for mitigating the artificial spectrum shortage
problem, academia, the wireless industry, regulators, and other
I. I NTRODUCTION stakeholders in the U.S. and a number of other countries
have undertaken initiatives to break-down the legacy silos of
Radio spectrum is not only a key enabler of technological exclusive-spectrum usage models and address the technical
innovations in wireless communications, but it also plays an and policy challenges in expanding spectrum sharing options.
important role as an economic growth engine, as highlighted in In this paper, we provide a comprehensive overview of
the 2012 U.S. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and the current status of significant regulatory initiatives under-
Technology (PCAST) report,“Realizing the full potential of way globally to facilitate the transition toward a regime of
government-held spectrum to spur economic growth” [1]. The Dynamic Shared Spectrum, with a special focus on database-
impact of spectrum on the national economy is expected to in- driven models, which have been shown to offer promise as
crease as the proliferation of wireless devices and applications a cost-effective and reliable approach for managing sharing
of all types and for all uses accelerates. This includes legacy among multiple classes of users with heterogeneous access
and new users; communication and sensing applications; wide- rights and radio network technologies [3]–[6]. In Section II,
area and local-area networks; commercial and government we summarize some of the earlier literature on spectrum
users; etc. As the demand for spectrum continues to skyrocket, sharing and clarify some of our terminology. We follow this
it will become increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to in Section III with a summary of the ongoing spectrum
meet that demand through the legacy spectrum policy based reform efforts within the U.S. and several other countries.
on the assignment of siloed, exclusive-use spectrum bands In Section IV, we address, in general terms, a key concern
to particular applications. For instance, according to Cisco, of spectrum management—the need to manage interference
there will be a ten-fold increase in U.S. mobile data traffic among heterogeneous users and discuss how that challenge is
between 2014 and 2019 [2]. Moreover, the legacy management changing as we move toward more dynamic sharing models. In
Section V, we discuss how the challenge is being addressed in
This work was partially sponsored by NSF through grants 1314598, several important spectrum bands. In Section VI, we consider
1265886, 1431244, and 1547241, and by the industry affiliates of the
Broadband Wireless Access & Applications Center and the Wireless@Virginia another important challenge confronting dynamic spectrum
Tech group. management—the need to protect the confidentiality and se-
 2

curity of spectrum users in light of management frameworks as “an approach to wireless engineering wherein the radio,
that require sharing significant information about the location radio network, or wireless system is endowed with awareness,
and usage of spectrum resources. In Section VII, we identify reason, and agency to intelligently adapt operational aspects
some of the open research questions. Section VIII provides of the radio, radio network, or wireless system” [29]. SDRs
summary conclusions. implement radio functionality in software rather than hard-
ware, thereby facilitating the adaptive functionality that char-
II. S PECTRUM ACCESS AND M ANAGEMENT R EGIMES acterizes CRs. In the full-blown scenario, CR-“smart” radio
systems would collectively sense and analyze their local radio
Spectrum resources are artificially scarce, in part, because
environment, negotiate optimal sharing arrangements, and then
static, legacy regulatory regimes inhibit the adoption of tech-
adapt their radio operating parameters (i.e., frequency, power,
nologies and usage practices that would allow spectrum to
modulation, transmission timing, direction of transmission,
be shared more intensively. Policymakers have recognized
and other waveform characteristics) to maximize shared use
for many years that legacy management regimes need to be
of local spectrum resources. The concept of shared/dynamic
reformed to allow greater scope for market-forces to direct
spectrum access represented by this vision is presented in
how spectrum resources are used and to create incentives and
Figure 1(a).
opportunities for the commercialization of innovative and more
Although significant progress has been made in developing
efficient radio technologies [7], [8].
CR, SDR, and other smart radio technologies, we are still
The critical need for increasing commercial access to shared
far from being able to actually realize the full-blown scenario
spectrum was emphasized in the National Broadband Plan,
described above. Realizing this vision depends on the com-
[9] which was unveiled by the U.S. Federal Communications
mercial deployment of new radio technologies, the adoption
Commission (FCC) in 2010. The subsequent U.S. Presidential
of new spectrum access regime, and regulatory reforms. In
Memoranda—Unleashing the Wireless Broadband Revolution
the past five years, a number of surveys have been published
[10] and Expanding America’s Leadership in Wireless Innova-
that describe the current status of enabling technologies such
tion [11]—issued executive mandates to implement policies to
as CRs and SDRs [30], [31], -or provide a taxonomy of the
expand access to shared spectrum. Under the auspices of the
various ways in which spectrum may be managed so as to
White House, the FCC and the National Telecommunications
enable more extensive spectrum sharing [32], [33]. One such
and Information Administration (NTIA) are taking aggres-
example is illustrated in a figure reproduced from the METIS
sive steps to realize the vision outlined in the Presidential
project [34], a recently concluded European project that was
Memoranda. In the U.S., the recently completed Advanced
focused on developing technologies for 5G (see Figure 1(b)).
Wireless Services (AWS)-3 auction [12], progress on enabling
Figure 1(b) lays out various regulatory rights regimes for
shared access to TV white spaces [13], and ongoing progress
managing spectrum access, ranging from exclusive licensed
in the FCC’s 3.5 GHz and 5 GHz proceedings [14], [15] show
spectrum (used by cellular operators and television broad-
promise in advancing this vision of increased spectrum sharing
casters) to unlicensed spectrum access (used by Wi-Fi and
in multiple bands, including between commercial and federal
Bluetooth). In the exclusive licensed regime, a single operator
government users.
manages how spectrum is shared among the spectrum users;
Regulatory bodies in other countries have also put in
whereas in the unlicensed regime, sharing is uncoordinated.
motion spectrum-related initiatives, and, in some cases, have
These two models represent points on a continuum of potential
established regulations with the aim of improving spectrum
sharing regimes, wherein different tiers of users may have
utilization efficiency through shared spectrum access. These
different rights to access the spectrum and to protection from
efforts include the studies and initiatives undertaken by the
potential interference caused by other users. One sharing
United Kingdom’s Office of Communications (Ofcom) [16]–
model that has the features of both of the aforementioned
[18], Industry Canada [19], [20], Infocomm Development
regimes is Licensed Shared Access (LSA). In LSA, an IU
Authority of Singapore (IDA) [21], [22], China’s IMT-20201
with previously exclusive-usage rights tolerates shared access
[23], Radio Spectrum Policy Group in Europe [24]–[26], and
from a new SU, who is allowed to share pursuant to a
the European Communications Office [27].
framework that ensures mutual protection from interference.
In multiple ways, all of these initiatives represent progress
Current implementations of this framework rely on a database-
toward enabling Dynamic Spectrum Access (DSA). In the
driven mechanism to enforce the sharing arrangement [33].
engineering and technical standards literature, DSA is often
In these and other regulatory frameworks, DSA is more
used to refer to the “real-time adjustment of spectrum utiliza-
than just a technical vision. It also encompasses a framework
tion in response to changing circumstances and objectives”
for managing the spectrum access and usage rights, including
[28], and is usually assumed to be enabled by or coincident
protection from interference and other management rights
to the use of Cognitive Radio (CR) and/or Software Defined
(e.g., the right to exclude or pre-empt other users, the right
Radio (SDR) capabilities or technologies. CR has been defined
to sub-lease or transfer management of the spectrum; as
1 IMT-2020 (5G) Promotion Group was jointly established in February 2013 well as obligations to obey operating rules). A full-featured
by three ministries of China based on the original IMT-Advanced Promotion DSA management regime will have technical, regulatory, and
Group. The members include the main operators, vendors, universities, and business/market mechanisms in place to enable spectrum re-
research institutes in China. The Promotion Group is the major platform
to promote 5G technology research in China and to facilitate international sources to be dynamically reallocated and shared across users
communication and cooperation. (e.g., government and commercial) and uses (e.g., sensing and
 3

(a) Dynamic spectrum sharing via geoloca- (b) Spectrum access schemes and authorization regimes.
tion databases and sensing.

Fig. 1: Dynamic spectrum sharing and spectrum access schemes

communications) on a more fine-grained and granular basis it that contains its operational parameters (e.g., type of device,
along any potential technical dimension (i.e., frequency, time, location, etc.). Two IEEE standards, namely IEEE 802.22 and
space, direction of transmission, etc.) and under a variety IEEE 802.11af, were developed to enable communications in
of differing rights models (e.g., real-time spectrum markets, the TVWS.
administered sharing among multiple tiers of PU and SUs 2) AWS-3 band: In January 2015, the FCC completed
with changing usage rights, etc.). In this paper, we use DSA an auction of AWS-3 licenses in the 1695 − 1710 MHz,
more loosely to refer to the full range of business, regulatory, 1755 − 1780 MHz, and 2155 − 2180 MHz bands (collectively
and/or technically enabled ways in which enhanced sharing called “AWS-3” bands) [12]. The incumbents of this band are
models are being enabled. In so doing, we diverge from the federal systems, including the federal meteorological-satellite
technical literature that restricts DSA to refer to spectrum (MetSat) systems. Cellular service providers will share this
usage paradigms that require or make use of CR or SDR band with the incumbents based on manual coordination of
technologies or capabilities. As argued elsewhere, we need protection zones to protect the federal systems [36].
to evolve toward these expanded sharing models, and in so 3) 3.5 GHz band: Per its recent Report and Order and
doing, will enhance the likelihood that CR, SDR, and other ad- Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (FNPRM)
vanced radio technologies will be commercialized successfully [14], the FCC has opened up the 3.5 GHz (3550 − −3700
[35]. Our broader interpretation of what constitutes DSA is MHz) band to SU access. This band will now be home to the
intended to highlight how the matrix of regulatory reforms and new Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS). The entrant
evolving sharing concepts discussed in subsequent sections users will share the spectrum among themselves and incum-
are contributing to the expansion of options and capabilities bents through a three-tiered access model composed of the
for sharing spectrum more flexibly and dynamically. In the Incumbent Access (IA), Priority Access (PA) and General Au-
next section, we review some of the regulatory initiatives thorized Access (GAA) tiers (see Figure 2). The harmonious
underway. coexistence among the three tiers of users is ensured through
the employment of an automated frequency assignment and
III. R ECENT S PECTRUM I NITIATIVES control database mechanism known as the Spectrum Access
A. Spectrum Initiatives in the U.S. System (SAS). The FNPRM [14] also prescribes the use of
1) TV band: In September 2010, the FCC issued final rules a network of spectrum sensors, called Environmental Sensing
to allow low power unlicensed devices to operate on unused Capability (ESC), to detect the presence of IUs and aid the
channels in the TV broadcast bands (often called the TV SAS in assessing the spectrum environment.
white spaces (TVWS)) in the U.S. [13]. Concerned about the IA users include authorized federal and grandfathered fixed
technical capabilities of sensing and the risk of interference, satellite service users currently operating in the 3.5 GHz band.
the FCC mandated a database-driven approach, attesting to These users will be protected from harmful interference from
the challenges of Cognitive Radio (CR) systems, even when PA and GAA users. The PA tier consists of Priority Access
employed to detect the presence of high-power, high-site (TV Licensees (PALs) that will be assigned using a competitive
transmitters with large HAAT (height above average terrain)), bidding process within the 3550 − 3650 MHz portion of the
and fixed TV stations. The TVWS devices must register with band. Each PAL is defined as a non-renewable authorization to
a database that dictates how and when they can access the use a 10 MHz channel in a single census tract for up to three-
spectrum. To obtain spectrum availability information from the years. At maximum, a total of seven PALs may be assigned in
database, a TVWS device needs to submit a spectrum query to any given census tract with up to four PALs going to any single
 4

between 802.11 and DSRC, readers are referred to [39].

