Worries Mount Over Upcoming LTE-U Deployments Hurting Wi-Fi

alphadogg writes: LTE-U is a technology developed by Qualcomm that lets a service provider broadcast and receive signals over unlicensed spectrum, which is usable by anybody – specifically, in this case, the spectrum used by Wi-Fi networks in both businesses and homes. By opening up this new spectrum, major U.S. wireless carriers hope to ease the load on the licensed frequencies they control and help their services keep up with demand. Unsurprisingly, several outside experiments that pitted standard LTE technology or 'simulated LTE-U' technology, in the case of one in-depth Google study, against Wi-Fi transmitters on the same frequencies found that LTE drastically reduced the throughput on the Wi-Fi connection.

Comments

Perfect for Hotels!

[ZipK]

Now hotels will have a legal way to jam your personal hotspot!

Re:Perfect for Hotels!

[ichthus]

And jam their own WiFi in the process. Right.

Re:Perfect for Hotels!

[Anonymous Coward]

Cat 5e!

Re:Perfect for Hotels!

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost. Except it will be the phone companies who will be jamming wifi. Except everywhere not just in a hotel. With wifi access becoming more and more prevalent, I was wondering how the carriers were going to stay relevant. This is how, by making the next iteration of G cripple wifi's performance.

Re:Perfect for Hotels!

[mikeiver1]

Not worried at all. The cell sites are generally very poorly protected and monitored leaving them open to attack. Piss enough users off and you are bound to get more than a few that are willing to "free up spectrum" from the hijackers that run the cellular companies. These assholes have already managed to grab nearly half of the old UHF TV spectrum after the next auction to verizon and at&t is completed. I suspect that it will only be a matter of time before the cellular companies are able to get the FCC to relegate WiFi to secondary use status behind their own services. In this though they may have a fight on their hands from the cable companies like Time Warner and others that use the installed cable/WiFi routers of their customers to extend their "free" WiFi services to their customer base. Speaking of which, we are aware that cable companies not only charge us to rent their cable routers with WiFi but then turn around and open a WiFi link to service their customers and make you pay for the power to run the service to boot?

Oh good, more contention.

[jandrese]

The 2.4 Ghz spectrum was opened up for general use because it has relatively poor long distance characteristics thanks to it being absorbed strongly by water. This lead to an explosion of use in the band where your average apartment building has dozens of devices competing for the spectrum. And now cell companies are coming full circle and stomping all over it themselves. Maybe the government could take the hint that maybe another ISM band or two would be highly welcome. Maybe they could skip selling off spectrum for billions of dollars to enormous companies and instead open it up the way they did the 2.4 Ghz band? Spectrum seems a bit over regulated at the moment, there's barely any room for entities that aren't massive corporations with billions of dollars to do anything.

Over regulation is stifling innovation.

Re:Oh good, more contention.

[tripleevenfall]

Maybe they could skip selling off spectrum for billions of dollars to enormous companies and instead open it up the way they did the 2.4 Ghz band?

You must be new here. :)

Re:Oh good, more contention.

[Anonymous Coward]

Over regulation is stifling innovation.

I've got news for you: keeping spectrum open for unlicensed use by small players IS regulation. Without regulation, giant telcos and broadcast entities could stomp all over whichever spectrum they choose without regard to whether it's ruining your WiFi.

Stop arguing against regulation and argue against poor regulation.

Re:Oh good, more contention.

[QuietLagoon]

... Spectrum seems a bit over regulated at the moment, there's barely any room for entities that aren't massive corporations with billions of dollars to do anything....

You conflate 'over regulated' with 'selling to the highest bidder'. The current level of regulation can continue, it just needs to get away from the highest bidder process.

Re:Oh good, more contention.

[gstoddart]

Spectrum seems a bit over regulated at the moment, there's barely any room for entities that aren't massive corporations with billions of dollars to do anything.

Welcome to your oligarchy ... if it isn't designed to benefit massive corporations with billions of dollars, it isn't happening.

They're the ones who have the elected people on the payroll.

Re:Oh good, more contention.

[0123456]

Without regulation, giant telcos and broadcast entities could stomp all over whichever spectrum they choose without regard to whether it's ruining your WiFi.

Without regulation, we'd be using wideband spread spectrum for our signals, and our signals would be stomping all over any attempt by big telcos to take over the radio spectrum.

By arguing for regulation, you're arguing for big business. Are you a 1%-er?

Re:Oh good, more contention.

[SherifHanna]

LTE-U doesn't use the 2.4GHz spectrum. It only uses a fraction of the channels in the 5GHz UNII band (only UNII-1 and UNII-3...no UNII-2). That means that LTE-U actually leaves the vast majority of spectrum in the 2.4GHz and 5GHz unlicensed bands exclusively for use by Wi-Fi and other unlicensed technologies.

Re:Oh good, more contention.

[liquid_schwartz]

Bandwidth is perhaps the most poorly utilized resource. There is tons of spectrum, the vast majority of it locked up for historical reasons. 2.4GHz has been so incredibly useful to humanity. We could do even more with wireless if most of the spectrum wasn't locked up. I work with some ISM and people are generally limited to 151MHz / 433MHz / 915MHz / 2.4GHz in the US with the other frequencies used for special applications and in some cases only certain companies. To make the future better you have to sometimes break from the past and frequency allocation is an excellent example of this.

Re:Oh good, more contention.

[the_B0fh]

Are you a fucking idiot? If I send a continuous spike through an entire range of frequencies, that'd kill your "spread spectrum. Sure, you can go use other frequencies, but I can generate noise or just overwhelm any signal you can put out.

Re:Oh good, more contention.

[0123456]

Are you a fucking idiot? If I send a continuous spike through an entire range of frequencies, that'd kill your "spread spectrum. Sure, you can go use other frequencies, but I can generate noise or just overwhelm any signal you can put out.

Yes, if someone is actively trying to prevent me from talking to my wi-fi base station, they can do that. But what kind of idiot would throw gigawatts of power across gigahertz just so they'd interfere with my signal? Radio Moscow?

Re:Oh good, more contention.

[kuhnto]

To emphasize what the previous poster stated, it is nice to get a good visual of how our spectrum is diced up and see who has the big chunks...

I present "The US Frequency Allocation Table -> https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...

Re:Oh good, more contention.

[Anonymous Coward]

We really need devices that are designed for apartments. Things that only transmit 30 or 40 feet would be great. It would cover most typical apartments and if you coordinated the use between the devices, you could greatly cut down on the competition. Right now I'm sitting in a house and there's at least a dozen WAPs that show up when I scan. That means there's no way of allocating the spectrum where there isn't at least one part that's being utilized by 4 devices.

This technology is just going to make the issue worse. I'd rather see my phone allow me to switch over to normal WiFi for service when it's available. That way I'd get good reception just about any place that has a wireless signal.

Re:Oh good, more contention.

[dpidcoe]

Yes, if someone is actively trying to prevent me from talking to my wi-fi base station, they can do that. But what kind of idiot would throw gigawatts of power across gigahertz just so they'd interfere with my signal?

They don't need to continuously jam it, they just need to make it drop out enough to be obnoxious. Sending out a pulse crafted to disconnect people from their wireless access points several times an hour would be enough to annoy the non tech savvy into just buying a 4g connection for everything.

Re:Oh good, more contention.

[ooshna]

I argue for minimum wage. Does that make me a 1%er too? Where can I pick up my check?

Re:Oh good, more contention.

[liquid_schwartz]

What you're asking for is harder than it seems. To go through walls and other obstacles you transmit at higher power. To make a super short range version you could transmit at lower power or use a higher frequency since higher frequencies (ie shorter wavelengths) don't penetrate walls and other obstacles as well. This is why your old 900MHz cordless phone worked half a block away but wifi struggles with 2 story stucco houses.

Re:Oh good, more contention.

[fustakrakich]

They're the ones who have the elected people on the payroll.

Yeah well, the voters are the ones that elect them.

Re:Oh good, more contention.

[squiggleslash]

The reason we use 2.4GHz is because we're cheap. We've known of problems with it for years, with cordless phone makers making 2.4GHz phones, and with even the most well shielded Microwave oven causing interference. But we continue to use it because early 802.11a gear was expensive, and because "advanced" equipment like 802.11a repeaters was priced for corporate purchasing, when they cost $10 or so a unit to make.

Even after this, we still have 900MHz and 5GHz free and clear. Personally, I think the 5GHz Wi-fi system, coupled with cheap repeaters, is a better system than 2.4GHz, and I wish we'd move over to it. There's massively more bandwidth, interference from neighbors is close to impossible both because of walls and because the bandwidth makes it rare two networks will use the same frequency, and there's less interference from every day devices like cordless phones (even 5GHz phones, which are being phased out in favor of DECT anyway) and Microwave ovens.

If LTE-U both pushes us to move to 5GHz, and gives our mobile devices better coverage and more bandwidth, I'm all in favor of it.

Re:Oh good, more contention.

[Holi]

Except this is for the U-NII 1 and 3 bands in the 5Ghz spectrum. Channels 52 - 140 should be untouched.

Re:Oh good, more contention.

[ajzimm3rman]

You're portraying one side of the problem. The issue is, there is not enough room within the current parameters given to the market. The elephant in the room is the entity holding it. That would be the FCC. And this idea that large corporations would dominate the wave spectrum if given the chance ignores the loss in the market by doing so. If they were to purchase (the extremely expensive) band and not make use of it, they would be losing their money. Why would a sane company buy a wave spectrum and then not use it? Another question would be, why would they buy it and use ALL of them, when they could rent out or sell the ones that are going unused.

This is the type of illogical approach most people take when they're unaware of the costs associated with actually purchasing the spectrum, and they just assume that once it's purchased it's done. WRONG. If they're not using it, and just sitting on it, that is economic suicide. Every other company that would be interested in that spec would want to purchase it from them, and this supposedly evil corp would say NO, I want to spend BILLIONS of dollars for this spectrum, and DO NOTHING with it.

Now here is when you say, "They won't do nothing with it," to which I would say, the gov is. To which you would say, "Well all of these companies would come in and just hoard all of the spectrum." To which I would say, the gov is!
If any person or entity is doing the hoarding, it is the FCC. Your fantasyland of non-government sanctioned monopolies/oligarchies ignores the world realities that occur on a daily basis where corporations trying to improve the lives of millions by selling them a product they are willing to pay millions for are unable to continue to advance or lower prices because of the increased costs of doing business because of the artificial scarcicity imposed on us by the FCC and other Federal agencies.
It's not that simple you say, yet you claim that giant telcos will come and steal all of the spectrum and leave nothing for the little guy. Yet you ignore the ridiculous costs of buying spectrum BECAUSE of its scarcity (BECAUSE the government hoards it).

http://dailycaller.com/2012/09...

Re:Oh good, more contention.

[Anonymous Coward]

Check your reading comprehension. The post you replied to and even quoted specifically states "Over regulation is stifling innovation."

Re:Oh good, more contention.

[jwdb]

Except that the UNII-2 and other proposed 5 GHz wifi bands overlap with radar, meaning that equipment has to implement DFS and the radar gets priority. Having LTE in -1 and -3 means that all 5 GHz bands now have to deal with non-wifi interferers.

Re:Oh good, more contention.

