Nancy,
This is not that simple. In fact, the qualifiers "license-exempt" and "unlicensed" can apply to more than one thing. If the qualifier applies to a frequency band, different options exist. As an example, in the ITU-R context, an "unlicensed" band is typically a new band, say in the 300 GHz, for which no request has been made for its use. It is therefore un-allocated to a specific service so far and thus it is an "unlicensed" frequency band. Once the ITU-R allocates this band to one or many services on a primary or secondary basis, then the administrations can then decide under what king of regime it will 'assign' this band for operation. They may decide to allow the use of the band on the basis of licensed operation (with different options to do the assignment: auction, first come/first served, etc.) or allow operation with an exemption of licenses, thus "license-exempt" such as in the 2.4 GHz ISM band. This is also called "unlicensed" in the USA. If the qualifier applies to an operation, the operation can be exempt of license by the local administration, thus a "license-exempt" operation. If, however, someone decides to start an RF transmission operation in a licensed band for which he has no license or in a license-exempt band for which he does not meet the requirements such as operating according to the type of operation for which the band is exempted from a license or he operates outside the technical limits imposed by this license-exempt ruling, his operation is therefore illegal and he is then considered to be running an "unlicensed" operation. If the qualifier applies to the transmission device, such device may be a "license-exempt" device if its operation does not require a specific license or registration with the local administration such as TV receivers of Wi-Fi devices in the 2.4 GHz ISM band. However, if someone smuggles a device that is not allowed in a country by, for example, buying it on eBay and operates it, this is then an illegal device in the country and id de-facto an "unlicensed" device since it has not passed through the normal certification process. Note that a "license-exempt" device still has to go through a certification process and meet the limits imposed by the local regulator for the "license-exempt" operation in the given frequency band whereas an "unlicensed" device may not pass the certification process since it has not been licensed to operation in the country. This is why the qualifier "unlicensed" has to be treated with care and the footnote will need to be crafted very carefully. With respect to your second point, if an administration only allows "licensed" operation, the situation will be much simpler to manage since specific conditions will be attached to these licenses. Gerald _____ From: Nancy Bravin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, 31 January, 2012 06:33 To: Gerald Chouinard Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [paws] Discussion on 'license-exempt' vs 'unlicensed' Gabor and Gerald, Since we are dealing on a global basis, can there a footnote to "unlicensed" we can use to indicate that "according to each countries regulatory requirements" How to get around the fact that some Countries are or will be "licensed only" by their gov'ts? Thanks Nancy On Jan 30, 2012, at 4:13 PM, Gerald Chouinard wrote: Gabor, I agree with your proposal. This seems to be reasonable. However one needs to be careful with the word 'unlicensed' which may mean 'illegal' operation of an RF device in many administrations. Gerald _____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, 30 January, 2012 17:49 To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: [paws] Discussion on 'license-exempt' vs 'unlicensed' These look to be very precise definitions, however in everyday use I rarely hear people referring to ISM band as 'license-exempt', in most cases the term 'unlicensed-band' is used. Therefore, may I suggest that the draft will include the following statement: The terms unlicensed and license-exempt spectrum are used in this document interchangeably and refer to a spectrum in which no formal licensing process is needed for RF devices to operate in, such as the ISM band. - Gabor From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ext Gerald Chouinard Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 12:30 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
