IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/telpol/v37y2013i2p108-115.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stalling innovation of Cognitive Radio: The case for a dedicated frequency band

Author

Listed:
  • Medeisis, Arturas
  • Minervini, Leo Fulvio

Abstract

After more than a decade of frantic R&D efforts, Cognitive Radio (CR) technology continues to fail to pass the first developmental milestone of a working prototype, suggesting that the CR innovation process may be stalling. This paper analyzes possible reasons for this situation from the perspective of innovation management and economics. The CR innovation process has developed in a complex environment shaped by a combination of technology-push and market-pull forces. This paper shows that this process is being stifled by two barriers emerging from the current reliance of CR technology on opportunistic dynamic spectrum access as the sole means for entry into the wireless market. The technology-push is affected by the barrier of technological complexities linked to the requirement to protect highly sensitive incumbent systems. The market-pull forces are being negated by market lock-in and a strong status quo of well-established wireless players. This paper argues that overcoming these barriers and revitalizing the practical development of CR could be possible with the aid of light-touch governmental intervention. This could take the form of designating a dedicated CR band, which would benefit CR through less strict spectrum access requirements. A vibrant cognitive environment could flourish in this type of band, supporting CR innovation.

Suggested Citation

  • Medeisis, Arturas & Minervini, Leo Fulvio, 2013. "Stalling innovation of Cognitive Radio: The case for a dedicated frequency band," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 108-115.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:telpol:v:37:y:2013:i:2:p:108-115
    DOI: 10.1016/j.telpol.2012.07.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308596112001243
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.telpol.2012.07.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. de Streel, Alexandre, 2008. "Current and future European regulation of electronic communications: A critical assessment," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(11), pages 722-734, December.
    2. David J. TEECE, 2008. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 5, pages 67-87, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Arnold Heertje, 2006. "Schumpeter on the Economics of Innovation and the Development of Capitalism," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 3891, December.
    4. Giovanni Dosi, 2000. "Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation," Chapters, in: Innovation, Organization and Economic Dynamics, chapter 2, pages 63-114, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Arthur, W Brian, 1989. "Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(394), pages 116-131, March.
    6. Nemet, Gregory F., 2009. "Demand-pull, technology-push, and government-led incentives for non-incremental technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 700-709, June.
    7. Metcalfe, J S, 1994. "Evolutionary Economics and Technology Policy," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 104(425), pages 931-944, July.
    8. Atkinson, Robert D., 2011. "Economic doctrines and network policy," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 413-425, June.
    9. Suarez, Fernando F., 2004. "Battles for technological dominance: an integrative framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 271-286, March.
    10. Thomas CASEY, 2009. "Analysis of Radio Spectrum Market Evolution Possibilities," Communications & Strategies, IDATE, Com&Strat dept., vol. 1(75), pages 109-132, 3rd quart.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Massaro, Maria & Pogorel, Gérard & Bohlin, Erik, 2015. "Next Generation of Radio Spectrum Management: Licensed Shared Access and the trade-off between Static and Dynamic Efficiency," 26th European Regional ITS Conference, Madrid 2015 127164, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    2. Massaro, Maria & Pogorel, Gérard, 2015. "Next generation of radio spectrum management licensed shared access and the trade-off between static and dynamic efficiency," 2015 Regional ITS Conference, Los Angeles 2015 146322, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    3. Massaro, Maria, 2017. "Next generation of radio spectrum management: Licensed shared access for 5G," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 422-433.
    4. Arturo Basaure & Varadharajan Sridhar & Heikki Hämmäinen, 2016. "Adoption of dynamic spectrum access technologies: a system dynamics approach," Telecommunication Systems: Modelling, Analysis, Design and Management, Springer, vol. 63(2), pages 169-190, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Giovanni Dosi & Richard Nelson, 2013. "The Evolution of Technologies: An Assessment of the State-of-the-Art," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 3(1), pages 3-46, June.
    2. Dosi, Giovanni & Nelson, Richard R., 2010. "Technical Change and Industrial Dynamics as Evolutionary Processes," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 51-127, Elsevier.
    3. Murmann, Johann Peter & Frenken, Koen, 2006. "Toward a systematic framework for research on dominant designs, technological innovations, and industrial change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 925-952, September.
    4. Joly, Pierre-Benoit & de Looze, Marie-Angele, 1996. "An analysis of innovation strategies and industrial differentiation through patent applications: the case of plant biotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(7), pages 1027-1046, October.
    5. van de Kaa, Geerten & de Vries, Henk J., 2015. "Factors for winning format battles: A comparative case study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 222-235.
    6. Papachristos, George, 2017. "Diversity in technology competition: The link between platforms and sociotechnical transitions," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 291-306.
    7. van de Kaa, Geerten & Rezaei, Jafar & Kamp, Linda & de Winter, Allard, 2014. "Photovoltaic technology selection: A fuzzy MCDM approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 662-670.
    8. Hoppmann, Joern & Peters, Michael & Schneider, Malte & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2013. "The two faces of market support—How deployment policies affect technological exploration and exploitation in the solar photovoltaic industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 989-1003.
    9. Marie-Claude BELIS-BERGOUIGNAN, 2009. "An evolutionist analysis of sectoral dynamics (In French)," Cahiers du GREThA (2007-2019) 2009-18, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée (GREThA).
    10. Susan K. Cohen & Sean T. Hsu & Kristina B. Dahlin, 2016. "With Whom Do Technology Sponsors Partner During Technology Battles? Social Networking Strategies for Unproven (and Proven) Technologies," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 846-872, August.
    11. Anna D’Ambrosio & Roberto Gabriele & Francesco Schiavone & Manuel Villasalero, 2017. "The role of openness in explaining innovation performance in a regional context," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 389-408, April.
    12. Iizuka, Michiko & Ikeda, Yoko, 2021. "Regulation and innovation under the 4th industrial revolution: The case of a healthcare robot, HAL by Cyberdyne," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    13. Kuosmanen, Natalia & Valmari, Nelli, 2023. "Renewal of Companies Through Product Switching," ETLA Working Papers 104, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    14. Febi Jensen & Hans Lööf & Andreas Stephan, 2020. "New ventures in Cleantech: Opportunities, capabilities and innovation outcomes," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(3), pages 902-917, March.
    15. Mario Cimoli, 2002. "Networks, Market Structures and Economic Shocks: The structural changes of Innovation Systems in Latin America," LEM Papers Series 2002/13, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    16. Chang, Yuan-Chieh & Chen, Min-Nan, 2016. "Service regime and innovation clusters: An empirical study from service firms in Taiwan," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(9), pages 1845-1857.
    17. Miozzo, Marcela & Desyllas, Panos & Lee, Hsing-fen & Miles, Ian, 2016. "Innovation collaboration and appropriability by knowledge-intensive business services firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1337-1351.
    18. Slowak, André P., 2009. "Market fields structure & dynamics in industrial automation," FZID Discussion Papers 02-2009, University of Hohenheim, Center for Research on Innovation and Services (FZID).
    19. Battke, Benedikt & Schmidt, Tobias S. & Stollenwerk, Stephan & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2016. "Internal or external spillovers—Which kind of knowledge is more likely to flow within or across technologies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 27-41.
    20. Rosina Moreno & Ernest Miguélez, 2012. "A Relational Approach To The Geography Of Innovation: A Typology Of Regions," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(3), pages 492-516, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:telpol:v:37:y:2013:i:2:p:108-115. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30471/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.