[tweak13]

only UNII-1 and UNII-3...no UNII-2

In other words, they are using the spectrum that people actually want since UNII-2 has limits regarding power and avoiding interference with radar.

Re:Oh good, more contention.

[SherifHanna]

They already have to deal with non-Wi-Fi interferers. For examples, Wireless HDI is a 5GHz technology that uses those same bands.

Re:Oh good, more contention.

[SherifHanna]

It's a shared resource. I think people sometimes forget that.

Re:Oh good, more contention.

[mschwanke97402]

Artificial scarcity? Do you even have an inkling of how crowded the EM spectrum is? The military is having to give up bands that were exclusive to their use, TV stations were moved up into gigahertz bands to free up more space at lower frequencies for mobile use. Hell, they are even trying to open up spectrum between television channels. The FCC has done a huge amount to free up spectrum for evolving uses. I know it is fashionable to assume the government is bad at everything. So do go head and blather on.

Re:Oh good, more contention.

[Thorizdin]

You need to remember that the power from your AP is irrelevant since your mobile devices will out put a max of about 250 mW and the average laptop and gaming console registers less than 1 watt.

Re: Oh good, more contention.

[Anonymous Coward]

With a range of what, 10ft? Irrelevant.

LTE-U is a bad idea for every one.

Re:Oh good, more contention.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah well, the voters are the ones that elect them.

...after the media cartels and the billionaires screen the candidates first, of course.

Re:Oh good, more contention.

[fustakrakich]

Turn off the TV

Re:Oh good, more contention.

[jaa101]

The 2.4 Ghz spectrum was opened up for general use because it has relatively poor long distance characteristics thanks to it being absorbed strongly by water

Note that 2.4GHz is absorbed pretty much the same as 2.1GHz, 2.2GHz, 2.3GHz, 2.5GHz, 2.6GHz, ... There are no blips or surprises if you plot it out. The 2.4GHz ISM band appears to have been chosen just because some experimenters had built heating equipment that happened to use that frequency.

Re:Oh good, more contention.

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish we didn't get rid of so much analog TV. I mean, the digital cliff is bad in some areas. Hopefully we don't mess with AM and FM radio.

I do think we should open more up for the equivalent of Wi-Fi rather than for the benefit of phone companies when it comes to data.

Re:Oh good, more contention.

[thsths]

> Having LTE in -1 and -3 means that all 5 GHz bands now have to deal with non-wifi interferers.

It is called industrial, scientific and medical (ISM) radio band for a reason. WiFi always had to compete with other applications - for example microwave ovens. Of course they try not to emit any radiation, but if you have 600W inside the box, you are bound to leak a few uW.

Re: Oh good, more contention.

[Anonymous Coward]

I would, just to spite your trolly behind.

Re:Oh good, more contention.

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm 1 Watt is 4 x 250mW

Re:Oh good, more contention.

[k6mfw]

The 2.4 Ghz spectrum was opened up for general use because it has relatively poor long distance characteristics thanks to it being absorbed strongly by water.

Interesting mention, and why microwave ovens use 2450MHz, water absorption helps keep RF signal local.

This lead to an explosion of use in the band where your average apartment building has dozens of devices competing for the spectrum.

Back in the days when ships were wood and men were steel, frequencies were allocated to business and public safety 2-way radios, broadcast radio, television, microwave backhaul, amateur radio, military, aviation, navigation, boaters, etc. But 2.4GHz was good for heating food as H2O molecule absorbs that freq. As these ovens are "noisy" FCC figured this will be good for general ISM devices. Then along comes computer/network/internet people wanting spectrum but it has all been taken (analogy of trying to homestead at the close of the 19th century). So only thing left was 2.4. They also seek out 5.8 and a few other slivers of spectrum. But don't think about opening up all spectrum. Cellphone and broadcasters are very possessive of their spectrum, and also many govt and businesses regularly use 2-way radios just like mechanics and plumbers use their tools. There was a time when radio had no regulation (1920s) with stations continually changing freq and increasing power, this lead to many listeners turning off radios and sales of receivers dropped (noted in Gordon West book on commercial licensing). Some services used to be licensed (CB), FCC threw in the towel but still asked manufacturers to keep their radio gear contained within that band.

Generally the FCC no longer enforces spectrum, they may call someone to locate source of interference on a cop frequency. I'm still amazed there are regular sales of 1.2GHz video transmitters that operate in the 900 to 1200 MHz band (aero nav band used by transponders) and all these RC drone sites selling 5.8GHz video transmitters (up to 2w) and everyone from commercial to hobbyists operate on this without any regard to licensing or station ID. But then it is the wild west so who cares? FCC will take action if a nipple is shown.

Over regulation is stifling innovation.

not really, the big megacorps are buying up spectrum then sell various devices where you need to subscribe and pay, pay user fees, fees for data usage, fees for using "excessive data", fees to upgrade, fees to fee.

you don't say...

[turkeydance]

he didn't say: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

killing wifi with high cost low cap cell is good f

[Joe_Dragon]

killing wifi with high cost low cap cell is good for the carriers and bad for the uses.

Also just wait for the Mexico towers near the board to up there power as they rake in the roaming that goes as high as $20 a meg.

Spectrum Grab

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just a spectrum grab by the telcos. The key thing about this technology is that it requires a small control channel in the frequency range "owned" by the telco, but blasts all sorts of data over the unlicensed 5GHz spectrum.

It would be one thing if the entire connection was done in the unlicensed spectrum, so anyone could set up an LTE network (like wi-max), but to require licensed spectrum just to require it should not be allowed.

Re:Spectrum Grab

[SherifHanna]

When cable companies use unlicensed spectrum to deploy their own Wi-Fi networks (as Comcast, TWC, and other cable companies do), is that also a spectrum grab?

Re:Spectrum Grab

[Anonymous Coward]

There should be a quid pro quo rule: If you use a particular frequency band, then anybody who is allowed to use that band is also allowed to use all bands that are licensed to you. If the telcos want us to stay of their licensed bands, then they need to stay out of the bands that we are allowed to use.

Re:Spectrum Grab

[Anonymous Coward]

yes

Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

So carriers can now make you pay for using unlicensed wireless spectrum, while blocking all the annoying alternative WIFI that people may use instead of the overpriced plans and super low data limits?

This is why we can't have a nice things. Greedy bastards.

Re:Great!

[SherifHanna]

No different than paid Wi-Fi access points and wireless ISPs like Boingo and iPass.

NW article less than detailed

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess mentioning specific frequency ranges is to technical to be mentioned in Network World?

Overrun

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Do wifi routers have their own spectrum? Perhaps there should be a set-aside just for short range, get-along-nicely protocols.

The clogging varies with the square of the range. It is stupid to allow a handful of transmissions to clog up a million houses in a city.

Alternatively, disallow telcos from charging for data sent over this spectrum. There you go!

Re:Overrun

[WillAffleckUW]

Or we could just beam signals at your towers, using thousands of transmitters known as wi-fi devices, forcing you to stop being a jerk.

Re:Overrun

[MachineShedFred]

In the old days of pre-WiFi home networking, there used to be a scheme referred to as HPNA, or Home Phone Line Networking where it would carve holes in the frequencies it used on your phone wiring so as to not interrupt analog modems, regular phone calls, or DSL service.

Why do I have a feeling that our friendly telcos won't bother with such good-neighbor approaches to this technology?

Cable company propaganda

[EmperorOfCanada]

Holy crap. This is completely disproved cable company funded research. Basically the cable companies are not only seeing cord cutting in the realm of people cutting their TV cables but also now many people are going with tablets and phone only internet connections and are cutting their local wi-fi/cable internet connection. This is a disaster for the cable companies.

So they are doing their damnedest to keep the wireless companies from being able to use the bandwidth that is becoming available as various old technologies such as analog broadcast TV frees up more and more of the spectrum.

On top of that any new frequency opened up to wireless will often then be used by the newest and best data technologies so a given bit of spectrum used in 4G will of course pack in way more data than a 3G spectrum of the same "size" and 5G will probably pack in just that much more into anything that newly opens up for it.

Eventually the 2G spectrum will be retired for use for maybe 6G sort of stuff but it is the new spectrums now that are used for the newest and best data streaming.

If you look at a graph of the spectrum opening up, combined with existing spectrum being re-purposed, combined with the ability to not only send data down that spectrum, but cool things like phased array antennas that can basically laser the data directly at a customer that graph will actually show that the typical netflixing customer could potentially go entirely wireless in not that many years.

This basically takes the whole "last mile" concept out and shoots it in the face. Then the last-mile turns into the-last-pile-of-expensive-crap.

Yes there will be some customers who need such absurd amounts of bandwidth that wireless really won't be it but for the average person watching netflix; they really will hit a limit where they then only slowly increase their demands.

So again I cry a little bit for slashdot to see this sort of corporate shilling happening again.

Re:Cable company propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

I am an "average consumer" and if I am affected by this then it isn't corporate shilling. Just because cable companies might have a position against this doesn't mean it doesn't also hurt consumers. *Right now* I use Wi-Fi and I care about my data throughput *right now* not in some hypothetical world that might exist 10 years in the future.

You sound like the shill.

Re:Cable company propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes there will be some customers who need such absurd amounts of bandwidth that wireless really won't be it but for the average person watching netflix; they really will hit a limit where they then only slowly increase their demands.

... until it's NetflixHD.
... then Holoflix.
... then HoloflixCanny.
... then Mindflix (simsense unit sold seperately)

Re:Cable company propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as there are data caps on wireless data it's not going to be my primary (or even secondary) source of data connectivity, nor any other cord cutter. I only have two televisions in my house. We watch less than 3 hours of Netflix a day between 4 people and I already burn through about 200 gigs a month. If I was trying to use my crappy Verizon data that would cost me about $2,400 a month. Who's shilling who here.

Re:Cable company propaganda

[cdrudge]

now many people are going with tablets and phone only internet connections and are cutting their local wi-fi/cable internet connection.

Do you have anything to support this claim? I know numerous people that have cut the cord regarding cable tv but kept internet, but no one that has dropped their traditional broadband for only wireless. The only two people I know that have cellular-only internet live out in the sticks where traditional broadband doesn't extend to and there is no other practical alternatives.

Re:Cable company propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been wireless only for about 4 years thanks to still having unlimited Data through Verizon. I don't really watch video at all in any form, and it's more than enough bandwidth for web, music, and even Steam.

Re:Cable company propaganda

[EmperorOfCanada]

But the independent evidence shows that there is no problem. They are trying to convince the public that their Wi-fi will be imperilled by the evil telcos. When one large group of companies are battling with another group of large companies their lobbying suddenly cancels out and they have to turn to the voter.

Re:Cable company propaganda

[EmperorOfCanada]

I can point to my family. We moved to a location where nearly unlimited wireless is not a terrible price. There is no need beyond me, the software developer, to have a huge connection. If I had genuinely unlimited LTE or better then I would switch in a heartbeat. I am a pretty demanding data user so if I could cut then few couldn't.

If my siblings lived where I live then I would have helped them all cut their internet by now. My mother has netflix but barely even uses that. I think her monthly data usage is around 2Gigs a month or less. I think that a typical Netfllix family uses around the 300Gig mark in Data.