In the ongoing proceedings for the 5 GHz band, there is
a growing contention between unlicensed LTE (including Li-
cense Assisted Access (LAA) and LTE-Unlicensed (LTE-U))
and Wi-Fi stakeholders for access to the band. Several industry
entities, mainly Wi-Fi stakeholders, have raised concerns over
the introduction of LTE-U/LAA in the unlicensed bands. Be-
cause of the ongoing, sometimes contentious, debate between
the LTE and Wi-Fi communities regarding the coexistence
of the two technologies, the FCC, in May 2015, formally
sought comments on a range of topics related to the LTE-
U/LAA technologies [40]. More recently, in August 2015,
the LTE-U and Wi-Fi stakeholders held a meeting to discuss
Fig. 2: Three-tiered access model of the CBRS band. these coexistence issues [41]. We will provide more details on
the coexistence issues between Wi-Fi and unlicensed LTE in
Section V.
5) Millimeter wave bands: In August of 2013, the FCC
applicant. Applicants may acquire up to two-consecutive PAL changed its rules in the 57 − 64 GHz band, commonly known
terms in any given license area during the first auction. The as the 60 GHz band, to improve the use of unlicensed spectrum
GAA tier is licensed-by-rule to enable open, flexible access to for high-capacity, short-range outdoor backhaul, especially for
the band for the widest possible group of potential users. GAA small cells [42]. The 60 GHz band is allocated on a co-primary
users are permitted to use any portion of the 3550−3700 MHz basis to the federal mobile, fixed, inter-satellite and radio-
band not assigned to a higher tier user and may also operate location services; and to non-federal fixed, mobile and radio-
opportunistically on unused PA channels. location services. Under Part 18 of the new rules, industrial,
The envisioned SAS for the U.S. 3.5 GHz-based CBRS band scientific and medical (ISM) equipment may also operate in
supports coexistence among heterogeneous wireless access the 60 GHz band at 61.25 GHz ±250 MHz.
technologies, specifically PAL and GAA users, in a centralized On October 16, 2003, the FCC adopted a Report and
fashion. It maintains a registry of all coexisting devices in the Order [43] establishing service rules to promote non-federal
band along with their geo-operational status. SAS acts as a development and use of the millimeter wave spectrum in the
highly automated spectrum access coordinator that facilitates 71 − 76 GHz, 81 − 86 GHz and 92 − 95 GHz bands, which
coexistence among heterogeneous devices across the band and are allocated to non-federal government and federal govern-
prevents interference events by enforcing the band’s usage pol- ment users on a co-primary basis. Specifically, the Report
icy. It protects higher tier users from interference from lower and Order permits the issuance of an unlimited number of
tier users, while simultaneously seeking to ensure maximal non-exclusive, nationwide licenses to non-federal government
spectrum availability for lower tier PAL and GAA users and entities for all 12.9 GHz of spectrum. It did not require
their harmonious coexistence [14]. The SAS architecture will prior coordination among non-federal government licensees
be designed based on the specific use-case scenario of the asserting that interference is unlikely due to the “pencil-beam”
3.5 GHz band to support a harmonious coexistence among nature of the transmissions in this service. However, realizing
heterogeneous wireless access technologies of similar/different that this scheme will delay and perhaps hinder industry efforts
spectrum access hierarchy. to use the 70/80 GHz band as anticipated, the FCC, on March
4) 5 GHz band: In 2013, the FCC, in its Notice of 3, 2005, issued Memorandum Opinion and Order [44] and
Proposed Rule Making (NPRM), announced that it intends to changed the original decision. The new rules require non-
modify rules that govern the operation of Unlicensed National federal government users to finish all interference analyses
Information Infrastructure (U-NII) devices and make available prior to equipment installation. Furthermore, the FCC recently
an additional 195 MHz of spectrum in the 5 GHz band [37]. issued an NPRM for seeking comments on authorizing mobile
The NPRM prescribed sharing the Intelligent Transportation operations in the 28 GHz, 37 GHz, 39 GHz, and 64 − 71 GHz
System (ITS) band (5.85−5.925 GHz) with unlicensed devices bands [45].
and allow the latter (specifically 802.11ac/802.11ax systems) As summarized above, the NTIA and the FCC have put
to have access to more wideband channels (80 MHz and 160 into action several initiatives with the aim to expand wireless
MHz). Later, in 2014, the FCC released First Report and Or- broadband use, increase sharing, and ultimately meet the 500
der [38] with the goal of increasing the utility of 5 GHz band MHz goal specified in the 2010 Presidential Memorandum
by modifying certain U-NII rules and testing procedures that [10]. The NTIA’s fifth interim progress report released in 2015
ensure that U-NII devices do not cause harmful interference states, “Between October 2010 and September 2014, NTIA
to the IUs (Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC) and the FCC formally recommended or otherwise identified
systems) of these bands. Currently, the FCC is in the process for study for potential reallocation up to 589 MHz.” [46].
of creating a new set of rules for this band which would be This total includes 335 MHz in federal or shared bands and
ultimately referred to as the U-NII-4 band. For more details between 152 − 254 MHz in non-federal bands. An additional
of activities surrounding U-NII-4 band, specifically sharing 960 MHz is slated for potential future study for repurposing.
 5

Fig. 3: Timeline of spectrum initiatives.

All together, the NTIA and the FCC have made available or 3) France: In France, The Agence Nationale des
are investigating for potential re-purposing between 1, 447 and Fréquences (ANFR) is considering sharing the 2.3 GHz, 5.8
1, 549 MHz of bandwidth under 6 GHz. GHz, 17.7−19.7 GHz bands [51]. Incumbents of the 2.3 GHz
bands are telemetry and other defense applications, and the
B. Spectrum Initiatives Outside the U.S. expected secondary users are mobile/cellular service providers.
ANFR is considering opening up this band in the regime
1) European Commission: In November of 2012, the of the LSA framework, which affords guaranteed access to
European Commission solicited opinions on spectrum sharing spectrum and protection against harmful interference to both
issues concerning LSA which is the key concept that has been the incumbents as well as the LSA licensees. In the 5.8 GHz
studied for realizing spectrum sharing in various bands in band, a geolocation-based approach is being considered to
Europe [47]. LSA ensures guarantees in terms of spectrum support the coexistence between the road tolling application
access and interference protection to the incumbent(s) as and Intelligent Transportation Systems. The 17.7 − 19.7 GHz
well to the LSA licensees, and hence provides a predictable band is being considered for spectrum sharing between fixed
quality of service to both parties [48]. Spectrum sharing via service microwave services (as IUs) and uncoordinated fixed
LSA can be realized across frequency, time, and geographical satellite services (as SUs).
dimensions.
2) United Kingdom: As part of the 2015 World Radio 4) Canada: In 2012, Industry Canada (IC)—the govern-
Conference (WRC-15) preparatory process, the European Con- ment entity in charge of spectrum management in Canada—
ference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations released its policy decision to enable access to TVWS [20].
(CEPT) analyzed possible sharing of Wi-Fi with incumbent In Feb. 2015, IC published a specification describing the
users in 5350 − 5470, 5725 − 5850 and 5850 − 5925 MHz technical and operational requirements for TVWS devices,
bands in order to develop a European Common Position— which broadly follows the U.S. requirements in terms of
i.e., defining a common set of rules for governing access equipment types and technical characteristics [52]. Currently,
to the 5 GHz band. In addition, Ofcom recently issued a IC is in the process of defining rules for certifying the database
call for inputs, which sought views on the bands that are and the TVWS devices.
to be discussed under WRC-15 agenda item 1.1 and sought
views on the suitability of these bands for use by mobile or 5) Singapore: Singapore’s IDA, in November 2014, ap-
wireless broadband including the 5 GHz bands for Wi-Fi [49]. proved the rules enabling access to TVWS based on a license-
Furthermore, in February of 2015, Ofcom finalized its decision exempt basis provided that devices comply with the technical
to allow SUs to access the unused parts of radio spectrum in requirements specified by the IDA, contact a licensed database
the 470 − 790 MHz band through dynamic sharing controlled to obtain channel availability, and are registered with the
by a spectrum database [50]. Under this plan, the spectrum IDA following a comprehensive validation process [22]. The
that is not utilized by Digital Terrestrial Television (DTT) device types and requirements are broadly in line with the
(including local TV) and PMSE services is shared with TVWS U.S. model, although Singapore allows for variable effective
devices on a license-exempt basis. isotropic radiated power (EIRP) levels.
 6

6) China: China is actively studying how much spectrum IUs, the legacy rights holders and users of the spectrum, and
in which bands will be needed to support 5G in its domestic the SUs, or new spectrum users who will be accessing the
market. In 2013, a promotional group called IMT-2020 (5G) spectrum. Multiple schemes are feasible for managing multiple
was established to define relevant standards and requirements tiers of users. For example, public safety access may have
and to facilitate the development of 5G systems in China. Its the right to preempt other traffic, whether the public safety
primary goal is to start the commercialization of 5G networks users are IUs or SUs in a particular band, and whether the
in China by 2020. So far, IMT-2020 has identified 450 − 470 other users are commercial or government users, etc. More
MHz, 698 − 806 MHz and 3400 − 3600 MHz bands as typically, it is often assumed that the IUs have primary usage
candidate bands for 5G development [23]. Several other bands and interference protection rights by virtue of their legacy
in the range 6 − 100 GHz are also being considered for further incumbency. They may have to tolerate interference from other
studies on channel measurements, modeling and coexistence. co-primary IUs. The new users, or SUs, have secondary usage
7) New Zealand: Starting in November 2014, Radio Spec- and interference protection rights. The SUs may access and
trum Management—the government entity in charge of spec- use the spectrum so long as they do not interfere with the
trum in New Zealand—initiated a temporary arrangement for IUs, but may be protected from still lower-tier users and may
access to TVWS in New Zealand, which allows interested need to tolerate interference from same-tier SUs.
parties to obtain licenses for operation of TVWS devices at In any case, the sharing framework that provides differing
channels that will be specified in the license [53]. This TVWS levels of interference protection to different classes of spec-
access plan does not employ the database-driven spectrum trum users needs to be enforced so that the rules are respected
sharing approach, but devices are required to be complaint by all spectrum users. In general, mechanisms for interference
with relevant regulatory standards which are similar to the protection protect incumbents (or higher-tier users in multi-
ones adopted by the FCC. tiered access models) from interference generated by lower-
8) Field Trials of LSA in Europe: In April of 2013, the tier users. In general, mechanisms for incumbent protection
first field trial of shared use of the 2.3 GHz band with a can be classified into two categories: i) ex ante (a.k.a. pre-
live LTE network was successfully demonstrated in Finland ventive) mechanisms, ii) ex post (a.k.a. punitive) mechanisms
[54] by taking into consideration the inputs from all stake- [56], [57]. Ex ante mechanisms are designed to reduce the
holders including regulators, incumbents, mobile operators and probability of occurrence of harmful interference events, while
equipment-supplying industries. Later, in May of 2015, Nokia ex post mechanisms are designed to identify and/or adjudicate
performed another field trial using LTE network and LSA malicious or selfish behavior after harmful interference events
controller, and rebutted the potentials of LSA in realizing have occurred. Ex ante and ex post approaches work in tandem
effective spectrum sharing [55]. Altogether, it is expected that (but not in isolation), and thus the choice of an ex ante
the 2.3 − 2.4 GHz band will be one of the first bands to approach affects how ex post enforcement is carried out [57].2
be opened up for LSA-based sharing in Europe. However, In the following sub-sections, we discuss various technical
implementing LSA in this band will entail some challenges as and regulatory approaches that have been employed to manage
the band is currently used for various incumbent applications, the collective interference environment, and will discuss ways
including government services as well as program making in which enforcement mechanisms may change to enable more
and special events (PMSE) services, in different European dynamic sharing models. To simplify the exposition, we will
countries. presume that IUs have a right to interference protection from
A timeline of spectrum initiatives, both inside and outside SUs, whose right to access the spectrum is contingent on their
the U.S., is shown in Figure 3. compliance to the IU interference protection requirement.

