Hi Scott, Something like this?
<delete>With</delete><insert>Besides</insert> the switch to digital transmission for TV, the guard bands that <delete>existed</delete><insert>exists</insert> to protect the signals between stations can <delete>now </delete>be used for other purposes. Teco Op 2 feb. 2012, om 23:21 heeft <[email protected]> <[email protected]> het volgende geschreven: > Hi Teco, > > Did you have any text you want to suggest? I guess the text in question is > accurate enough in practical terms, even if it does allow room for discussion > in theoretical terms. I get your point that white space paradigm applies > regardless of the incumbent radio service. I also believe a thorough > discussion of your comment would wander into the realm of radio transmission > theory and perhaps we could leave that for offline discussion at the next > meeting :-) > > Kind Regards, > Scott > > From: ext Teco Boot <[email protected]> > Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 22:47:35 +0100 > To: Scott <[email protected]> > Cc: ext com <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [paws] draft-ietf-paws-problem-stmt-usecases-rqmts-02.txt > > Hi Scott, > > It is a pity EU cannot report a straightforward plan for usage of white > spaces. But steps are taken. The doc has already a ref to ECC Report 159. > > Minor comment on: >> With the switch to digital transmission for TV, the guard bands that >> existed to protect the signals between stations can now be used for >> other purposes. > > I'm not sure this is true. I can't see why analogue broadcasting didn't had > white spaces. Maybe it is just an increased demand on spectrum and the > opportunities created with new technology, such as PAWS. > > Teco > > Op 2 feb. 2012, om 21:26 heeft <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> het volgende geschreven: > >> Hi Andy, >> >> Very good to cover the UK situation also. I support your proposal and plan >> to include the new section in the next update, pending any further >> discussion on this thread. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Scott >> >> From: ext com <[email protected]> >> Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 19:40:01 +0000 >> To: Scott <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> Subject: RE: draft-ietf-paws-problem-stmt-usecases-rqmts-02.txt >> >> Scott >> >> Section 3 only addresses the US, presumably due to lack of contributions >> from elsewhere. I propose a couple of short paragraphs to cover the UK >> situation. The wording is not mine but is almost entirely taken from the >> latest Ofcom Statement. >> >> Section 3.2 is copied below for reference, unchanged, and I propose a new >> section 3.3, also below: >> >> 3.2. Background information on white space in US >> Television transmission in the United States has moved to the use of >> digital signals as of June 12, 2009. Since June 13, 2009, all fullpower >> U.S. television stations have broadcast over-the-air signals in >> digital only. An important benefit of the switch to all-digital >> broadcasting is that it freed up parts of the valuable broadcast >> spectrum. More information about the switch to digital transmission >> is at : [DTV]. >> Probasco & Patil Expires July 30, 2012 [Page 8] >> Internet-Draft PAWS: Problem, uses and requirements January 2012 >> With the switch to digital transmission for TV, the guard bands that >> existed to protect the signals between stations can now be used for >> other purposes. The FCC has made this spectrum available for >> unlicensed use and this is generally referred to as white space. >> Please see the details of the FCC ruling and regulations in [FCC >> Ruling]. The spectrum can be used to provide wireless broadband as >> an example. The term "Super-Wifi" is also used to describe this >> spectrum and potential for providing wifi type of service. >> >> <Insert> >> 3.3. Background information on white space in UK >> Since its launch in 2005, Ofcom’s Digital Dividend Review [DDR] has >> considered how to make the spectrum freed up by digital switchover available >> for new uses, including the capacity available within the spectrum that is >> retained to carry the digital terrestrial television service. Similarly to >> the US, this interleaved or guard spectrum occurs because not all the >> spectrum in any particular location will be used for terrestrial television >> and so is available for other services, as long as they can interleave their >> usage around the existing users. >> >> In its September 2011 Statement [Ofcom Implementing] Ofcom says that a key >> element in enabling white space usage in the TV bands is the definition and >> provision of a database which, given a device’s location, can tell the >> device which frequency channels and power levels it is able to use without >> causing harmful interference to other licensed users in the vicinity. Ofcom >> will specify requirements to be met by such geolocation databases. It also >> says that the technology has the possibility of being usefully applied >> elsewhere in the radio spectrum to ensure it is used to maximum benefit. For >> example, it may have potential in making spectrum available for new uses >> following any switch to digital radio services. Alternatively it may be >> helpful in exploiting some of the public sector spectrum holdings. Ofcom >> will continue to consider other areas of the radio spectrum where white >> space usage may be of benefit. >> </Insert> >> >> Regards >> >> Andy >> >> >> From:[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> [email protected] >> Sent: 26 January 2012 23:43 >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: [paws] draft-ietf-paws-problem-stmt-usecases-rqmts-02.txt >> >> Hi, >> >> Revision 2 of the PS, Use cases and requirements I-D has been posted. Please >> see: >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-paws-problem-stmt-usecases-rqmts-02.txt >> >> This version only includes changes requested by the co-chair in his email of >> January 12 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/paws/current/msg00516.html >> Specifically: >> " >>> 2. requirements. In the last f2f >>> we agreed to modify requirement D.1 to include the suggestions from slide >>> 7-10 ofhttp://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/paws-2.pdf and merge with >>> D.6 and D.9 >>> slides 7&8 of http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/paws-1.pdf also >>> contain suggestions on how to revise this requirement. >>> Agreed to revise requirement D.2 as suggested in slide 11 of >>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/paws-2.pdfand slide 9 of >>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/paws-1.pdf >>> We seem to have agreed with the reformulation suggested to D.3 in slide 12 >>> ofhttp://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/paws-2.pdf, but we did not >>> agree on the format the location would be represented in. The data format >>> part is still open, but as this piece does not really belong to >>> requirements but rather the data model spec, we are not in a hurry to >>> decide it. >>> Delete d.4 >>> D.5: augment with lower/upper frequencies and time of availability, as >>> suggested on slide 10 ofhttp://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/paws-1.pdf >>> D.6: change power to eirp, as suggested in slide 13 of >>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/paws-2.pdf. >>> D.7: change to single and multiple locations. Clarify that in case of >>> multiple locations the channel availability for each location should be >>> sent by the db. >>> D.8: delete >> >> " >>> >> >> And >> " >>> Operational requirements: slides 22-24 of >>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/paws-2.pdf contain suggestions on >>> rewording, I propose the editor considers them. >> >> " >> >> >> Regards, >> Scott & Raj >> _______________________________________________ >> paws mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws >
_______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