Where wireless gets interesting is when the antenna is also directional. In some countries where they leapfrogged that last mile of wire they combine cool telco antennas with these can things on the houses that allow for wireless highspeed internet for very little money.

The key is that the cable companies are only seeing the cusp of this trend. They are trying to cut it off before it becomes a problem. Every day they can delay the progress of wireless data for the masses is a huge pile of money. So it is worth it for them to put a huge amount of effort into this project even if it only buys them a year or two.

Now it's not perfect. Ping times go up so gamers wouldn't be happy. But I can use products such as skype and facetime on my data plan and I can't tell the difference between that and a wired internet connection.

It is also very cool when I am in a park and can download a new version of some SDK that I use without really thinking about it.

Re:Cable company propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

If the same frequencies are used then WiFi connections will be impaired. You don't need a "study" to figure that out. The study can be used to determine *how much* my connection might be impaired or other information about the nature of impairment under specific use cases. You can say it not a problem but that is your subjective opinion on what is acceptable impairment.

There will definitely be an impairment, especially if I want to use 100% of potential capacity and then someone else wants to use some of the LTE-U capacity. I am guessing your argument will be that most people don't use 100% of the potential capacity or that we don't have a right to it. My answer to that would be: people do use it and should have a right to it. I constantly use 100% of my WiFi capacity to transfer files, stream, and complete other tasks.

This tech will sacrifice my experience, on property that I own, so a company can profit. I don't like it and it is not shilling to not like it.

You are more biased than you care to admit, for whatever reason.

Re:Cable company propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

The grand parent post is total fuckin bullshit. LTE-U is being whitewashed by Qualcomm since they own patents and chips that can properly have wifi and LTE-U exist together by employing timesharing algorithms.

LTE-U is nothing more than Qualcomm trying to get licensing of their technology mandated by the government.

Re:Cable company propaganda

[Thorizdin]

That's false, I've seen the tests, ie I've been there in person and while there are some worst case assumptions the testing that CableLabs did is completely valid and accurate. The notion that LTE isn't commonly running at full duty cycles is simply false for many/most urban and suburban towers.

Re:Cable company propaganda

[Thorizdin]

The central problem is that WiFi is a "listen first" protocol while LTE is centrally scheduled. That means at full duty cycles, this was the worst case assumption the CableLabs study worked off of, that LTE-U absolutely degrades WiFi performance substantially. The counter claims were that LTE is seldom at full duty cycles is true, but only on towers that are lightly loaded. A busy tower will have a full or nearly full duty cycle in its licensed bands and there's no reason to imagine that the same won't be true for the unlicensed bands.

No problem

[Anonymous Coward]

We simply encapsulate IEEE 802.11 frames and send them to the other side via LTE-U.

Re:killing wifi with high cost low cap cell is goo

[ClickOnThis]

Also just wait for the Mexico towers near the board to up there power as they rake in the roaming that goes as high as $20 a meg.

I doubt it. Use of electromagnetic spectrum near borders is regulated by treaties. Also, the unlicensed use of WiFi frequencies comes with a condition: you must keep your power output below a certain level.

Two Way Street

[Anonymous Coward]

The spectrum is open to anyone. While they might impact WiFi, they are also at the mercy of others in the spectrum. So, why my 15dbi dish gets aimed at their tower and I start using all channels, for science, their service suffers.

Carriers have no advantage with LTE-U except for existing tall towers. They'll simply add to the already overcrowded spectrum, which means they probably won't bother entering it.

Re: Two Way Street

[Anonymous Coward]

"Available for anyone" doesn't mean "unrestricted." As a licensed ham, I can tell you your tongue-in-cheek revenge plot would result (very quickly) in local FCC officials showing up at your door to take your equipment and inform you of the giant ass-reaming fine you're about to receive. Then, because Corporations, you can deal separately with that large telco's legal department and what they have to say about your willful disruption of their business.

Don't play with radio unless you know what you're doing and have the license and govt.-approved (ie, properly power/frequency locked in this case) equipment.

Wow.

[Obfuscant]

Whoever in the FCC is allowing this to happen needs to step up and kill it. Pitting LTE-U against standard WiFi, and it being a commercial service, should be unthinkable.

I think it is time for amateurs (hams) to step up and develop more 2.4GHz applications for networking. It would be an interesting side-effect if those apps happened to destroy LTE-U performance at the same time. As TFA points out, the "fairness" algorithm is at the discretion of the user, not mandated by law, so the carriers would have no problem if the hams develop a system that is fair to them but screws the carriers, right?

Who has links into Meshnet, and can you get them doing that? I'll happily devote a couple of old Linksys routers to Meshnet for the right cause.

Re:Wow.

[SherifHanna]

Pitting LTE-U against standard WiFi, and it being a commercial service, should be unthinkable.

Unlicensed spectrum is already used by many entities for commercial services. For example, every hotel or airport that charges money for Wi-Fi is using unlicensed spectrum for commercial, for-profit services. Boingo and other Wi-Fi ISPs use Wi-Fi on unlicensed spectrum for commercial services. Cable companies setting up Wi-Fi access points (e.g. the nationwide CableWiFi network) are using unlicensed spectrum for commercial services. But it doesn't just stop at Wi-Fi. Utilities use the unlicensed 2.4GHz band and the 900MHz band to deploy smart meter connections (e.g. using ZigBee, other 802.15.4-based protocols, or even completely proprietary radios and protocols). The point is that unlicensed spectrum has long been used for commercial services. As long as the users abide by the power output limits set forth by the FCC, anyone can use the spectrum. That's kind of the point of unlicensed spectrum.

Re: Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

While you're right that portions of these bands are available for licensed hams, the fact you're using it for communication as a ham puts some shackles on you. Specifically, you must use the lowest power you can to maintain without interfering. Due to the wavelength of the 2.4 and 5 Ghz bands, it's not a very convincing argument to the feds that a high power signal that routinely interferes with others is "amateur use".

Re: Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed the OP's point: Drowning out others' use for your own commercial profit is illegal. This is why the hotels you mentioned got their asses handed to them with a major FCC fine for blocking all WiFi signals but their own. This is that, but will affect several orders of magnitude more people.

Re: Wow.

[SherifHanna]

Who said anything about drowning out other people's? Where in the spec for the technology do you see that? A single LTE carrier channel is limited to 20MHz bandwidth. Smartphones that support LTE-U will at most be able to take advantage of 40MHz of spectrum (if 2 LTE-U channels are used). That's out of hundreds of MHz of available bandwidth in the unlicensed bands. There would be no need to drown out anyone because (1) it's not technically possible given max LTE bandwidth limitation and (2) the plentiful spectrum that's available in the band. Additionally, if and when LTE-U has to share the channel with an existing Wi-Fi access points, it *deterministically* takes up 50% of the air time. If it has to share with 2 Wi-Fi APs, it takes only 33% of the time. And so on. I would be glad to give you more details if you want of the co-existence mechanisms in LTE-U. And BTW, repeated testing has shown that is works, and works better, than sharing mechanisms in Wi-Fi.

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but the Unlicensed users are REQUIRED to defer to LICENSED users, so these commercial services to which
you refer should/must consult the Part 15 Rules (as well as Part 2, which delineates how the spectrum is allocated
and notes which services are Primary, Secondary, etc. in each segment). It will probably come as an unpleasant
surprise when they figure out that Amateur Radio, as a licensed service under Part 97, has precedence over them,
and that the only reason Amateur Radio was allocated those frequencies to begin with is because the Primary User
is the Government RadioLocation Service. So, even the hams have to listen before transmitting, and if they hear a
government radar sweeping through, well, they must remain silent. But they don't have to for these "commercial services".

A few years ago, the FCC adjudicated a case where Massport (the Massachusetts Port Authority) got ticked off and
tried to kick one of the major airlines (United, I think, but my memory is fuzzy) out of the 2.4 GHz wi-fi band at Logan
Airport because the airline was offering free wi-fi in their Frequent Flyer lounge. The FCC told Massport that what they
(Massport) was doing was strictly prohibited under FCC regulations, that the airline was allowed to do what they were
doing so long as they abided by the Part 15 rules, and reiterated that it is *SHARED* with all users, and, BTW, that
neither the Commonwealth of Massachusetts nor any political or departmental subdivision of it, has any regulatory
authority over radio stations, that the latter is the sole domain of the FCC, as determined by Congress as delineated
in Title 47, United States Code.

Frankly, I'd be scared to death to use LTE-U for my cellphone because it's extremely unclear that it would NOT be
subject to interference of some sort, and that's rather disquieting should someone need to call 911...

Re:Wow.

[SherifHanna]

Frankly, I'd be scared to death to use LTE-U for my cellphone because it's extremely unclear that it would NOT be subject to interference of some sort, and that's rather disquieting should someone need to call 911...

LTE-U works by providing two connections - one in licensed and one in unlicensed. Your phone would be connected to both at all times. The phone sends back measurements of the quality of the unlicensed connection back to the LTE small cell. If the LTE small cell sees reports that the unlicensed connection is degrading due to interference, it'll allocate you more bandwidth from the licensed connection instead. That's why LTE-U is such a powerful concept. Capacity and bandwidth from unlicensed when it makes sense, and the safety and reliability of licensed if things go awry.

Re: Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

I would be glad to give you more details if you want of the co-existence mechanisms in LTE-U. And BTW, repeated testing has shown that is works, and works better, than sharing mechanisms in Wi-Fi.

Please do share that information said the curious AC

Re: Wow.

[Obfuscant]

Who said anything about drowning out other people's?

I realize that reading the fine article is a lost art here, but it was even mentioned in the summary, for God's sake. Here, from TFA:

Unsurprisingly, several outside experiments that pitted standard LTE technology or "simulated LTE-U" technology, in the case of one in-depth Google study, against Wi-Fi transmitters on the same frequencies found that LTE drastically reduced the throughput on the Wi-Fi connection.

What do you think "reduce the throughput" means? And what happens when there is more than one tower nearby? And when more and more phones start showing up there?

That's out of hundreds of MHz of available bandwidth in the unlicensed bands.

The 2.4GHz WiFi band is about 100MHz wide (not "hundreds), and there are only FOUR non-overlapping 22MHz channels in that band. That means that anyone with a powerful signal on channel 1 will interfere with others who are using channels 1, 2, 3, 4 and to some extent, 5. Channel 6 overlaps channels 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10. So, just FOUR LTE-U 22MHz signals could blanket the entire 2.4GHz WiFi band. With each smartphone using two channels ...

There would be no need to drown out anyone because (1) it's not technically possible given max LTE bandwidth limitation

You're claiming that it is impossible for a 20MHz LTE-U signal to interfere with a 22MHz WiFi signal. The entire point of TFA is that they have already been show to do so.

and (2) the plentiful spectrum that's available in the band.

100MHz is not "plentiful". One LTE-U signal can interfere with up to 9 WiFi channels. You ignore the fact that the LTE-U signal will be more powerful than a standard WiFi signal (because it has to cover a larger area) and is using a preferential sharing protocol that steals access from other users.

Additionally, if and when LTE-U has to share the channel with an existing Wi-Fi access points, it *deterministically* takes up 50% of the air time.

And where does it get this "air time" when the existing WiFi users are already using it?