IV. P ROTECTING I NCUMBENTS A. Ex Ante (Preventive) Approaches

To ensure the viability of spectrum sharing, certain key Ex ante approaches are mechanisms used to prevent interfer-
requirements must be met. One of those requirements is ence events to the IUs. Examples include the use of exclusion
managing radio interference. For wireless communications to zones (EZs), policy based radios [58], secure radio middle-
work, receivers need to be able to disentangle their desired ware [59], tamper-resistance techniques [60], radio integrity
signals from background noise which may come from ei- assessment techniques [61] and hardware-based compliance
ther unintentional (e.g., radiating power lines) or intentional modules [62]. Among these measures, exclusion zones (a.k.a.
transmitters operating either in the same (in-band) or other protection zones) is the primary ex ante spectrum enforcement
(out-of-band) frequencies. Historically, the basis for exclusive scheme used by the regulators to protect IUs from SU-
assignments was to ensure that the radio users of the spectrum generated interference [63]. The legacy notion of an exclusion
would be protected from harmful interference from transmis- zone (EZ) is a static spatial separation region defined around
sions from unaffiliated intentional transmitters. The operator an IU, where co-channel (and possibly also adjacent-channel)
with exclusive access could be expected to manage in-band transmissions by SUs are not allowed. An EZ needs to achieve
interference from its affiliated users, but needed protection
2 The characterization of ex post/ex ante mechanisms as preventive/punitive
from unaffiliated users transmitting in the spectrum as well
as from out-of-band interference from users in other bands. is an over-simplification to facilitate discussion. For example, today’s ex post
enforcement is tomorrow’s ex ante enforcement; and “carrot” incentives may
If the goal is to expand access to spectrum, then an be viewed as negative penalties (e.g., credits for a history of non-interfering
important challenge is to ensure adequate protection both for operations).
 7

two, seemingly opposing, objectives: (i) protect IUs from 2) New Models for Incumbent Protection: To fully reap
interference caused by SUs; and (ii) enable efficient utilization the benefits of spectrum sharing, there is a need to employ
of spectrum by the SUs. However, the legacy notion of EZs is incumbent protection approaches that strike an optimal balance
inept at achieving those objectives, primarily due to the fact between two key objectives—viz., reliably protect IUs from
that it is overly conservative and static [57], [63], [64]. The interference and maximize spectrum access opportunities for
notion of a static EZ implies that it has to protect incumbents SUs. Achieving such a balance is not feasible with the legacy
from the union of likely interference scenarios, resulting in a notion of EZs, and a more agile approach is needed. One
worst-case and very conservative solution. such approach is the use of multi-tiered dynamic incumbent
protection zones (MIPZ) proposed by Bhattarai et al. [63].
1) Legacy Notion of Incumbent Protection Zones: In
MIPZ is a novel framework for systematically designing an
order to protect incumbents (i.e., TV broadcast stations) op-
EZ that can adjust its boundaries by dynamically adapting to
erating in the TV bands, the U.S. FCC employs F-curves
changes in the interference environment. MIPZ is designed for
that define a protected service contour around an incumbent.
database-driven spectrum sharing (e.g., SAS), and it protects
An F-curve, F (x, y), ensures a probabilistic guarantee that,
IUs by providing a probabilistic guarantee of interference
inside the TV coverage region, the received TV signal is above
protection. Specifically, MIPZ consists of three zones—(i) No
a given threshold x% of the time in y% of the locations
Access Zone (NAZ) where SU operation is strictly prohibited,
[13], [65]. Then, an appropriate safety margin is added to the
(ii) Limited Access Zone (LAZ) where only a “limited”
protected service contour, often in the form of a minimum
number of SUs are allowed to operate, and (iii) Unlimited
separation distance from the edge of the protected service
Access Zone (UAZ) where SUs have unencumbered access to
contour, to derive appropriate EZs for both co-channel and
the spectrum. Figure 4 shows a simplified (considering circular
adjacent-channel SU operations.
EZs), as well as a practical (considering irregular EZs), model
In the AWS-3 band, the NTIA recently prescribed Co- of the MIPZ framework. For technical details pertaining to
ordination Zones (CZs) for sharing these bands with wire- the computation of NAZ-LAZ (inner) and LAZ-UAZ (outer)
less broadband systems (WBSs) [36]. A CZ is not an EZ boundaries, readers are referred to [63].
where SUs are prohibited, but it is the area inside which a On one hand, stringent technical requirements and risks of
WBS may operate provided that it meets the requirements interference to the IUs (especially passive IUs) have made
for coordination with federal incumbents [66]. Specifically, spectrum sharing approaches that rely solely on sensing less
NTIA’s rules require each AWS-3 licensee, prior to its first popular recently [71]. On the other hand, experimental results
operations in its AWS-3 licensed area, to reach a coordination from recent studies have shown that sharing approaches that
arrangement with each Federal agency [67]. After a successful rely solely on databases alone may offer inaccurate and stale
coordination arrangement, the AWS-3 licensee will be notified information of spectrum availability [72]–[74]. State-of-the-
with operating conditions that specify the terms in which the art research has shown that incorporating real-time sensing
licensee may begin operations, or denial of request. Even if data with a database-driven approach is more effective in
an AWS-3 licensee is allowed to operate inside a CZ, it must maximizing spectrum access opportunities for SUs than using
tolerate possible interference from the IUs. For further details either a sensing or a database approach in isolation [63],
on coordination procedures in the AWS-3 band, readers are [71], [72], [75], [76]. Hence, researchers proposed a con-
referred to [36]. cept called Radio Environment Map (REM) [73], [77]–[79],
The legacy protection zones, as they are defined today, which incorporates a statistical fusion of multiple sources
often result in an overly conservative approach for incumbent of incumbent characteristics and offers improved spectrum
protection that unnecessarily limits the SUs’ spectrum access access opportunities for SUs. A recent study is the work of
opportunities. A good example of this can be seen in the Bo et al. [6] who proposed a multi-tiered spectrum sharing
U.S. TV bands. To account for possible deep fades, the framework, similar to MIPZ, that incorporates sensing results
IEEE 802.22 working group specifications require detectors into a database-driven sharing approach and refines the EZ
to have a sensitivity of −116 dBm which corresponds to a boundary to take advantage of the fallow spectrum that is not
safety margin of roughly 20 dB (equivalent to an increased captured by database-driven sharing alone. Authors of [6] also
radius of an EZ up to 110 km) [68], [69]. However, in most studied strategies to incentivize spectrum sensing that can be
situations, the probability of such deep fades is very low, incorporated in their proposed framework.
and hence the specifications unnecessarily constrain spectrum 3) Protecting Passive Incumbents: In the preceding para-
access opportunities for the SUs. Another example can be seen graphs, we focused on protecting incumbents that actively
in the proposed use of EZs to protect incumbents in the 3.5 emit RF energy. In this section, however, we focus on a
GHz band. In [70], the NTIA proposed the use of EZs that very different scenario that involves spectrum sharing between
cordoned off vast areas inland of the east and west coast of the passive sensing systems (as IUs) and active communication
U.S. to protect the navy’s ship-borne radar systems. Some have systems (as SUs). In this scenario, the IUs are receiver-only
estimated that nearly 60% of the U.S. population reside inside passive systems, such as systems for earth exploration satellite
these EZs [57]. The deployment of such overly conservative service (EESS), radio astronomy (RA), or remote sensing.
EZs can significantly reduce the economic benefits of spectrum Such passive systems strive to observe extremely faint signals
sharing, and may seriously hinder its adoption due to the lack that are emitted by distant non-coordinating transmitters. The
of interest from potential SU wireless industry stakeholders. signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the signal that needs to be de-
 8

Another scenario in which time-sharing can be employed

is the coexistence of EESS systems and active secondary
systems. To protect low-orbit EESS systems, SAS can employ
a no access zone (i.e., a region where no SUs are allowed
to transmit) that moves in synchronization with the satellite
footprint’s movement, similar in concept to a dynamic exclu-
sion zone. In essence, spectrum access is being coordinated
through the SAS, and the IUs and the SUs are time-sharing the
spectrum. This notion of time-sharing is possible because most
passive sensing applications require access to particular seg-
(a) Simplified model (b) Practical model
ments of the spectrum for relatively short durations only, and
Fig. 4: MIPZ framework these durations can be pre-scheduled based on the information
about the satellite’s spectrum usage, orbital path, velocity, and
the location and size of its instantaneous footprint on the earth.
tected can be as low as -60 dB [80]. This constraint forces the B. Ex Post (Punitive) Approaches
passive systems to use very sensitive receiver-antenna systems
which, in turn, make them highly vulnerable to interference, In general, ex post enforcement approaches involve one or
much more so than active communication systems [81]. more of the following four enforcement steps:
1) Monitoring/Logging Interference Events: This step
There are other issues that make spectrum sharing between involves collecting information about users’ activities that can
active and passive systems different from sharing between later be used in adjudication procedures, if deemed neces-
active systems. For example, geographic separation does not sary. In essence, logging the details of interference events is
apply to many EESS whose footprint covers a large area equivalent to collecting forensic evidence, which cannot be
on the Earth’s surface; frequency separation may not be repudiated by the suspected interferer, during the adjudication
applicable to RA systems because radio astronomers are process.
often interested in a large swath of the radio spectrum as 2) Identifying Non-Complaint Transmitters: This step in-
different physical processes produce electromagnetic radiation volves the reliable identification and, if possible, authentication
at different frequencies; and time sharing may not be feasible of the interference source. In the literature, identification
for passive systems that require continuous sensing. Therefore, mechanisms at the upper layers of the protocol stack have
spectrum sharing between passive and active systems requires been used to authenticate or uniquely identify transmitters.
an understanding of the operational and functional nature of However, these approaches are of limited value in ex post
each passive system and identification of the most suitable enforcement, because the enforcement entity (e.g., FCC) may
dimension (in time, frequency, or space), which should be used not know the upper layers of the protocol stack used by the
to carry out spectrum sharing with active users. interference source, and, as a consequence, is unable to decode
One existing approach for protecting terrestrial passive the upper layer signaling needed to identify the interferer. For
systems is to locate them in an area that is far away from this reason, authentication or identification at the PHY-layer
high population density areas and is devoid of industrial de- is the most appealing approach for ex post enforcement.
velopment (e.g., RA telescope at Green Bank, WV, USA). The PHY-layer authentication is an active area of research,
majority of interference that is detected in such remote sites and several schemes have been proposed, which can be
is due to extra-terrestrial sources, interference propagation broadly categorized into two classes: intrinsic and extrinsic
through the ionosphere, or tropospheric scatter from remote approaches. The former utilizes the transmitter-unique “in-
transmitters [82]. To mitigate such interference, unilateral trinsic” characteristics of the waveform as unique signatures
techniques such as excision, cancellation and anti-coincidence to authenticate/identify transmitters. They include RF finger-
are often employed [83]. However, the efficacy of the legacy printing, and electromagnetic signature identification [84]–
unilateral approaches is inherently limited by the lack of [87]. Extrinsic schemes enable a transmitter to “extrinsically”
coordination with the active sources of interference. More embed an authentication signal (e.g., digital signature) in
importantly, such unilateral approaches are not conducive to the message signal and enable a receiver to extract it. Such
efficient utilization of the spectrum. schemes include PHY-layer watermarking [88]–[91] and trans-
To enable efficient sharing between incumbent passive sys- mitter authentication [92]–[98]. On one hand, the intrinsic
tems and secondary active systems, a bilateral approach that approaches require the blind receiver to have only a little
considers coordination between the two parties is needed, and knowledge about the transmission parameters to authenticate
this coordination can be handled by a spectrum management the transmitter, but they are limited by their low robustness
entity such as a SAS. Cooperative interference mitigation against noise and security attacks [99]. On the other hand, the
techniques coordinate the timing and regional use of the radio extrinsic approaches can be made highly robust against noise
spectrum in a more dynamic manner. Active systems can and security threats, but they require the blind receiver to have
cooperate by briefly interrupting or synchronizing radio trans- complete knowledge about the transmission parameters.
missions to accommodate the passive measurements whenever In some ex post enforcement scenarios, the enforcement
and wherever needed. entity may not have knowledge of the PHY-layer parameters
 9

