Hi All, I Agree. Gerald, I think you did it! Seem perfect to me, Sincerely, Nancy
On Jan 30, 2012, at 1:52 PM, Malyar, John P wrote: > Use of the two terms identified below with the suggested footnote seems a > reasonable compromise. > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Gerald Chouinard > Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 3:30 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [paws] Discussion on 'license-exempt' vs 'unlicensed' > > All, > > Here is my understanding of the terms: > > Licensed: Spectrum that is acquired by an operator over a given service area > for a given time period. This is usually done through auctions (think of the > Telcos), beauty contest, first-come / first-served or by government > allocation (e.g., public service). > > Lightly licensed: Special case where thefrequency allocation is done through > first-come / first-served process for a given time frame over a relatively > limited service area. The annual license fee is usually small to facilitate > the deployment of a service that would not normally be economically > attractive. Small local operators would be interested by this (e.g., rural > broadband in Canada) and not big Telcos that would normally work with full > licensing through auction over large service areas. > > License-exempt: Operation of RF devices in a frequency band where no formal > licensing process is needed such as in the 2.4 GHz ISM band. In the USA, this > term is used for a specific type of operation. The FCC should be contacted to > clarify it. > > Unlicensed: Illegal operation of an RF device that can transmit in a > frequency band without a duly issued license. In the USA, this term is used > to mean “license-exempt," see above. > > To my knowledge, the term “unlicensed” is used only in the USA to describe a > legal operation because the term “license-exempt” has been used for another > specific purpose. > > Since the PAWS addresses the interface to the database for the international > market, it should rely on the definition of the terms recognized by the > ITU-R. I would suggest the use of ‘licensed’ and ‘license-exempt’ with a > footnote indicating that the term ‘unlicensed’ is used in the USA instead of > the usual ‘license-exempt’. > > Gerald > _______________________________________________ > paws mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
_______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