LTE-U is not required to Listen Before Talk, so how will it know there is any access point in range? From TFA:

"Because they don't check for other users that are using the bandwidth first, [LTE-U transmitters] can have the effect of slowing or degrading other unlicensed traffic that's out there," Berenbroick told Network World.

So not only does the LTE-U system NOT listen for anyone already using the channel, because the user will be lower power the LTE-U system probably won't HEAR anyone if it DID listen. A powerful transmitter on a high tower won't necessarily hear the existing WiFi system it is drowning out, but it can easily drown out that system because of its power and location.

And BTW, repeated testing has shown that is works, and works better, than sharing mechanisms in Wi-Fi.

The question is not whether the LTE-U system works better (because clearly it does -- for LTE-U), but whether it can peacefully and fairly co-exist with existing WiFi systems. There it fails.

You claim there are "hundreds of MHz" available. Why does LTE-U have to use unlicensed spectrum in an already crowded band? Answer: it doesn't. Go somewhere else.

Re:Wow.

[Obfuscant]

Unlicensed spectrum is already used by many entities for commercial services.

"And" is a conjunction that means both clauses apply.

All those "commercial services" you trot out as excuses for allowing LTE-U to use the same bandwidth are different in one very significant way: they ALL obey the Part 15 rules for the use of the spectrum. Those cable modem WiFi hotspots that are popping up don't have 100' towers and special high-power transmitters. Those Zigbee etc. systems for power monitoring etc. play well with others.

The other commercial difference is that those systems you talk about are either hidden completely from the user (power company, e.g.) or are sold explicitly as WiFi. A cellular company selling "LTE-U" services will not be telling the customers that they are now using public airspace with an existing body of both licensed and unlicensed users, and that the customer may find his phone unusable because of the four neighbors who have WiFi access points. The customer is going to expect the service he paid for, and he's going to be defrauded.

Cellular services are covered by a different Part. Allowing their services to mix with the existing overloaded 2.4GHz users is a mistake and needs to be stopped. They cannot fairly make use of the WiFi bands, especially when they deliberately design systems that do not follow the same fairness rules and do not bother to LBT. The article didn't put it this way, but LTE-U is grabbing its chunk of airtime first and saying the hell with anyone else who might have been transmitting.

Put them someplace else. Or wind up explaining to the customers why the fancy new LTE-U system they paid money to access won't work because other legal users of the spectrum are now using systems that override LTE-U.

Re: Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

Lte-u uses listen before talk. The power limits are the same as for anyone else.

Since the goal is to put lte-u in e.g. indoor corporate environments, public venues etc where wifi is already required and much more important, every precaution is taken to not interfere with wifi. Otherwise lte-u will not be rolled out.

Re: Wow.

[Obfuscant]

Lte-u uses listen before talk.

"Because they don't check for other users that are using the bandwidth first, [LTE-U transmitters] can have the effect of slowing or degrading other unlicensed traffic that's out there," Berenbroick told Network World. "We would like to see LTE-U observe Listen-Before-Talk."

"There is no requirement to share fairly in time, to avoid interrupting Wi-Fi transmissions mid-stream, or to adapt to different levels of Wi-Fi usage and traffic,"

The power limits are the same as for anyone else.

If I put my WiFi router at the top of a 100' cell tower, I would be amazed if I could connect to it even were I standing at the base of the tower. It wouldn't get off the cell site.

Since the goal is to put lte-u in e.g. indoor corporate environments, public venues etc where wifi is already required and much more important, every precaution is taken to not interfere with wifi.

You mean in places where WiFi can already be installed and provide service to the smart devices that would otherwise use the commercially provided LTE-U? It's a technology without a purpose, then. If there's already WiFi, then the smart devices can use that. How many LTE-capable devices exist that cannot also do WiFi, and if they have to be built to do LTE-U then why not just add standard WiFi and use existing, well-behaved technologies?

Is it because WiFi technology and use is in the hands of the public and can be used for free, while LTE-U will be a pay service of the cellular companies and they want to profit off of the unlicensed spectrum they'll be usurping? So you want to keep me from buying a refurbished Verizon tablet and then not paying Verizon for data service by using WiFi instead. Right.

Re: Wow.

[SherifHanna]

I realize that reading the fine article is a lost art here, but it was even mentioned in the summary, for God's sake. Here, from TFA:

Unsurprisingly, several outside experiments that pitted standard LTE technology or "simulated LTE-U" technology, in the case of one in-depth Google study, against Wi-Fi transmitters on the same frequencies found that LTE drastically reduced the throughput on the Wi-Fi connection.

What do you think "reduce the throughput" means? And what happens when there is more than one tower nearby? And when more and more phones start showing up there?

First, the Google study has been thoroughly discredited. As the "TFA" says, it used "simulated LTE-U" - literally signal generators that bear no resemblance to the actual LTE-U waveform. Google themselves admitted such on page 5 of their report. When those exact same tests were conducted using actual LTE-U equipment, the results were vastly different. You can check the results of the Google tests when real LTE-U equipment was used in this FCC filing.

Your statement about "more than one tower nearby" also betrays a lack of understanding of LTE-U, which is fine given that it's a new technology. LTE-U will not be transmitted from cell towers at all. It is a small cell technology, that has to abide by the exact same power output limits imposed by the FCC as Wi-Fi does in unlicensed spectrum.

That's out of hundreds of MHz of available bandwidth in the unlicensed bands.

The 2.4GHz WiFi band is about 100MHz wide (not "hundreds), and there are only FOUR non-overlapping 22MHz channels in that band. That means that anyone with a powerful signal on channel 1 will interfere with others who are using channels 1, 2, 3, 4 and to some extent, 5. Channel 6 overlaps channels 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10. So, just FOUR LTE-U 22MHz signals could blanket the entire 2.4GHz WiFi band. With each smartphone using two channels ...

Again, you misunderstand the technology. LTE-U is not targeted at 2.4GHz. At all. Period. It is targeted only at the 5GHz band. The FCC says there are 555MHz of bandwidth in the 5GHz band (check on fcc.gov here) I believe 555MHz qualifies as "hundreds of MHz". Not only so, LTE-U is only targeted at a fraction of that spectrum. That's because it's designed to only work in UNII-1 and UNII-3 portions of the UNII band. UNII-2 will be left entirely for Wi-Fi and other unlicensed users.

There would be no need to drown out anyone because (1) it's not technically possible given max LTE bandwidth limitation

You're claiming that it is impossible for a 20MHz LTE-U signal to interfere with a 22MHz WiFi signal. The entire point of TFA is that they have already been show to do so.

Again, remembering that LTE-U won't operate at all in 2.4GHz, that it leaves over 355MHz of UNII-2 spectrum completely untouched, and that at max it would occupy a total of 40MHz given the LTE standard, I stand by my earlier statement.

and (2) the plentiful spectrum that's available in the band.

100MHz is not "plentiful". One LTE-U signal can interfere with up to 9 WiFi channels. You ignore the fact that the LTE-U signal will be more powerful than a standard WiFi signal (because it has to cover a larger area) and is using a preferential sharing protocol that steals access from other users.

See earlier comments on the fact that LTE-U is not contending with Wi-Fi for 2.4GHz spectrum, and the the fact that LTE-U signals will be capped at the same maximum power as Wi-Fi and thus has similar range. This argument is based on incorrect information, but I ho

Re:Wow.

[SherifHanna]

All those "commercial services" you trot out as excuses for allowing LTE-U to use the same bandwidth are different in one very significant way: they ALL obey the Part 15 rules for the use of the spectrum.

Huh? LTE-U will have to abide by the same Part 15 rules exactly. Did anyone claim anything different?

Those cable modem WiFi hotspots that are popping up don't have 100' towers and special high-power transmitters. Those Zigbee etc. systems for power monitoring etc. play well with others.

I think I've stated this repeatedly in other replies but good to repeat here again: LTE-U won't come from 100' tower with high-power transmitters. It's a small technology that is limited by the same Part 15 rules as other unlicensed users like Wi-Fi.

The other commercial difference is that those systems you talk about are either hidden completely from the user (power company, e.g.) or are sold explicitly as WiFi. A cellular company selling "LTE-U" services will not be telling the customers that they are now using public airspace with an existing body of both licensed and unlicensed users, and that the customer may find his phone unusable because of the four neighbors who have WiFi access points. The customer is going to expect the service he paid for, and he's going to be defrauded.

Why would the user find his phone unusable? The brilliant aspect of LTE-U is that it lets the network managed the user experience, which is a hallmark of cellular service. If the experience in unlicensed is degraded due to interference, the LTE-U small cell would simply provide more bandwidth to the user on the licensed LTE connection. That is something that is simply not possible with Wi-Fi alone.

Cellular services are covered by a different Part. Allowing their services to mix with the existing overloaded 2.4GHz users is a mistake and needs to be stopped.

Not going to use 2.4GHz. Going to only use UNII-1 and UNII-3 portions of the 5GHz unlicensed spectrum.

Re: Wow.

[SherifHanna]

Here you go...happy reading: http://goo.gl/ZyYvQ4

Re:Wow.

[Obfuscant]

Huh? LTE-U will have to abide by the same Part 15 rules exactly. Did anyone claim anything different?

If it is to have any range at all and be useful in any way, it will have to use more power than Part 15 allows. Otherwise it will just be yet another short-range WiFi service, which we already have. Why should it replace WiFi? If it isn't supposed to replace it, then don't put it in the same frequencies.

Why would the user find his phone unusable?

You're right. The phone will tell the cell that it is having trouble and that will prompt a fix for the cell. It will be the WiFi and bluetooth users who are stuck. Or gosh, the cell will have some magic that figures out that the existing wireless users in the vicinity are having trouble with the LTE-U signal being there and it will tell the LTE-U cell to stop transmitting. Sure. Right.

The brilliant aspect of LTE-U is that it lets the network managed the user experience

Which is the highlight of the CELLULAR service and applies to the CELLULAR network. The cellular network has always managed itself, from the very early days of analog phones that would manage power levels. WiFi networks will be out of luck. Not only because they now must share a limited resource with a commercial cellular service that has lots of its own licensed bandwidth, but because the LTE-U service is designed to take first dibs on that spectrum and to ignore any existing users by not LBT. The goal is to improve the "UX", but only for cell users. The WiFi network will not benefit from the beautiful LTE-U network management.

Oh, but in other places you tell us how it will only be localized WiFi and other unlicensed users who are out of luck because these will be small cells. Just installed in congested areas where there is already a lot of WiFi to deal with network connections. Instead of simply using that WiFi, however, Qualcomm wants us to buy LTE services from a cellular company and pay for what we could have installed and used on our own. And they will DELIBERATELY interfere with the existing WiFi services in the process. (That's what using an incompatible "fairness" protocol is -- deliberate.)

Not going to use 2.4GHz.

From TFA:

The catch, of course, is that LTE-U's frequencies are already being used by every Wi-Fi access point in America,

And my access points are all 2.4GHz. I've found the 5GHz points to be few and far between. So much so that most of my devices don't have that built in. The statement can only mean it will use both 2.4G and 5G frequencies. Or should we ignore the obvious meaning of "every" and use instead the Qualcomm UX managed-experience definition?

