Hi,
A bit confused seeing the 'unlicensed' band discussion here. Will a white space
database be maintaining details of devices/channel allocations of unlicensed
band operation of devices? (is it really feasible, as unlicensed band can be
used by any device without any specific channels allocation, etc....) Or will
the databases limit their operation to just the licensed/lightly licensed band
operations? Or is it just that we are only defining these terms here.
Best Regards,
Sajeev Manikkoth
Mobile: +919663311378
Email: [email protected]
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mksajeev
________________________________
From: Paul Lambert <[email protected]>
To: "Rosen, Brian" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, 31 January 2012, 4:47
Subject: Re: [paws] Discussion on 'license-exempt' vs 'unlicensed'
> Uh, whitespace device?
J
Maybe … but if we are talking about the “license”
it might be “Database Licensed”, “Database
License-Exempt”, or “White Space Licensed”
Seems like we had some really excellent definitions – but happened
to be missing the category that we are trying to support.
“Unlicensed” in FCC terms also has a connotation of
multiple users and robustness. Devices operating “unlicensed”
are not concerned about potential interference with other unlicensed
devices. There are potentially multiple and they generally need to play
well together. Licensed devices are typically a single owner to
facilitate a level of service based on a more coordinated model.
Seems like all devices are licensed from the perspective that
the air-wares are controlled and allocated. Even unlicensed or licensed
exempt allocations have limitations and device conformance testing. It’s
just that the end-user does not need to explicitly file for a license in these
bands.
As an architecture – all devices have a license, and that
some just happen to have paid money or been given a monopoly by an authority to
have a single user license. Some of the licenses can be short lived and
need to be distributed. Some are implicit based on the conformance tests
that the device must pass. The licenses that paws is addressing are ones
that can be modified by some form of IP communications (aka database lookup).
So … as an attempt for text ….
Whitespace licensed: Operation
of RF devices in a frequency band where authorized operation is determined based
on a devices location, device type and operating time period. Coordination
of this mode of operation will typically be managed by databases tracking
Licensed
operation in the same bands.
Paul
Paul A. Lambert | Marvell Semiconductor | +1-650-787-9141
From:Rosen, Brian
[mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 2:46 PM
To: Paul Lambert
Cc: Nancy Bravin; Malyar, John P; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [paws] Discussion on 'license-exempt' vs 'unlicensed'
Uh, whitespace device?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Brian
On Jan 30, 2012, at 5:44 PM, Paul Lambert wrote:
What is the correct term for something that is operating as a
license-exempt device – yet has been given short term authorization to
share a channel with other license-exempt devices based on a query to a
regional authorities database in a portion of spectrum that may also include
licensed or light-licensed devices at other times or in other areas.
Paul
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gerald
Chouinard
Sent: Monday, January 30,
2012 3:30 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
_______________________________________________
paws mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
_______________________________________________
paws mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
