Hi Andy, How about we compromise? I understand the issues with license exempt. but many countries in the world use the phrase "lightly licensed" , and many are emerging countries where things need to be clear, so if we change it to ( licensed, unlicensed, or lightly licensed) most of the world will understand the meaning and we will not have a misunderstanding around what license exempt implies in any county or the ITU? What we are doing is making the wording understandable on a global basis, and at the same time not interfering with the ITU's meanings in this respect, we can all agree on . Thanks for your assistance. Sincerely, Nancy
On Jan 27, 2012, at 2:16 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Teco, Jussi, Nancy, (Scott, Raj) > > I agree with your sentiment but in addition to the use of the term > licence-exempt I also have a problem with primary and secondary. Primary and > secondary (and tertiary) services have a particular meaning in ITU in > relation to spectrum allocations, and we are giving the words a different > meaning here in relation to users. When this PAWS protocol is later applied > to non-TV bands, it might be radar (say) that is the primary use and fixed > links or mobile (say) that is the secondary use, in ITU regulations. This > will then conflict with calling white space operation secondary. How about > this re-write of the abstract, considering "use" instead of "user" and > avoiding "primary" and "secondary": > > Portions of the radio spectrum that are allocated to a particular use > but are unused or unoccupied at specific locations and times are > defined as "white space". The concept of allowing additional > transmissions (which may or may not be licensed) in white space is a > technique to "unlock" existing spectrum for new use. An obvious > requirement is that these additional transmissions do not interfere > with the allocated use of the spectrum. One approach to using the > white space spectrum at a given time and location is to verify with a > database for available channels. > > This document describes the concept of TV White Spaces. It also > describes the problems that need to be addressed to enable white > space spectrum for additional uses, without causing interference to > currently allocated use, by querying a database which knows the > channel availability at any given location and time. A number of > possible use cases of white space spectrum and derived > requirements are also described. > > The parts of the Introduction etc from which this Abstract was originally > derived will also need to be updated to match. > > Regards > > Andy > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Teco > Boot > Sent: 27 January 2012 09:07 > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [paws] re proposed edits on rev 2 > > I suggest we keep our documents agnostic on exact specifications for this > kind of terminology. The Rapid deployed network for emergency scenario says > "free or freed spectrum". We can do a lot more with the protocol than just > TVWS, or TVWS in country xx. > > Teco > > > Op 27 jan. 2012, om 09:18 heeft <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> het volgende geschreven: > >> Dear Nancy, >> >> My understanding is that 'unlicensed' is used in North America and >> 'licence-exempt' in the UK. They do refer to the same thing, I think, so one >> could say (licensed, unlicensed/licence-exempt). >> >> Kind regards, >> Jussi >> >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf >> Of ext Nancy Bravin >> Sent: 27 January 2012 06:08 >> To: Probasco Scott (Nokia-CIC/Dallas) >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: [paws] re proposed edits on rev 2 >> >> Dear Scott, Raj, and all, >> >> Abstract >> >> Portions of the radio spectrum that are allocated to a licensed, >> primary user but are unused or unoccupied at specific locations and >> times are defined as "white space". The concept of allowing >> secondary transmissions (licensed or unlicensed) in white space is a >> technique to "unlock" existing spectrum for new use. >> I would change (licensed or unlicensed) to: (licensed, licensed exempt or >> unlicensed) as some countries have 3 categories. >> Also, license exempt is mentioned in section 4.4 >> >> >> SIncerely, Nancy >> _______________________________________________ >> paws mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws > > _______________________________________________ > paws mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws _______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