I think I've stated this repeatedly in other replies

"Other replies" that were made after I made my comments, and were made by a paid Qualcomm employee who is actively trying to spin-control the discussion.

Re: Wow.

[Thorizdin]

LTE-U does NOT use listen before talk unless there's been a recent change in the protocol. It, just like normal LTE, is centrally scheduled. There are some vendor specific and non-standardized version of LTE that can do listen before talk, but that's not the standard.

Re: Wow.

[Thorizdin]

"Wrong. The "TFA" is wrong. That's why that article is doing such a disservice to its readers. The CSAT algorithm in LTE-U small cells first begins by listening for other Wi-Fi access points transmitting in its vicinity. It is in fact able to listen not just to "energy" being transmitted on a given frequency - it is in fact able to receive and decode Wi-Fi beacons. If it find a channel with no existing occupants, it'll just use it. But if it has to share, it listens to determine the number of existing occupants. Then it transmits for only its portions of the time. And during its "off" cycle, it listens again to determine if there are new Wi-Fi access points that came online, and automatically reduces its share of the air time the next time around. So not only does it check initially, it checks continually for other occupants, to keep things fair."

This was not the case the CableLabs study which did indeed use a commercial implementation. Further, listen before talk in LTE-U is only now being a proposed as part of the standard. There are vendor specific implementations that already have this, but the standard does not and did not when the tests were done.

http://www.lteuforum.org/uploa...

Re: Wow.

[SherifHanna]

This was not the case the CableLabs study which did indeed use a commercial implementation. Further, listen before talk in LTE-U is only now being a proposed as part of the standard. There are vendor specific implementations that already have this, but the standard does not and did not when the tests were done.

Are you referring to Slide 9 of the CableLabs presentation? What the chart there fails to show is Wi-Fi throughput in the presence of other Wi-Fi. That's the baseline. No one is saying that LTE-U will have zero impact on Wi-Fi throughput. But Wi-Fi impact on Wi-Fi is also not zero. What needs to be compared is LTE-U impact on Wi-Fi throughput versus Wi-Fi impact on Wi-Fi throughput. And the CableLabs presentation doesn't show that - so the data set is incomplete.

Re:Wow.

[SherifHanna]

If it is to have any range at all and be useful in any way, it will have to use more power than Part 15 allows. Otherwise it will just be yet another short-range WiFi service, which we already have. Why should it replace WiFi? If it isn't supposed to replace it, then don't put it in the same frequencies.

Any intentional RF radiator sold in the United States has to pass through FCC certification before it can be sold/bought/deployed. LTE-U small cells will be certified under Part 15 rules. That means an FCC-certified lab will test them for compliance with all aspects of Part 15 rules for the UNII bands, including power output. If they use more power than Part 15 allows, then they would not pass certification and cannot be sold/bought/deployed. But of course that won't be the case - because they are in fact designed to comply with Part 15 limitations on power output, so that they can pass FCC certification.

The goal is to improve the "UX", but only for cell users.

And a Wi-Fi ISP like Boingo that blankets an airport with Wi-Fi access point is only trying to improve the UX for their own customers and not anyone else. So what's your point?

From TFA:

The catch, of course, is that LTE-U's frequencies are already being used by every Wi-Fi access point in America,

And my access points are all 2.4GHz. I've found the 5GHz points to be few and far between. So much so that most of my devices don't have that built in. The statement can only mean it will use both 2.4G and 5G frequencies. Or should we ignore the obvious meaning of "every" and use instead the Qualcomm UX managed-experience definition?

I'm almost at a loss for words here. The article is wrong. This is not an "opinion", it's a question of facts. Verifiable facts. Here is the specification for the bands of operation for LTE-U straight out of the LTE-U spec document (available here for your perusing):

the LTE-U operation will be limited only to the following carrier frequencies for U-NII-1 and U-NII-3, respectively. U-NII-1 o {f-0.2, f-0.1, f, f+0.1, f+0.2 | f = 5160, 5180, 5200, 5220, 5240} MHz U-NII-3 o {f-0.2, f-0.1, f, f+0.1, f+0.2 | f = 5745, 5765, 5785, 5805, 5825} MHz

Is a direct quote from the actual LTE-U specification enough to correct the patently false information from the article? If this is not enough, then I don't know what would be.

Re:Wow.

[Obfuscant]

Any intentional RF radiator sold in the United States has to pass through FCC certification before it can be sold/bought/deployed.

I know that, and that's why I said the FCC should put its foot down to stop this.

LTE-U small cells will be certified under Part 15 rules.

And in other places you tell us that LTE-U is a combination of a licensed channel with an unlicensed one. How can it be Part 15 if it is using cellular licensed channels that are covered by Part 22? The story keeps changing.

And a Wi-Fi ISP like Boingo that blankets an airport with Wi-Fi access point is only trying to improve the UX for their own customers and not anyone else. So what's your point?

That Qualcomm -- YOU -- are creating a system that is deliberately incompatible with the existing WiFi users so that WiFi users are impacted to give your cell customers that wonderful "UX". That Qualcomm -- YOU -- make equipment that cell companies can install that use the private licensed frequencies for data, and now you want to jump into the unlicensed ones and act in a way that will degrade every other user's communications. I've already said that.

I'm almost at a loss for words here. The article is wrong.

Then you should have said that from the beginning, instead of give technobabble nonsense about how it is impossible for LTE-U to interfere with any existing WiFi and how Qualcomm doesn't have to care because the bands are so large.

Re:Wow.

[SherifHanna]

LTE-U small cells will be certified under Part 15 rules.

And in other places you tell us that LTE-U is a combination of a licensed channel with an unlicensed one. How can it be Part 15 if it is using cellular licensed channels that are covered by Part 22? The story keeps changing.

In the same way that a cellular phone is certified as being a Part 15 device (for Wi-Fi and Bluetooth) and certified as a cellular device for 2G/3G/4G. Multi-radio devices are very commonplace with smartphones being the most common. So an LTE-U small cell would get certified under the rules for cellular and the unlicensed radio transmissions would be certified under Part 15.

That Qualcomm -- YOU -- are creating a system that is deliberately incompatible with the existing WiFi users so that WiFi users are impacted to give your cell customers that wonderful "UX". That Qualcomm -- YOU -- make equipment that cell companies can install that use the private licensed frequencies for data, and now you want to jump into the unlicensed ones and act in a way that will degrade every other user's communications. I've already said that.

Not sure how you make the jump from Qualcomm wanting to enable the use of unlicensed spectrum by cellular operators, to Qualcomm wanting to "degrade every other user's communications". Degrade communications for customers of our own Wi-Fi products? Degrade communications to Wi-Fi access points that are built on Atheros chips? How would that benefit Qualcomm or the mobile operators? Forgetting the backlash and the bad PR that would result as a consequence of that (and incurring the wrath of the FCC), how would it make business sense for Qualcomm to harm its own products in the field?

Then you should have said that from the beginning, instead of give technobabble nonsense about how it is impossible for LTE-U to interfere with any existing WiFi and how Qualcomm doesn't have to care because the bands are so large.

I did say that. In my first response to your comment that mentioned "the fine article", I said the article is wrong and has done great harm by misinforming its readers. I wouldn't characterize my answers as "technobabble nonsense" - I was simply trying to provide you the technical facts. This is a technical discussion, and a simple exposition of the facts should make it quite obvious that there is no grand conspiracy here, and that both the design of the system and the empirical evidence show that LTE-U has no more of an impact on 5GHz Wi-Fi (to be very, very specific) than adding another Wi-Fi access point.

This is my I hard-wire important things

[QuietLagoon]

All the infrastructure devices in my network (this include the entertainment centers) are all hard-wired. WiFi is just too susceptible to interference beyond my control. I've seen my WiFi speeds vary over a range of 10-to-1 within the period of an hour because of the interference originating beyond my abode.

.
If the wireless carriers want to continue to suck up public bandwidth, I think they should at least stick to their promises of deploying fiber where they said they would (Verizon, can you hear me now?).

Time to put on the tin foil hats

[WillAffleckUW]

Actually, aluminum foil shields, wrapped around the parts of your Wi-Fi router that face outside your house (e.g. not blocking signals to the rest of the house), will give you a much cleaner signal, and prevent a lot of this interference. Also keep the wi-fi away from windows, where this kind of interception of signal occurs.

If it looks strange, just take a cardboard box, cut it in parts that shield the same areas, and apply aluminum foil to those. Add pipe cleaners for a decorative touch.

There, problem solved.

Re: Time to put on the tin foil hats

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that'll help... (rolls eyes)

Envision the direction of the sphere of signal from that tower as it enters your home. Imagine it as a much brighter "light source" than a TV that sits between you and that unyielding light. Squinting, right? Now employ your idea as described. You're still squinting because your wall does nothing to block the tower light and the little shield behind your TV did jack shit. Your squinting is your WiFi device trying to "see" the router's little "light" pulses. And that's just one direction. Unless you propose to shield the lee-facing side of your devices as you carry them around...

Re: Time to put on the tin foil hats

[WillAffleckUW]

Behind my TV? RTFM. I said the actual modem/router that provides the Wi-Fi signal.

But, good point, you could also invest in wall art that is foil-backed on the side where the LTE-U tower is located.

Re: Time to put on the tin foil hats

[Obfuscant]

Behind my TV? RTFM. I said the actual modem/router that provides the Wi-Fi signal.

Unlike a lightbulb affixed to the wall with a handy reflector behind it to direct its "signal" in the desired direction and the receiver is completely passive, a useful WiFi system consists of at least two parts: the router and the device with which it is communicating.

Your router may be out in the open where you can put a cute box with craftwork art on it to shield it from interfering signals, but the WiFi dongle on the TV will be where the TV is. The WiFi antenna for the cellphone will be somewhere in the cellphone. The WiFi antenna for the tablet will be somewhere in the tablet. Trying to apply the correct amount of "tinfoil" to each client for the WiFi router will cause more interference than it solves, just as wearing your tinfoil hat is an insufficient solution to the alien brain scanning waves you are subject to.

Both ends of an RF radio link suffer when there is interference. The WiFi router is not special in this regard.

The correct solution is to not allow commercial cellular services to usurp unlicensed spectrum for their own private use. Even if they were to be required to follow standards for channel sharing (which they are not, and have chosen not to) they are an extra burden on an already overflowing band. Go elsewhere, young man.

Re: Time to put on the tin foil hats

[Anonymous Coward]

Behind my TV? RTFM. I said the actual modem/router that provides the Wi-Fi signal.

But, good point, you could also invest in wall art that is foil-backed on the side where the LTE-U tower is located.

Is that cheaper than "investing" in a directional signal detector and a focused beam I can aim at the offending device? Wicker lasers offers a 2W model with a pretty focused beam, but I'm sure the more creative types can use microwave and a dish of some sort to make an invisible one with a bit more juice.

Re: Time to put on the tin foil hats

[JazzLad]

Behind my TV?

On /. he should have included a car, but his point was an analogy.

RTFM

I don't think that means what you think it means.

Re: Time to put on the tin foil hats

[WillAffleckUW]

Why would I have Wi-Fi on my TV?

No, why?

Re: Time to put on the tin foil hats

[WillAffleckUW]

Valid point.

Maybe a combination?

