Hi,
I changed the subject line from " Re: [paws] Discussion on 'license-exempt' vs
'unlicensed' ". Here I try to propose some changes to the draft based on the
email discussion.
Below is a copy of chapter 2.2. Terminology. I have inserted new terms for
'licensed' and 'license-exempt' and made changes to the term 'white space'. I
have tried to work from the perspective that the document should accurately
explain the subject with aim that a reader can understand the use cases and the
subsequent requirements. No doubt we could include much more text on this topic
of spectrum allocation, assignment, licensing and usage.
I hope this captures the key points of the discussion. Please do reply if
something is still missing.
Kind Regards,
Scott
2.2. Terminology
Database
In the context of white space and cognitive radio technologies,
the database is an entity which contains current information about
available spectrum at any given location and other types of
information.
Device ID
A unique number for each master device and slave device that
identifies the manufacturer, model number and serial number.
<Insert>
Licensed Spectrum
Spectrum that is acquired by an operator over a given service area
for a given time period. This is usually done through auctions, award
(beauty contest), acquisition from secondary market, company merger &
acquisition, first-come / first-served or by government allocation
(e.g., public service).
License-exempt Spectrum
Spectrum that is not assigned to any specific user. One example is the
2.4 Ghz ISM band, where RF devices
operate without a formal licensing process. In the USA, license-exempt
spectrum is
Typically referred to as "unlicensed" spectrum. In this document the terms
license-exempt and unlicensed are used interchangeably.
</Insert>
Location Based Service
An application or device which provides data, information or
service to a user based on their location.
Master Device
A device which queries the WS Database to find out the available
operating channels.
Protected Entity
A primary user of white space spectrum which is afforded
protection against interference by secondary users (white space
devices) for its use in a given area and time.
Protected Contour
The exclusion area for a Protected Entity, held in the database
and expressed as a polygon with geospatial points as the vertices.
Slave Device
A device which uses the spectrum made available by a master
device.
TV White Space
TV white space refers specifically to radio spectrum which has
been allocated for TV broadcast, but is not occupied by a TV
broadcast, or other licensed user (such as a wireless microphone),
at a specific location and time.
White Space
Radio spectrum which has been allocated <Delete>for some primary
use</Delete><Insert>and assigned for licensed use</Insert>, but
is not fully occupied by that <Delete>primary use</Delete><Insert>
licensed use </Insert> at a specific location
and time. <Insert>This spectrum is then assigned by location regulations
for use as licensed-exempt spectrum under control of a white space
database.</Insert>
White Space Device (WSD)
A device which is a secondary user of some part of white space
spectrum. A white space device can be an access point, base
station, a portable device or similar. In this context, a white
space device is required to query a database with its location to
obtain information about available spectrum.
From: ext Gerald Chouinard
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:07:30 -0500
To: 'Nancy Bravin' <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [paws] Discussion on 'license-exempt' vs 'unlicensed'
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
thendecide under what king of regime it will ‘assign’ this band foroperation.
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]<mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected]<mailto:[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. Thisseems 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]>
[mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, 30 January, 2012 17:49
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected]<mailto:[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]>
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ext Gerald Chouinard
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 12:30 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