used by the rogue or mal-functioning transmitters. In such Bureau of the FCC. In carrying out its enforcement activities,
situations, conventional PHY-layer authentication schemes the Enforcement Bureau has several punitive measures at
(e.g., [88], [89], [92]–[95]) cannot be used, because in those its disposal, including imposing monetary forfeitures, issuing
schemes, the verifier needs to know all of the PHY-layer cease and desist orders, and revoking operating authority (e.g.,
parameters to correctly authenticate the transmitter. Kumar et a station license). Traditionally, the Enforcement Bureau has
al. [100] recently addressed this important issue by proposing relied on a number of enforcement tools, one of which is call
a scheme that realizes blind transmitter authentication (BTA). signs and related identifiers. Call signs or call letters have
The authors coin the term BTA to refer to the problem of been used since the early days of wireless communications
authenticating a transmitter by extracting its unique, identi- to uniquely identify transmitting stations. By listening to
fiable information from the received signal with little or no and deciphering the call letters or related identifiers of an
knowledge of the PHY-layer transmission parameters. interfering fixed (but not mobile) transmitter, a regulator can
Note that most of the aforementioned schemes can be identify and, if the geographic coordinates associated with the
readily circumvented if tamper-resistance or integrity protec- transmitter are known, locate the transmitter. Another legacy
tion mechanisms are not employed to thwart hackers from enforcement tool is station licenses. To operate a station, an
removing or incapacitating the authentication mechanism used operator has to first file an application for a station license to
by the transmitter. There are a number of prior studies that the FCC. The station license authorizes the licensee to operate
have attempted to address this issue [60], [101]. the station for a pre-determined period of time after which the
Furthermore, PHY level identification may pose a threat to license needs to be renewed. The threat of license revocation
privacy or security if access and use of the information is often acts as a strong incentive for operators to obey the FCC’s
not appropriately secured and in compliance with higher-layer rules. Another traditional tool worth mentioning is operator
(network or application layer) policies and protocols. Practical licenses. Traditionally, the FCC has required those who operate
implementation of such techniques will need to consider such and maintain transmitter stations to be licensed.
cross-layer design issues. (These issues are addressed further Unfortunately, most, if not all, of the traditional enforcement
in Section VI.) tools mentioned above have little value in spectrum sharing
3) Localizing Non-Complaint Transmitters: Once the ma- scenarios [108]. For instance, the utility of traditional call signs
licious or mal-functioning transmitter has been identified, the for enforcement activities has dwindled away to almost noth-
next step is to localize it. In database-driven spectrum sharing, ing due to the widespread movement from analog transmitters
SUs need to register with the database. Hence, it would be to digital transmitters and from aural to data communications.
straightforward for the database to know a rogue transmitter’s Station licenses cannot be used as an enforcement tool because
approximate location, assuming that the transmitter identifica- most SUs (who opportunistically access fallow spectrum)
tion step has been successfully completed. The challenge is are unlicensed users in the envisioned SAS ecosystem. Fur-
to find out the precise geo-location of the rogue transmitter ther, operator licensing has been largely phased out in most
because it is unlikely that the rogue transmitter would provide services. This is due to the fact that, in modern systems,
any cooperation for its location estimation. Thus, the local- procedures for accessing channels are controlled by computer
ization in cognitive radio networks has to be achieved via a logic, and minimal or no expertise on the part of the operator is
non-interactive technique, e.g., by using localizing techniques required to ensure efficient operation and control interference.
such as direction of arrival estimation, or by implementing The limitations of legacy approaches for enforcing access
sensors/receivers to measure the received signal strength (RSS) rules in spectrum sharing scenarios necessitate the develop-
[102]–[105]. The RSS is an indicator of the link distance ment of a new set of enforcement tools. Interference resolution
between a transmitter and a receiver. Hence, the information and enforcement is one of the fundamental requirements that
about the distances measured between the rogue transmitter must be met to enable government-commercial spectrum shar-
and a set of receivers through RSS measurements can be ing. The willingness of government agencies to share spectrum
merged at the regulator to localize the rogue transmitter. on a more expanded and dynamic basis depends on their
4) Adjudication and Resolution: In the final step of ex confidence that the applicable regulations and rules regarding
post enforcement, the non-compliant transmitter is adjudicated interference will be effective and enforced in an appropriate
and penalized. Malicious users can be penalized by either time frame [108]. Also, the value of shared government
restricting their access to the spectrum for a certain duration spectrum to commercial entities depends on their confidence
of time or by imposing economic penalties. The severity of the that the regulators have applicable rules and tools in place to
punishment should be proportional to the severity of the non- effectively control the number of interference incidents and
compliant act and the estimated cost of the harm [106], [107]. have the ability to resolve incidents promptly.
However, the implications of imperfect enforcement must also To enhance the efficiency of enforcement, it is important
be taken into account when designing an ex post enforcement to consider the design of ex ante and ex post frameworks
methodology. The primary goal of adjudication/penalization concurrently to ensure they are mutually re-enforcing so as
should be to encourage and, if possible, incentivize SUs to to maximize the likelihood of compliant behavior and min-
self-regulate and obey access rules, and not to mete out heavy- imize the total costs imposed of ensuring such compliance.
handed punishments to misbehaving users. Creative approaches should be considered. For example, it
In the U.S., the responsibility of interference resolution may be feasible to have negative penalties as part of an ex
and spectrum enforcement is centralized in the Enforcement post regime. Under these, radios which establish a record of
 10

good performance might be granted additional permissions or B. 5 GHz Band: Coexistence between Wi-Fi and LTE-U
expanded access to spectrum resources as way to incentivize
compliance with access and radio operation rules. Alterna- Recently, the 5 GHz bands have attracted significant in-
tively, crowd-sourcing and other techniques for distributing the terest for launching new wireless applications and services
costs and responsibilities for enforcement may augment and because of their favorable propagation characteristics and the
ease the enforcement burden falling on traditional regulatory relative abundance of spectrum therein (580 MHz in the U.S.,
institutions such as the FCC. How to integrate such novel 455 − 605 MHz in Europe, 325 MHz in China [117]). There
techniques into existing rules and institutional management are proposals from multiple industry stakeholders such as
frameworks poses an open research challenge. Qualcomm and others to extend the deployment of LTE-
Advanced (LTE-A) to the 5 GHz U-NII bands by exploiting a
number of available technologies, such as carrier aggregation
V. C OEXISTENCE BETWEEN H ETEROGENEOUS W IRELESS (CA) and supplemental downlink (SDL) [118], [119]. This so-
T ECHNOLOGIES called pre-standard LTE-U approach is applicable to regions
In the previous section, we focused on the general prob- that do not have a Listen Before Talk (LBT) requirement
lem of interference protection as represented by the various on accessing the U-NII bands (e.g., US, China, and South
mechanisms used to enforce coexistence between IUs and Korea). For instance, CA/SDL can be used in LTE FDD
SUs. In this section, we discuss an equally important problem, mode to augment the data-carrying capacity of the downlink
viz., techniques for assuring harmonious sharing between from the LTE eNodeB to the LTE user equipment (UE),
heterogeneous wireless access technologies. Compared to IU- thus creating a fat downlink pipe. Control and management
SU coexistence, SU-SU coexistence has attracted much less functions, as well as time-critical communications, are likely
attention from the regulators as well as the research com- to continue to take place over the licensed (“anchor”) channel.
munity. This may be partially due to the experience in the In other regions of the world (e.g., Europe, Japan), regulators
ISM bands, where diverse technologies, such as Wi-Fi and require devices that wish to access the U-NII bands to execute
Bluetooth, coexist harmoniously, in most situations, without the LBT procedure at the milliseconds scale. Ongoing 3GPP
a common coexistence mechanism. However, the coexistence standardization efforts that aim to make LTE compatible with
situation in the TV bands and other shared-access bands (e.g., the LBT procedure are referred to as LAA. The introduction of
3.5 and 5 GHz bands) is more complex and challenging due LTE-U (or LAA) in the 5 GHz bands will require current and
to a number of reasons, including the use of devices with future Wi-Fi technologies operating in these bands to share
higher transmission power, disparity of PHY/MAC strategies spectrum with LTE-U (or LAA) devices.
employed by the secondary systems, and the competition Coexistence in the 5 GHz bands has been studied in several
among the commercial service providers that aim to augment previous works, which focused on different aspects, including
their existing network capacity with additional capacity tapped channel interference, spectrum sharing, and scheduling. Part
from those bands. of the challenge is that technologies like Wi-Fi rely on
distributed access control mechanisms whereas technologies
like LTE take advantage of operator-centralized control, which
A. TV Band: Coexistence among SUs proponents of distributed access models argue may give LTE-
In order to address the coexistence issues among TVWS like technologies an unfair advantage in accessing the shared
devices, industry stakeholders have undertaken active steps spectrum. An investigation of the performance of co-existing
towards standardizing several TVWS technologies, includ- LTE and WLAN on the license-exempt band [120] shows that
ing ECMA-392 [109], IEEE 802.19.1 [110], 802.22 [111], WLAN technologies hold their transmissions when channel
802.11af [112], and 802.15.4m [113]. In addition, the DySPAN interference is detected, while LTE reduces its transmission
Standards Committee formed a new 1900.7 task group (TG) to speed in order to increase the transmission robustness. Authors
create another standard for TVWS [114]. To address the prob- of [121] propose to apply the Request-to-Send/Clear-to-Send
lem of secondary network coexistence in TVWS, the 802.19.1 (RTS/CTS) protocol to LTE eNodeBs, so that the WLAN
TG was formed [110], [115]. The purpose of the 802.19.1 networks do not always yield to LTE transmissions. A large
standard is to enable the family of 802 wireless standards to number of related works study spectrum sharing. Xing et al.
most effectively use TVWS by providing standard coexistence [122] propose an adaptive spectrum sharing technique in which
methods among dissimilar or independently operated TVWS LTE should adjust its subframe configuration periodically
networks and dissimilar TVWS devices [116]. This standard to adapt to the traffic load of WLAN system. Authors of
addresses coexistence issues among IEEE 802 networks and [123] propose spectrum sharing using a spectrum consump-
devices and will also be useful for non-IEEE 802 networks tion model. This mechanism considers spectrum management
and TVWS devices. It acts as an interface between coexisting policies, including existing users convey restrictions to new
networks, providing functionality related to identification of users, spectrum trading [124], service-level agreement [125],
802.19.1-compliant systems (e.g., via registration), obtain- etc. Some works study the spectrum sharing in unlicensed
ing/updating coexistence information (e.g., from databases), band using game theory [126], [127]. Yun et al. [128] propose
and using intelligent decision making algorithms to facilitate a new algorithm to decode two interfering cross technology
harmonious coexistence (e.g., decide which actions should be Orthogonal Frequency Division Modulation (OFDM) signals
taken by networks to solve coexistence problems). without alignment in time or frequency. Although their algo-
 11

rithm allows LTE and Wi-Fi to transmit simultaneously, the any prior coordination. However, the requirement of highly
proposed estimation and decoding technology must be applied directional and adaptive transmissions, directional isolation
to each receiver device. between links, and significant possibilities of outage have
Enabling a fair coexistence between LTE-U and Wi-Fi is strong implications on multiple access, channel structure,
challenging due to the disparity between their MAC protocols synchronization, and receiver design [131]. In this regard,
and the “greedy” nature of LTE-U. LTE-U adopts a schedule- several industry stakeholders and regulatory bodies, including
based access approach, whereas Wi-Fi uses contention-based IMT-2020 in China, OfCom in the UK and FCC in the US,
random access. Although LTE-U employs a number of coex- have been actively seeking comments and proposals regarding
istence techniques (e.g., carrier-sensing adaptive transmission coexistence mechanisms for bands above 6 GHz [23], [45].
(CSAT)), it still exhibits an inherently more aggressive ap-
proach in accessing the spectrum compared to Wi-Fi. Fairness VI. S ECURITY AND P RIVACY I SSUES
is critically important in this case as the two coexisting In the preceding two sections we discussed the important
technologies have the same spectrum access priority. challenge of managing interference. Many of the mechanisms
discussed relied on the collection, analysis, and sharing of
C. 5 GHz Band: Coexistence between Wi-Fi and DSRC information about the radio environment and spectrum usage
Wi-Fi stakeholders in the U.S. have been lobbying the in order to ensure efficient collective use of the spectrum.
government for access to more spectrum in the 5 GHz bands Much of this information has the potential to pose a threat to
in order to deploy their next-generation technologies, such as the confidentiality and privacy of spectrum users. For example,
802.11ac and 802.11ax. In response to the rapidly accelerating unauthorized access to the location, technical capabilities, or
adoption of Wi-Fi, particularly the burgeoning 802.11ac stan- usage behavior of SUs or IUs could pose a significant threat
dard, the FCC issued an NPRM in 2013 [15] that recommends to users strategic interests and privacy. In this section, we turn
adding 195 MHz of additional spectrum by opening up the to another important challenge: the need to protect the privacy
ITS band (5.850 − 5.925 GHz), where DSRC users are the and confidentiality of information collected as a byproduct of
IUs, to unlicensed devices. Inclusion of the ITS band permits spectrum management.
one additional 80 MHz and one additional 160 MHz channel For example, the use of spectrum databases offers a prag-
for 802.11ac or 802.11ax. However, the realization of this matic approach for enabling spectrum sharing between gov-
scenario requires a careful design of the coexistence frame- ernment (IU) and commercial users (SUs), but at the same
work. The coexistence of ITS applications with Wi-Fi may time, it incurs a number of security and privacy concerns
severely degrade the performance of the former, especially by unintentionally facilitating the collection and aggregation
safety applications that are very sensitive to communication of sensitive information by adversial SUs [132]. Examples
latency [129]. Moreover, when the ITS band was first allocated include threats to the operational security (OPSEC) of the
in 1999, the FCC’s original intention was for this band to incumbents (e.g., Naval radar systems), privacy of the SUs
support DSRC for ITS exclusively, and hence the ITS protocol (e.g., by potentially enabling location-tracking of individuals),
stack or the relevant applications designed thereafter were not and attacks targeting the SAS infrastructure.
designed to coexist with unlicensed devices.
The coexistence of DSRC and Wi-Fi raises a totally dif- A. OPSEC Threats to the Incumbents and Countermeasures
ferent set of challenges than the ones discussed in Section
Although using geolocation databases is a practical and
V-B. In this case, DSRC is the incumbent user, and Wi-Fi is
cost-effective approach for enabling spectrum sharing, it poses
the secondary user with lower priority. Incumbent protection
a potentially serious OPSEC problem. SUs (queriers), through
is a major challenge because the incumbent users are highly
seemingly innocuous queries to the database, can infer op-
mobile vehicular nodes that utilize spectrum in a dynamic
erational attributes (e.g., location, type, times-of-operation,
manner in spatial and temporal dimensions. The difficulty of
antenna attributes, receiver sensitivity, etc.) of the incumbents,
the problem is exacerbated by the fact that 802.11ac/802.11ax
and thus compromise their OPSEC [132]. Figure 5 illustrates
has a distinct advantage over DSRC in accessing the spectrum
this threat, which is referred to as an inference attack. A
due to its shorter interframe space (IFS) values, which could
malicious user can infer the sensitive data of incumbents
have a very negative impact on the communication latency of
even if the database does not directly reveal such information.
DSRC safety applications.
When incumbents are federal government systems, including
mission-critical military systems and public-safety entities,
D. Coexistence in Spectrum Bands above 6 GHz such as in the U.S. 3.5 GHz band, this breach of incumbents’
Due to the scarcity of spectrum at frequencies below 6 GHz, OPSEC is a critical issue. Although potentially less serious,
the use of higher frequencies such as those in the mmWave OPSEC concerns may arise among commercial users who may
bands has been proposed for 5G cellular systems. In general, be concerned about access to strategically sensitive informa-
mmWave communication systems cause less interference to tion by competitors or threats to the privacy of their customers
neighboring cells operating in the same frequency bands from unauthorized access to database information.
compared to communication at lower frequencies [130]. The The problem of incumbents’ OPSEC cannot be adequately
noise-limited behavior inherent in mmWave communication addressed by tightly controlling access to the database be-
systems may allow them to share the spectrum without cause: i) all SUs need to access the database to realize
 12