Re: Time to put on the tin foil hats

[Obfuscant]

Why would I have Wi-Fi on my TV?

I could not care less why you would have WiFi on your TV.

Other people, however, make use of WiFi to connect their TV into the household network. It's easier and neater than running a wire. My TV, for example, can get weather and stock info off the net, as well as play streaming video and music. And it's the same reason that some PCs come with WiFi adapters built in -- to avoid having to run a wire.

The original discussion wasn't about a WiFi adapter on your TV, however, it was about someone you were telling to use tinfoil and a cardboard box and maybe pipe cleaners to filter out the interference from outside radio signals on his router, which completely ignores the part that the clients play in talking to a wireless router and that interference to the router will be interference for them, too.

Now ask me why you would want your cellphone, tablet, or PC to use WiFi.

Re: Time to put on the tin foil hats

[WillAffleckUW]

I don't.

Now ask me why you don't have 100 Gbps streaming in your house?

Re: Time to put on the tin foil hats

[Obfuscant]

I don't.

Then you want to pay a cellular provider for data to those devices, or just don't care about having data to them. Fine. That's how you want your life. I don't care.

Now ask me why you don't have 100 Gbps streaming in your house?

My house is irrelevant, but I'll answer anyway. I don't need 100Gbps "streaming" for anything I'll ever do. I also don't have a problem running a network wire to my TV, so we're not talking about my house to begin with.

I DO, however, have a problem running a CAT5e network cable to either of my cellphones, only one of which is on a cell service data plan, or to ANY of my tablet computers, none of which are on a cell service data plan. And yet it I find it convenient to have data available for all of them. WiFi is the only option for some of them; the preferred option for all.

So, that leaves us with the point I already made: RF data links are a two-way service and involve at least two devices. Only one of them is a wireless router sitting in a place where you can put a box with tinfoil insides and Hello Kitty stickers on the outside over the top of. The other is a small device where trying to paste tinfoil over the outside to limit interference is a stupid idea that it technologically ridiculous. And yet, to get rid of the interference from an outside source, you'd need to do that.

Next non-sequitor, please?

How exactly do they plan to "deploy"?

[Anonymous Coward]

With the low EIRP limits in the 2.4GHz ISM band, they would have to get really close, and deploy millions of transmitters. How do they plan to do that?

I'm from Qualcomm - AMA

[SherifHanna]

Hi everyone, Since the article was one-sided and didn't ask for comments from Qualcomm, I thought I would offer everyone a chance to ask me question regarding LTE-U. Please go ahead. Regards, Sherif

Re:I'm from Qualcomm - AMA

[Anonymous Coward]

Qualcomm?

Okay this is a little offtopic, but when are Quickcharge 2.0 (a Qualcomm technology) wall outlets going to be available?
I just bought a house and want to upgrade a few select outlets.

Re:I'm from Qualcomm - AMA

[TechyImmigrant]

How the hell do I deploy this in my home without breaking wifi and without issuing my own SIM?

Re:I'm from Qualcomm - AMA

[Nethemas the Great]

Ok, I'll bite. Regardless of duty cycling, and/or other forms of "mitigation" I fail to see how occupying the same frequencies as our Wi-Fi routers can do anything other than steal capacity. Further it is reported that LTE-U is more aggressive than Wi-Fi at grabbing open air time--shorter backoff period--meaning that where there is contention, it won't even play fair. In locations with already high-contention--like apartments, this sounds like a very unpalatable cocktail, enough to make Wi-Fi so slow as to be unusable. What are we missing?

Re:I'm from Qualcomm - AMA

[Anonymous Coward]

What are the ranges on the LTE-U base stations? What is the plan to deploy them? How much of the unlicensed spectrum does it utilize, and is it in 2.4 or 5 ghz ranges.

Re:I'm from Qualcomm - AMA

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you here to advocate or to answer questions? It seems to be the former...

Re:I'm from Qualcomm - AMA

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi everyone

Regards, Sherif

I know you're new here, but you might try lurking to discover people don't open and close comments like they are emails. Also, has Qualcomm legal greenlit your speaking for the company?

Re:I'm from Qualcomm - AMA

[SherifHanna]

Regardless of duty cycling, and/or other forms of "mitigation" I fail to see how occupying the same frequencies as our Wi-Fi routers can do anything other than steal capacity.

You are right - occupying the same frequency as an incumbent Wi-Fi router would reduce its throughput. No one is saying otherwise. But that would be true if you were adding another Wi-Fi access point, or any other radiator on the same frequency. The question becomes: for those operators that want to use unlicensed spectrum to increase the capacity of their networks, should they use Wi-Fi, or should they use LTE-U? Does LTE-U have any more of an impact on incumbent Wi-Fi than adding Wi-Fi instead?

The answer is: it has no more of an impact than adding another Wi-Fi access point. And in fact, because there is no mandated guidelines in the 802.11 spec for fair sharing of airtime between Wi-Fi access points, some are more aggressive than others. So the irony, and it has been shown in test after test, is that LTE-U's CSAT algorithm is more equitable than some Wi-Fi access points in the market today. So it is a better neighbor to Wi-Fi than some aggressive Wi-Fi access points. Case in point is this demo video of LTE-U in action: https://youtu.be/EalEd7fu_K0?t=20s

Further it is reported that LTE-U is more aggressive than Wi-Fi at grabbing open air time--shorter backoff period--meaning that where there is contention, it won't even play fair.

This is simply false. LTE-U is very deterministic about how much air time it grabs. First, an LTE-U small cell will scan to find unoccupied channels. If one is found, it'll use it. If no free channels are available, it'll pick the least occupied channel. It does that by listening for Wi-Fi beacons and other radiators on that channel. It'll keep listening to determine how many other Wi-Fi APs are already on that channel. Then it'll only take its proportion of the air time. This is akin to two people in a debate. It would be fair to give each side 50% of the time to speak their viewpoint. That's the approach that LTE-U takes.

You can check out the formula for calculating the air time on page 10 here: http://goo.gl/ZyYvQ4

In locations with already high-contention--like apartments, this sounds like a very unpalatable cocktail, enough to make Wi-Fi so slow as to be unusable. What are we missing?

What you're missing is that this is not targeted at apartment buildings or private homes. This is a technology that'll be surgically inserted into high congestion areas - airports, parks, malls, etc. - to add capacity where it's needed most. Because it operates in the 5GHz band with limited power output (because it abides by regulations for unlicensed spectrum), its range is similar to Wi-Fi. That is, if the mall across the street from your apartment has this deployed, the signal wouldn't be able to make it across the street to cause any issues with your own, or your neighbor's, Wi-Fi.

Re:I'm from Qualcomm - AMA

[SherifHanna]

It is not intended to be deployed by users. It's intended to be deployed by mobile network operators in high congestions areas only. It is not a wide coverage technology, and it is not broadcast from cell towers.

Re:I'm from Qualcomm - AMA

[SherifHanna]

What are the ranges on the LTE-U base stations?

Similar range to Wi-Fi access points operating in the 5GHz band, since they have to abide by the same power output limitations set by the FCC.

What is the plan to deploy them?

Plan is to deploy them in high congestion areas like airports, malls, parks, busy street corners, etc.

How much of the unlicensed spectrum does it utilize, and is it in 2.4 or 5 ghz ranges.

A single LTE-U channel is only 20MHz wide. Up to two channels can be utilized, for up to 40MHz of bandwidth. All of this is only in the 5GHz band - LTE-U will not use the 2.4GHz band at all. There is 555 MHz of spectrum in the 5GHz band according to the FCC.

Re:I'm from Qualcomm - AMA

[SherifHanna]

I hope you've seen from my many replies now that I am here to answer questions.

Re:I'm from Qualcomm - AMA

[TechyImmigrant]

So you're saying it's an ITU/3GPP/esqu spec for a protocol and I'm not allowed to deploy it in an unlicensed band, but carriers who already have exclusive access to licensed spectrum are?

Could you explain how the LTE frame structure is compatible with part 15? I don't quite see it.

Re:I'm from Qualcomm - AMA

[SherifHanna]

What does the frame structure have to do with complying with Part 15? From a physical layer perspective, the transmitter (the LTE-U small cell) abides by the maximum output power, maximum EIRP, and spectral density limits set in Part 15. Here are the rules.

Re:I'm from Qualcomm - AMA

[TechyImmigrant]

Yes. I know the rules. I was a member of the 802.11 and 802.16 working groups and Bluetooth sig that developed these unlicensed band protocols and I've developed WiFi, WiMax and Bluetooth products. Having a protocol that bangs out a base station frame structure like LTE which splats on the band and has no backoff for other users of the band isn't part 15 compliant without being at a power that isn't useful for high speed data communications.
 

Re:I'm from Qualcomm - AMA

[SherifHanna]

Take a look at page 18 and page 25 in the LTE-U specification for LTE-U small cells: http://www.lteuforum.org/uploads/3/5/6/8/3568127/lte-u_forum_enb_minimum_requirements_for_lte_u_sdl_v1.0.pdf

Re:I'm from Qualcomm - AMA

[SherifHanna]

Inventors have to be compensated for the effort and investment they put into R&D. That's why patents exist. Otherwise there would be no motivation to invent and share those inventions.

How?

[Anonymous Coward]

How in the world is this supposed to work? I think the spectrums currently used by Wi-Fi are elatively low power short range frequencies, the reason why it wasn't red taped to death, the government didn't think it was going to go anywhere. But as it wasn't red taped to death its usage exploded with a variety of cheap, high quality devices. I doubt they could fit transmitters to towers without boosting the power far beyond legal levels, do they plan on distributing smaller devices in certain locations (malls, sports arenas, hotels, etc). From what I understand a large amount of the spectum sold in the last FCC auction is sitting idle, if there is such a shortage of available frequencies the FCC should start revoking those licenses and reselling them to those that will use them, or better yet make some of them unlicensed like the Wi-Fi bands and watch the availability of devices and services on those bands explode like Wi-Fi did.

Re:How?

[SherifHanna]

LTE-U is not a wide coverage technology. The intention is to deploy it in high congestion areas - airport, mall, public park, busy downtown street corner, etc. You hit the nail on the head with the FCC power requirements - that's exactly the point. The LTE-U small cell would not be able to transmit at power levels higher than is allowed by the FCC, so it will have limited range. But where it does have coverage, it'll provide additional capacity boost that improves the UX for all users. That's the point.

Re:How?

[TechyImmigrant]

> it'll provide additional capacity boost that improves the UX for all users

No. For the ones who aren't having their WiFi shat upon. This is pure evil.

Re:How?

[Obfuscant]

LTE-U is not a wide coverage technology.

At the frequencies in use no LTE is "wide coverage". That's why there are so many cell towers all over the place. Just as "many hands make light work", "many cell towers make wide coverage".

The LTE-U small cell would not be able to transmit at power levels higher than is allowed by the FCC,

That power level should be 0, or as close to it as possible under the unintentional radiator standards of commercial electronics.

But so what? You put one "small cell" here, you put another one there, you put another one next to that, and eventually you're covering a broad area with signals in an already overpopulated public unlicensed band. Who cares if it takes one or one hundred Qualcomm systems to blanket an area and make WiFi unusable for the private individual? Pretending that there will only ever be one system and it will only ever be in one place away from all private users is just pathetic. And factor in that the LTE-U protocol will not LBT and has a shorter holdoff and you have a cancer.

