Whatever we write down, we don't set up the rules. We define a protocol. There are examples of priority access and "licenced" preemptible secondairy access. http://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/public-safety-spectrum/700-MHz/partnership.html Wifi 5GHz DFS is an example of "unlicened" preemptible secondairy access.
I'm sure there will be shifts in what can be done and what will be done. We can help to enlarge possibilities and usage of it. Teco Op 27 jan. 2012, om 11:34 heeft Nancy Bravin het volgende geschreven: > 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