of the users’ locations by using mix zones [140], sending

fake queries, indistinguishable from real queries, issued from
fake locations to the database [141], and applying k-anonymity
[142] to location privacy.

C. Security Threats to the SAS and Remedies

In addition to aforementioned threats to the security and
privacy of the IUs and the SUs, there are other security
concerns associated with database-driven spectrum sharing.
One such concern is the threats against the infrastructure
that govern spectrum access and sharing (i.e., SAS or SAS-
like infrastructure). Similar to the Internet’s DNS (Domain
Name System), it is expected that several physical SASs will
be networked together to form a region-wide infrastructure.
Fig. 5: Indirect information access via inference channel.
Therefore, some of the security threats against DNS servers
may be applicable to the SAS as well. A malicious user may
modify its own device to masquerade as another certified
spectrum sharing, and ii) identifying malicious SUs is chal-
device. An attacker can spoof a spectrum database and can
lenging, especially when they are inside-attackers (i.e., le-
modify/jam the query sent by another device or modify/jam the
gitimate/authorized users performing illegitimate/unauthorized
database-response that was intended for some other legitimate
actions). A more viable approach may be to “obfuscate” the
device. Adversaries can maliciously alter the contents of the
information revealed by the database in an intelligent manner
SAS (a.k.a. SAS poisoning). Malicious groups may redirect a
such that a certain level of OPSEC is assured while support-
legitimate SAS’s traffic to another bogus server (a.k.a. SAS
ing efficient use of the spectrum [56]. Several obfuscation
pharming). Similarly, denail-of-service to the legitimate SUs
schemes, such as perturbation, transfiguration, k-anonymity
can be caused by bombarding a large number of bogus queries
and k-clustering, are proposed in [132]. Differential privacy
to the SAS [56].
[133] is another emerging privacy-preserving paradigm that
Most of the aforementioned security threats may be ad-
provides a semantic privacy model with strong protection
dressed by implementing a two-way encrypted authentication
guarantees: it captures the amount of disclosure that occurs due
between the SAS and the SU (querier). Authentication thwarts
to the publication of sensitive data in addition to mandating
masquerade and database spoofing attacks. Cryptography-
how the published data should look. A generalization of
based integrity protection mechanisms (e.g., message authen-
differential privacy, called “geo-indistinguishability”, has been
tication codes) prevent adversaries from modifying spectrum
studied in [134], [135] for protecting the location privacy of
queries/responses without being detected, and the same applies
users in the context of location based services.
to the unauthorized modification of the SAS contents. In terms
of countering threats to the availability of SAS, maintaining
B. Privacy Threats to the SUs and Countermeasures redundancy in the SAS’s contents is one straightforward tech-
Another issue in database-driven spectrum sharing is the nique. The efficacy of this technique has been demonstrated in
privacy of SUs. Since SUs need to send their operational several attack incidents of the past, including the distributed-
attributes (e.g., identity, location, antenna parameters, etc.) to denial-of-service (DDoS) attack that was launched against
the database for obtaining the spectrum availability informa- DNS root servers in October of 2007 [143].
tion in their region, their privacy may be threatened by an
untrustworthy/semi-trustworthy database. An example of such VII. O PEN P ROBLEMS AND R ESEARCH C HALLENGES
a database is a compromised SAS that is managed by a com- While radio and networking technical capabilities have
mercial entity, which provides accurate spectrum availability improved substantially and while promising reform initiatives
information but may misuse the querier’s information for its are underway enabling progress toward realization of the DSA
own benefit. An untrustworthy or a compromised database vision articulated earlier, much remains to be done. New
can directly infer a SU’s information including its spectrum radio capabilities breed new demands for access to spectrum,
usage habits, device type, times of operation, mobility, etc. and the continuing process of technical, market, and policy
[136]. One way to counter this threat is to use a two-way innovations is continuously creating new SUs seeking access
authentication protocol between the SAS and the SU—it to spectrum. There are a number of open challenges in both the
enables both the SAS and the SU to authenticate each other. technological and policy domains. Some of these are discussed
Homomorphic encryption-based private information retrieval in the following subsections and summarized in Table I.
[137] is another approach for accessing data privately from
an untrustworthy/semi-trusted database. Other techniques that
have been studied in the context of LBS to preserve the users’ A. Spectrum Efficiency and Access
location privacy include sending a space- or time-obfuscated One of the key challenges in dynamic spectrum sharing is
version of the users’ actual locations [138], [139], hiding some the effective management of spectrum resources. It requires
 13

TABLE I: Open problems and research challenges in dynamic spectrum sharing

Category Open Problems and Research Challenges
• New access paradigms and protocols for efficient spectrum use.
• Models that incentivize incumbents to share their licensed spectrum or to relocate to other bands.
• Sharing between commercial and non-commercial users (e.g., federal-commercial sharing).
1. Spectrum allocation/assignment and • Models and techniques, including dynamic spectrum markets/auctions, for assignment of spectrum.
spectrum management • Frameworks for defining dynamic and flexible incumbent protection zones.
• Approaches for incorporating real-time sensing results with database-driven spectrum sharing.
• Quantifying spectrum efficiency, value of spectrum and fair access to the spectrum.
• Defining techniques and standards for spectrum measurement.
2. Metrics to quantify spectrum usage • Quantitative definition of harmful interference, and its applications.
• Quantifying receiver performance in real-world spectrum sharing environment.
• Tools for evaluating the economic and technical trade-offs in spectrum sharing.
• Techniques for enabling harmonious coexistence between heterogeneous wireless technologies.
• Adaptive modulation schemes to enable coexistence and interference mitigation.
• Realistic propagation models for frequencies that are being considered for new applications.
3. Interference management and • Mathematical models of interference and techniques for mitigating interference.
coexistence • Models for radio system performance with trade-off assessment capabilities.
• Interference-tolerant waveforms and protocols.
• Techniques and policies for protecting passive IUs.
• Vulnerability studies of flexible spectrum access systems and development of countermeasures.
• Investigating the trade-off between OPSEC and implementation complexity in spectrum sharing.
• Hardware and software technologies for enforcing spectrum sharing rules.
4. Security and enforcement • Techniques and policies for identifying, adjudicating and punishing non-compliant radio devices.
• Defining property rights, and mechanisms to enforce those rights.
• Automated enforcement mechanisms and compliance certification methods.
• Reconfigurable radio hardware, including antennas, amplifiers, filters, tuners, etc.
• Improvements in smart radio architectures that support high dynamic range for wideband operation.
• Radio hardware that supports operation in the millimeter wave band.
5. Radio hardware and software • Designing low-power or energy-harvesting devices for sustainability.
• Hardware that provide improved geolocation, direction-finding and interference nulling capabilities.
• Clearly defined metrics for quantifying advances in radio hardware and software.
• Frequency-, space-, and time-cognizant protocols that dynamically leverage multi-functional radio
hardware and software.
• Standards that support pre-emptive spectrum access for emergency services.
6. Protocols and standards • Protocols and standards for carrier aggregation.
• Database-access-protocols for database-driven sharing.
• Standards for radio propagation measurement for different bands.
• Development of advanced and adaptable test beds using advances in hardware, software and policy.
• Virtual test beds, including the use of computer simulations, to model and assess coexistence
7. Experimentation, testing and techniques in large-scale spectrum sharing scenario.
standardization • Proofs-of-concept demonstrations covering a variety of bands, applications and geographical areas.
• Standardization of current/future test beds.
• Service level agreements for negotiated sharing.
• Understanding the possible impact of new radio technologies on health and environment.
• Risk assessment techniques for evaluating when and how to share the spectrum between users.
• Strategies for designing dynamic spectrum auctions and markets.
8. Policy, regulatory and economic issues • Assessment of economic trade-offs in incentivizing spectrum sharing under multiple scenarios.
• Strategies to inventivize spectrum sensing.
• Devising economic models and processes that can operate on huge datasets of wireless feedback,
rapidly assess spectrum usage, and adjust spectrum sharing parameters in real-time.

advancements in allocation and assignment mechanisms that pool that may host a large number of different wireless ser-
not only facilitate spectrum sharing, but also support mea- vices. However, designing a framework that enables the mar-
surement and dynamic assessment of the costs and benefits of riage of database-driven and sensing-driven spectrum sharing
sharing. It is a multidisciplinary challenge that requires a joint approaches remains an open problem. Furthermore, sharing
engagement of technical, economic and policy perspectives between users with different access-priorities confront novel
[144]. Further research is needed to develop and advance our challenges that demand study of new access paradigms and
ability to quantify spectrum efficiency, harmful interference, protocols, dynamic and flexible incumbent protection zones,
spectrum value and fair access to the spectrum. and adaptive models for spectrum allocation and assignment.
We summarize open research challenges related to spectrum
To increase the resolution of spectrum availability and
efficiency and access in Category 1 and 2 of Table I.
utilization, there is a need to augment the spectrum database
content with real-time sensing results [145]. Advanced spec-
trum sensing techniques are needed to quickly and accurately
identify transmission opportunities over a very wide spectrum
 14

