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
