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