B. Coexistence and Interference Management Fundamental limits in these areas also need to be explored.
Facilitating harmonious coexistence among heterogeneous There is also a need to design hardware that provide improved
wireless technologies is another challenge in dynamic spec- geolocation capabilities for indoor applications, direction-
trum sharing (see Category 3 of Table I). First and foremost, finding and interference-nulling capabilities. For sustainabil-
specific metrics need to be established for assessing how well ity, research should focus on designing low power energy-
devices are coexisting together. There is also a need to develop harvesting devices.
modulation schemes that adapt in concert with other system Besides hardware, there is a need to develop simulation
components to enable interference mitigation/avoidance. Real- tools and software for evaluating the efficiency and scalability
istic propagation models, including inferential models (models of newly proposed architectures. Frequency-, space-, and time-
that allow the prediction of signal loss at one frequency from cognizant protocols need to be developed for improving the
measurements at other), for frequencies that are being consid- spectral efficiency. Standards need to be defined for tech-
ered for new applications enable regulators and policy makers nologies such as carrier aggregation, database-access-protocol
to foresee the merits of coexistence in both technological and and radio propagation measurement for different bands. These
non-technological aspects. issues are outlined in Category 5 and 6 of Table I.
Future spectrum sharing scenarios require coexistence
among secondary users of the spectrum (e.g., LTE-U and Wi- D. Security and Enforcement
Fi in the 5 GHz band). Facilitating SU-SU coexistence requires
the development of techniques that have not been studied The successful deployment of new spectrum access tech-
before. For example, even with TV white space systems using nologies, such as cognitive radios, and the realization of their
database approaches, the issue of how multiple white space benefits will partly depend on the placement of essential secu-
networks might co-exist and coordinate with each other is yet rity mechanisms in sufficiently robust form to resist misuse of
to be explored [110]. The databases inform the radios which the technologies. The emergence of new spectrum access tech-
TV channels are available—they say nothing about other data nologies and spectrum utilization paradigms raise new security
networks that might be trying to use the available TV channels. challenges that have not been studied previously. Vulnerability
Moreover, spectrum coordination or cooperation between studies of flexible spectrum access systems and development
disparate networks, such as a government network as an IU of countermeasures is central to realizing effective spectrum
and a commercial mobile network as a SU, as required in U.S. sharing.
3.5 GHz band, is just in the beginning phase. Sharing between There is a need to study obfuscation techniques that meet the
government and commercial entities will require innovations OPSEC requirements of incumbent users, especially military
in technology as well as in business, administrative, and mar- users, while enabling efficient spectrum utilization. Studies
ket institutions and practices. Special-purpose wireless systems must also focus on thwarting threats against the infrastruc-
may be difficult to accommodate within bold new spectrum- ture that govern spectrum access and sharing. Furthermore,
use models because of fundamental limitations on frequency regulators and policy makers need to understand what data
agility due to basic operational requirements, extreme sensi- from spectrum usage can be collected and analyzed to assess
tivity to interference, or potentially drastic consequences due spectrum utilization without infringing on the users’ privacy.
to failure of a radio frequency link. Innovative solutions for Note that more reliable and effective enforcement regimes
accommodating such systems are needed. These systems may often result in greater infringement of the user’s privacy rights.
include medical devices, surveillance, remote sensing, and Multidisciplinary research efforts are needed to study this
passive systems such as radio telescopes. Furthermore, coex- issue, and to explore the technical and sociological solution
istence with legacy systems is an additional challenge because approaches for balancing the two, seemingly opposing, goals
of backward and forward inter-operability and compatibility. of enforcement and privacy.
Frequency agile radios combined with compliance and
enforcement requirements necessitate research in the following
C. Hardware, Software, Protocols and Standards areas: (i) automating the detection and identification of inter-
Improving spectral efficiency and radio configurability for ference sources; (ii) creating mechanisms for rapidly enforcing
hardware and software-defined radios is crucial for enabling policy changes on radio devices; (iii) evaluating the sociology
the commercialization of appropriate spectrum sharing cus- of privacy, enforcement mechanisms, and potential penalties;
tomer and network equipment. This requires advancements and (iv) evaluating the economic trade-offs in ex-ante and ex-
in smart radio architectures that support high dynamic range post mechanisms. As wireless systems become more advanced,
for wideband operation. New technologies and applications certifying new wireless devices (especially those which are
above 6 GHz are a promising emerging area. Designing power based on software defined radio) for compliance becomes non-
efficient radios that support high bandwidth and multi-antenna trivial because of the radio’s reconfigurable and frequency-
applications is another challenging problem that needs to be agile nature [146]–[148]. Beyond certification, monitoring will
addressed. be needed to ensure that deployed systems are in compliance,
New advances in the areas of radio hardware, software, and when they are not, enforcement procedures will be needed
signal processing, protocols and access theory need to be to remedy the problems. Some of the open problems and re-
developed such that they will work in concert, flexibly and search challenges related to spectrum enforcement, compliance
over time to support wireless technologies of diverse needs. and security are enumerated in Category 4 of Table I.
 15

E. Experimentation, Testing and Standardization challenges that are part of the ongoing systematic efforts to
To ensure that the new technologies will not cause harm bring about fundamental changes to how we manage and
to legacy systems, are robust and secure, and are efficient utilize radio spectrum. Most of the legacy spectrum regimes
users of the spectrum, testing of new technology through employed throughout the world are overly static and inflexible,
large-scale experimentation is essential. Such testing will also making it difficult, if not impossible, to utilize spectrum to its
prove helpful in raising stakeholder trust that the new sharing full potential in an efficient manner. Dedicated exclusive-use
approaches will work as promised. This requires new tests, assignments, premised on archaic notions of radio technology,
measurement solutions, standards and regulatory validation. reduced incentives to use spectrum efficiently and contributed
Measurements and metrics to establish existing and future to problems of artificial scarcity, thereby impeding growth and
levels of spectrum occupancy and efficiency will also be innovation in wireless services and technologies. The future
required. Development of advanced and adaptable test beds needs to embrace more dynamic models of spectrum sharing,
using advances in hardware, software and policy; proof-of- or Dynamic Spectrum Access (DSA), in which spectrum
concept demonstrations; and standardization of current/future may be shared along multiple technical dimensions (e.g.,
test beds are imperative to assess the performance of new tech- frequency, time, space, and direction) and across multiple
nologies. Open problems related to experimentation, testing usage contexts (e.g., commercial/government, legacy/new, li-
and standardization are listed in Category 7 of Table I. censed/unlicensed, or multiple classes of spectrum rights hold-
ers). Realizing this DSA vision requires the co-evolution of
F. Regulatory and Policy Challenges technical, regulatory, and business models for managing how
Beyond technical issues, there are also policy-domain chal- spectrum usage rights are administered and enforced. Ren-
lenges in dynamic spectrum sharing. Future sharing systems dering traditional mechanisms such as static exclusion zones
may employ dynamic spectrum markets in which primary more dynamic [63], incorporating database technologies, and
licensees can sell spectrum access to SUs on a temporary augmenting those with sensing capabilities represent distinct
basis. There exists a need for interdisciplinary research in but complementary steps on the path to dynamic spectrum
the areas of market- and non-market-based mechanisms for sharing.
spectrum access and usage to efficiently organize the sharing
of scarce spectrum resources. For spectrum markets to work R EFERENCES
efficiently, there has to be sufficiently liquid supply and
[1] PCAST, “Report to the President Realizing the Full Potential of
demand of spectrum resources to make it worthwhile incurring Government-Held Spectrum to Spur Economic Growth,” Jul. 2012.
the transaction costs associated with administering and making [2] Cisco, “Cisco Visual Networking Index: Global Mobile Data Traffic
use of the markets. Thus, it is also important to consider how Forecast Update, 2014-2019,” Tech. Rep., Feb. 2015.
[3] R. Murty, R. Chandra, T. Moscibroda, and P. Bahl, “Senseless: A
to enhance the value of spectrum to SUs. For instance, sharing database-driven White Spaces Network,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile
might only be of a little value if an IU needs arbitrary access Computing, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 189–203, 2012.
to the spectrum because this prevents SUs from predicting the [4] D. Gurney, G. Buchwald, L. Ecklund, S. Kuffner, and J. Grosspietsch,
“Geo-Location Database Techniques for Incumbent Protection in the
availability of spectrum. TV White Space,” in IEEE Symposium on Dynamic Spectrum Access
Market barriers (e.g., transaction costs, lack of incentives, Networks (DySPAN), 2008., Oct. 2008, pp. 1–9.
strategic concerns) and limited availability of information (e.g., [5] B. Gao, J.-M. Park, and Y. Yang, “Supporting Mobile Users in
Database-driven Opportunistic Spectrum Access,” in Proceedings of
unavailability of federal-IUs’ operational parameters) all pose the 15th ACM International Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking
policy challenges for realizing the potential of spectrum shar- and Computing, ser. MobiHoc ’14. ACM, 2014, pp. 215–224.
ing. Other challenges include authorization constraints (e.g., [6] B. Gao, S. Bhattarai, J.-M. Park, Y. Yang, M. Liu, K. Zheng, and
Y. Dou, “Incentivizing Spectrum Sensing in Dynamic Spectrum Shar-
regulatory and policy requirements); and lack of incentives for ing,” in Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on
incumbents to share (e.g., incumbents may see future spectrum Computer Communications (INFOCOM), Apr. 2016.
sharing only as a threat to their own use) [51]. Also, there [7] FCC, “Report of the Spectrum Efficiency Working Group, ET Docket
02-135,” Nov. 2002.
are issues related to health and environmental ramifications of
[8] OfCom, “Spectrum Framework Review: a Consultation on Ofcom’s
emerging technologies. Interdisciplinary collaboration among views as to how radio spectrum should be managed,” Nov. 2004.
researchers of diverse backgrounds is crucial in addressing [9] FCC, “Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan,” Mar. 2010.
these challenges. [10] The White House, “Unleashing the Wireless Broadband Revolution,”
Jun. 2010.
Finally, the design of radio systems is inherently cross- [11] The White House, “Expanding America’s Leadership in Wireless
disciplinary since the technologies are only a part of the Innovation,” Jun. 2013.
larger system which includes the stakeholders, markets, and [12] FCC, “Auction 97: Advanced Wireless Services (AWS-3),”
Accessed: 2015-11-09. [Online]. Available: http://wireless.fcc.gov/
institutional frameworks within which those technical systems auctions/default.htm?job=releases year&y=2015&m=6
operate and evolve. The technologies, business models, mar- [13] FCC, “Second Memorandum Opinion and Order (FCC 08-260),” Sep.
kets, and regulatory frameworks need to co-evolve. Category 8 2010.
[14] FCC, “Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed
of Table I outlines some of the policy, regulatory and economic Rulemaking, GN Docket No. 12-354,” Apr. 2015.
challenges in dynamic spectrum sharing. [15] FCC, “Revision of Part 15 of the Commissions Rules to Permit
Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) Devices in the
VIII. C ONCLUDING R EMARKS 5 GHz Band (NPRM 13-22),” Feb. 2013.
[16] OfCom, “Geolocation for Cognitive Access: A Discussion on using
This paper has provided a comprehensive review of im- Geolocation to enable License-exempt Access to the Interleaved Spec-
portant trends, regulatory reform initiatives, and research trum,” Jul. 2009.
 16

