It might be useful to get your head out of _TV_ white space for a minute
and generalize.
In the VHF band there are lots of 15kHz slivers of licensed. Similar in
the 700/800MHz band for emergency services (also licensed). FWIW, the
county where I live has over 200 VHF channel licenses. There are two
trends being pushed in these parts of the spectrum:
- 'narrowbanding' by reissuing the 15kHz slivers as even smaller ~7kHz
sliverettes. This of course, perpetuates narrowband (as in Land Mobile
Radio) and squeezes more efficiency out. The facts of life are that a
lot of these channels are vacant a lot of the time.
- recycling the spectrum by withdrawing the narrowband licenses
entirely so they can be issued in the 5/10MHz slabs that IEEE 802.16 and
LTE like. There's a big debate about the spectrum allocation in the
700MHz block and a lot of confused conversation in the emergency
services comms world where they seem to want both broadband spectrum
_and_ lots of narrowband channels. But the crux is whether the law or
regulation states whether the 700MHz emergency services channels will be
for _exclusive_ emergency services use or not. (Within that is the
debate over just what constitutes emergency services ... one of my
contacts in Wyoming insists that snowplows are). If non-exclusive, then
there may be considerable value to whitespace recycling ability here.
On Fri, 2012-02-03 at 11:16 +0000, [email protected] wrote:
> Scott, Teco
>
>
>
> Teco makes a good suggestion to amend the US text, for historical
> accuracy. Certainly in UK there is no connection between digital
> switchover and permitting white space usage per se, but the two became
> connected in people’s minds due to their similar timing. I guess there
> could be a similar confusion in US.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
> Of Teco Boot
> Sent: 03 February 2012 07:41
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [paws] draft-ietf-paws-problem-stmt-usecases-rqmts-02.txt
>
>
>
>
> 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
_______________________________________________
paws mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