But where it does have coverage, it'll provide additional capacity boost that improves the UX for all users.

Yes, all CELL CUSTOMER users, but at the expense of the private citizen already using that band. And the correct way to improve capacity is to reduce the footprint of the existing cell site and reuse the frequencies by installing more of them. A hundred micro-cells using your existing licensed frequencies will provide a lot more service than one cell covering the same area. You DO NOT "improve cell system capacity" by sucking the unlicensed spectrum away from the existing users. You don't need to.

Oh, but it would cost more to do it the right way, so that way is impossible.

Benefits of LTE-U?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does LTE-U offer anything that WiFi doesn't? Does it offer greater range? Does it offer greater bandwidth?

If it offers any of those things, then the general public can switch to their own LTE-U equipment. Right now the 802.11AC movement is just starting to build. If a better technology comes along, people can just as easily switch to it, including LTE-U.

The spectrum is unlicenced, the carriers cannot squeeze the public out.But, the masses can make the spectrum ugly enough for the carriers to stay clear.

Re:Benefits of LTE-U?

[SherifHanna]

It offers greater network capacity, and thus by extension, better user throughputs. It does so by using carrier aggregation technology - bonding together an LTE connection in the licensed spectrum with an LTE connection in unlicensed spectrum (both broadcast from the same LTE small cell).

Re:Benefits of LTE-U?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a telco-only technology, because the control channel uses licensed spectrum. That means you can't roll your own, and consequently the telco can charge for the use of public spectrum. When in doubt, the reason is money.

Re:Benefits of LTE-U?

[SherifHanna]

But cable companies, Boingo, hotels, airports, countless others also charge for use of "public spectrum". Nobody is crying foul over that, are they?

Re:Benefits of LTE-U?

[Anonymous Coward]

They do it on equal footing, and the law backs up the people: Hotels tried to exclude others from using the spectrum in the same way the hotels did. The people prevailed and the hotels got fined and told to stop it. If LTE-U allows me to run my own phone network that I can then use with my LTE phone, I'll shut up. But that's not how it works, is it? And that's why it's a spectrum grab and will be met with resistance.

Re:Benefits of LTE-U?

[Nethemas the Great]

In the contexts for which I am familiar there is a bit of a difference. They are offering communication services wherein little to no contention exists. Take the local coffee shop for instance. Their Wi-Fi hotspot--which are usually free anyway--is the only available means of getting on the Internet unless you have a cellular modem and a supporting data plan. The same goes for airports, airplanes, city buses, commuter trains, etc. even if they charge a fee to connect it is a wholly fair use. Moreover, they rely upon the same communication technology/protocols, i.e. 802.11{x}

LTE-U on the other hand--a restricted access, data plan consuming, aggressive protocol--would occupy areas already being used by personal, even commercial (coffee house) Wi-Fi. In the cases such as hotels that attempted to restrict the functioning of mobile hot spots you better believe people were crying foul. LTE-U has the makings of being the same wolf with a different sheepskin. It steals public park land for the country club. If the roles were reversed and the blue collar folks tried to "jump the fence" there would be huge fines and probably jail time.

Re:Benefits of LTE-U?

[Obfuscant]

It offers greater network capacity, and thus by extension, better user throughputs.

For the cellular data customer. It does this at the expense of the private citizen using unlicensed spectrum for his personal WiFi router. This is "better user throughputs" in Qualcom-speak, being spoken by a Qualcom employee who is probably being paid to post here.

Re:Benefits of LTE-U?

[SherifHanna]

I am not sure I understand your argument (not being facetious - just being honest).

In the cases you mentioned and in the case of LTE-U, commercial entities are using unlicensed spectrum to offer communication services. It's an open resource that by law is available for anyone to use as long as they abide by the rules on power output.

The case you mentioned about hotels blocking Wi-Fi is not applicable here. In that case the hotels were willfully interfering with hotspots. Nobody is advocating for willful interference here. Only the fair sharing of shared asset.

Re:Benefits of LTE-U?

[tweak13]

The companies that will use this already have frequencies dedicated exclusively to them. In fact they have a huge amount for their exclusive use. I as a consumer have a limited number of frequencies available for my purposes. I have to share them with every other person around me.

There is absolutely no need for cellular operators to start intruding on unlicensed spectrum. If this truly is about "fair sharing of a shared asset," then when can I expect an equivalent amount of spectrum to be opened in their bands for my uses? If I have to share with them it's only fair they share with me, right?

I realize that this is completely legal by current regulations. It's probably past time to review those regulations to keep commercial operators on the parts of the spectrum they already own. If you have dedicated frequencies allocated to you, then there is no reason to spread onto shared frequencies as well.

Re:Benefits of LTE-U?

[SherifHanna]

I'm glad you say you "realize this is completely legal by current regulations". Because it is.

I don't think mobile operators are asking for an exception to the rule. They're asking to abide by the same rules that already allow cable companies, hotels, airports, wireless ISPs etc. to benefit from this shared resource. That's all there is to it.

Re:Benefits of LTE-U?

[Nethemas the Great]

There's a difference of perspective between two groups of people. On one side you have user's of Wi-Fi for Internet access, as well as amateur radio operators. Then you have corporate interests, particularly the cellular carriers. The former are given over to the belief that the unlicensed spectrum in the 2.4 and 5GHz band were set aside for their use while the latter having fat wallets can "buy their own damn spectrum". After all they wouldn't share their's even if asked "pretty please." Then you have the latter group for whom think they can take advantage of whatever law and regulation allow.

I personally fall into the former camp, as does probably a large majority of people here. When we hear of such things as LTE-U the first things that comes to mind, tend to follow along the line of "hell no" and "greedy {expletive}s are trying to steal from us again." Given the prices we pay for cellular service, it's a bit of a sore point. Quite frankly I think deservedly so. It's also hard to not be skeptical that this would only be deployed at convention centers, malls, and the like and that it would be kept to the power levels allowed to unlicensed operators. We hear all the time the desire to switch to micro-cells. Further whose to say these guys wouldn't find a way to get an amateur operator license while they're at it and use amplifiers.

Re:Benefits of LTE-U?

[SherifHanna]

If you're at an airport and you try to use your phone as a mobile hotspot, the Boingo or iPass Wi-Fi routers in the airport will cause interference with your personal hotspot. Are Boingo and iPass supposed to take down their Wi-Fi access points too?

Re:Benefits of LTE-U?

[SherifHanna]

The former are given over to the belief that the unlicensed spectrum in the 2.4 and 5GHz band were set aside for their use while the latter having fat wallets can "buy their own damn spectrum"

I understand that this is the perception, but law, regulations, and precedent clearly show that this is not the case. I've given plenty of examples of companies other than cellular operators deploying for-profit networks in unlicensed spectrum - using Wi-Fi or otherwise.

It's also hard to not be skeptical that this would only be deployed at convention centers, malls, and the like and that it would be kept to the power levels allowed to unlicensed operators.

But there's a simple verification regime in place for this. It's called FCC certification. LTE-U equipment has to pass Part 15 rules in order to be certified. If they don't pass certification, they can't be bought/sold/deployed. Any equipment found violating these rules under which they are certified would incur the wrath of the FCC.

Re:Benefits of LTE-U?

[Obfuscant]

If you're at an airport and you try to use your phone as a mobile hotspot, the Boingo or iPass Wi-Fi routers in the airport will cause interference with your personal hotspot.

For God's sake, stop. Existing WiFi services don't deliberately interfere with each other by using a different protocol that doesn't LBT or uses a shorter transmit gap. Everyone's equal, but apparently Qualcomm wants us to believe that they are more equal than others and it's just peachy keen ok if Qualcomm uses a protocol that doesn't follow the same fairness rules that everyone else does in a license-free public frequency band.

If Boingo started putting up WiFi access points that grabbed as much bandwidth as they wanted without concern for other users, they'd get strong pushback, just like the hotel chains that tried to block WiFi other than the paid hotel version.

Are Boingo and iPass supposed to take down their Wi-Fi access points too?

We aren't talking about Qualcomm putting up WiFi access points, so your question is deliberately dishonest.

Re:Benefits of LTE-U?

[SherifHanna]

Existing WiFi services don't deliberately interfere with each other by using a different protocol that doesn't LBT or uses a shorter transmit gap.

Perhaps a basic understanding of radio communications could help in this discussion. Any kind of over the air transmission by one radiator robs other transmitters from capacity. Either by increasing the noise floor (thus reducing the SNR and reducing bitrate as dictated by Shannon theorem), or by reducing the amount of time that the other transmitters can use for their own transmission, in the case of LBT. So the Boingo access point in this example, if it is on the same channel as your personal hotspot, would have the effect of reducing the amount of time your hotspot can transmit over the air (because your hotspot, using LBT, has to back off and wait). Thus it reduces your throughput. Thus it is having an impact on your experience. QED.

if Qualcomm uses a protocol that doesn't follow the same fairness rules that everyone else does in a license-free public frequency band.

Apologies, but once again you are misinformed. Wi-Fi uses LBT, but LBT is not used by "everyone else" as you imply. Here's a list of radios that work in the unlicensed bands that do not use LBT:

• Bluetooth and Bluetooth Low Energy
• 8021.15.4 (used for ZigBee and countless other proprietary protocols)
• cordless phones
• AMIMON's 5GHz Wireless HDI
• Nordic semiconductor's proprietary 2.4GHz transceivers
• TI's proprietary 2.4GHz transceivers
• Digi's proprietary 900MHz and 2.4GHz transceivers
• every 2.4GHz radio used for RC cars/helicopters/drones
• Many others

Re:killing wifi with high cost low cap cell is goo

[Anonymous Coward]

killing wifi with high cost low cap cell is good for the carriers and bad for the uses.

Also just wait for the Mexico towers near the board to up there power as they rake in the roaming that goes as high as $20 a meg.

Vote for Donald Trump. He's going to build a wall!

Re:killing wifi with high cost low cap cell is goo

[SherifHanna]

LTE-U is not transmitted by big cell towers. It's a "small cell" technology - i.e. it is transmitted from small boxes that are no bigger than a Wi-Fi access point, and transmit radio waves at the same output power as Wi-Fi access points.

Re:killing wifi with high cost low cap cell is goo

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm just driving on the i8 from San Diego CA to Phoenix AZ has me connecting to mexico towers. I get a text welcoming me to Mexico from T-Mobile. I have roaming data turned off so I haven't tested the data prices - nor will I risk it.

Re:killing wifi with high cost low cap cell is goo

[Anonymous Coward]

and he'll make Mexico pay for it.

WTF Are you on about?

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF are you on about? So long as I don't exceed the legal EIRP limit I can do what ever the fuck I want with the entire spectrum. It is specifically unlicensed and open.

Re:WTF Are you on about?

[Thorizdin]

No, you cannot. Part 15 has some very specific language about intentional interference. You might want to read the regulations before pointing a dish at someone else's tower without having another dish to receive it on the other side. I'd further say that using a dish is about the worst way to do this, since the signal would be highly concentrated at the ranges you can legally push 2.4 GHz (~60 dBm) it will be very obvious that you're intentionally interfering with someone else's signal.