[17] OfCom, “Implementing Geolocation: Summary of Consultation Re- [44] FCC, “Memorandum Opinion and Order, WT Docket No. 02-146,”
sponses and Next Steps,” Sep. 2011. Mar. 2005.
[18] OfCom, “Spectrum Management Strategy: Ofcoms Strategic Direction [45] FCC, “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, GN Docket No. 14-177,” Oct.
and Priorities for Managing Spectrum over the Next 10 Years,” Apr. 2015.
2014. [46] NTIA, “Fifth Interim Progress Report on the Ten-Year Plan and
[19] Industry Canada, “Consultation on a Policy and Technical Framework Timetable ,” Apr. 2015.
for the Use of Non-broadcasting Applications in the Television Broad- [47] ECC, “Request for Opinion on Licensed Shared Access (LSA),” Nov.
casting Bands below 698 MHz (SMSE-012-11),” Aug. 2011. 2012.
[20] Industry Canada, “Framework for the Use of Certain Non-broadcasting [48] ECC, “Licensed Shared Access (LSA),” Feb. 2014.
Applications in the Television Broadcasting Bands Below 698 MHz [49] OfCom, “Ofcom Consultation on the UK Preparations for the World
(SMSE-012-12),” Oct. 2012. Radio Communication Conference 2015 (WRC-15),” Jun. 2014.
[21] Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore, “Trial of White Space
[50] OfCom, “Implementing TV White Spaces,” Feb. 2015.
Technology Accessing VHF and UHF Bands in Singapore,” Jul. 2010.
[22] Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore, “Regulatory Frame- [51] OfCom, “A Framework for Spectrum Sharing,” Jul. 2015.
work for TV White Space Operations in he VHF/UHF Bands,” Jun. [52] Industry Canada, “White Space Devices (WSDs) (RSS-222),” Feb.
2014. 2015.
[23] T. Wang, G. Li, J. Ding, Q. Miao, J. Li, and Y. Wang, “5G Spectrum: [53] Radio Spectrum Management, “Television White Space Devices Cer-
is China Ready?” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 53, no. 7, pp. tification and Licensing Rules,” Nov. 2014.
58–65, Jul. 2015. [54] M. Palola, M. Matinmikko, J. Prokkola, M. Mustonen, M. Heikkila,
[24] European Paliament and Council, “Decision No 243/2012/EU of the T. Kippola, S. Yrjola, V. Hartikainen, L. Tudose, A. Kivinen, J. Paavola,
European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2012 Establishing and K. Heiska, “Live field trial of Licensed Shared Access (LSA)
a Multiannual Radio Spectrum Policy Programme,” Mar. 2012. concept using LTE network in 2.3 GHz band,” in IEEE Symposium
[25] Radio Spectrum Policy Group, “RSPG Opinion on Licensed Shared on Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks (DySPAN), 2014.
Access (RSPG13-538),” Nov. 2013. [55] S. Yrjola, “Licensed Shared Access (LSA) Field Trial Using LTE
[26] European Commission, “2013/195/EU: Commission Implementing De- Network and Self Organized Network LSA Controller,” in Communica-
cision of 23 April 2013 Defining the Practical Arrangements,Uniform tions Technologies and Software Defined Radio (WinnComm-Europe),
Formats and a Methodology in Relation to the Radio Spectrum In- 2015 Wireless Innovation Forum European Confernece on, Oct. 2015.
ventory Established by Decision No 243/2012/EU of the European [56] J.-M. Park, J. Reed, A. Beex, T. Clancy, V. Kumar, and B. Bahrak,
Parliament and of the Council Establishing a Multiannual Radio “Security and enforcement in spectrum sharing,” Proceedings of the
Spectrum Policy Programme,” Apr. 2013. IEEE, vol. 102, no. 3, pp. 270–281, Mar. 2014.
[27] ECC, “Technical and Operational Requirements for the Possible Opera- [57] M. Altamimi and M. B. Weiss, “Enforcement and Network Capacity
tion of Cognitive Radio Systems in the ’White Spaces’ of the Frequency in Spectrum Sharing: Quantifying the Benefits of Different Enforce-
Band 470-790 MHz ,” Jan. ment Scenarios,” in Proceedings of The 41st Research Conference on
[28] P. A. Tenhula, “Regulatory Framework(s) for Facilitating New Spec- Communication, Information and Internet Policy, Mar. 2014.
trum Sharing Schemes,” Jul. 2012. [58] B. Bahrak, A. Deshpande, and J.-M. . Park, “Spectrum Access Policy
[29] International Telecommunications Union (ITU) , “Definitions of Soft- Reasoning for Policy-based Cognitive Radios,” Computer Networks,
ware Defined Radio (SDR) and Cognitive Radio Systems (CRS),” Sep. vol. 56, no. 11, pp. 2649–2663, 2012.
2009. [59] C. Li, A. Raghunathan, and N. Jha, “An Architecture for Secure Soft-
[30] B. Wang and K. Liu, “Advances in cognitive radio networks: A survey,” ware Defined Radio,” in Design, Automation Test in Europe Conference
IEEE Journal on Selected Topics in Signal Processing, vol. 5, pp. 5–23, Exhibition, 2009. DATE ’09., Apr. 2009, pp. 448–453.
Feb. 2011. [60] S. Xiao, J.-M. Park, and Y. Ye, “Tamper Resistance for Software
[31] E. Hossain, D. Niyato, and D. I. Kim, “Evolution and future trends of Defined Radio Software,” in Computer Software and Applications
research in cognitive radio: a contemporary survey,” Wireless Commu- Conference, 2009. COMPSAC ’09. 33rd Annual IEEE International,
nications and Mobile Computing, vol. 15, pp. 1530–1564, Aug. 2015. vol. 1, Jul. 2009, pp. 383–391.
[32] OECD., “New Approaches to Spectrum Management,” OECD Digital [61] C. R. Aguayo González and J. H. Reed, “Power Fingerprinting in SDR
Economy Papers, May 2014. Integrity Assessment for Security and Regulatory Compliance,” Analog
[33] M. Matinmikko and M. Mustonen and D. Roberson and J. Paavola and Integr. Circuits Signal Process., vol. 69, no. 2-3, pp. 307–327, Dec.
M. Höyhtyä and S. Yrjölä and J. Röning, “Overview and comparison 2011.
of recent spectrum sharing approaches in regulation and research: From [62] X. Li, J. Chen, and F. Ng, “Secure Transmission Power of Cognitive
opportunistic unlicensed access towards licensed shared access,” in Dy- Radios for Dynamic Spectrum Access Applications,” in Information
namic Spectrum Access Networks (DYSPAN), 2014 IEEE International Sciences and Systems, 2008. CISS 2008. 42nd Annual Conference on,
Symposium on, Apr. 2014, pp. 92–102. Mar. 2008, pp. 213–218.
[34] METIS, “Deliverable D5.1: Intermediate description of the spectrum
[63] S. Bhattarai, A. Ullah, J.-M. Park, J. Reed, D. Gurney, and B. Gao,
needs and usage principles,” Aug. 2014.
“Defining Incumbent Protection Zones on the Fly: Dynamic Boundaries
[35] J. M. Chapin and W. H. Lehr, “Cognitive Radios for Dynamic Spectrum
for Spectrum Sharing,” in Proc. of IEEE Symposium on Dynamic
Access - The Path to Market Success for Dynamic Spectrum Access
Spectrum Access Networks (DySPAN), Sep-Oct 2015.
Technology,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 96–
103, May 2007. [64] A. Ullah, S. Bhattarai, J.-M. Park, J. Reed, D. Gurney, and B. Bahrak,
[36] FCC and NTIA, “Coordination Procedures in the 1695-1710 MHz and “Multi-Tier Exclusion Zones for Dynamic Spectrum Sharing,” in Proc.
1755-1780 MHz bands (FCC 13-185),” Jul 2014. of IEEE International Conference in Communications (ICC), Jun. 2015.
[37] FCC, “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ET Docket No. 13-49),” Feb. [65] R. O’Connor, “Understanding Television’s Grade A and Grade B
2013. Service Contours,” Broadcasting, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 47, no. 3,
[38] FCC, “First Report and Order (ET Docket No. 13-49),” Apr. 2014. pp. 309–314, Sep. 2001.
[39] J. Lansford, J. Kenney, P. Ecclesine, T. Yucek, and P. Spaanderman, [66] FCC, “Propagation Data Required for the Evaluation of Coordination
“Final Report of DSRC Coexistence Tiger Team,” Tech. Rep., Distances in the Frequency Range 0.85-60 GHz (Rec. ITU-R P.620-3),”
Mar. 2015. [Online]. Available: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/15/ Jul. 2014.
11-15-0347-00-0reg-final-report-of-dsrc-coexistence-tiger-team-clean. [67] NTIA, “Portal Opens for AWS-3 Spectrum Shar-
pdf ing Coordination,” https://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/
[40] FCC, “Office of Engineering and Technology and Wireless Telecom- portal-opens-aws-3-spectrum-sharing-coordination, accessed: 11-
mmunications Bureau Seek Information on Current Trends in LTE-U 30-2015.
and LAA Technology, Docket No. 15-105,” May 2015. [68] S. Shellhammer, S. Sai, T. Rahul, and T. James, “Performance of power
[41] Fierce WirelessTech, “Verizon, Qualcomm lobby for LTE-U, Wi- detector sensors of DTV signals in IEEE 802.22 WRANs,” in Proc.
Fi coexistence scheme,” http://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/story/ of ACM Workshop on Technology & Policy for Accessing Spectrum,
verizon-qualcomm-lobby-lte-u-wi-fi-coexistence-scheme/2015-07-20, 2006.
accessed: 11-29-2015. [69] R. Tandra, S. Mishra, and A. Sahai, “What is a Spectrum Hole and
[42] FCC, “Report and Order, ET Docket No. 07-113,” Aug. 2013. What Does it Take to Recognize One?” Proceedings of the IEEE,
[43] FCC, “Report and Order, WT Docket No. 02-146,” Oct. 2003. vol. 97, no. 5, May. 2009.
 17

[70] National Telecommunications and Information Administration, “An [94] R. Miller and W. Trappe, “Short paper: ACE: Authenticating the
Assessment of the Near-Term Viability of Accommodating Wireless Channel Estimation Process in Wireless Communication Systems,” in
Broadband Systems in the 1675-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, 3500- Proc. ACM WiSec, 2011, pp. 91–96.
3650 MHz, and 4200-4220 MHz, 4380-4400 MHz Bands,” Oct. 2010. [95] X. Tan, K. Borle, W. Du, and B. Chen, “Cryptographic Link Signatures
[71] RYSAVY Research, “Spectrum Sharing: The Promise and the Reality,” for Spectrum Usage Authentication in Cognitive Radio,” in Proc. ACM
Jul. 2012. WiSec, Jun. 2011, pp. 79–90.
[72] J. C. Ribeiro, J. Ribeiro, J. Rodriguez, R. Dionisio, H. Esteves, [96] X. Wang, Y. Wu, and B. Caron, “Transmitter Identification using Em-
P. Duarte, and P. Marques, “Testbed for Combination of Local Sensing bedded Pseudo Random Sequences,” IEEE Trans. Broadcast., vol. 50,
with Geolocation Database in Real Environments,” IEEE Wireless pp. 244–252, Sep. 2004.
Communications, vol. 19, no. 4, Aug. 2012. [97] L. Xiao, L. Greenstein, N. Mandayam, and W. Trappe, “Using the
[73] T. Zhang and S. Banerjee, “Inaccurate Spectrum Databases? Public Physical Layer for Wireless Authentication in Time-Variant Channels,”
Transit to its Rescue!” in Proc. ACM HotNets’13, Nov. 2013. IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 7, no. 7, pp. 2571–2579, Jul. 2008.
[74] A. Chakraborty and S. R. Das, “Measurement-Augmented Spectrum [98] P. Yu, J. Baras, and B. Sadler, “Physical-Layer Authentication,” IEEE
Databases for White Space Spectrum,” in Proc. ACM CoNEXT’14, Trans. Inf. Forensics Security, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 38–51, Mar. 2008.
Dec. 2014. [99] B. Danev, H. Luecken, S. Čapkun, and K. Defrawy, “Attacks on
[75] D. Rojerio, J. Ribeiro, P. Marques, and J. Rodriguez, “Combination Physical-Layer Identification,” in ACM WiSec, 2010, pp. 89–98.
of a Geolocation Database Access with Infrastructure Sensing in TV [100] V. Kumar, and J-M. Park and K. Bian, “Blind Transmitter Authen-
Bands,” EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Network- tication for Spectrum Security and Enforcement,” in Computer and
ing, Dec. 2014. Communications Security (CCS), 21st ACM Conference on, Oct. 2014.
[76] N. Wang, Y. Gao, and B. Evans, “Database-Augmented Spectrum [101] “IEEE Standard for Policy Language Requirements and System Ar-
Sensing Algorithm for Cognitive Radio,” in Communications (ICC), chitectures for Dynamic Spectrum Access Systems,” IEEE Std 1900.5-
2015 IEEE International Conference on, Jun. 2015, pp. 7468–7473. 2011, pp. 1–51, Jan. 2012.
[77] Y. Zhao, B. Le, and J. H. Reed, “Network Support—The Radio [102] R. Chen, J.-M. Park, and J. Reed, “Defense against Primary User
Environment Map,” in Cognitive Radio Technology. Elsevier, 2006. Emulation Attacks in Cognitive Radio Networks,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas
[78] H. B. Yilmaz, T. Tugcu, F. Alagöz, and S. Bayhan, “Radio Environ- Commun., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 25–37, Jan. 2008.
ment Map as Enabler for Practical Cognitive Radio Networks,” IEEE [103] S. Liu, Y. Chen, W. Trappe, and L. J. Greenstein, “Non-Interactive
Communications Magazine, vol. 51, no. 12, Dec. 2013. Localization of Cognitive Radios based on Dynamic Signal Strength
[79] Y. Zhao, L. Morales, J. Gaeddert, K. Bae, J.-S. Um, and J. Reed, Mapping,” in Proc. Sixth Int. Conf. on Wireless On-Demand Network
“Applying Radio Environment Maps to Cognitive Wireless Regional Systems and Services, 2009, pp. 77–84.
Area Networks,” in New Frontiers in Dynamic Spectrum Access Net- [104] T. He, C. Huang, B. M. Blum, J. A. Stankovic, and T. Abdelzaher,
works, 2007. DySPAN 2007. 2nd IEEE International Symposium on, “Range-Free Localization Schemes for Large Scale Sensor Networks,”
Apr. 2007, pp. 115–118. in Proc. ACM MobiCom, 2003, pp. 81–95.
[80] V. Pankonin and R. Price, “Radio Astronomy and Spectrum Manage-
[105] A. Dutta and M. Chiang, “See Something, Say Something: Crowd-
ment: The Impact of WARC-79,” Communications, IEEE Transactions
sourced Enforcement of Spectrum Policies,” Wireless Communications,
on, vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 1228–1237, Aug 1981.
IEEE Transactions on, vol. PP, no. 99, pp. 1–1, 2015.
[81] T. Gergely, “Spectrum Access for the Passive Services: The Past and
[106] K. Woyach, A. Sahai, G. Atia, and V. Saligrama, “Crime and Punish-
the Future,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 102, no. 3, pp. 393–398,
ment for Cognitive Radios,” in Communication, Control, and Comput-
Mar. 2014.
ing, 2008 46th Annual Allerton Conference on, Sep. 2008, pp. 236–243.
[82] J. Ford and K. Buch, “RFI mitigation techniques in radio astronomy,”
[107] M. B. H. Weiss, W. Lehr, M. Altamimi, and L. Cui, “Enforcement in
in Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS), 2014 IEEE
Dynamic Spectrum Access Systems,” in 2012 Confernece on TRPC,
International, Jul. 2014, pp. 231–234.
Mar. 2012.
[83] ITU-R, “Techniques for Mitigation of Radio Frequency Interference in
Radio Astronomy (Rep. ITU-R RA.2126),” 2007. [108] FCC: Spectrum/Receiver Performance Working Group, “Introduction
[84] V. Brik, S. Banerjee, M. Gruteser, and S. Oh, “Wireless Device to Interference Resolution, Enforcement, and Radio Noise,” Tech. Rep.,
Identification with Radiometric Signatures,” in Proceedings of the 14th Jun. 2014.
ACM International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking, [109] Standard ECMA-392, “MAC and PHY for Operation in TV White
ser. MobiCom ’08, 2008, pp. 116–127. Space,” Dec 2009.
[85] B. Danev and S. Capkun, “Transient-based Identification of Wireless [110] T. Baykas, M. Kasslin, M. Cummings, H. Kang, J. Kwak, R. Paine,
Sensor Nodes,” in Information Processing in Sensor Networks, 2009. A. Reznik, R. Saeed, and S. Shellhammer, “Developing a Standard
IPSN 2009. International Conference on, Apr. 2009, pp. 25–36. for TV White Space Coexistence: Technical Challenges and Solution
[86] W. Hou, X. Wang, and J. Chouinard, “Physical Layer Authentication Approaches,” Wireless Communications, IEEE, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 10–
in OFDM Systems based on Hypothesis Testing of CFO Estimates,” in 22, Feb. 2012.
Communications (ICC), 2012 IEEE International Conference on, Jun. [111] “IEEE Standard for Information Technology– Local and Metropolitan
2012, pp. 3559–3563. Area Networks—Specific Requirements– Part 22: Cognitive Wireless
[87] O. Ureten and N. Serinken, “Wireless Security through RF Finger- RAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY)
printing,” Electrical and Computer Engineering, Canadian Journal of, Specifications: Policies and Procedures for Operation in the TV Bands,”
vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 27–33, 2007. IEEE Std 802.22-2011, pp. 1–680, July 2011.
[88] I. J. Cox, M. Miller, and A. McKellips, “Watermarking as Commu- [112] IEEE 802.11 homepage, Accessed: 2015-12-01. [Online]. Available:
nications with Side Information,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 87, http://www.ieee802.org/11/
no. 7, pp. 1127–1141, Jul. 1999. [113] “Project Authorization Request for IEEE Standard for Local and
[89] C. Fei, D. Kundur, and R. Kwong, “Analysis and Sesign of Secure Metropolitan Area Networks Part 15.4: Low Rate Wireless Personal
Watermark-based Authentication Systems,” Information Forensics and Area Networks (LR-WPANs) Amendment: TV White Space between
Security, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 43–55, Mar. 2006. 54 MHz and 862 MHz Physical Layer,” IEEE Std 802.15.4m, Jul. 2011.
[90] N. Goergen, T. Clancy, and T. Newman, “Physical Layer Authentication [114] “Project Authorization Request for P1900.7 Radio Interface for White
Watermarks through Synthetic Channel Emulation,” in New Frontiers Space Dynamic Spectrum Access Radio Systems Supporting Fixed and
in Dynamic Spectrum, 2010 IEEE Symposium on, Apr. 2010, pp. 1–7. Mobile Operation,” Jun. 2011.
[91] J. E. Kleider, S. Gifford, S. Chuprun, and B. Fette, “Radio Frequency [115] T. Baykas, M. Cummings, H. Kang, M. Kasslin, J. Kwak, R. Paine,
Watermarking for OFDM Wireless Networks,” in Acoustics, Speech, A. Reznik, R. Saeed, and S. Shellhammer, “Developing a Standard
and Signal Processing, 2004. Proceedings. (ICASSP ’04). IEEE Inter- for TV White Space Coexistence: Technical Challenges and Solution
national Conference on, vol. 5, May 2004, pp. V–397–400 vol.5. Approaches,” IEEE 802.19.1 Task Group White Paper, 2011.
[92] V. Kumar, J.-M. Park, T. Clancy, and K. Bian, “PHY-layer Authenti- [116] “Workshop on TV White Space Coexistence: IEEE 802.19.1
cation by Introducing Controlled Inter Symbol Interference,” in IEEE Overview,” Jul. 2010, Accessed: 2015-12-01. [Online]. Available:
CNS, 2013, pp. 10–18. http://ieee802.org/19/pub/Workshop/2 Baykas-NICT.pdf
[93] Y. Liu, P. Ning, and H. Dai, “Authenticating Primary Users’ Signals in [117] P. M. and F. S., “LTE Unlicensed and Wi-Fi: Moving beyond Coexis-
Cognitive Radio Networks via Integrated Cryptographic and Wireless tence,” Tech. Rep., 2015.
Link Signatures,” in IEEE Symp. Security and Privacy, May 2010, pp. [118] Qualcomm Research, “LTE in Unlicensed Spectrum: Harmonious
286–301. Coexistence with Wi-Fi,” Tech. Rep., Jun. 2014.
 18

