Brian, My comment is background; it doesn't contribute specifically to the text being folded, spindled and mutilated. I'm reacting to the use of the acronym TVWS which tends to get us into a tunnel.
more in line... On Fri, 2012-02-03 at 12:51 -0500, Rosen, Brian wrote: > <as individual> > Rex > > I know whereof you speak. But, is there some use case, or requirement > that might arise out of this, which would help our work? > We can't reasonably ask the database to react to, for example, Push to > Talk reservations - use has to be on a much more granular time scale. Push-to-talk is a term common in the LMR world ... but ports very imperfectly into a packet switched one. It conflates layer 3 concepts like multicast working groups with layer 7 things like voice apps. If you read the NPSTC statement on 'mission critical voice' from an internet point of view, the first thing you have to do is sort the issues into 1) application and 2) infrastructure bins -- they're all mixed up in the statement. > Regardless of how the spectrum is sliced and diced, our basic > paradigm of query the database with your location, and it responds > with what spectrum you can use, seems to apply to this use as well as > TVBWS. Agreed. My only hedge here is to stay out of a TVWS-only hole. > > Brian > > On Feb 3, 2012, at 12:22 PM, Rex Buddenberg wrote: > > > 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 > _______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
