> Uh, whitespace device? :) Maybe ... but if we are talking about the "license" it might be "Database Licensed", "Database License-Exempt", or "White Space Licensed"
Seems like we had some really excellent definitions - but happened to be missing the category that we are trying to support. "Unlicensed" in FCC terms also has a connotation of multiple users and robustness. Devices operating "unlicensed" are not concerned about potential interference with other unlicensed devices. There are potentially multiple and they generally need to play well together. Licensed devices are typically a single owner to facilitate a level of service based on a more coordinated model. Seems like all devices are licensed from the perspective that the air-wares are controlled and allocated. Even unlicensed or licensed exempt allocations have limitations and device conformance testing. It's just that the end-user does not need to explicitly file for a license in these bands. As an architecture - all devices have a license, and that some just happen to have paid money or been given a monopoly by an authority to have a single user license. Some of the licenses can be short lived and need to be distributed. Some are implicit based on the conformance tests that the device must pass. The licenses that paws is addressing are ones that can be modified by some form of IP communications (aka database lookup). So ... as an attempt for text .... Whitespace licensed: Operation of RF devices in a frequency band where authorized operation is determined based on a devices location, device type and operating time period. Coordination of this mode of operation will typically be managed by databases tracking Licensed operation in the same bands. Paul Paul A. Lambert | Marvell Semiconductor | +1-650-787-9141 From: Rosen, Brian [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 2:46 PM To: Paul Lambert Cc: Nancy Bravin; Malyar, John P; [email protected] Subject: Re: [paws] Discussion on 'license-exempt' vs 'unlicensed' Uh, whitespace device? Sorry, couldn't resist. Brian On Jan 30, 2012, at 5:44 PM, Paul Lambert wrote: What is the correct term for something that is operating as a license-exempt device - yet has been given short term authorization to share a channel with other license-exempt devices based on a query to a regional authorities database in a portion of spectrum that may also include licensed or light-licensed devices at other times or in other areas. Paul 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]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
_______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