[119] Signals Research Group, “The Prospect of LTE and Wi-Fi Sharing [141] R. Chow and P. Golle, “Faking Contextual Data for Fun, Profit, and
Unlicensed Spectrum: Good Fences Make Good Neighbors,” Tech. Privacy,” in Proceedings of the 8th ACM Workshop on Privacy in the
Rep., Feb. 2015. Electronic Society, ser. WPES ’09. ACM, 2009, pp. 105–108.
[120] T. Nihtila, V. Tykhomyrov, O. Alanen, M. Uusitalo, A. Sorri, [142] B. Gedik and L. Liu, “Protecting Location Privacy with Personalized
M. Moisio, S. Iraji, R. Ratasuk, and N. Mangalvedhe, “System k-Anonymity: Architecture and Algorithms,” Mobile Computing, IEEE
Performance of LTE and IEEE 802.11 Coexisting on a Shared Fre- Transactions on, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–18, Jan. 2008.
quency Band,” in Wireless Communications and Networking Confer- [143] ICANN, “FactSheet: Root Server Attack on 6 February 2007,” Feb.
ence (WCNC), 2013 IEEE, Apr. 2013, pp. 1038–1043. 2007.
[121] R. Ratasuk, M. Uusitalo, N. Mangalvedhe, A. Sorri, S. Iraji, C. Wijting, [144] NSF, “Enhancing Access to the Radio Spectrum,” Aug. 2010.
and A. Ghosh, “License-exempt LTE Deployment in Heterogeneous [Online]. Available: http://www.nsf.gov/mps/ast/ears workshop final
Network,” in Wireless Communication Systems (ISWCS), 2012 Inter- report ce final corr.pdf
national Symposium on, Aug. 2012, pp. 246–250. [145] R. Dionisio, J. Ribeiro, P. Marques, and J. Rodriguez, “Combination
[122] M. Xing, Y. Peng, T. Xia, H. Long, and K. Zheng, “Adaptive Spectrum of a Geolocation Database Access with Infrastructure Sensing in TV
Sharing of LTE Co-Existing with WLAN in Unlicensed Frequency Bands,” EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Network-
Bands,” in Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC Spring), 2015 IEEE ing, 2014.
81st, May 2015, pp. 1–5. [146] G. Baldini, T. Sturman, A. Biswas, R. Leschhorn, G. Godor, and
[123] J. Stine and C. Caicedo Bastidas, “Enabling Spectrum Sharing via M. Street, “Security Aspects in Software Defined Radio and Cognitive
Spectrum Consumption Models,” Selected Areas in Communications, Radio Networks: A Survey and A Way Ahead,” Communications
IEEE Journal on, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 725–735, April 2015. Surveys Tutorials, IEEE, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 355–379, 2012.
[124] C. Caicedo and J. Stine, “Spectrum Markets and Sharing via Spectrum [147] D. Symeonidis and G. Baldini, “European Standardization and SDR
Consumption Models,” in 41st Res. Conf. TPRC, Mar. 2013. Certification,” in Telecommunications (AICT), 2010 Sixth Advanced
[125] J. Stine and C. Bastidas, “Service Level Agreements with Spectrum International Conference on, May 2010, pp. 136–141.
Consumption Models,” in Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks (DYS- [148] J. Giacomoni and D. Sicker, “Difficulties in Providing Certification and
PAN), 2014 IEEE International Symposium on, Apr. 2014, pp. 206–214. Assurance for Software Defined Radios,” in New Frontiers in Dynamic
[126] R. Etkin, A. Parekh, and D. Tse, “Spectrum Sharing for Unlicensed Spectrum Access Networks, 2005. DySPAN 2005. 2005 First IEEE
Bands,” Selected Areas in Communications, IEEE Journal on, vol. 25, International Symposium on, Nov. 2005, pp. 526–538.
no. 3, pp. 517–528, Apr. 2007.
[127] J. Suris, L. DaSilva, Z. Han, and A. MacKenzie, “Cooperative Game
Theory for Distributed Spectrum Sharing,” in Communications, 2007.
ICC ’07. IEEE International Conference on, Jun. 2007, pp. 5282–5287.
[128] S. Yun and L. Qiu, “Supporting WiFi and LTE Co-existence,” in
Computer Communications (INFOCOM), 2015 IEEE Conference on,
Apr. 2015, pp. 810–818.
[129] N. Gupta, A. Prakash, and R. Tripathi, “Medium access control
protocols for safety applications in vehicular ad-hoc network: A
classification and comprehensive survey,” Vehicular Communications,
vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 223–237, 2015.
[130] Y. Niu, Y. Li, D. Jin, L. Su, and A. V. Vasilakos, “A survey of millimeter
wave communications (mmwave) for 5g: opportunities and challenges,”
Wireless Networks, vol. 21, no. 8, pp. 2657–2676, 2015.
[131] S. Rangan and T. S. Rappaport and E. Erkip, “Millimeter-Wave Cellular
Wireless Networks: Potentials and Challenges,” Proceedings of the
IEEE, vol. 102, no. 3, pp. 366–385, Mar. 2014.
[132] B. Bahrak, S. Bhattarai, A. Ullah, J.-M. Park, J. Reed, and D. Gurney,
“Protecting the Primary Users’ Operational Privacy in Spectrum Shar-
ing,” in Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks (DYSPAN), 2014 IEEE
International Symposium on, April 2014, pp. 236–247.
[133] C. Dwork, “Differential privacy,” in International Conference on Au-
tomata, Languages and Programming, 2006, pp. 1–12.
[134] M. E. Andrés, N. E. Bordenabe, K. Chatzikokolakis, and
C. Palamidessi, “Geo-indistinguishability: Differential Privacy for
Location-based Systems,” in Proceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGSAC
Conference on Computer, Communications Security, ser. CCS ’13.
ACM, 2013, pp. 901–914.
[135] N. E. Bordenabe, K. Chatzikokolakis, and C. Palamidessi, “Optimal
Geo-Indistinguishable Mechanisms for Location Privacy, booktitle =
Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and
Communications Security,” ser. CCS ’14. New York, NY, USA: ACM,
2014, pp. 251–262.
[136] Z. Gao, H. Zhu, Y. Liu, M. Li, and Z. Cao, “Location Privacy in
Database-driven Cognitive Radio Networks: Attacks and Countermea-
sures,” in IEEE Proc. of INFOCOM, April 2013, pp. 2751–2759.
[137] Z. Chen, J. Wang, Z. Zhang, and S. Xinxia, “A Fully Homomorphic
Encryption Scheme with Better Key Size,” Communications, China,
vol. 11, no. 9, pp. 82–92, Sept 2014.
[138] R. Shokri, G. Theodorakopoulos, C. Troncoso, J.-P. Hubaux, and J.-Y.
Le Boudec, “Protecting Location Privacy: Optimal Strategy Against
Localization Attacks,” in Proc. of the 2012 ACM Conference on
Computer and Communications Security.
[139] M. Gruteser and D. Grunwald, “Anonymous Usage of Location-Based
Services Through Spatial and Temporal Cloaking,” in Proceedings of
the 1st International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications and
Services, ser. MobiSys ’03. ACM, 2003, pp. 31–42.
[140] J. Freudiger, R. Shokri, and J.-P. Hubaux, “On the Optimal Placement
of Mix Zones,” Privacy Enhancing Technologies, vol. 5672, pp. 216–
234, 2009.