Slashdot Mirror


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.

20 of 173 comments (clear)

  1. Perfect for Hotels! by ZipK · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Perfect for Hotels! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Perfect for Hotels! by mikeiver1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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?

  2. Oh good, more contention. by jandrese · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
    1. Re:Oh good, more contention. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Oh good, more contention. by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:Oh good, more contention. by SherifHanna · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:Oh good, more contention. by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Oh good, more contention. by kuhnto · · Score: 5, Informative

      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...

      --
      "A 'person' is smart. 'People' are dumb, panicky animals and you know that."
    6. Re:Oh good, more contention. by dpidcoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:Oh good, more contention. by jwdb · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    8. Re:Oh good, more contention. by mschwanke97402 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

  3. Spectrum Grab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Spectrum Grab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  4. Overrun by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:Overrun by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  5. Cable company propaganda by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Cable company propaganda by cdrudge · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  6. Wow. by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

  7. Re:killing wifi with high cost low cap cell is goo by SherifHanna · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.