One small change to the definition of licensed. Although you identify all the original mechanisms I can think of for acquiring spectrum many operators have built or extended their portfolio through secondary markets or M&A activities.
From: Nancy Bravin <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:06:31 -0500 To: "Malyar, John P" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "'[email protected]<mailto:'[email protected]>'" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, 'Gerald Chouinard' <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [paws] Discussion on 'license-exempt' vs 'unlicensed' 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]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gerald Chouinard Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 3:30 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
_______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