Re: WTF Are you on about?

[Anonymous Coward]

You do the fucking reading. Part 15 says you have to accept the interference.

There are emissions limits, but if it's part 15 certified, he can point it at the tower all he wants.

Re:killing wifi with high cost low cap cell is goo

[ClickOnThis]

I'm not saying you won't pick up Mexico towers or be unable to use them. Of course you can. I'm just saying Mexico can't unilaterally boost their power, contrary to what the OP was suggesting.

Re:killing wifi with high cost low cap cell is goo

[Jax Omen]

Depending on your T-Mobile plan, it might not cost you anything - their current plans include 2g roaming in several countries at no extra cost, and you can't roam above 2g unless you sign up for a paid plan that gives an allowance of faster roaming data.

Re: killing wifi with high cost low cap cell is go

[Anonymous Coward]

My brother in San Diego can tell you many stories about his cell signal getting hijacked on to Mexican towers and the costs associated with it.

umm

[Ryanrule]

arent all these devices allowed under the condition they cannot interfere in such a way?

Re:umm

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it is under the condition that they "must accept unwanted interference".

The War on Wifi

[Anonymous Coward]

Lower battery life, worse connection speed, random disconnects. Low range(should be proportional to battery life right?).
 
  Can we start referring to a war on Wifi now?

Be in no doubt..

[TechyImmigrant]

that this is an attempt to kill wifi and have LTE take over so you must use carrier moderated sessions for all you communications along with crap crypto.

Re:killing wifi with high cost low cap cell is goo

[Anonymous Coward]

If we elect Trump, they'll build a wall... to keep us out!

Perfect for Theaters!

[randomErr]

Now they'll be able to legally jam cell phones. They'll just offer in theater WiFi with movie special features like alternative content.

Yay capitalism!

[Anonymous Coward]

Pissing on the commons at every occassion. Way to go.

Spectrum

[ajzimm3rman]

Who controls the wave spectrum? Oh that's right, the government. Not enough spectrum? Maybe the FCC could release the stranglehold on what is available.

Ya I'm having trouble imagining it

[Sycraft-fu]

Everyone I know, even the cheap types, keeps some kind of wired Internet. It is usually faster than wireless and always cheaper per GB. If you were an EXTREMELY light user I suppose you could go all wireless all the time, but even for the casual user who likes to surf the web on a daily basis and watch cat videos, you'll easily use more data than a wireless provider is interested in letting you have cheap and they'll charge and/or throttle.

Simple example: T-Mobile gives me phone, text, and 1GB of data for $50/month. It would run me $30/month more to get unlimited data (they'll throttle if you get too excessive though). That's for a single device, and gives 7GB of tethering. Speeds are in the realm of 40mbits max, 20-30mbits normally. So that'd work only if your phone is going to be the one-and-only device you use for most things, and do a little surfing on something else. If you want to add a tablet to it you'd be talking adding another line/device which brings it up to about $100/month with 10GB of data per device.

Ok well then having a look at the cable company for about $60/month they'll sell you a 50mbit connection with a 350GB soft cap (meaning if you go over they complain at you and try to upsell you, they don't charge or throttle). You'll really get those kinds of speeds too, pretty much all the time.

That's more money, but not a ton more. Presuming you would have the basic phone plan anyhow you pay about $30/month more than the unlimited or $10/month more than the two devices. With that you get a faster connection, the ability to connect as many devices as you like, enough data to watch Netflix, download games, and so on. Also, you can, of course, upgrade your speed. They'll happily sell you 100mbit or 300mbit for a bit more per month (about $75 and $100 respectively) whereas the mobile speed is what it is.

Not surprising then that all the people I know keep a wired connection. Personally I don't find I need much LTE data, I use WiFi most of the time at work and home, so the 1GB cap is fine for me (more than fine actually) but I need a lot more on another connection. Looking at my usage I used about 350GB last month. Not the kind of thing a wireless provider would be ok with.

Re:Ya I'm having trouble imagining it

[Anonymous Coward]

The point of the GP is that as spectrum gets freed, wireless offers will start to be competitive with wired - they clearly aren't now. Today's wireless prices are essentially a way to recover the billions paid to the govt. in spectrum auctions. When allot of spectrum is available for the last mile and it's used very efficiently, the price per GB stands to drop orders of magnitude.

Where I disagree is on the notion that customer's bandwidth requirements will plateau in the near future. Most wired customers will gladly accept a 1Gbps pipe at a competitive price - this is not something even the newest wireless technologies can offer en masse. The ability to instantly send or receive larger and larger amounts of data has enough utility for the majority of consumers so that wired internet is not going anywhere soon, wireless is much to constrained by Shannon's limit and propagation to simply solve humanities need bandwidth once and for all.

Re:killing wifi with high cost low cap cell is goo

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, they can, and YES they do. This is a constant problem for many who live down near the border, especially around the Yuma area (which is where the previous commenter was talking about). And it's more than a problem of suddenly appearing to be in Mexico to your carrier. I've had to fight considerable battles with AT&T over charges showing me as being in Guatemala and Honduras moments after other charges demonstrating I was in the U.S.

Re:killing wifi with high cost low cap cell is goo

[reboot246]

Let's make Mexico the 51st state!! That'll show 'em!

Re:killing wifi with high cost low cap cell is goo

[Anonymous Coward]

yeh, why don't you try living along the canadian border and see how that works with the signal staying on the correct side of the 49th.

Re:killing wifi with high cost low cap cell is goo

[ClickOnThis]

Wireless is not flawless. Your phone will accept the service with the stronger signal, even if it means you're roaming, unless you tell it not to roam. Various natural effects can conspire to make the signal from a foreign tower stronger than a domestic one, including geography, seasonal foliage, buildings, ionospheric reflection, and so on. The foreign users see the same kind of thing on their side of the border.

I sympathize with your hassle dealing with your carrier when unintended roaming happens. I think of it as the price we pay in order to make intended roaming possible. But I agree, the systems should be able to do a better job of figuring out when you're not roaming.

LTE-U and LTE-LAA

[Anonymous Coward]

There are two different standards for using the LTE RAN technology in the 5GHz unlicensed band. In 2013 this entire initiative was called "LTE in Unlicensed Spectrum" or LTE-U for short. Since then LTE-U as stopped being used as a description of the entire technology and is now used by a US specific implementation being promoted by the "LTE-U" forum, a group made up of T-Mobile, Verizon, Alcatel, Ericsson and Samsung. Unfortunately this leads to confusion. Read an article from 2 years ago and "LTE-U" will probably refer to the entire 5GHz effort. Read LTE-U today in the telecom's press and it means specifically the implemention proposed by the LTE-U group which is currently running afoul of the FCC. There is another standards based technology being developed by the 3GPP for incorporation in Rel 13 for LTE advanced. This differs markedly from LTE-U

In summary. LTE-U is a proprietary system developed by the LTE-U group for use in North America. It takes advantage of the fact that the 5Ghz band is not regulated in the US. LTE-U does not implement the "Listen before talk" mechanism used in WiFi to allow stations to co-exists on the same frequency. Instead it uses a combination of trying to find a underutilized channel and if that fails uses CSAT to calculate the mount of "Time" it is allowed to transmit to get it's slice of the bandwidth. It then uses the channel exclusively for that time. When tested people like Qualcomm claim this has little disruption of WiFi traffic which they tests with TCP/IP downloads over wifi. Tests by companies like Intel show that CSAT can greatly impact packet latency in WiFi which impacts things like VoIP and streaming video, Probably more people stream video than do big TCP/IP downloads on their mobile device.

The 3GPP has a completing standard intended for global deployment called LTE Licensed Assisted Access (LTE-LAA.) This again works in the 5Ghz band but unlike LTE-U it incorporates "Listen before Talk" (LBT) the same tech WiFi networks use to co-exists. It will also detect collisions between WiFi and LTE and shut up and back off if they occur. In addition it uses beacons to flag to the nearby WiFi APs that it is about to use a channel. This version of the technology won't even make standards approval before March 2015 and so the LTE-U crowd of the opportunity to front run the international standard with their US version.

Note that both of these systems use the 5Ghz band as a supplemental cell. Your data call remains up and anchored in the operators licensed spectrum. The 5Ghz mini cell is only supposed to be fired up if the user is in range and requests higher throughput. The expectation is that the 5Ghz LTE cell will power down and leave the full spectrum to WiFi if it's not needed.

Re:LTE-U and LTE-LAA

[SherifHanna]

LTE-U is a proprietary system developed by the LTE-U group for use in North America.

LTE-U is built on the global 3GPP Release 10 specification for LTE. It is backed by the leading providers of LTE technology. How many backers does a technology need to go from "proprietary" to "standard"? 10? 100? 1000?

It takes advantage of the fact that the 5Ghz band is not regulated in the US.

False. The 5GHz band is regulated by FCC Part 15 rules, specifically subpart E (regulations for the Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure devices). Here's a link to the US regulations which govern LTE-U.

LTE-U does not implement the "Listen before talk" mechanism used in WiFi to allow stations to co-exists on the same frequency.

Neither does Bluetooth and Bluetooth Low Energy, 8021.15.4 (used for ZigBee and countless other proprietary protocols), cordless phones, AMIMON's 5GHz Wireless HDI "standard" (it's backed by only 13 companies - does that qualify it as a standard?), Nordic semiconductor's proprietary 2.4GHz transceivers, TI's proprietary 2.4GHz transceivers, Digi's proprietary 900MHz and 2.4GHz transceivers, every 2.4GHz radio used for RC cars/helicopters/drones, and countless others. Should I keep listing them?

Tests by companies like Intel show that CSAT can greatly impact packet latency in WiFi which impacts things like VoIP and streaming video

Please provide a link to the test results.

As if I didn't have enough to worry about!

[sabbede]

I don't know about y'all, but I manage twenty-some office networks at a real-estate company. If LTE-U was rolled out, I'm pretty sure it would make my life hell. I have enough wifi issues to deal with as-is.

Re:As if I didn't have enough to worry about!

[SherifHanna]

It won't. LTE-U shares the spectrum fairly with Wi-Fi. No more of an impact than adding a Wi-Fi access point.

You can see test results for yourself. Here are test results from a 3rd party (Signals Research Group) who tested LTE-U impact on Wi-Fi.

Re:As if I didn't have enough to worry about!

[sabbede]

Well... That's something of a relief. Not sure I'm comfortable with how rude your reply unexpectedly wasn't though. Didn't call me an a-hole or nuthin!

So, thanks.

Re:As if I didn't have enough to worry about!

[SherifHanna]

LOL - why would you expect my reply to be rude? I'm here to answer questions and be helpful.

Re:As if I didn't have enough to worry about!

[sabbede]

+1 for funny!

Meh - Suck it up kids... string some wire. Etherne

[morgauxo]

Wifi has sucked anywhere except maybe in the sticks ever since it became popular anyway. Sure, I used to love it as much as anybody. These days it drops or crawls 9 times out of 10 at my home and isn't much better in the homes of many of my family and friends, scattered across various cities. There is just too much interference already!

Suck it up kids... string some wire. Ethernet still rocks!

I only use wifi for handheld portable devices. But... the only such device that I use with any frequency is my phone. It has 4G that works at least as well as my cable modem anyway!