Re: Easy peasy, then.
I'm used to Canada and the USA, where SO LONG AS I USE UNLICENCED spectrum, I only need U.S. FCC (Federal Communications Commission) and Canadian DOC (Department of Communications) device-specific RFI and EMI certifications (i.e. FCC Class B device) that accepts external interference without damage and doesn't otherwise emit interfering EMI.
Not sure that's true. I've not done Canada (mores the pity, +/- politics) but I'm pretty sure there are caveats. So spectrum may be unlicensed in specific cases, but if you start sharing services, then you may or may not become an public network/operator and require more paperwork. If you're just selling systems, then it becomes the user's risk.. But beware patents, as you say. Especially whether you can play in the deep end of the pool, or not. Generally that just means the swim-club won't sue each other, not anyone else that dives in.
But respect for developing this. I suspect part of the anti-Huawei lobbying is also linked to Nokia etc trying to push Open-RAN & not become an also-RAN in the 5G market. Biggest obstacle to overcome though is operator's natural caution, ie they want to buy in huge volumes, with support etc.. It's been interesting chatting with Huawei's business types over the years about volume. We had a BD wanting a discount on <100 units of some tin, Huawei pointed out they supply in the 10K+ volume to support networks in China, India etc. Those markets are just on a different scale to other countries. I guess Canada's also much like Australia, ie massive geography to cover, but small populations.. So outside the big populations, providing services ain't cheap.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
