Modeling TV White Spaces Availability Prediction for White Space Devices Utilization in Delta North Zone of Delta State Nigeria

TV white space is the unused TV spectrum which can be used by secondary users to solve the problem of spectrum scarcity and to increase its efficiency. This has become necessary as a result of rapid growth in wireless data traffic, ubiquitous connectivity to the end users which is of high interest in the communication world today. This paper takes a look on analyzing the availability of the TV white spaces in the digital terrestrial television bands in Delta North area of Delta State Nigeria. The frequency span analyzed is between 474-866MHz. The result shows that over 60% of the spectra in this area are underutilized, yet we have high alarming rate of spectrum scarcity by the communication industries. Most of the smart devices competing for these scarce spectra can be deployed to these unutilized spectra at low or no cost thereby freeing most of the spectrum bands. Our analysis shows that we have over 224 MHz frequency bands that are free to be used within this area. The data used for this work was retrieved from a DVB-T2 and Anritsu Ms2711A Spectrum Analyzer. This was connected to Metrodigital mega base station that provides digital terrestrial television services in this area

Qualitative Analysis of an Unreliable Hybrid Multicast Protocol (UHMP)

Protocol Independent multicast Sparse mode (PIM SM) and Protocol independent multicast Dense Mode (PIM DM) uses a best effort method of propagating data along a multicast distribution tree, but the difference between them is that in PIM SM, leafs interested sends join message to the stud which in turn sends to the Rendezvous Point source (RPS) or source and the distribution tree is created, while in PIM DM the RPS or source sends a flood message to the stub nodes which then forward it to leaf nodes and leaf nodes that are not interested sends a prune message. In the hybrid  multicast protocol (UHMP) being proposed the stub nodes originates the flood message to the leaf and uninterested leaf sends prune message, any stub that has one or more interested leaf sends a join message to the RPS. A simulation model was developed to mimic the behaviour of PIM SM, PIM DM and UHMP in different network size using hierarchical network and the control bandwidth overhead (CBO) for each of the multicast protocols was calculated, the CBO was use as the cost metric. The result shows that the UHMP uses less CBO than PIM DM both in a sparsely and densely populated network. While the differences in CBO usage between UHMP and PIM SM was not noticeable in sparse mode, UHMP however uses less CBO then PIM in a dense mode scenario

Performance Model of Reliable Hybrid Multicast Protocol (RHMP)

The Pragmatic General multicast (PGM) and Elastic Reliable Multicast (ERM) are reliable multicast protocols. The difference between reliable and unreliable multicast protocol is that they make sure that the multicast data packets gets to its destinations. Both the PGM and ERM sends flood messages to the Rendezvous Point source (RPS) from the source node towards the stub nodes which then forward it to leaf nodes, leaf nodes that are not interested sends a prune message while any leaf node that misses a packet sends a message to the RPS through the stub node requesting for the multicast packet. A repair multicast packet is then forwarded to all leaf nodes that requested for it. In the reliable hybrid  multicast protocol (RHMP) being proposed the stub nodes originates the flood message to the leaf and uninterested leaf sends prune message, any stub that has one or more interested leaf sends a join message to the RPS. If a leaf node in the multicast distribution misses a multicast packet it requests a repair packet from its stub node and the stub node sends the repair data. A simulation model was developed to mimic the behaviour of PGM, ERM and RHMP in different network size using hierarchical network and the control bandwidth overhead (CBO) for each of the multicast protocols was calculated, the CBO was use as the cost metric. The result shows that the RHMP uses less CBO than PGM and ERM in a sparsely and densely populated network. For state storage it was discovered that the RHMP uses more resources at the stub nodes than at the source / RPS or leaf node when compared with PGM and ERM, but since the stub nodes are present in a distributed way it does not necessarily affect the multicast process